Shore School Graythwaite Project

I support the proposed conservation and refurbishment works to Graythwaite, the surrounding buildings and grounds and its use as an educational establishment. This use will allow for sympathetic treatment of this important historical site and promote retention of green space. It appears that there has been due consideration of the environmental impact in terms of the site, the neighbouring residences and traffic management in the extensive revised Environmental Assessment. I look forward to this project progressing.

I am very much in favour of the developement. It will ensure the preservation of a most significant element of the National Heritage and give it a renewed useful life; it will preserve a large green space within five kilometres of the city centre.

I am very much in favour of the developement. It will ensure the preservation of a most significant element of the National Heritage and give it a renewed useful life; it will preserve a large green space within five kilometres of the city centre.

Note: Option to withheld name from public websites and the proponent has been chosen.

My concerns relate primarily to the planned traffic arrangements, in particular:

1) the proposal to provide for additional bus stops in William Street, north of Blue Street; and

2) the increase in student numbers will increase the number of cars picking up and dropping off their students at the Blue Street gates.

I'm also concerned at the after-hours usage of school facilities: both for school functions and by other users (such as dance schools, non-shore school functions, weekend sports days in the basketball courts etc etc). The traffic survey was confined to school hours and does not recognise, let alone address, the after-hours impact on residents of these activities.

1) buses

William Street is a narrow, one-way street, with blocks of units running one along the eastern side. Our block, on the corner of Blue Street, was built in the 1930's and is not set back from the road.

There are already problems with buses using William Street as a pick up point for after-hours functions. The noise of idling buses causes vibrations and noise levels making it impossible for residents to eat evening meals and carry out normal evening leisure activities. This can continue for some
time as buses arrive pick-up points in advance of the time they are required.

I am very concerned that sanctioning formal bus facilities will increase the instances of disturbances; both during the day and after hours. Residents should be entitled to eat without the fumes and noise pollution of multiple buses within a few metres of their living rooms.

Further, William Street is an access road for garbage, cleaning, emergency and other vehicles and legitimising bus parking in this area will hamper traffic movement along William Street. The problem already exists and the proposal will increase instances of traffic congestion in this narrow street.

As a final point on the issue of buses, the parking available for residents is already extremely limited and the proposal to remove car spaces will exacerbate the competition for spaces in this area which also meets the needs of the church, the station and local businesses. (I note that on-site parking for teachers is increasing).

2) increase in car pick-up/drop off

The traffic survey recognises that traffic levels at Blue and William Street are already at capacity. It also recognises that a high percentage of parent drop their children off by car. It can be assumed that the numbers will increase proportionaly with the increase in student numbers.

The traffic survey does not recognise the significant number of parking and driving infringements that take place in the Blue/William Street intersection, in front of the school gates. Any observer is aware that a significant number of parents:

* park illegally in the no-parking area while waiting and/or dropping of their children. This hampers traffic turning into William from Blue Street.
* a large number of parents use the Blue/William Street intersection as a turning circle. This is encouraged by the surrounding roads and lack of traffic planning in this area to deal with the increased development of other sites.
* the proximity of North Sydney station means that Blue Street is further congested (particularly in the 4:30 - 6 pm time frame) by drivers parking in Blue Street (both legally and illegally) to pick up commuters.

I ask the Committee to consider the reality of the area in front of the Blue Street Gates and the inherent dangers for pedestrians (including the children) walking in the area, darting between illegally parked cars, cars doing u-turns, cars reversing down south of William Street illegally, and buses clogging up the William Street corner. A recipe for disaster.

In summary, my view is that the Union Street options for ingress/egress are both the safest and least intrusive for other users in the area. The options should be expanded to provide for on-site parking bus stops. If the Hunter Street options are pursued, the street should be widened to incorporate space for bus stops. As Shore school owns the apartments in this street (except perhaps one or two single units) this is possible.

Regards

The revised proposal has substantially the same issues as the original proposal, namely:

1. Overdevelopment of an historic site

2. Loss of green space (both gardens and trees).

3. Significant traffic generation and no effective traffic management plan to deal with the significant traffic generated by the proposal

A compromise solution to the loss of open space may be the creation of a public park which would include the flat open land fronting Union St going back to the terraced land, which would be transferred to North Sydney Council.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposal.

Kind regards,

Robert Blayney

My major concerns are with the increased traffic numbers in Stage 2 and 3 along Edward Street/Lord St. It is noted that an additional 100+ students are planned for the prep school. In the traffic report and the authors findings in Edward St were : "Observations indicate that some congestion occurs during the peak PM pick up period. This suggests that the facility is approaching capacity under its current operation management."

It also noted that the younger students are less likely to take advantage of the nearby public transport: "The School Travel Survey indicated a relatively high reliance on private motor vehicle for staff travel to and from School. This occurs despite the proximity to good public transport and short supply of on site and on street parking."

Also note that Edward St is very narrow near the school and with the volume of four wheel drives this leaves Edward St reduced to one way in parts, thereby causing further congestion.

As suggested in the report alternative egress and ingress points would need to explored further.

Regards

I'm afraid I am still in opposition to Shore School's Concept Plan for Graythwaite as I do not believe they have seriously considered or addressed the key issues raised in the last submission.

Firstly - the 'solution' to the pick/up drop of and use of hired buses by the school is completely unsatisfactory. It is poorely thought out and does not address the traffic impact that it will have on us as neigbhours.

Secondly - the West building is still above the height limit, overly aggressive in scale and bulk and the acoustics have not be adequately addressed. For one, the use of bells is unessacary by the school in this building. I attended Queenwood School for Girls in Balmoral - which was similarily boarded by residential properties. Our school did not use bells inbetween classes - instead each room had a clock and the teachers would dismiss us to our next class at the correct time. The only bell that sounded was the one signalling the end of lunch - where it is not possible for all students to have access to a clock. Surely this same system could be applied here.

Thirdly - poor design has lead to the school creating 'rules' or sytems of monitoring the boys, the noise they are 'allowed' to create and where they can play. Creating rules is a very poor solution to acoustic and privacy issues where an opportunity of this scale is present. A whole new precinct of the school is being proposed, and hence, solutions to these issues for neighbours and for the school itself could and should be solved through GOOD design and planning.

For these reasons I strongly believe that you should REJECT the submission in it's current state.

Regards,
Ava Shirley, concerned local resident.

As a resident living in Bank Lane for more than 25 years, I am very concerned about the proposed development.
The West Building will adversely affect residents by its bulk, non-conforming height, noise and privacy issues and additional 495 students and staff. I am also very concerned by the proposed New Student Pick-Up and Drop-Off points with all vehicles entering and/or exiting from Union Street. This will result in extreme traffic congestion both in the morning and the afternoon. Users of Union, Chuter, Thomas, Bank, Dumbarton and Lavender Streets and Blues Point Road will be heavily affected, along with the streets of Waverton as more traffic will have to use Bay Road. These propose changes and the large increase in student numbers will only add to the problems that already severely affect William, Edward and Mount Streets.
I am also believe there has been a notable lack of community consultation in a proposal that will severely and adversely affect local residents.

We stand by our original submission regarding 'no use of the Graythwaite driveway on Union Street'.

The Pick up/ Drop off plan is ABSURD. Union Street is dangerous - with the hill rise already, and an over saturation of 'new cars' is a serious oversight to my health and safety.

Not to mention - Shore should not be allowed to 'non-conform' in it's height application - to preserve McMahons Point.

in support as it's a wonderful way to preserve the heritage of the building while building on our future through education of the students .

I believe the concept maintains the beauty and charm of the original building. It is also reassuring to see the open spaces are maintained and put to the good use of children.

I object to the revised EA of the Graythwaite Concept Plan because of the impact on traffic in Union Street. I particularly object to the prospect of Shore School buses entering the school grounds from Union Street. Residents who live in the surrounding streets already have to cope with Shore traffic and the prospect of this increasing.

This revised application will result in extreme traffic congestion.

It has not resolved many of the issues raised by the local community.

The proposal does not comply to the 8.5m height limit for the site.

I request that the department rejects this application until these and other issues are resolved.

I object to the Shore Development for numerous reasons, the most important being:

1. This revised application will result in extreme traffic congestion.
2. It has not resolved many of the issues raised by the local community.
3. The proposal does not comply to the 8.5m height limit for the site.

I request that the department rejects this application until these and other issues are resolved.

I strongly object to the revised plans. It is astonishing to me that so many of the issues raised by the neighbours and local community have not been addressed eg the traffic. The proposed entrances and exits for cars from and into Union St will cause untold congestion. Because of the already congested Blues Point Rd entering and exiting traffic will be forced to use Carr and Bay Sts causing extra and dangerous build up in the area.

Also, the proposal does not comply to the 8.5m height limit for the site. How is it that this can be ignored?

Therefore I request that the department rejects this application until these and other issues are resolved.

Regards,

Suggested traffic arrangements just cannot accommodated in this area. There is no room on our roads!

Consideration to position and height of proposed building should be given far more thought.

Too large a part of this proposal does not conform to community needs and requirements.

a win win for all: aged care, preservation of heritage building and education!

I live with my family in North Sydney. My objection and concerns concern traffic flow around the expanded Shore School.

Union St flows reasonably well in the peak periods but any additional traffic flows in this area would create delays on the only exit road we can use from our home.

I object to any additional traffic flows on these narrow streets.

Thank you.

Any additional traffic at the entry/exit of Union Street will endanger the pupils and the public.
The plans a totally inadequate and serve only the goals of Shore, regardless of the community and the safety of all.

I object to this strongly.

My objections remain fundamentally the same to this plan as the previous one. Too many trees lost. Buildings too large and intrusive. Too much additional traffic. Too much additional noise load to residents.