St Aloysius' College Redevelopment

As the owner of the level 3 apartment across the road in 48 Upper Pitt
Street I wanted to share my disappointment that this application aims
to extend the height of the building which will have a substantive
impact my view and the value of my property. My property directly
overlooks the proposed playground and although I have no issues with
the noise I do take issue when this will impact my family personally
and financially.

The specific concern is around is proposed to install a 2.4m glass
balustrade on the southern face of the building that will impact our
building's view of the harbour and city
The drawings of the new East Wing on Upper Pitt Street appear to show
an increase in the parapet height from the existing RL43.21 to
RL43.49, an increase of 0.28m. Similarly, the new façade element above
the main entrance appears to be raised from existing RL46.29 to
RL46.96 an increase of 0.67m.

We live in a community that wants to support the school and we are
flexible in the daily disruptions when it comes to parking, noise and
functions but all I ask is the same respect is given back to its
neighbours and any alterations do not extend the current height of the
building that would impact my family greatly.

St Aloysius College Redevelopment
SSD Application Number SSD 17_8669


My comments relate to the Junior School site

I am the owner of 72A Carabella Street, Kirribilli. The back of the
property, including access to the garage and the back entrance of my
house is on Crescent Place opposite the school boundary where much of
the proposed development is to be done.

I object to approval of the Concept Plan for the Junior School at this
time when the site is not going to be developed for 10 years.

At a North Sydney Council Kirribilli Precinct Committee meeting I
attended, held on 3 May, the school indicated that the work was not to
begin for 10 years. Are we residents to have to worry about the
consequences of approval of a concept plan that will undoubtedly
affect our properties detrimentally, but which will not take place for
at least 10 years. And don't development approvals expire after 5
years anyway?

I object to approval of the Concept Plan for the Junior School as the
EIS is lacking in detail.

As it stands, approving the Junior School Concept Plan enables the
school to make major changes to the current school which include
adding an additional level on the school building, excavating and
building a below ground multi purpose area; all likely to have a major
impact on residents.
3 main areas of concern are as follows:
Excavation - noise, vibration, dust, possible cracking and
destabilisation to properties in the area, including my own. Before
approval is given for major excavation for the underground
multipurpose hall, the feasibility of undertaking this excavation
should be assessed. The excavation work proposed is very close to the
school boundary and hence very close to houses opposite in Crescent
Place.
Logistics of the movement of trucks, workers, materials in our back
lane - Crescent Place - a very narrow laneway which is used by
pedestrians and provides access to our garages. It is hard to see how
the excavation work could be carried out without using this lane.
Impact on the neighbourhood once the new facilities are in operation-
additional noise in particular generated by the increase in use of the
school site. The basketball court is to be used by the senior school
and the junior school.

I object to approval of the Concept Plan for the Junior School because
consultation has been insufficient.
Only having 3 days allocated in November for the school to meet with
residents meant many, including myself, were unable to attend.
Only 4 weeks were given for consideration of the plans.
Information from the school has been inconsistent at times. For
example, at the Precinct Meeting on 3 May, we were told by school
representatives that the huge lemon scented gum on Bligh Street would
remain but inspection of the plans reveals that it is marked for
removal.

I object to approval of the Concept Plan for the Junior School without
further consultation and investigation of the impact of this
redevelopment on residents.

Ideally, the school would defer the Junior School Concept Plan from
the SSD application and engage in discussions with the neighbours
about the proposals so that a plan could be devised that would meet
the school's needs and also consider neighbours' concerns.

Dear Sir/Madam

My name is xxxxx and I am the owner of xx Upper Pitt St Kirribilli
2061.

I write in relation to the proposed redevelopment of the 3 st Aloysius
campuses which I object to.

It is proposed to install a 2.4m glass balustrade on the southern face
of the building that will impact our building's and my apartment's
(particularly as it is on level 3) view of the harbour and city

The drawings of the new East Wing on Upper Pitt Street appear to show
an increase in the parapet height from the existing RL43.21 to
RL43.49, an increase of 0.28m.

Similarly, the new fa

I live at 48 Upper Pitt St which is directly opposite the college. I'm
very concerned that my view will be impacted by the proposed work at
the college. The glass balustrade will impact our views and I'm
concerned that there may be height increases else where with the new
building.

The new playground on the roof will also create additional noise for
our unit.

The seven year construction plan is also a concern. This is a very
long time to stage the work and will create severe disruption to the
community for an extended period. The construction traffic alone would
be significant.

To: The Minister of Planning, NSW State Government.

Submitted by: Robert & Christine Porter
68 Carabella Street, Kirribilli 2061
M: 0414682200 [email protected]


27 May 2018

Re: Planning & Environment Development Application
Re: St Aloysius' College Senior & Junior schools [the school]
Redevelopment Application # SSD8669 Concept Plan [the application].
_____________________________________________________

OBJECTION TO THE SCOPE & INTENT OF THE APPLICATION

General Comment

Having regard to the existing operations and residential burden of St
Aloysius' existing facilities, it is without doubt that said school/s
have an adverse impact on the Kirribilli village residential precinct
and on its residents. Therefore, I must object to the latest
application lodged by the school. Further, I contend that the
proposals are not State Significant. They are not listed on the State
Significant Developments list. Accordingly the application should be
rejected by the State Government and returned to the jurisdiction of
North Sydney Council.

Primary Objections

The primary objections I proffer are;

First, Kirribilli has special heritage significance as a residential
precinct but has become a `destination' within the greater Sydney area
for many activities, which adversely impact and deteriorate the
residential amenity of the Kirribilli village for its rate paying
residents. The voracious growth proposal put forward in the
application is a major concern.

Secondly, traffic congestion due to visitors and school drop off and
pick up render access roads almost impassible at certain times of the
day.

Thirdly, parking is at an absolute premium in Kirribilli, particularly
for residents. The school astoundingly employs some 340 teachers for a
school population of about 1245 students; this is not to mention
Loreto School on Carabella Street and its own long term, extensive
development proposals and attendant staffing. No consideration has
been given from a parking perspective and as it stands, Kirribilli is
full .


Fourthly, the school is a private enterprise subsidised by those (the
residents etal) that bear the burden of the enterprise's activities.


Rates and Taxes Exemption

In attempting to apply a balanced view to the current proposals it
must be borne in mind that the St Aloysius [and Loreto] school/s pay
no rates, pay no Government tax and benefit from Federal Government
subsidies .

The school contributes nothing positive to the residential and local
amenity, [save for some restaurants and coffee shop traffic] in the
Kirribilli precinct. The school is a significant detrimental impost on
the residential environment in three significant areas:

1. Parking & Traffic flow -
Morning and afternoon drop of and pick up of children impose serious
road blockages, particularly in Carabella Street, where at times the
road is impassable for residents and others; and long delays can
occur.

2. Noise and student traffic -
The volume of school children in the morning and afternoon is similar
to Pitt Street Mall at lunchtime. Streets and cafes are blocked with
marauding hordes of students.

3. It is accepted that quality education is a national asset and the
reason the Federal and State Governments subsidise the school. As the
beneficiary of said funding it should be beholding on the school to
have some genuine consideration for others and exhibit restraint when
contemplating future growth and be consistent and honest in its
submissions. In my experience the school does do none of these things.

4. It must be recognised the school has reached the point where the
locality cannot accommodate any further growth in student numbers and
negative building impact on the locality. There must be no further
growth in student numbers allowed with a substantially moderated
building development program. In fact, student numbers should be
reduced.




The Junior School Component of Aloysius Redevelopment

I object to approval of the Concept Plan, particularly for the Junior
School at this time as the site, they say, is not going to be
developed for 10 years

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.

Development approvals expire after 5 years. It is unreasonable to
encumber neighbouring properties with a concept plan approval for
development that will adversely affect their properties, which will
then not be acted on for 10 years.

I object to approval of the Concept Plan for the Junior School, as the
EIS does not contain sufficient detail to allow appropriate
consideration and comment

The concept plan for the Junior School appears to be designed as a
school master plan, marketing and financial planning document, rather
than an application for a statutory land use/built form approval for
the site.

From the residents' perspective, there is little detail in the Concept
Plan to understand the scope and nature of the project, e.g. how it
will affect neighbouring properties and what does the school propose
to do to mitigate any adverse effects during construction and
operation?

If the Junior School Concept Plan is approved the School will be given
an automatic future right to build an extra level on the school
building, excavate and construct a basement level multi-purpose hall
and create a new basket-ball court and stands, without showing and
considering the significant adverse impact on residents. This is
unacceptable.

Adverse residential impacts are:

* Excavation (e.g. vibrations, stability, need for stability ties into
neighbouring properties, excavation noise, dust).
* Construction management (e.g. significant truck movements, staging
of construction, pedestrian management, impact on Crescent Place
laneway operation which is the only access to residential garages,
landscaping, retention of significant trees such as the plane trees
and large Lemon Scented Gum - Tree 55).
* Operation of new facilities and impact on neighbourhood (e.g.
intrusive noise, regular special events, parking for school staff and
visitors, traffic congestion, restricted pedestrian movements,
overshadowing, landscaping etc.).



I object to the Concept Plan for the Junior School, as there is a
significant increase in use of the site without discussion of it in
the EIS

The following quote from the PMDL Architectural Design Statement (page
9) indicates that the whole school not just the Junior School will use
the basketball court. This is not covered in the EIS.

Direct quotation: `The 2016 Master plan prepared by PMDL identified
the need to reinstate the Great Hall at Upper Pitt Street - Main
Campus, from a hall cum basketball court as the community and cultural
hub for the College, which was its original purpose. The reinstatement
thus created the need for a second sports court in the Kirribilli
precinct to complement Dalton Hall situated on the Whyalla site. The
Master plan identified that the Burton Street Junior School Campus
provides the most suitable location.' - Italics added.

It is proposed there will now be two basketball courts - one under in
the multi-purpose hall and one on top of the multi-purpose hall. The
current ground level court used by the 320 Junior School boys (Years
3-6) already generates significant noise. If the two new courts are to
be used by the whole school population as the replacement second
basketball court for the senior and main schools (Years 7-12) the site
will be significantly more intensively used for before and after
school practise, Saturday morning sport, special school house
competitions etc. This will generate unacceptable noise from the site
and for longer times. It will create much larger movements of school
students between the campuses, plus increased traffic and parking
demand.


I object to the excavation proposed in the Junior School Concept Plan,
as there is no detail about impact on neighbouring properties and
plans for construction.

Long standing residents report that past excavation of sandstone and
building work at the Junior School and in the neighbouring area has
resulted in significant vibrations and cracking to fragile 100 year+
old terraced houses.

The streets surrounding the Junior School (Carabella, Fitzroy Street,
Bligh and Burton Streets) have 1880 - 1920s terraced houses with the
foundations and structural engineering of those eras. These houses are
part of the Careening Cove Heritage Conservation Area and several
buildings are items specially listed on Council's North Sydney Local
Environmental Plan. These buildings must be protected.

The following extracts from the EIS' accompanying Geotechnical
Interpretive Report

Part 1 indicates some of the issues associated with the proposed
excavation:

`It is understood that excavation for the basement may extend to
around 10 m deep, although localised deeper excavations may be
required for footings and trenches.' Page 17.

`The more competent sandstone (i.e. Class III to Class II rock) will
be more difficult to excavate and is likely to present hard or heavy
ripping or "very hard rock" excavation conditions'. Page 17. Comment:
this sandstone appears to start about 3m below the surface.

`It will be necessary to obtain permission from neighbouring
landowners prior to installing anchors that will extend beyond the
perimeter of the site. In addition, care should be taken to avoid
damaging buried services, pipes, adjacent basements and other
subsurface structures during anchor installation.' Page 17. Comment:
The sewer line for several houses backing on to Crescent Place runs
down the middle of Crescent Place laneway.

`Maintaining stability of the sides of the deep excavation and of
neighbouring properties will be critical for this site.' Page 18.

`Major excavation works will inevitably cause lateral and vertical
ground displacements outside of the excavation.' Page 19.

Prior to approval being given to the concept of excavating for a
multi-purpose hall, the feasibility of undertaking a successful
excavation should be assessed.

At the DA stage any excavation should involve preparation of
dilapidation reports for each house prior to any work being approved,
establishment of monitoring regimes, creation of and `unexpected
damage hot-line' and agreement by the school to rectify any damage.

In short, I must contend that the proposal for the `double decker'
basket-ball courts is absurd.


I object to the Junior School Concept Plan, as consultation has been
inadequate

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 neighbourhood issues.


I object to the Junior School Concept Plan, as the landscape plans are
inconsistent and misleading

It is not clear on the plans where the tree along Bligh Street &
Crescent Place are staying or being removed. We are assured by the
school at the Precinct meeting on May 3, that they were staying, 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 boundary.


END. Robert A Porter, Christine Blackburn Porter, 68 Carabella Street
Kirribilli 2061.

27 May 2018.

I'm the owner of Unit 24, 48 Upper Pitt St and my unit currently has
amazing views over the school of the harbour, Opera House, Bridge and
the city.

I'm concerned that the development will have a negative impact on the
value of my unit due to loss of views, increased noise and disruption
due to the seven year construction plan.

The 2.4m glass balustrade will certainly impact the view and I'm
concerned that the school building on Upper Pitt St will increase in
height.

The new rooftop playground will increase noise to my unit and I'm
worried that the landscaping and lighting will have further negative
impacts for my unit.

My family bought the unit for its exceptional location and excellent
views sometime in 1971-1972.
In late seventies-early nineties during expansion of the college we
and many other owners on levels 2,3 and 4 have lost
most of the view.
I support all aspects of submission made on behalf of the owners of
SP1036 by our architect Mr Paul Birkemeier,especially in regards to
any increase of existing height of the building.

My suggestion /request is for consideration of the change of the
balustrade around the eastern open roof on Upper Pitt st from brick to
glass. That would partly compensate the loss of view ( and
consequently value of the property) due to college expansion in the
seventies/eighties to owners on 2,3&4 levels at 48 Upper Pitt st.

Dear Sir,
I object to the MasterPlan application by St. Aloysius College, as:
1. It fails to address the impact of the traffic and parking that is
generated by the school, within the local community, not only during
school hours, but outside of school times, evenings, weekends & has
failed to look at providing parking for its teachers on the Main
Campus site (currently ZERO PARKING SPACES PROVIDED). Given they are
demolishing a building, they should be made to provide the minimum
parking requirements as per NSC legislation, for some of the teachers
of those 600+ students on that campus.

2. The documentation is not accurate and is different to what was
being said to the community last November and at the Precinct meeting.
So we can not trust the validity of the documentation.

3. The level of excavation for the junior school site is greater than
what we were told in person; The whole level of the outdoor playing
area will be lifted by a 1-1.5 meters above the existing levels, which
will be excessive height along Crescent Place; and having no set
backs, nor boundary landscaping for these two new building envelopes
is NOT acceptable. Nor should the proposed new indoor subterranean
sports complex on the Junior School campus be available for use by all
of school, as it will intensify the use on that site, within the
residential neighbourhood.

4. The cumulative effect of the traffic generation, pedestrian, buses
and cars, let alone all the construction vehicles and tradesmen's
parking during a 7 year construction phase, along with Loreto's
Masterplan has not been analysed and addressed, to ameliorate the
impact on the local community.

5. The school has failed to look at all their land holdings, therefore
this could not be a masterplan, especially as the accuracy & lack of
documentation makes it impossible to be relied upon.

6. The elevated outdoor play area should not be approved, as it will
impact upon the significant iconic views of neighbours, their peace &
amenity with increased noise & overlooking into residences; and again
the documentation has failed to serve the community with regards to
the surface finishes, accuracy of the acoustic reports, no details for
the supporting of the 2.4m height glass walls surrounding it, nor the
view impacts being shown without the structures that will be on the
rooftop - eg. deep soil trees planted, amphitheatre, BBQ's, sports
trees etc.

I request that the Minister reject this application in its current
form.
Thanking you.

I object to the excavation proposed in the Junior School Concept Plan as
there is no detail about impact on neighbouring properties and plans
for construction.

Long standing residents report that past excavation of sandstone and
building work at the Junior School and in the neighbouring area has
resulted in significant vibrations (e.g. fridges moving across kitchen
floors) and cracking to houses.

The streets surrounding the Junior School (Carabella, Fitzroy Street,
Bligh and Burton Streets) have 1880 - 1920s houses with the
foundations and structural engineering of those eras. These houses are
part of the Careening Cove Heritage Conservation Area and several
buildings are items specially listed on Council's North Sydney Local
Environmental Plan. Care needs to be taken to ensure that these
buildings are protected from vibrations and no damage is incurred that
becomes the residents responsibility to fix.

The following extracts from the EIS' accompanying Geotechnical
Interpretive Report
Part 1 indicates some of the issues associated with the proposed
excavation:

`It is understood that excavation for the basement may extend to
around 10 m deep, although localised deeper excavations may be
required for footings and trenches.' Page 17.

`The more competent sandstone (i.e. Class III to Class II rock) will
be more difficult to excavate and is likely to present hard or heavy
ripping or "very hard rock" excavation conditions'. Page 17. Comment:
this sandstone appears to start about 3 m below the surface.

`It will be necessary to obtain permission from neighbouring
landowners prior to installing anchors that will extend beyond the
perimeter of the site. In addition, care should be taken to avoid
damaging buried services, pipes, adjacent basements and other
subsurface structures during anchor installation.' Page 17. Comment:
The sewer line for several houses backing on to Crescent Place runs
down the middle of Crescent Place laneway.

`Maintaining stability of the sides of the deep excavation and of
neighbouring properties will be critical for this site.' Page 18.

`Major excavation works will inevitably cause lateral and vertical
ground displacements outside of the excavation.' Page 19.

Prior to approval being given to the concept of excavating for a
multi-purpose hall, the feasibility of undertaking a successful
excavation should be assessed.

At the DA stage any excavation should involve preparation of
dilapidation reports for each house prior to any work being approved,
establishment of monitoring regimes, creation of and `unexpected
damage hot-line' and agreement by the school to rectify any damage.

I am deeply concerned about traffic flows and the lack of detail that
has been provided about the impact from construction traffic from the
proposed changes, but also post construction what happens to the
streets of Kirribilli with additional vehicle impact. We bought in
Kirribilli because of the quiet nature of the suburb. Now we have 2
schools putting their financial interests ahead of the community.

We object to the Concept Plan for the Junior School as there is a
significant increase in use of the site without discussion of it in
the EIS

The following quote from the PMDL Architectural Design Statement (page
9) indicates that the basketball court will be used by the whole
school not just the Junior School. This is not covered in the EIS.

`The 2016 Masterplan prepared by PMDL identified the need to reinstate
the Great Hall at Upper Pitt Street - Main Campus, from a hall cum
basketball court as the community and cultural hub for the College,
which was its original purpose. The reinstatement thus created the
need for a second sports court in the Kirribilli precinct to
complement Dalton Hall situated on the Wyalla site. The Masterplan
identified that the Burton Street Junior School Campus provides the
most suitable location.' - italics added.

It would seem that there will now be two basketball courts - one under
in the multi-purpose hall and one on top of the multi-purpose hall.
The current ground level court used by the 320 Junior School boys
(Years 3-6) already generates significant noise. If the two new courts
are to be used by the whole school population as the replacement
second basketball court for the Senior and Main schools (Years 7-12)
the site will be more intensively used for before and after school
practise, Saturday morning sport, special school house competitions
etc. This will generate significantly more noise from the site and at
longer times. It is likely to create much larger movements of school
students between the campuses, traffic and parking demand. We already
have a fair amount of noise that travels into the back of our house
from the current set up. We don't want any additional noise.

Objection for not providing parking facilities for staff.

I own and live in an apartment at xx Upper Pitt Street. Our building is
just behind the school (just to the north of 49 Upper Pitt Street,
Kirribilli.

A. I believe the development will have a significant impact on the
view that I have from my apartment.

1. It is proposed by the School to install a 2.4m glass balustrade on
the southern face of the building that will impact our building's view
of the harbour and city

2. The drawings of the new East Wing on Upper Pitt Street appear to
show an increase in the parapet height from the existing RL43.21 to
RL43.49, an increase of 0.28m. Similarly, the new fa

OBJECTION

We object to SSD APPLICATION NUMBER SSD17_8669

Our comments are in relation to the Junior School site with particular
reference to the second level proposed on the corner of Humphreys
Lane/Bligh Street.

We have been living in the apartment of xxx Fitzroy Street Kirribilli
for 7 years. Our bedroom windows face east on the second level and
will be diagonally opposite their proposed 2nd level. The whole school
will be able to look into our bedroom. This is the reason for our
objection.
This problem was avoided with the previous development as the school
was forced to use frosted glass.

Yours sincerely

xxx

I wish to object to the application on the grounds of :
1. Overdevelopment of the site
2. Insufficient setback of proposed buildings from boundary
3. Lack of existing open green space at boundaries
4. Probable loss of existing vegetation
5. Lack of Traffic management ability considering large amounts of
children requiring pick-up and drop-off

Our comments are in relation to the Junior School site, in particular,
but I would also like to address concern of the overdevelopment of the
school that threatens the village character of Kirribilli.

We are the owners of 38 Fitzroy Street, Kirribilli and our property is
close to the recreation end of the Junior School

We object to approval of the Concept Plan for the Junior School as it
appears to propose significant increase in the use of the site,but the
EIS does not contain sufficient detail to allow appropriate comment

The concept plan for the Junior School appears to be designed as a
school masterplan, and there is little detail in the Concept Plan to
understand the scope and nature of the project, how it will affect
neighbouring properties, the impact on local community, and what the
school proposes to do to mitigate any effects during construction and
operation. The risk in approving the Junior School Concept Plan as it
stands, is that the School will be given an automatic future right to
build an extra level on the school building, excavate and construct a
basement level multi-purpose hall and create a new basket-ball court
and stands, without showing and considering the impact on residents or
the wider Kirribilli community.

Kirribilli has become increasingly busy due to frequent school
(particularly sports related) events and more visibility as a tourist
and dining destination. The narrow roads are becoming impossible to
pass through in the intended 2 way traffic during school drop off and
delivery. On the weekend, school sporting events and the Kirribilli
markets coinciding create the perfect storm leaving residents unable
to park in the proximity of their homes. These infrastructure issues
need to be taken into consideration for any proposal that will
increase traffic in an already challenged area.

Best regards,
Irene & Jonathan Bennett
May 28, 2018

OBJECTION TO ST ALOYSIUS REDEVELOPMENT MASTER PLAN COVERING 3 SITES IN
KIRRIBILLI
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT SSD17_ 8699
I live at 131 Carabella Street, Kirribilli, a very short distance from
St Aloysius Junior School
My objection is based on the fact that `The Master Plan' submitted by
St Aloysius is, in effect, preliminary plans for 3 sites. `The Master
Plan' does not provide adequate detail to enable the full impact of
future proposals to be assessed.
It is understood that affected residents will not be entitled to lodge
any objection when the school finally submits detailed plans for each
development. This is an unreasonable denial of natural justice as it
gives the developer an unfair advantage and deprives affected
residents of their rights to have their views considered.
This proposed redevelopment is in reality a commercial enterprise in a
residential area. Expenditure of $80,000,000 could not be justified
without significant increase of students and staff. Of necessity,
increases in student and staff numbers will result in increased
pedestrian, car and bus traffic.
The volume of car and pedestrian traffic from St Aloysius, before and
after school hours, is already very high and disruptive in a high
density residential area. St Aloysius must accept that in this area
there is also significant car and pedestrian traffic servicing
students and staff at Loreto and that school is also preparing a new
Master Plan.
It is not possible on the limited information that has been made
available and the limited time, for consideration of the full impact
of the development on local residents. Issues of concern include which
cause me to object are:
I. No additional onsite parking, currently only 19 car spaces for 339
staff and 1244 students (what is presently inadequate will become a
greater problem with increased numbers. If a non-educational
commercial or residential development was being considered, more
parking spaces would be required)
II. Increased car traffic in 7.30-9.00am period making it even more
difficult for residents to get in and out of their own properties
III. No proposed provisions for on-site student drop off and pick up
IV. Increased noise from outside play and entertainment areas
(entertainment areas indicate activities outside school hours with
additional pressure on parking)
V. No details of ultimate building intentions and impact/compliance
with environmental requirements, including noise abatement,
preservation of trees
VI. No benefit to ratepaying residents of Kirribilli
VII. Rights of residents to appeal to final plan denied
The proposal would adversely change the balance of the residential
environment of Kirribilli.

Susan Hooke
131Carabella Street, Kirribilli, 2061.
[email protected]

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.
The community OBJECTS 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" 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.

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". Community does 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.Community requests 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 community request an open site visit, so that
their 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.

The community OBJECTS to this series of Capital works being considered to
be a MASTER PLAN for the whole school site on the following ground:

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.

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.

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" 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.

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.

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'.


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.

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.

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". Community does not agree with
this statement.

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

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

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.

Community requests 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.

Additionally the community request an open site visit, so that their
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.

OBJECTION TO ST ALOYSIUS REDEVELOPMENT MASTER PLAN COVERING 3 SITES IN
KIRRIBILLI SUBMITTED BY FRANK HOOKE
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT SSD 17_8699
The Master Plan submitted by St Aloysius, indicates it is a
preliminary plan for each of 3 sites.
The Master Plan does not provide enough information to enable me to
assess the detail of future proposals.
Affected residents will not be entitled to lodge any objection when
final detailed plans are submitted for each development. Therefore,
information currently provided is seriously inadequate. This is an
unreasonable denial of justice as it gives the developer an unfair
advantage and deprives affected residents of their rights to submit
their comments.
Expenditure of $80,000,000 on these projects could not be justified
without the school contemplating significant increase of students and
staff. This must lead to increases in student and staff numbers and
therefore increased pedestrian, bus and car traffic.
Before and after school bus, car and pedestrian traffic from St
Aloysius, is already very high and disruptive in the adjacent
residential area. This must be considered in conjunction with
significant car and pedestrian traffic servicing students and staff at
Loreto School which is nearby.
The present submission makes consideration of the full impact of the
development on local residents impossible to assess. Issues of concern
include:
* Only 19 car spaces are provided for existing 339 staff and 1244
students (this seems inadequate). This problem will be made even worse
with increased numbers. A similar sized commercial or residential
development would be required to provide more off-street parking).
* Inadequate parental car drop- off and pick up arrangements other
than in the street frontage outside the school buildings.
* Lack of details of ultimate building intentions and compliance with
environmental requirements.
The Master Plan, if implemented, will adversely impact the residential
environment of Kirribilli.
Frank Hooke
131 Carabella Street, Kirribilli, 2061. [email protected]

The community OBJECTS to this series of Capital works being considered to
be a MASTER PLAN for the whole school site on the following ground:

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.

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.

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" 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.

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.

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'.


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.

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.

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". Community does not agree with
this statement.

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

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

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.

Community requests 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.

Additionally the community request an open site visit, so that their
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.

The community OBJECTS to this series of Capital works being considered to
be a MASTER PLAN for the whole school site on the following ground:

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.

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.

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" 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.

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.

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'.


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.

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.

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". Community does not agree with
this statement.

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

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

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.

Community requests 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.

Additionally the community request an open site visit, so that their
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.

I object to approval of the Concept Plan for the Junior School at this
time as the site is not going to be developed for 10 years

I object to approval of the Concept Plan for the Junior School as the
EIS does not contain sufficient detail to allow appropriate comment

I object to the Concept Plan for the Junior School as there is a
significant increase in use of the site without discussion of it in
the EIS

I object to the excavation proposed in the Junior School Concept Plan
as there is no detail about impact on neighbouring properties and
plans for construction.

I object to the Junior School Concept Plan as consultation has been
inadequate

I object to the Junior School Concept Plan as the landscape plans are
inconsistent