St Aloysius' College Redevelopment

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

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

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

I object to the proposal.

The increase in the height will substantially block our views of the
Harbour and city.

The rooftop playground will generate more noise. The proposed works
over a construction period of 7 years will also affect our use and
enjoyment of our property.

My concerns include:
1. The lack of detailed drawings provided with the DA
2.Excavation equipment and truck movements during demolition and
construction - during a time period which is forecast to be up to 7
years
3. The lack of additional parking to be provided noting current school
population of 339 staff and 1,244 students will increase. Where will
they park? We are already experiencing residential parking issues due
to commuter, theatre and restaurant patrons. This development will
grossly overload existing residential street access and parking.
4. Safety issues associated with the lack of planned Kiss & Drop/Kiss
& Ride - with resultant traffic congestion and queuing in residential
streets [as already evidenced by those of us living near Loretto].

Dear Sir,

I object to the approval of the Concept Plan for the Junior School as
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, marketing and financial planning document, rather
than an application for a statutory land use/built form approval for
the site.

From my 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.

In approving the Junior School Concept Plan 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.

Issues which need consideration are:

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

Here are my further objections to the plans of the 3 campuses:

If the new indoor sports center is approved, the finished height,
above the natural Bligh Street ground level, of the outdoor sports and
play area, will be 1-1.5m higher, thus taking away the additional OFF
STREET PARKING for the school on the sports court, in out-of-school
hours, or for the use during holiday periods for tradesmen. There is
already a lack of parking provided on the school campuses, why take
away more options, for the future.

There is not enough details on the plans. It doesn't appear to show
much forethought re accessibility, especially with regards to the
entrance spaces for buildings, not making people second rate citizens
with regards to an entry point down on Kirribilli Ave. For example the
proposed entrance for the Main School campus, the accessibility to get
there is a badly lit steep slope of Jeffrey Street, and steps, so
making it difficult for any one person approaching the building at
this point.

From the diagrams that I saw, the accessibility aspects appear as an
afterthought, as if just ticking a box, which should not be the case
in this day and age.


The traffic management has not been taken in to account and how
congested the streets already are at pick up time. I would know as I
attended one of the schools in the area, and I learnt that you do not
try to go to the local shops at school pick up or drop off times in
the local area, due to it being the most dangerous time to cross any
roads, due to the number of people, cars, and distractions. Thus it
concerns me that they have not considered a traffic management plan,
considering that there are current concerns about safety regarding
school pick ups and drop offs, how are they going to ensure everyone's
safety, with bigger vehicles which have longer breaking times
required, especially during construction phase, who are operating in
close proximity to adolescents in busy congested narrow streets.

When I was driving along Fitzroy St. I had 12 school boys step out
onto the road, not looking, and I had to slam on my brakes to avoid
hitting them.

The school has not taken into account, the functions that occur at
schools, which require amenities and parking. Their plans do not
appear to take this into account at any point for the main school
campus, neglecting their of duty of care for their staff, future
contractors etc, for future operations, after any construction is
completed.

I am all for people using public transport, but there are always
situations, where people will need to bring their vehicles to the
school, the school would be responsible for these individuals, until
they get home, so the school would be wise to provide more on-site
parking, to diminish their risk.

I am concerned that there is not enough outdoor space on their 3
sites, to allow for natural light, sun, and not just artificial
enclosed spaces on the site. They use Bradfield park extensively, and
the bowling area, for their sporting exercises, but some green,
natural, open area space for eating, study or revision, on school
campus, would be a more ideal situation.

I object as this application is still in its infancy, as it does not
seem complete, it has not taken into account for future needs and
demands; how will I be able to have a voice in the future to the plans
if they are given 'building envelope' concept approval - so to speak,
a 'blank cheque', to do what they want, without consultation, how can
we be sure it will be the best outcome achieved, if new ideas, or
alternative approaches cannot be shared or communicated to the school.

As far as I am concerned, it is a loose / loose situation, including
for the school and the community. We would prefer a win/win situation
for all concerned, and it would make better business sense, to not
potentially alienating the community, disadvantaging the school, as we
are trying to live in a more equal, diverse society, that this should
be demonstrated by the school, even through this application process
and taught to our young people, to ensure a better future for all.

Many thanks and regards
xxx

As a long term resident of Kirribilli I object the development because
there is a lack of parking for the school.

My objections are attached

Department Planning & Environment,

Dear Sir/Madam

As a resident at xxx High Street north Sydney I am aware of the ST
Aloysius Master Plan Proposal and the objections raised, albeit
informally and formally, by the local community through the Precinct
Committee and some individuals.

Therefore in my endorsement of those objections already raised I will
be brief but only too willing to enlarge on the points raised below if
further clarification is required.

The current proposal is not a Master Plan.
It is a confusion of minutiae (See Landscape Proposals);
combined with a single minded floor space strategy;
compounded by fundamental omissions ( e g. alternative off -site
development options; traffic and parking) ;
and numerous detailed contradictions ( including potential numbers
using the site short and long term).

Understandably any community would be confused as to the identifiable
short and long term implications of any approvals at this
determinative first stage.
The application therefore calls for wholesale revision and before
proceeding on unwarranted assumptions.

Including the continued reliance upon Bradfield Park as essential to
satisfying student outdoor recreation needs: and that elevating the
small on-site outdoor space otherwise provided to a restricted roof
top is a good solution: and not born of a desperation to otherwise
overdevelop.

The starting point must be the identification of the current
circumstances, beyond the school boundaries, to genuinely establish a
realistic context and the plausibility of the school's ambitions.

Thank you for the opportunity to add these observations to what will
become glaringly obvious on just an initial viewing of the material so
far presented in this application.

xxxx

The proposed development at the main campus at 47 Upper Pitt St.,
Kirribilli is very likely to obstruct the views from my property into
the Milsons point including the green lawns, lower part of the harbor
bridge and the water underneath the bridge.

OBJECTION
SSD APPLICATION NUMBER SSD17_8669

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

We are the owners of 14 Fitzroy Street, Kirribilli and our property
backs directly on to the school's boundary at the Humphrey Lane/Bligh
Street junction. We will be the neighbours most affected by the
proposal of an extra level. Our property at this boundary has a due
north facing living room and a due north facing back garden with pool.
We also have a main bedroom facing east on our second level.

We object to the second storey proposed for this development as it
will cause overshadowing of our back garden and living areas for most
of the day, as these areas face due north.

We object to the Junior School Concept Plan as the increase in height
with the additional storey will hugely impact our privacy. The extra
level's windows will look directly into our bedroom, living room
(where we spend most of the day during school hours), and swimming
pool. In addition, I believe the current building height is at it's
maximum level allowed by EPA and state zoning. Adding an extra level
would be in breach of these restrictions.

We object to approval of the Concept Plan for the Junior School as the
EIS does not contain sufficient detail to allow appropriate comment .
We have not been provided with height planes or detailed shadow
diagrams to accurately assess our solar loss or privacy loss.

I object to the Junior School Concept Plan as the landscape plans are
inconsistent. It is imperative that existing trees along Bligh Street
be retained, specifically trees closest to the corner of Humphrey Lane
(59 & 60?). In addition trees numbered 54, 55 and 57 must not, under
any circumstances, be removed. These are magnificent, very old
specimens that cannot be replaced.
The Junior School currently remains in breach of it's previous
landscaping obligations as it has not fulfilled the planting of 2
large screening trees behind the electricity box on the corner of
Humphrey Lane and Bligh Street. This does not auger well for the new
proposal if the building completed 10 years ago has remained
unfinished and still in breach.

We object to the Junior School Concept Plan as there is no provision
of any extra onsite parking for staff. With the massive increase in
undercroft areas of the new proposal, surely it is fair and reasonable
to expect an allowance for parking. Kirribilli faces diabolical
problems with parking. This proposal without parking is both
unreasonable for the community and unsustainable.

Yours Sincerely
Julia and Jonathan Laverty
14 Fitzroy Street
Kirribilli NSW 2061

Please see my submission in the attached PDF.

Please refer to attached document

Reference St Aloysius College Redevelopment (Concert & Stage !)
The Minister
NSW Planning & Environment

My wife and I are residents of "Craiglea" residential unit complex,
which shares a major boundary with the redevelopment proposal from St
Aloysius College.
This proposal purports to be planning for the next 25 years and there
will be many lost opportunities for both the residents of the
immediate area and the region more generally, if the shortcomings of
this proposal are not fully address now. Failure to do so would be a
huge travesty and the main inadequacies can be rectified by your
positive intervention at this preliminary stage.
We wish to lodge the following objection to this proposal.
The owner's committee of "Craiglea"retained experienced Town Planning
Consultant M/s Belinda Barnett of "Urban Concepts" to report on the
St. Aloysius proposal. The report received (on behalf of all unit
owners) advised that the St Aloysius proposal had many shortcomings. A
summary of the advice received is: a follows -
1. The EIS documentation contains inconsistencies, inaccuracies and
major omissions (for example, There is no lighting plan detailed for
the extensive outdoor playground) and contains several unsupported
conclusions.
2. The EIS and the development failed to address stated community
concerns.
3) We challenge the validity of the application as a Master Plan and
it's underlying assumption that there are no current issues for the
College to address or rectify.
Issues are of concern for the effect they would have on the amenity
North Sydney Area and it's residents generally
a) No additional on site car parking provided. Current car parking in
the Kirribilli area is at crisis point.
This is an obvious case where the full car parking code of North
Sydney Council should be applied.
The opportunity should not be ignored to provide the technically
correct amount of on site car parking for staff, visiting parents, and
disabled persons. Local residents have observed College employees
swapping car spaces in the street to avoid time restrictions (staff
car parking should be provided on site).Importantly there is no
provision for off street car parking for the many trades vehicles
(carrying tools and equipment) during the projected 2.5 year (in
reality, probably longer) construction period for the Upper Pitt
St/Kirribili Ave works.
b) No inclusion of an off street "kiss and drop off/pick up" facility
(as provided by the majority of Private Schools in the Sydney
Area).Cars have been witness consistently holding up traffic while
dropping off or picking up students from the College. This is clearly
a safety and traffic issue which can be overcome by a designated
facility within the site. The above problem is multiplied by attendees
at sporting events and school cadets training.
c) Inadequate set backs from boundaries and the resultant lost
opportunities to provide meaningful landscaping to soften the
streetscape and partially compensate for the bulk and density of the
proposal. The inadequacy of sufficient setback and landscaping is
particularly acute along the only adjoining boundary with residential
property (the boundary shared with the "Craiglea " residential units).
Matters of particular Concern to "Craiglea" (88 Kirribilli Ave and 49a
Upper Pitt St) owners:-
We are aware the owner's committee from "Craiglea" and several
individual owners (including ourselves) made reasonable suggestions
for improvements in the St Aloysius proposal. Particularly as it
related to the adjoining boundary with the "Craiglea" property. None
of these proposals resulted any changes to the plans as originally
proposed.
The St. Aloysius proposal gains several major advantages (widows and
natural light) from overlooking the garden area of the heritage zoned
"Craiglea" property. However, they have not been prepared to
accommodated any of the proposals to improve the areas along the
adjoining boundary.
Suggested amendments to the plans relating to the area along the
boundary with "Craiglea" include the following:-
1) Increase the set back along the area to be redeveloped (adjoining
the subject boundary) by an additional 2 metres (Ie 2 metres over and
above the currently proposed set backs.
This would achieve an improved design outcome, allow sufficient set
back for a reasonable landscaping treatment, and improve the current
increased overshadowing effect. This would also assist in saving the
major tree which is feature of the ""Craiglea" garden area.
2) Rectify the totally unsatisfactory and inconsistent wall finishes
along the subject boundary. The current proposal has non colour
matched finishes ( two different brick colours and metal attachments).
Suggested solution - cement render the entire wall and colour it to
the reasonable satisfaction of the "Craiglea" owners committee.
The inclusion of items 1 and 2 above, would assist in maintaining the
heritage value of the "Graiglea" property for the benefit of the
community.
3) We have very strong concerning about failure to included car
parking to the code of North Sydney Council and the omission of an off
street "kiss and drop off/pick up" facility (child safety, traffic and
street parking concerns)..
4) St Aloysius College should be asked to request their builders
incorporate in their construction program, an early completion of the
wall section along the "Craiglea" boundary. This request should be
supported because the total construction program is projected to be a
least 2.5 years. It would be reasonable to have the construction
adjacent to the boundary, which immediately adjoins residential
property, completed at the earliest possible date.

We request your support in applying conditions which result in the
improvements to the St, Aloysius proposal as outlined above and go
some way to retaining the appearance and Heritage Value of the
"Craiglea" property.The requests are reasonable and would also be in
the best interest of Kirribilli residents and the district more
generally.

Yours faithfully.

Lynette & John Archibald.

My wife and I support St. Aloysius College in its education mission and
its aim to improve its performance with the proposed Redevelopment.
However we have significant concerns with some aspects of this
Redevelopment Application. I attended the Milson's precinct meeting of
3 May 2018 when it was discussed in detail and we have read and
support the Objections to be submitted by the Precinct
In Particular we are concerned that this an Application mainly for the
Envelope proposals for the 3 Campuses and the development is planned
for a lengthy period of 7 years for the Main Middle School and 10
years or more for the Junior School . Other local developments and
changes may make these plans inappropriate however one would not be
able to object if Consent is given now. . Insufficient details are
given for the actual Redevelopments within these Envelopes!
The extent and details of the Excavation at the Junior School site and
impact on trees , solar and neighbours are of concern as well as
traffic related to disposal of debris.
In the Main School Lack of provision of Parking particularly given the
opportunity with demolition and rebuilding of the Eastern Wing'; also
Details of the planned new Rooftop area its impact on Noise and
Lighting as well lack of definite possible use both by the School and
Out of School Hours Use of this Area.

1. I object to the St Aloysius College Redevelopment SSD 17_8669 and have
attached my reasons for that objection below.

Re: St. Aloysius College Master Plan - OBJECTION
Re: SSD 17_8669

We wish to lodge an objection to the Master Plan submitted by St.
Aloysius College.

We are local residents living in Carabella Street, Kirribilli.

We have detailed our objections below, which are consistent with the
views of many residents.

We are particularly concerned by the following:

* The lack of attention paid to the need to address teacher parking
and parent "kiss n ride" and temporary parking needs. These omissions
represent not only a lack of commitment to the Community on behalf of
St. Aloysius College but also a significant safety issue for students,
parents and relatives and residents. As residents close to the school
we have seen first-hand the daily threats to safety as parents and
relatives jockey for position to obtain short term parking to allow
for the pick-up and drop off of their child.

This is a very real threat which can be mitigated by implementing a
range of solutions employed by many other schools.

This threat will be heightened by the complexity of traffic movement
during the construction period, with very large trucks navigating
through relatively narrow neighbourhood streets. This aspect needs a
clear plan, and considerable attention to detail combined with
appropriate consultation with the community, particularly, but not
only, residents within the immediate vicinity of the school.

* The number of errors and omissions contained within the submission,
represents a breach of trust in the ability of St. Aloysius College to
deal with community concerns in an open and transparent manner. This
is particularly important given the blanket approval St. Aloysius
College is seeking now to cover the next 7-10 years.

* Re The Junior School the fact that approval is sought now for the
Concept Plan for the Junior School, despite the fact the site is not
going to be developed for 10 years is problematic.

Our detailed Objections are outlined below.

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.
We and the community OBJECT to this series of Capital works being
considered to be a MASTER PLAN for the whole school site on the
following grounds:

1. Fails 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
a holistic way? Therefore, this is NOT a Master Plan.

2. Fails 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. Fails 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" We and the community 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. Fails to work in with the other major school, Loreto, which is
doing a 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. Fails 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. Fails 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". We and the Community 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 we and the community
request an extension of time, for submission.

11. We and the community request 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. We and the 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, we and the community request an open site visit, so
that concerns can be expressed to the Minister or delegated persons,
so that you have some real understanding of the issues and concerns
that form this OBJECTION.



Specific Objections Re the Junior School Component of Aloysius
Redevelopment

1. We 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.
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, our
property, with a concept plan approval for development which will
significantly affect their properties which will then not be acted on
for 10 years.

2. We object to approval of the Concept Plan for the Junior School as
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, marketing and financial planning document,
rather than an application for a statutory land use/built form
approval for the site.
There is little detail in the Concept Plan to understand the scope and
nature of the project, how it will affect neighbouring properties,
including our property, and what the school proposes to do to mitigate
any effects during construction and operation.
In approving the Junior School Concept Plan 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.
Issues which need consideration are:
* Excavation (e.g. vibrations, stability, need for stability ties into
neighbouring properties, excavation noise, dust)
* Construction management (e.g. truck movements, staging of
construction, pedestrian management, impact on Crescent Place laneway
operation which is the only access to our garages, landscape,
retention of significant trees such as the large Lemon Scented Gum -
Tree 55)
* Operation of new facilities and impact on neighbourhood (e.g. noise,
special events, parking for school staff and visitors, loss of parking
for maintenance workers during school holidays, traffic movements,
pedestrian movements, overshadowing, landscaping)

3. 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.

4. We 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 houses.

The streets surrounding the Junior School (Carabella, Fitzroy Street,
Bligh and Burton Streets) have 1880 - 1920's houses with the
foundations and structural engineering of those eras. Our house is one
of these houses. 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.
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.

5. We object to the Junior School Concept Plan as consultation has
been inadequate. It is difficult for us and 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.
We agree with the 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.

6. We object to the Junior School Concept Plan as the landscape plans
are inconsistent. 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.

please see attached PDF letter

We Object to SSD 8669.

Attached PDF

Our Concerns have been uploaded