Shore School Graythwaite Project

Dear Minister

Re: MP 10_0150 & MP 10_0149 - Graythwaite Concept Plan

I am writing to strongly OBJECT to this Revised EA and Concept Plan.

The SHORE school has yet to address in any significant way, the communities concerns regarding the project. Specifically:
Western Boundary buildings still remain too large in bulk, the height limit is still well beyond the 8.5 m limit, site poles are still to be erected (so that the community can see the building scale).
Traffic and parking - the school has only reduced the original student number by 10% to 450. Although an extensive traffic report has been put forward it does not address the increased traffic flow to Union street and does not mention at all the impact on local parking the senior school boys have.

I strongly urge the council to reject the proposal in its current form and insist on the SHORE amending both the western building and traffic/ parking situation.

I am supportive of this application.

I support the concept of Shore restoring the historic Graythwaite house and and grounds, with the addition of two purpose-build buildings that provide economic viability,support the school's purpose and blend in well into the site.

Shore will provide an economic use for the building which will ensure its future preservation as an historic building, as it uses and preserves other historic buildings in its grounds.

I strongly object to the shore school proposal for development. The local community has not been consulted and the affect on the natural bushland and traffic in the area will be devastating.

I seek the local councils reconsideration of this proposal and would like a formal public enquiry into the development.

I wish to register my objection to the revised proposal for the development of the Graythwaite estate site by Shore school.

I have perused the revised submission and do not believe the revision is substantial enough to allay the fears from the community that this development is in fact an over-development of the site, particularly if the concept plan is approved, and will create havoc on our streets and have adverse outcomes for the residents in Bank Street and Bank Lane.

I have also looked at the supposed revision to the west building and I still believe that this building will adversely impact local residents. The development still does not adhere to the height requirements of the local government area.

This also goes to the degradation of historic and heritage elements on the site. The removal of so many wonderful trees and, ultimately, with the intention of the concept plan, to completely alienate the whole community from the Graythwaite site. Being able to look up from the grassed terraces to the old mansion is a privilege; such a wonderful open space in the inner city is rare indeed! The concept plan paves the way for the whole of the beloved Graythwaite site to be excised from the community and become simply a compound for the amenity of the school alone. This was certainly not the intention of the original owner of the property when he bequeathed the property to the people of North Sydney!

The general view of the community is that this school chooses to build on the perimeter of its land leaving all the amenity for the students and school staff in the interior. This is profoundly unfair and arrogant and is detrimental in terms of aesthetics to the rest of the community.

In respect of the proposals submitted by Shore to manage the traffic to be generated by increased numbers of students and staff, none are satisfactory to the local community. Shore must manage the generated traffic wholly within the grounds; there is certainly enough land to enable this. The future of local streets, local residents, pedestrians and generally, will amount to chaos! Someone will need to take responsibility for the ensuing traffic chaos once the proposal becomes reality and the schools drop off/pick up routine becomes a reality and then negatively and dramatically impacts our streets.

For years this school has caused unimaginable chaos in street such as Mount, Edward and William. Valuable car parking spaces have been removed to the advantage of Shore and its buses! This is not to mention the queue of cars already in pubic streets as parents drop off/pick up students. All this with North Sydney station just metres from the school doorstep! Now, with the proposed increase in student and staff numbers, this chaos is set to be borne by Union Street as well. None of these streets have the capacity to support this level of traffic; these are suburban streets.

Shore, residing in an inner city CBD and being a member of the community, must take the decision that now is the time consider the local community ahead of a broad take-over of the community!

I respectfully request that the Department refuse the application and consider the community when assessing the future of any development application in respect of the Graythwaite estate.

I do not wish my personal details be made available to the proponent.

I do not make political donations.

Thank you.

I fully support the proposal for the restoration and development of the Graythwaite site. The school has the opportunity and funds to restore not only the mansion with very minimal impact on neighbours, but also maintain the extensive grounds - both of which have been neglected for far too long. If approval for this restoration continues to be drawn out any longer, I fear that the house will not stand up to any more neglect and be lost permanently.

4 December 2011


Major Projects Assessment
Department of Planning
GPO Box 39
Sydney NSW 2001


Attn: Ben Eveleigh


Dear Sir


Graythwaite - Over Development by Shore School
Concept Plan (MP10_0149) and Stage 1 Project Application (MP10_0150)

I wish to lodge objections to the revised plans by Shore for the redevelopment of the Graythwaite site.

For the record, I live directly opposite Graythwaite Park on Union Street and wish to express my strong concerns and opposition to the proposed redevelopment plan as submitted by Shore School under Part 3A. I confirm that I have made no politica l donations.

Firstly, I would like to state that I do not object to Stages 1&2. It is the Stage 3 development that I wish to lodge my objection to.

It is my understanding that, so far as possible, it is a basic provision of good planning that developments should "internalise" any disruption to neighbours.

The proposed West building does not do this. The building is too large, overshadows the homes on Bank Street and by adding an additional 450 students and 45 staff, will create traffic chaos if allowed to proceed.

Before dealing with the latest plans I would like to record that I have previously made submissions in respect of the first proposal by Shore. I do not feel that the revisions, which I see as tokenism, have done anything to alleviate my previous concerns. Accordingly, and rather than repeat them here, I would refer you to my previous letters of 21 February 2011 and 10 March 2011 and note that I do not feel these have been dealt with in the revised application.

Turning now to the revised application, I am very concerned that the current plans for Shore's expansion do not provide an acceptable traffic solution. The proposal provides something like 8 options but doesn't state which one they propose.

Furthermore, there is no supporting traffic consultant's report.

I feel that as a result, the Stage 3 development should be excised from the current process and be re-submitted providing a properly thought out and justified traffic solution. Each options effect on local traffic should have been analysed and I believe these would show that the Union Street options, at least, do not provide sufficient waiting space and would result in cars queuing on Union Street.



I can only assume that this was not included as such a solution is unacceptable to the school.

Notwithstanding the fact that Shore has included 8 options in their revised plans, none of these adequately satisfies the issue of cars queuing for the afternoon pick up. The plans would only permit about 14 cars queuing on site (my guesstimate) while the report states that about 132 cars will make the afternoon pick up with an average 35 cars waiting. These will presumably wait in Union Street either trying to turn right into the site or queuing up the hill and blocking through traffic and the buses. Thus during the afternoon pick up Union St would become both unsafe and grid locked!

The report makes no comment on pedestrian safety yet with this number of cars crossing and/or exiting onto Union Street, this is a very real issue. This is further heightened by the fact that the main time is when children, from both Shore and other schools are returning to their homes.

As stated above, I believe the application should be rejected on this point alone, clearly the numerous options, which the proponent states "presents the full range of options investigated for a new afternoon pick up area for Shore school students" do not satisfy the basic principles of internalising and pedestrian safety.

The school occupies an enormous parcel of land and to suggest that 8 options represent the full range of alternatives is either incompetent or at best misleading. The school regularly holds functions and is able to park cars on the school oval. Thus one alternative is to utilise the oval for pick up and drop off. I am no traffic engineer or consultant but why has no consideration been given to the Centenary building (cars could utilise the carpark here) or the existing Graythwaite turning circle or the basket ball courts on Mount Street...................clearly the only alternatives considered are those that inconvenience local residents but not the school.

It is unreasonable for the Department of Planning to approve a masterpl an
without knowing the full impact of that development - the application should therefore be rejected due to lack of clarity.

Summary
My submission can be summarised as follows:
* I have no objection to Stages 1&2
* The Stage 3 Building should be excised from the application and the applicant should be made to re-submit its plans for the Stage 3 West building when it can satisfy the basics of a clearly thought out, analysed and supported traffic management plan that internalises the issues as much as possible.
* While not directly affected, I also feel that the height and size of the buildings and their closeness to the homes on Bank Street should be ameliorated.


Yours faithfully,

I OBJECT to the proposed Shore school development. The effect on parking and traffic in the area will be very deterimental to character of the area and the local community.

I strong urge the local council to reconsider this proposal.

Union Street is already a very busy thoroughfare for traffic during peak times, and the idea of additional motor vehicles in large numbers over a relatively short time interval turning into the Shore school complex then exiting again without some extensive remodelling of the entrances is very shortsighted. At the very least, ALL school traffic should be made to travel West-East along Union Street by preventing right turns, then ensuring a properly constructed lead-in/lead-out lane at the junction points.

Dear Sir/ Madam

I am writing in vehement objection to the Shore school proposal MP 10_0149. The school has refused to appropriately address any of the major concerns of the local community including the western boundary buildings being too high and not erecting any marking poles for the community to view the revised building bulk.

Aside from this the traffic and parking congestion has not been addressed appropriately. The area is already struggling with traffic and parking issues and adding a further 450 students (either self driving or dropped off by private car) and 45 teachers will create a disastrous situation.

I urge the council to seek a revision of the plans and consider an app ropriate community consultation where the school asexually takes on board the local communities concerns in revised plans.

Yours sincerely

I would like to lend my personal support to the application relating to the Graythwaite proposal from Shore School.

Dear Department of Planning,

Re: MP 10_0150 & MP 10_0149 - Graythwaite Concept Plan

I write to request that the Revised Environmental Assessment for Graythwaite Concept Plan and Stage 1 Project Application not be approved.

So far as the traffic disruption is concerned, the revised plan offers little improvement over the previous plan (i.e., only reducing the number of additional students from 500 to 450). This represents only a token reduction and will do little to prevent an excessive increase of traffic not only on Union street, but also the smaller connecting streets, such as Chuter street, where the quiet residential amenity will be lost.

The revised plan also does not include a publically accessible pathway between Union street and Edward street. Such a pathway would not necessarily need to disrupt students and staff at the school.

Thank you for your consideration,

Dear Mr Eveleigh,

Unfortunately a temporary suspension of email services for BigPond customers since yesterday has meant my email regarding the Graythwaite development has been delayed. I do hope it will be accepted.

Having read a number of submissions regarding the initial submission, and looked at the amended submission, it would appear many concerns have been addressed.

Tree Loss
The Earthscape Horticultural Services report (v5 dated 19 October 2011) has explained very well the reasons behind removal of certain trees. Not all trees are good trees and not all trees must be retained. The opportunity exists for additional screening planting at the boundary with residential lots, which will be of benefit to those residents as well as the school. Retention and reinstatement of the Victorian garden - particularly in the vicinity of Graythwaite House - is important in the context of the historical setting. The recommendations included might well form part of the conditions of consent.

Loss of Open Space
Given more than 70% of the site is retained as open space, it would seem the adjoining owners' concerns regarding loss of open space are unfounded. Their concerns regarding loss of public access to privately-owned open space cannot form part of the considerations.

West Building
The amended concept would appear more reasonable on the site and sits better with the contours, without the visual dominance of the earlier scheme, by separation into two elements.

Parking & Traffic
If insufficient parking was included in the proposal, objections would be made to that also. Providing additional parking would seem prudent.

Heritage Value
Retention of Graythwaite in this form is a successful retention of an item of heritage value. The application indicates it will be renovated/restored where appropriate and maintained properly in the future. It will be enjoyed and treasured by generations of Shore staff and students. While it will not be in the public realm, it will be available to a wider school community.

In short, I support the amended proposal for Graythwaite.

Sincerely
YE Middleton
BArch Hons (UTS), BA (Comm)
Registered Architect

re: MP 10_0149-Graythwaite Concept Plan


This is a letter of objection regarding Shore School's Over-Development of Historic Graythwaite in McMahon's Point, Sydney.


Graythwaite is an historic ANZAC estate and gardens that the NSW Labor Government sold off to Shore Private Boys School in 2010 against the community wishes.


We object to Shore's development for five main reasons.


First, there has been very little community consultation about the development of Graythwaite even though this estate has been in the hearts of the community for many decades. The suggestions that have been offered by the community have been ignored.


Second, there are plans to remove historic fig tress that were planted over 100 years ago, and the justification of the removal of 80+ other trees has not been justified. One aspect of Sydney that distinguishes it amongst major cities of the world is the conservation of large amounts of bushland and large trees even in the most built up areas around the harbour. Removal of the Graythwaite bushland will reduce the green space of Sydney Harbour.


Third, the additional 450 students and 50 staff will significantly increase the already unacceptable congestion at Edward, Lord and Mount Streets, and the parking in local residential streets by senior students on a daily basis. The massive influx of cars into the areas around Shore causes traffic chaos, and residents are not longer able to find places to park in their own street, even though they have parking permits. Shore's proposals make no attempt to address the increased parking or traffic due to the development, and hence shift the load of traffic and parking entirely onto the community, who are already suffering from Shore's lack of responsibility for their own traffic.


Fourth, the Stage 3 building envelope is unacceptable in its current form. It is excessive and unacceptable in terms of its height, bulk, and scale (approximately 30 metres x by 35 metres in area and over 5 levels); it does not comply with the 8 metre maximum height limit for the adjoining residential area (in places it is over 14 metres); it will have significant visual and shadow impacts on the adjoining houses within the conservation area to the west and south-west; the use of this building for classrooms will have an unacceptable noise impact and loss of privacy for the adjoining owners; the proposal does not satisfy the relevant noise standards.


Fifth, the Design Principles report prepared by the heritage consultants for Shore identifies a further area (in the south-west corner of the site) that they think is suitable for future development. This indicates that further development of this heritage site is already planned. These areas need to be protected by The Minister.


Thank you for considering the opinions of the community who will be very much affected by Shore's ever-increasing expansionism at the expense (and without any regard for) the community.

I am making a submission on behalf of Edward Precinct which borders on the northern side of the Graythwaite landholding. Firstly we appreciate the applicant providing its' traffic planners at our recent 7 December Precinct meeting. This gave more colour and detail to the various possible traffic arrangements. The Precinct engaged relatively early with the applicant in the process.

1. One of Precints' initial and most concerning issues was traffic which the applicant has now stepped up to and sought to manage. We fully support these attempts and particularly Option One with entry from William Street and exit via left hand turn to Union. North Sydney Council should be required to provide a Traffic Management Plan to support this. Currently we understand that they have a 2003 TMP which only covers the CBD. The current mire of traffic at both dropoff and pickup times at the Edward/Mount St junctions has been aggravated by Council approving large buildings on the western side of the Pacific H'way, by increasing student numbers at the ACU, more visitors to Mary Mackillop post-Sainthood etc. Edward St is categorised as a local street and should not be taking more than 2-300 movements.

2. From a safety perspective the jam of traffic down the south end of Edward St that you can see in Council photographs (see NSC submission) is not accptable. If there is an emergency in Lord or Short Sts at 3.15 no emergency vehicles would be able to access these dead end streets due to the convoy of 4wds and other vehicles that clog Mount and Edward Sts at this time. This is one of the main reasons to support Option 1. Limiting parental dropoffs to Grade 3 only may alleviate this. A condition on review of this post implementation should be inserted. Yr 3 pickups may also need to move to the Hunter Crescent option.

3. The applicant's bus use also contributes to the choke on Mount and Edward Sts. The Precinct would support pickup from William St (in conjunction with Option One which should limit through traffic). Council should be requested to support this by providing a bus pick up zone from 2pm to 5pm on William St north of Blue St (with buses to turn motors off while waiting). Appropriate studies and works supporting movements of buses from Blue to William should be done in support. Council should also implement restricted parking hours on Saturday in the broader Precinct to prevent even further impacts on parking availability in surrounding streets from increased parents and students attending sport etc on a Saturday morning. Or the applicant could be conditioned to provide onsite parking on Satrurdays in their two available carparks.

4. The other outstanding issue that Precinct has concerns public access/thoroughfare. Other School sites provide either permanent or temporary access to the public (this may occur at the applicants Northbridge site for example). Public benefit is required under this application as well as access/thoroughfare being incorporated in the current DCP from memory. We would support the State in investigating more deeply possible public benefit/access/thoroughfare.

5. Precinct is also concerned about the envelope of the East Building. The adjacent building has a peaked roof and this flat-topped 3 flr block doesn't match either this building or provide appropriate curtilage to the Graythwaite building. In Precinct's view it should be lowered to 2 flrs on the nthn façade or have a set back to step it up. It also will be the main aspect from the Edward Precinct heritage area and would denigrate this. There are lots of listed buildings both on and off site from Mary Mackillop to the Prep School buildings to the terraces at the top of Lord St. Currently the aspect risks jeopardising this. If the Applicant is having problems with capacity it should look to the Western Building. They have kindly provided all sorts of setbacks and amelioration to this building. Edward Precinct has seen much greater amenity impacts from Pt 3A proposals bordering on the eastern side of the Precinct including 177 Pacific Highway for example.

6. Precinct supports Council's startegy on parking and would not support a further 48 parking spaces on the site. The site currently supports two large carparks. Teachers seem to presume that they have a right to park onsite whereas they (and the Applicant) should be looking to alternate methods of getting to the site. Council's Traffic Management Plan or strategy should be supported in this respect. A further 48 movements to these local and minor collector roads, all presumably happening between 7.45 and 8.30am, and combined with the extra parental dropoffs should not be supported in Precinct's view.

Precinct would like to comment on the quality of the applicant's advisors and consultants. We see a reasonable range of work from DAs and Pt 3As. The applicant should be complimented on the quality of the retained consultants and most of the work that they have produced. As always they act under instructions which can inhibit their output.

Thankyou for your time and consideration of these comments.
Angus Finney per Edward Precinct

Fundamentally I disagree that Shore School should be allowed to seek to increase its student numbers by 450 -500. I do not believe this is beneficial to the school community or educational standards and at the current site it will have a significant detrimental impact on the local environment.



In terms of the revised plan I have the following comments:-

· The revised plan for the West Building continues to be non-conforming in regard to height standards this should not be allowed to proceed as it will unacceptably impact the surrounding residential area.

· Union street should not be used as a student drop off or collection point.

· I am pleased to have it reconfirmed that the tennis court below the headmaster's house has no plan for change of use and continues to be excluded from the Graythwaite development programme or any other development under consideration by Shore School.



In the event that a plan is approved to allow Shore School to increase its student numbers, then parents that wish to drop off or collect their children should be instructed to do this at a separate location that has the capacity, perhaps the Shore playing fields, with Shore employing buses to transfer students to and from this location to the school. This would remove the inevitable traffic burden on North Sydney, Waverton and McMahons Point and significantly reduce the occurrence of those that infringe the RTA traffic rules and policies despite whatever protective procedures are employed.



Regards

Dear sir, I wanted to lodge my objection to the planning application for the ref as above.


As a property owner at 113 Union Street almost opposite the site we believe that the planned changes will have a major impact on traffic at Union Street.


Kind Regards,
Andrew Simpson

Director

Government Land and Social Projects

Dept of Planning





Email to: [email protected]



Attention Mr Ben Eveleigh







SUBMISSION IN RELATION TO :



Application Number - Concept Plan (MP 10_0149) and

Stage 1 Project Application (MP10_0150)



Location - 20 Edward St, North Sydney

Lot 2 in DP 539853 and part Lot 1 in DP 120268.



Proponent - SYDNEY CHURCH OF ENGLAND GRAMMAR SCHOOL (Shore)



Council Area - North Sydney Council





Submitted by :



Name : Julie Bindon

Address : 37 Bank Street North Sydney, NSW 2060



I have made no political donations in the past two years.



I have no objection to this submission being made publicly available.



Submission Below.



I support the Stage 1 works proposed provided the Union Street fencing is reduced in height and/or opened up to allow full visibility of the lower terrace and House from the street for the entire street frontage.



The consent authority is able to partially approve the development, and I would support approval of the Stage 1 works ONLY. I strongly object to any approval for the proposed subsequent stages 2 and 3 until:

a) The number of additional students is reduced to a level that can be sustained on the site in terms of containing its impacts on the locality;

b) All loading and unloading of students, whether by private vehicle or by coaches used by the School, must be contained on the School's land in a safe manner that does not impact on the local street system. The current proposal fails to do so.

c) The West Building envelope is reduced in height (to not exceed 8.5 metres) and footprint (to be less than that of the historic House) and is setback at least another 6 metres from the western boundary than currently proposed.





The proposed Stage 2 and 3 development is unsatisfactory, and should be refused for the following reasons:



1. It constitutes an overdevelopment of the site in terms of the increased population, and the unresolved impacts this will have on the traffic, access, parking and student loading facilities on site. The School must properly address these issues. These critical issues cannot be left to a future date in the hope they can be resolved as part of a future stage DA. The resolution of these issues is absolutely fundamental to establishing the capacity of the School to accommodate such a major increase in its population.



It is a long standing planning principle that development must internalize or contain its own impacts where this is at all possible. In this case there is no sound reason for externalising the significant impacts of the traffic generated by student drop off and pick up, and by the Schools coaches. The use of the local narrow streets for these school purposes impacts on the operation of the affected Streets ( William Street, Edward Street, Lord Street, Union Street and Bank Street) and the resultant congestion is excessive and dangerous.



The School campus has been significantly expanded with the acquisition of Graythwaite and is now over 7 hectares in area. I have no doubt this campus can accommodate the on-site loading of coaches and new student drop off and pick up areas. These facities must be included, properly documented, and fully assessed in terms of their impacts before any Concept Plan is approved. The failure to do so is contrary to sound planning practice and cannot be justified. The current application raises several options for management of student loading / unloading; none of which work. None allow for sufficient onsite queuing of vehicles, are there are very real difficulties of inadequate sight lines at Union Street which result in safety issues for motorists and pedestrians. Even the School's own consultants acknowledge these options all need further assessment.



2. The proposed West Building which accommodates the bulk of the students and teachers remains too large, bulky and unnecessarily close to the immediately adjoining Bank Street houses including my own. It also exceeds the 8.5 metre height limit in the existing and draft LEP, without any sound justification for doing so. Because the topography slopes down towards the neighbouring private properties the dominating effect of the additional building height and it's mass is exacerbated. The building remains unacceptably overbearing and visually intrusive, notwithstanding the introduction of additional landscaping to try and mask it.



This building can in fact be moved further east without impacting adversely on the heritage significance of the House and outbuildings or the cultural landscape and significant trees. this has already been demonstrated by an alternative scheme prepared by local residents, and submitted to the Department of Planning. Furthermore the alternative proposal does not result in a major loss of floor space for the School. It is a most reasonable compromise, and one that I would support. One of the advantages of the alternative proposal is that it narrows the face of the western elevation, reducing the exposure to the adjoining houses. It also complies with the 8.5 metre height control, which is appropriate for this Heritage site located within a residential area that is also a conservation area. The design of the current envelope reverses the fan shape proposed by the residents, so its broadside faces the affected residences, compounding the bulkiness and visual impact.



Should any building envelope be approved west of the heritage House then strict and specific conditions of consent must be applied to prevent any noise emission from the building and completely protect the privacy of the adjoining dwellings, including my own.



Noise impacts must be contained by sealing the West Building with fixed glazing, on all the west, north and south windows, and by the denial of all access for students to the area west or north of the West Building alignment. It is also important to add a condition of any consent that there be no vehicular access for any purpose, including for construction, along the western side of the site adjacent to the neighbouring properties. These access controls will also help mitigate privacy impacts by ensuring the boundary areas are not used by students, workers or staff.



Privacy impacts must also be mitigated by the inclusion of the dense screen planting (as proposed) and this must be established early. Fixed privacy screens on the west, north and south elevations must also be included to preclude any potential for down-looking into the rear yards of any potentially affected houses on the east side of Bank Street.





Julie Bindon, BTP DipLE, FPIA

A home owner living at 4 Short St, North Sydney, I wish to make a submission regarding the above plan and Stage 1 application, both of which I oppose for the reasons outlined below.



I am particularly concerned by the failure to address signicant traffic issues until Stage 2 as obviously decisions made concerning Stage 1 will impact on the subsequent stages.



While the Graythwaite Transport and Accessiblity Impact Statement includes a street layout, there is no mention in the text that Lord and Short are dead-end streets and that the only vehicular entry and exit for residents is via the end of Edward Street near Shore school. Currently the phalanx of four-wheel-drive vehicles dropping off and picking up children at the prep school each school morning and afternoon makes both extremely difficult. The line of cars often stretches into the main section of Edward Street and also Mount Street, creating a traffic snarl which residents are forced to negotiate.



No additional pickup facility is proposed for Stage 1, even though Edward Street gets the majority of pickup traffic (56 per cent according to the statement). This means that Shore parents will continue to take precedence over residents because of their shear numbers -- a situation which is hardly equitable.



The above-mentioned transport document states that pickup facilities will be addressed in Stage 2 "depending on whether there is an increase in Preparatory School numbers" (page 45). Given that option A for Stage 2 is an increase in prep school numbers of 100 (page 40), this is disingenuous to say the least and entirely ignores the amenity of local residents. The school apparently sees nothing wrong with funneling hundreds of cars down a narrow residential street twice a day and adding to existing traffic congestion in the future.



Another traffic issue not addressed in Stage 1 and perhaps never to be addressed is the impact on Edward, Lord and Short streets of parking by family of Shore boys and by driving-age Shore students. I have on occasion arrived home to find that my private off-street parking space has been appropriated. How do I know who the culprits are? When a boy in Shore uniform arrives to drive the car away you can be fairly sure of an identification. Complaints to the school have fallen on deaf ears.



The school is showing a blantant disregard for its neighbours and should address the critical issue of parking in its Stage 1 application. In doing so it should aim to direct cars away from a narrow suburban street that is patently inadequate for pickup purposes.



Political donations: I declare that I am not currently a donor to any political party in NSW or Australia, nor have I been a donor in the previous two years.





Julie Harders

4 Short St

North Sydney NSW 2060

t: 9969 4456 and m: 0414 482 021

The revised application for the Graythwaite redevelopment has many problems from our point of view. The revised application will result in dangerous traffic congestion as the proposed pick-up and drop off in Union street is situated on the crest of the hill in Union street. Traffic approaching form both east and west are unsighted until almost at the school gate.

Living in Thomas street we anticipate being subject to a massive increase of traffic in our quiet suburban street.

The lack of consultation with the locals from the school authorities is arrogant in the extreme. This has been our experience with the school over a great number of years.

We hope the department will reject this application until the concerns of the local community have been addressed.

Regards
Victoria and George Liddle
60 Thomas Street
McMahons Point