St Aloysius' College Redevelopment

I have a high sensitivity as I reside in building number xx, directly
opposite the College. There is existing highly valued views to the
harbour, Harbour Bridge and beyond. My concerns relate to my possible
loss of views due to the proposed NEW glazed lift to level 4 roof
terrace and the proposed NEW glazed canopies over the existing
courtyard. Unlike View 2 in the submission, I do not have any trees
obscuring the NEW glazed lift - my view is uniterrupted. It is noted
and I am further concerned that in many of the photographic materials
supplied by the Applicant, the proposed NEW glazed lift changes colour
to 'blend' into the background (eg blue sky = blue coloured lift;
cloudy sky = cloudy coloured lift; brown brick background = brown
brick coloured lift).

DEEP;LY DISSAPOINTED THAT AFTER ALL THE MODERN FINISHES , THE SOUTH
FACING FACADE AND THE JEFFREYS STREET FACE WILL BE THE "TIRED LOOKING
EXISITING BRICK!". I HAVE NUMEROUS VISITORS TO MY PLACE COMMENTING ON
HOW TIRED THE BUILDING LOOKS WITH THE BRICK FACADE AS IT IS NOW !
SURELY AFTER SPENDING MILLIONS YOU CAN GIVE THE FACADE ITSELF A NEW
LOOK!!

I wish to object to the development on the grounds the increased height
will destroy the view and the value of my l unit.Also the increase in
size of the development will lead to increased traffic on a small
suburban street which is unsafe for the residents.Their is no parking
in the area .and no increased green space. It is way too big for such
a small street.

In regard to summission for work on jr school in Bligh st kirribilli
I have lived here for 22yrs now and have never complanned about noise,
balls in gutters etc. extra buildings
The building is getting bigger and im very against the removal of
trees in bligh street, especially 55 , which give me a nice leafy view
from my louge room, if it is removal i will be looking at more bricks
and fences . As i didnt object the grandstand seating beside the the
basketball court , which cutes out my nth sydney view. Some trees have
been planted , but are not watered.
I highly object the removal of 54, 55 and 57.

I have owned and or lived in xxx Fitzroy Street for almost 50 years.
There have been many changes and traffic is a major issue, the other
is the changing urban amenity of my surroundings.

My rear aspect is over Blight Street and the mature gum trees that
make up the canopy down Blight street are integral to maintaining the
amenity of this micro eco system which also includes me.

I am not against the school upgrading it's facilities but they must
work within the bounds of the existing natural assets which include
three existing lemon scented gums marked 54,55, and 57 on the
landscape concept plans. I am most concerned that the plans note that
these trees are at risk from the proposed development. If the risk is
a known then the design must be such that the trees are carefully
engineered into any future proposal not potentially engineered out.
The teachers and boys come and go but us residents are part of the
environmental mix on a more permanent basis and as such our needs
should also be accommodated.

I wish to register my objection to the proposed redevelopment of St
Aloysius College (SAC) Kirribilli. I live in Kirribilli Avenue to east
of SAC my objection to the proposal are summarised in the following
points;

Lack of provision of `on-site' parking for staff and visitors in the
final plan
Current detail of staffing and visitors are not supplied but I am
aware there is very limited on-site parking at SAC provided for those
visiting the area be they staff or other. Parking is a scarce resource
in our area and I am of the view that with any changes to the school
parking must be considered.
I am reliably informed that many staff drive to the area park in the
surrounding streets. During the course of the day cars are
periodically moved swapping parking positions with each other.
Effectively `gaming' the system and hogging local parking. This is
unfair to bona fide visitors and local residents.

Jeffery Street is currently used as a `drop off & pick up' zone
morning and afternoons for students. This illegal and poses an
unacceptable risk to all in the area - double parking is not uncommon.
This development needs to incorporate adequate on-site space where
this can occur safely and legally.

Not only are spaces scarce they are a valuable commodity I recall one
selling recently in this area for $120,000.00.

Lack of parking during demolishion and construction
Will on-site parking be provided to construction workers? I cannot
find any literature outlining this. Trades people require tools etc.
It is unrealistic to expect many workers to use public transport. Our
streets are already at capacity. With the introduction of `work zone'
parking areas bona fide residents and visitors will be disadvantaged.

An excessive period for the work to be completed over
One figure suggests that the redevelopment may be conducted over a
number of years. I find this totally unacceptable. The impact of daily
noise, increased traffic and general disruption needs to be minimal
for residents. Information suggests that SAC will continue to operate
during construction which logically will prolong the process. I
suggest SAC be closed and students moved offsite so that the
redevelopment can be completed in the shortest possible time and the
least impact on the local community.

St Ignatius College at Riverview is administered by the same religious
order and as you may or may not be aware has ample space to cater for
a short term solution.

Increased traffic and vehicles being parked in Kirribilli Avenue
during demolition and construction
Kirribilli Avenue, Upper Pitt Street, Fitzroy Street and Carabella
Street are not equipped to deal with large levels of heavy vehicle.
They are all narrow streets that struggle to cope with current traffic
flow. A project of this size will require careful planning in order to
cater for increased heavy vehicles.

The increase in cars coming into the area carrying workers will have a
negative impact on local residents as well, the creation of `work
zone' parking and general private vehicle are all leading to a
terrible situation for locals.

Make no mistake SAC is a multimillion dollar business. It makes a
profit. One of their business gaols is to purchase real estate around
the school area. This proposal detracts from the neighbourhood feel of
the Kirribilli. It occurs to me that SAC could be using their `school'
status to get this redevelopment plan across the line. Closing the
school whilst the development is done is a must as is perhaps spending
more to provide sufficient space for parking and school traffic. The
school is no longer run by clergy; it is a sophisticated business with
an administrative team with financial and business plans.

A number of questions that puts this application into context :
Would the school object if a large neighbouring block to them applied
for permission to demolish and rebuilt over several years housing
several hundred occupants and provide no parking would the school
object?

If a large supermarket, hardware or retail store apply to build in the
Kirribilli area would approval be granted with provision for little or
no parking in the plan?

Has SAC explored the option of purchasing a second campus nearer to
their student residential base rather than developing their current
scarce resource? This could be funded by selling some of their many
Kirribilli assets.

I request that this application be reviewed in the context of its
necessity, alternate option and impact on the local area over a
prolonged period.

I am writing to express my objection to the proposed redevelopment of St.
Aloysius College.

The size and duration of the project is unbelievably disruptive to an
otherwise quiet and peaceful suburb. This will no doubt affect the
quality of life of all nearby residents. I worry in particular for the
congestion on the streets and the safety and cleanliness of cars that
are parked outdoors (as there will be lots of trucks, tradespeople and
dust). Since I have been living here there have been many minor
constructions and they all cause frustration and in particular noise
pollution at unholy hours.

The well being of the students will also be in jeopardy due to the
increased traffic and presence of hazardous conditions.
Once this project is complete, in an estimated seven years (and
projects more often than not run over time). The shadow from the
building would affect my apartment and I would not get as much morning
sun. The proposed roof top playgrounds will inhibit the tranquillity
as the students' noise during playtime will easily carry over.

Should this project go ahead, I will definitely look at moving to a
different suburb.

Many thanks,

Claudia

I object to this proposal, as it leads to residents cross subsidising the
school's infrastructure costs through not having to build a car park
to accommodate teachers, students who bring a car, and various support
services personnel.

I understand that the School has around 20 internal carspots, and
around 130 teachers. I understand approximately 70 teachers bring a
car to school. On a quick count, this number of cars takes up both
sides of one major street in Kirribilli (eg Upper Pitt Street).

This has the result of residents currently having huge difficulties in
finding car parking, let alone visitors who wish to park and see
residents who live in the area. As an example of the impact of this,
one of our neighbours in her 70s does not have a private car spot, and
frequently has to park far away and thus is seen carting large
shopping bags a long way away up the street to her apartment
(residents help her if we are around).

With proposed development, the number of students will not increase -
however due to bigger & configurable 'learning spaces' there will most
likely be many more 'learning support staff' in addition to the 130
teachers (eg sport coaches, relaxation guides, music teachers, special
guests etc etc). In short, during school days, there will likely be
about 200 cars needing parking.

Other schools provide their own parking (even Loretto). St Aloysius
School is using the residents to subsidise their infrastructure costs
by enabling them to avoid having to build a car park (instead:
underground in one area, a basketball court is proposed!).

I fail to understand why residents should be so cross-subsidising the
school's infrastructure costs. The School should be forced to provide
parking as part of their infrastructure costs, and not at the cost of
the local community.

The lack of any planning for of street parking for both teachers and
students by the school. Parking is always at a premium in Kirribilli
but especially so around St Aloysius' College during the school
semesters. I not only pay my council rates but purchase the additional
council parking cards for my guests but both of these charges do not
assure me of a parking spots in my own street during the day-indeed
some of my guests have had to park in Milsons Point when calling in.
The overcrowded street parking makes it difficult for older members of
our community to park close to home if they have been shopping and are
often in need of assistance when forced to park further afield. I have
seen near accidents occur due to delivery vans and removalist vans
being forced to double park while making their deliveries.No modern
building nor indeed the redevelopment of an existing building be
allowed to go ahead without off street parking so why is an exception
being made for this wealthy school. I feel the school needs to
reassess its future plans keeping in mind the growing stresses on the
community around it.

My understanding is that there is a limited number of parking spaces (17)
currently available within the schools grounds for staff and student
parking. It seems that many of the staff and students who choose to
drive to the school, park in the surrounding streets during the day.
This limits the availability of on-street parking for residents,
visitors and trades people.

I am concerned that the proposed redevelopment will put additional
pressure on the local roads and make on-street parking even more
challenging during school days and when other events are held on the
premises.

While I generally support the improvements to the school facilities, I
believe the proposal should look to provide more onsite parking
facilities.

There is a serious lack of parking space on Upper Pitt St and the
surrounding streets.
I do not drive to areas such as the Ensemble Theatre due to lack of
parking there and lack of parking near home upon my return.
Once I have walking disability, I will become housebound.
As it is I am considering having groceries delivered as I often cannot
park nearby to bring them into my home from the car.
Visitors also face this problem, as do service companies, workmen etc.
College parking needs to be provided for Teachers & senior students.

Re: Proposed Development St Aloysius College Kirribilli
SSD 8669

I submit the following concerns against this development.

1. Vehicle movement on completion.
(a) At present, parents dropping off/collecting children cause
congestion at the entrance to the college in Upper Pitt Street.
(b) My parking space opposite the school is regularly used by parents
either dropping off or picking up their children.
(c) What provision, if any, is there in the proposed development plan
to overcome this problem?
2. I am greatly concerned with the prospect of additional noise from
the changes to the present rooftop area.
3. Due to the present top deck area now becoming a play/entertainment
area I am concerned with the loss of my privacy.
4. The proposed development will also have a dramatic effect on my
views.


Geoffrey McGirr
31/48 Upper Pitt Street, Kirribilli.

I would like to oppose the planned development of St Aloysius school as
the scale will no doubt badly impact on need for access, traffic and
noise.

Being a peninsular area there is no way to cater for increased traffic
and the plans for the development show a lack of care for parking
supply for staff parking, let alone parents and visitors. Also the
increased time scale for pick ups and drop offs for parents, will add
to congestion and the fact that there will be an outdoor theatre and
roof area for socialising and free time will increase the noise.

Just a bit further down the road Loreto also has plans for huge
developments which will cause the same problems. These streets area
already grid locked around the times of school runs. This competition
to increase the facilities to resort level is causing a creep effect
within this neighbourhood. The area is not suitable for mega schools
and perhaps the schools should consider a land swap deal or another
campus where they will have room and not have the issue of quiet local
residents to consider.

Both Loreto and St Aloysius have been noted in the national press.
https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/sydney-s-top-private-schools-reveal-extravagant-new-building-plans-20180223-p4z1ek.html

https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/when-schools-look-like-resorts-questions-about-funding-must-be-asked-20180221-p4z14r.html

We were told that the plans shown at the recent residents meeting were
not accurate, to scale or definitive, so I also oppose going ahead
with a decision when there is a lack of transparency and information.
Also this is extremely late to let the community know about their
intentions, and an application of this magnitude should have been
considered not st planning stage, but at the original policy stage.

Also, given that these schools are faith based I find if a great shame
that they have taken no steps to embrace the local community members
or show any provision for how we might use the schools facilities, for
example when the are less used during holiday periods. This is a
Catholic school is in receipt of large public funds, and yet I feel
they are turning their backs on the local community.

The impact of the proposed works will overshadow the existing building
vernacular and aesthetics in terms of both mass and density. The plans
seemed disproportionate to the local existing built forms and may well
strike many intrusions on the skyline. If this is allowed to go ahead,
it may well set a precedent and start a trend and pave the way for
other mass projects sited in this vicinity.

I live at 48 Upper Pitt St which is directly opposite the college. I am
on level 5 and currently have amazing views of the harbour, city,
Opera House and the bridge.

I am very concerned about the view impacts from the 2.4m glass
balustrade and the apparent increase in height to the building on
Upper Pitt St. Given our iconic view we feel the college should keep
the heights at or below the existing levels and place the glass
balustrade several meters back from the edge of the building to reduce
the view impact.

My other concern relates to the new rooftop playground. The noise,
light and landscaping of this area could impact our amenity. We would
like to ensure restrictions are placed on the use of this area and not
allow amplified sound.

Significant impact to residents:
Noise
Lighting
Loss of privacy
Overshadowing
Overcrowding

OBJECTION Submission:

This is NOT a MASTER PLAN, but a SERIES of DA's for Capital Works,
wanting to be approved, without detailed scrutiny by the community.
I OBJECT to this series of Capital works being considered to be a
MASTER PLAN for the whole school site on the following ground:

1. Failed to consider all the land holdings of the school. Should have
included all the purchased Jeffrey Street properties, as well as their
Willoughby site, consisting of oval, sports fields and grounds in
Tyneside Avenue, through to Eastern Valley Way, Willoughby. When this
was asked of the architect, he advised, that "they couldn't include
Willoughby site, as in two different LGA's." THIS is WRONG - as this
is the main purpose of going to the Minister & DPE as a State
Significant Development - to be able to deal with matters across
different LGA's. So why are they not looking at their land holdings in
an holistic way? Therefore this is NOT a Master Plan.

2. Failed to look at alternative solutions, considering they currently
have three restrained sites, which a master plan would do. Suggestions
could include removing the junior school to their Willoughby site,
with appropriate Kiss & Drop facilities for the parents and children;
only have the senior school students over the 3 Kirribilli campuses;
purchase a high-rise building in North Sydney, similar to the
Australian Catholic University (ACU) to house the senior boys.

3. ​Failed to look holistically at the whole of the schools
operation within the CONTEXT of Kirribilli peninsular, with analysis
of the traffic generation, pedestrian movements, the required bus
movements needed through the area due to the school, the use of the
public open space by the school boys, with no contributions by the
school for the maintenance and upkeep of the infrastructure or
Bradfield park (which has to be top dressed more often than other
parks in the LGA). Executive Summary at P.4 states that "The proposal
does not have any unacceptable, long term, off-site impacts on
adjoining or surrounding properties or the public domain, in terms of
traffic, social and environmental impacts" I and the community
disagrees with this statement, as the studies have failed to look at
the broader community, only looking at the school community's needs.
The Principal commented to community members, that it was a "Classroom
Master Plan" - therefore this is not a true Master Plan under the
SEPP.

4. Failed to work in with the other major school, Loreto, who is doing
similar Master Plan estimated to be $100m. Both schools have failed to
address, how they will provide for the community in some way, with the
traffic generation, not only during construction, but afterwards with
their ongoing school operations. I have resided in Kirribilli for
circa 20 years and have noticed increasing levels of traffic in the
area. For example, I objected to the Loreto expansion a few years ago.
Try driving down Carabella in the morning and afternoon. It is lined
with a procession of 4 wheel drives 200 to 300 meters long. I wonder
how many of the actual students actually reside in Kirribilli - I
suspect hardly any but the residents have to put up with ever
increasing demands on its resources. The School alleges school numbers
have been stable for years. Maybe, maybe not. What about teaching
numbers, many of whom require parking. Also, it seems more and more
Children are now driving to school and placing increasing demands on
limited parking resources.

5. Misleading documentation provided by the school, so we cannot trust
what they are saying to the community. The Executive Summary of the
EIS, states on Page 2, para 2, under St. Aloysius Middle School (Main
Campus) - fails to mention the demolition of a 4 story building and
building a new building on the same footprint, it states: "The
proposed development at the Main Campus also includes major
refurbishment of the lobby, Great Hall and Chapel. The Lobby is to be
connected from the forum to a new multi-storey building to be
constructed in the central courtyard of the site, with a rooftop
terrace, providing passive and active recreation details for the
students." THIS FAILURE TO MENTION THE DEMOLITION and REBUILD of a
BUILDING on UPPER PITT ST. is MISLEADING the COMMUNITY! The way it is
written, gives the impression that ALL WORKS are INTERNAL WORKS ONLY -
which is not the case. This was expressed to the community at the
Information session last November 2017, as if it was all just
`internal works'. Moreover, it was advised that these works would take
place over 10 years. Given reading constrains in the area I have very
real concerns at the negative impact with will have from a noise,
dust, traffic and visual perspective.


6. St. Aloysius College fails to provide any additional parking
(currently max. 15 car spaces for 329 staff over 3 campuses),
therefore failing to meet the minimum parking standards for schools,
under NSC LEP & DCP controls. EIS States at bottom of Page 3,
Executive Summary, as a reason why the Minister should support the
proposal: "It has been prepared having regard to Council's planning
policies and generally complies with the aim and objectives of the
planning controls for the Site including NSLEP 2013 and North Sydney
Development Control Plan 2013 (NSDCP2013)" Clearly, this is also a
FALSE statement, as they are planning to demolish a building, with a
re-build on exactly the same footprint. Hence, with a new building,
they would have the ability to provide off street parking to the
minimum standards required (at least 60 for current staff levels,
double that for the proposed future jobs stated in their EIS),
set-backs are zero (instead of 4 m), and landscaping is zero, instead
of as per the NSC controls. Hence, they have failed to comply with any
of these three essential controls - on-site parking, setbacks and
landscaping! So this proposal cannot be thought to "generally
complies" with NSLEP & DCP! The proposal should be rejected on these
grounds, failing to address any of these three crucial areas of
controls.

7. Failed to analyse the pedestrian and car movements for the sites,
nor look at the need for footpath treatments to allow ease of movement
of students to transport hubs, without them taking out the local
residents, especially the aged and less mobile, with students walking
4-5 abreast with back packs on that make them nearly a meter deep,
when they turn to talk to each other, swiping innocent people off the
footpath.

8. Failed to adequately communicate with the community concerning this
major development, with insufficient information on story boards over
an afternoon. No further communication, after this initial concepts
and feedback session, showing how the school had listened to the
community and altered their plans accordingly. Nearest neighbours
asked for a meeting, and it was refused. Next the plans are on
exhibition with the DPE, and the community has only 28 days to make
submissions without accurate detailed plans for the whole Master Plan
including all sites, especially including the proposed major works for
the Junior School site - they state plans available at Stage 2, but
school is seeking building envelope approval now - with the community
not fully aware of the level and detail of the issues, that may impact
upon them. Executive summary P.4 states that "Community consultation
has been completed in accordance with the Department of Planning &
Environment Consultation Guidelines". I do not agree with this
statement.

9. This Master Plan should be REJECTED and sent back to the College,
to start again, taking into consideration all of the matters raised
here.

10. If not rejected in its current form, then the community requests
an extension of time, for submission.

11. I requests site poles with tape from one to another be erected on
all three sites, showing the extent, height and bulk of the proposed
buildings, so that all residents can appreciate the three dimensional
elements of the 2D plans, as no models were made available for
consideration.

12. I request that the trees that are to be removed, be identified
with a bright, thick ribbon being placed around the trees, at a height
and space, that can be seen by the community, so that they can assess
the extent of the impact on the sites. Any trees belonging to
neighbour's properties, that are also nominated to be `pruned' to
enable the build to take place, the points at which limbs would need
to be lopped, should also be clearly identified with bright coloured
tape, so an independent arborist could be engaged, to ensure that the
level of canopy being proposed to be removed, would not de-stabilise
the tree and its root structure.

13. Additionally the I request an open site visit, so that my concerns
can be expressed to the Minister or his delegated persons, so that you
have some real understanding of the issues and concerns that form this
OBJECTION.



ADDITIONAL Comments :
· There is no contextual evaluation of the school operations to
ascertain what is working what is not working. There is a presumption
that the status quo is fine but this is not the case. Design
principles cited in the PMDL Architectural Design Statement - do not
reference the amenity of the adjacent residential area. They only
relate to the internal teaching environment.

· As lighting plan was not submitted and there are no structural
details for the 2.4 metre high perimeter glass wall as such the
specialist reports that address visual impact and heritage impact are
also misleading and not accurate.

· The visual impact montages are not certified as being true and
accurate which should be required for a development of this magnitude.
There should be night time montages too.

· The SSD Application form states that the project will give rise to
350 operational jobs. These jobs are not addressed in any of the
documentation and when added to the existing 329 jobs result in an
even greater non-compliance with onsite car parking standards. We note
that stakeholder meetings with TfNSW and the RMS documented in
Appendix 7 of the community consultation report are based on false
numbers ie the number of staff is reported in the minutes as being 156
staff. Not 329 plus 350.

· While the application is based on a vision to improve the learning
environment there is no analysis that illustrates how the proposed
classrooms etc comply with current education standards. This goes to
the issue of student numbers. How much space is required for 1244
students. Will the additional space bring the school environment into
compliance as implied by the principal or deliver a surplus in space
so that the school can freely increase student numbers.

· No digital Computer Generated Images have been prepared for any of
the works to illustrate for residents what they will be looking at in
the future. It is a reasonable requirement to expect photo quality
montages to be submitted with a S140 million application.

· No community benefit is provided. The school does not pay S94
contributions although this is implied in the EIS. The funding for
these works is largely federal government funding. St Aloysius also
does not pay Council rates. They are taking away residential amenity
but not giving anything back to the Kirribilli community.

At a North Sydney Council Kirribilli Precinct Committee meeting held on 3
May the School indicated that the development at the Junior School
would not be taking place for at least 10 years.

It is understood that development approvals expire after 5 years. It
therefore seems unreasonable to encumber neighbours' properties with a
concept plan approval for development which will significantly affect
their properties which will then not be acted on for 10 years.

From our perspective, there is little detail in the Concept Plan to
understand the scope and nature of the project, how it will affect
neighbouring properties and what the school proposes to do to mitigate
any effects during construction and operation.

It is difficult for the community to consider within 4 weeks the
impact of upgrading school facilities on three separate sites.

Detailed information has not been made available until the EIS. The
school's consultation ran for 3 days in November. The restricted
period meant that if people were not available at that time, they were
not given the opportunity to comment.

It is suggested that the school defer the Junior School Concept Plan
from the SSD application at this time and enter into discussions with
the neighbours about the proposals and how to best meet the needs of
the school and take into account neighbours' issues.

It is difficult for the community to consider within 4 weeks the
impact of upgrading school facilities on three separate sites.

Detailed information has not been made available until the EIS. The
school's consultation ran for 3 days in November. The restricted
period meant that if people were not available at that time, they were
not given the opportunity to comment.

It is suggested that the school defer the Junior School Concept Plan
from the SSD application at this time and enter into discussions with
the neighbours about the proposals and how to best meet the needs of
the school and take into account neighbours' issues.

It is not clear on the plans where the tree along Bligh Street &
Crescent Place are staying or being removed. We were assured by the
school at the Precinct meeting on May 3, that they were staying, and
yet on close inspection of the plans, they are marked for removal, and
would be difficult to retain due to the level of excavation and
destruction of the roots, with the new building / excavation being so
close to the road boundaries.

Objection to Major Redevelopment of St Aloysius Three Campuses in
Kirribilli ID 8669

I object to this major redevelopment, firstly, on the grounds of
inadequate provision of on-site car parking for teachers and other
staff at each of the three campuses. The minimum provision of staff
car parking should be in accordance with the planning controls that
apply to schools in North Sydney. In the absence of other planning
controls such as height and floor space ratio, non-compliance with the
car parking provisions may limit the extent of development. Certainly,
when car parking is not considered at all, the application will be
refused, [Note: Hale and Ors v Parramatta City Council & Anor (1982)
47 LGRA 269 (LEC), affirmed (1982) 47 LGRA 319 (NSWCA)].

The fact that some staff presently take public transport to and from
school is accepted, and many do not, as evidenced by the many
on-street parking spaces taken up during school term. To assist St
Aloysius in understanding the need for on-site car parking a number
plate survey should be undertaken in nearby streets during term. A
survey of its staff might be undertaken to ask if anyone parks on
street in the vicinity of the school.

Secondly, I object on the grounds of inadequate provision for
off-street set-down and pick-up facilities. When such a major
redevelopment as this is proposed, is it not reasonable to provide
some of these facilities off-street? Many parents and guardians prefer
to drive students to school despite there being public transport
available nearby. The existing on-street facilities are inadequate for
this transitory drop off purpose. Also, the streets in Kirribilli are
narrow compared with suburban areas and difficult for cars to pass.

Thirdly, I object on the grounds that the redevelopment of the three
campuses would be out of proportion to the land area available. This
is highlighted by the 1100 m2 excavation proposed in the Junior Campus
for a semi subterranean indoor sports facility. The sectional drawing
[Note: Fig 11] shown in the EIS indicates that the elevated court on
the roof of the sports facility would be level with the existing
concourse floor level. I estimate that the elevated court would be at
lease a full floor level about the lowest playground level. Thus there
would be likely noise impacts and overlooking potential for those to
the north whose properties back onto Crescent Place. There would be no
trees remaining along this Crescent Place boundary to screen the
building and its potential impacts.

Also, the additional floor on the westernmost building on this campus
extending over a floor area of some 650 m2 would exceed the height of
nearby buildings and would likely visually dominate the area and the
heritage listed old school building.

Another example of overdevelopment to which I object, is the proposed
new rooftop playground over four buildings on the Main Campus. If
consideration were given to the extent of noise impacts, loss of
privacy and overshadowing these extensions would be reduced in size.
If the height limits under the planning controls for surrounding areas
were implemented loss of neighbours' views would be lessened.

Fourthly, I object on the grounds that the information provided is
inadequate to enable a proper assessment of the impacts of the
proposal. There are inadequate height dimensions and levels shown in
the EIS to understand the full impact of the proposal.

My concerns are with the development proposals planned for the Junior
School site.

I am the owner of xx Carabella Street and the rear entrance of my
house backs onto Crescent Place which adjoins the School.

My first objection to the Concept Plan for the Junior School is
because we have been told this could hang over our heads, with no
decision as to exact dates, for 10 years. This would greatly affect
the value of properties, including mine. I also understand that
development approvals expire after 5 years so where is the rational to
impose a plan for 10 years!

Secondly I strongly object to a development plan involving building a
basement level multi-purpose hall, basket courts and stand. The noise
pollution will be significant and my residence will be greatly
affected. The excavation, height of the proposed building, the noise
and inconvenience to residents will be enormous. Added to this would
be the increase in trafficking.Students would be arriving and leaving
at a far more increased rate, not only during school days, but also
during the weekend. Finally the parking facilities, already very
difficult, would be impossible.
We haven't been consulted or informed in detail of any of this issues
relating to this proposed development.

Thirdly on the landscape issue we are kept in the dark re. how many
trees would be excavated. These trees are highly treasured and are
part of our beautiful, valued landscape in Kirribilli. I strongly
object to any being removed. I understand from the Precinct meeting on
May 3 residents were told that the trees would remain but having seen
the plan, they are to be removed.

Finally I strongly object to the excavation proposal of the Junior
School. We, as nearby residents, have not been consulted re.
excavations, some of which are reported to be 10m deep. It has been
experienced in the past by long term residents like myself, that the
Junior School had excavations which caused great vibrations and
cracking to our properties. A dilapidation report for my house and any
other properties nearby must be carried out prior to commencement of
approval.

I await your reply
xxxx
27 May 2018

OBJECTION Submission:

This is NOT a MASTER PLAN, but a SERIES of DA's for Capital Works,
wanting to be approved, without detailed scrutiny by the community.
I OBJECT to this series of Capital works being considered to be a
MASTER PLAN for the whole school site on the following ground:

1. Failed to consider all the land holdings of the school. Should have
included all the purchased Jeffrey Street properties, as well as their
Willoughby site, consisting of oval, sports fields and grounds in
Tyneside Avenue, through to Eastern Valley Way, Willoughby. When this
was asked of the architect, he advised, that "they couldn't include
Willoughby site, as in two different LGA's." THIS is WRONG - as this
is the main purpose of going to the Minister & DPE as a State
Significant Development - to be able to deal with matters across
different LGA's. So why are they not looking at their land holdings in
an holistic way? Therefore this is NOT a Master Plan.

2. Failed to look at alternative solutions, considering they currently
have three restrained sites, which a master plan would do. Suggestions
could include removing the junior school to their Willoughby site,
with appropriate Kiss & Drop facilities for the parents and children;
only have the senior school students over the 3 Kirribilli campuses;
purchase a high-rise building in North Sydney, similar to the
Australian Catholic University (ACU) to house the senior boys.

3. ​Failed to look holistically at the whole of the schools
operation within the CONTEXT of Kirribilli peninsular, with analysis
of the traffic generation, pedestrian movements, the required bus
movements needed through the area due to the school, the use of the
public open space by the school boys, with no contributions by the
school for the maintenance and upkeep of the infrastructure or
Bradfield park (which has to be top dressed more often than other
parks in the LGA). Executive Summary at P.4 states that "The proposal
does not have any unacceptable, long term, off-site impacts on
adjoining or surrounding properties or the public domain, in terms of
traffic, social and environmental impacts" I disagree with this
statement, as the studies have failed to look at the broader
community, only looking at the school community's needs. The Principal
commented to community members, that it was a "Classroom Master Plan"
- therefore this is not a true Master Plan under the SEPP.

4. Failed to work in with the other major school, Loreto, who is doing
similar Master Plan estimated to be $100m. Both schools have failed to
address, how they will provide for the community in some way, with the
traffic generation, not only during construction, but afterwards with
their ongoing school operations.

5. Misleading documentation provided by the school, so we cannot trust
what they are saying to the community. The Executive Summary of the
EIS, states on Page 2, para 2, under St. Aloysius Middle School (Main
Campus) - fails to mention the demolition of a 4 story building and
building a new building on the same footprint, it states: "The
proposed development at the Main Campus also includes major
refurbishment of the lobby, Great Hall and Chapel. The Lobby is to be
connected from the forum to a new multi-storey building to be
constructed in the central courtyard of the site, with a rooftop
terrace, providing passive and active recreation details for the
students." THIS FAILURE TO MENTION THE DEMOLITION and REBUILD of a
BUILDING on UPPER PITT ST. is MISLEADING the COMMUNITY! The way it is
written, gives the impression that ALL WORKS are INTERNAL WORKS ONLY -
which is not the case. This was expressed to the community at the
Information session last November 2017, as if it was all just
`internal works'.


6. St. Aloysius College fails to provide any additional parking
(currently max. 15 car spaces for 329 staff over 3 campuses),
therefore failing to meet the minimum parking standards for schools,
under NSC LEP & DCP controls. EIS States at bottom of Page 3,
Executive Summary, as a reason why the Minister should support the
proposal: "It has been prepared having regard to Council's planning
policies and generally complies with the aim and objectives of the
planning controls for the Site including NSLEP 2013 and North Sydney
Development Control Plan 2013 (NSDCP2013)" Clearly, this is also a
FALSE statement, as they are planning to demolish a building, with a
re-build on exactly the same footprint. Hence, with a new building,
they would have the ability to provide off street parking to the
minimum standards required (at least 60 for current staff levels,
double that for the proposed future jobs stated in their EIS),
set-backs are zero (instead of 4 m), and landscaping is zero, instead
of as per the NSC controls. Hence, they have failed to comply with any
of these three essential controls - on-site parking, setbacks and
landscaping! So this proposal cannot be thought to "generally
complies" with NSLEP & DCP! The proposal should be rejected on these
grounds, failing to address any of these three crucial areas of
controls.

7. Failed to analyse the pedestrian and car movements for the sites,
nor look at the need for footpath treatments to allow ease of movement
of students to transport hubs, without them taking out the local
residents, especially the aged and less mobile, with students walking
4-5 abreast with back packs on that make them nearly a meter deep,
when they turn to talk to each other, swiping innocent people off the
footpath.

8. Failed to adequately communicate with the community concerning this
major development, with insufficient information on story boards over
an afternoon. No further communication, after this initial concepts
and feedback session, showing how the school had listened to the
community and altered their plans accordingly. Nearest neighbours
asked for a meeting, and it was refused. Next the plans are on
exhibition with the DPE, and the community has only 28 days to make
submissions without accurate detailed plans for the whole Master Plan
including all sites, especially including the proposed major works for
the Junior School site - they state plans available at Stage 2, but
school is seeking building envelope approval now - with the community
not fully aware of the level and detail of the issues, that may impact
upon them. Executive summary P.4 states that "Community consultation
has been completed in accordance with the Department of Planning &
Environment Consultation Guidelines". I do not agree with this
statement.

9. This Master Plan should be REJECTED and sent back to the College,
to start again, taking into consideration all of the matters raised
here.

10. If not rejected in its current form, then the community requests
an extension of time, for submission.

11. Community requests site poles with tape from one to another be
erected on all three sites, showing the extent, height and bulk of the
proposed buildings, so that all residents can appreciate the three
dimensional elements of the 2D plans, as no models were made available
for consideration.

12. I request that the trees that are to be removed, be identified
with a bright, thick ribbon being placed around the trees, at a height
and space, that can be seen by the community, so that they can assess
the extent of the impact on the sites. Any trees belonging to
neighbour's properties, that are also nominated to be `pruned' to
enable the build to take place, the points at which limbs would need
to be lopped, should also be clearly identified with bright coloured
tape, so an independent arborist could be engaged, to ensure that the
level of canopy being proposed to be removed, would not de-stabilise
the tree and its root structure.

13. Additionally I request an open site visit, so that my concerns can
be expressed to the Minister or his delegated persons, so that you
have some real understanding of the issues and concerns that form this
OBJECTION.



ADDITIONAL Comments :
· There is no contextual evaluation of the school operations to
ascertain what is working what is not working. There is a presumption
that the status quo is fine but this is not the case. Design
principles cited in the PMDL Architectural Design Statement - do not
reference the amenity of the adjacent residential area. They only
relate to the internal teaching environment.

· As lighting plan was not submitted and there are no structural
details for the 2.4 metre high perimeter glass wall as such the
specialist reports that address visual impact and heritage impact are
also misleading and not accurate.

· The visual impact montages are not certified as being true and
accurate which should be required for a development of this magnitude.
There should be night time montages too.

· The SSD Application form states that the project will give rise to
350 operational jobs. These jobs are not addressed in any of the
documentation and when added to the existing 329 jobs result in an
even greater non-compliance with onsite car parking standards. We note
that stakeholder meetings with TfNSW and the RMS documented in
Appendix 7 of the community consultation report are based on false
numbers ie the number of staff is reported in the minutes as being 156
staff. Not 329 plus 350.

· While the application is based on a vision to improve the learning
environment there is no analysis that illustrates how the proposed
classrooms etc comply with current education standards. This goes to
the issue of student numbers. How much space is required for 1244
students. Will the additional space bring the school environment into
compliance as implied by the principal or deliver a surplus in space
so that the school can freely increase student numbers.

· No digital Computer Generated Images have been prepared for any of
the works to illustrate for residents what they will be looking at in
the future. It is a reasonable requirement to expect photo quality
montages to be submitted with a S140 million application.

· No community benefit is provided. The school does not pay S94
contributions although this is implied in the EIS. The funding for
these works is largely federal government funding. St Aloysius also
does not pay Council rates. They are taking away residential amenity
but not giving anything back to the Kirribilli community.

. Kirribilli traffic congestion continues to deteriorate as one can
see each morning and afternoon ie you can hardly move on Carabella and
Fitzroy Streets at these times.

. At lunch times you can hardly walk around the Village as it is
swamped by Children buying meals and crowding the limited foot path
space.

. Students appear to be increasing bringing cars to school which in
placing increasing strain on limited parking resources.

. I understand that these plans span a 10 year time frame. This is a
long time for the community to suffer the effects of such development
ie dust, noise, traffic congestion, visual impact etc