Trinity Grammar School Redevelopment

Please see attached pdf.

I believe my property will be devalued due to the proximity of the school which already impacts severely on the local residents with noise and traffic. The traffic is already terrible at pick up and drop off times. I have a child who attends Yeo Park Infants and on the drive back home the traffic along Victoria Road is bumper to bumper and at a stand still in both directions with cars turning into the Trinity carpark. An increase of 600 students would make this situation unbearable. The proposed delivery dock would also make it impossible to access my back lane through Seaview St which is how I access my carport, it is already choked up with buses & vans. I object to the demolition of original houses and tree's in Seaview St to make way for institutional buildings as the residential nature of the St and surrounds will be destroyed. I can already hear shouting and noise from my backyard on sports days so the addition of outdoor assembly areas and basketball courts I can only assume will make this noise a permanent feature. I would like to be able to enjoy my own backyard in peace. The 5 storey building will be an eyesore & impose on surrounding residences which is being built to accommodate more students than the Land & Environment Court deemed acceptable to the area in 2015. They ruled that an increase of 200 students was not in the publics interest given the amenity impacts, now they propose an additional 600?! I am also not willing to accept the disruption top my life for the next 5 years during the construction process.

I object to Trinity Grammar School's proposed development application because I live in Victoria Street, very near where the school is located and, as a consequence, find that, with my husband when driving, we are unable to drive readily out of the end of our street to proceed because of already existing traffic, either going left at Harland and out onto Queen St or by driving up Victoria St to Liverpool Road or up Seaview St. Currently, we wait and wait and wait for a break in traffic. Walking is frightening already as some new drivers do not have good control of their (often huge) vehicles. The traffic congestion to and from Trinity from 7.45 to 9.15 in the mornings and in school leaving time in the afternoon is terrible. Please do not add to this very significant concern as we try to get to our National Heart Foundation Friday morning walks at Enfield, our shopping at Ashfield mall, our drop-offs and pick-ups of grandchildren at Summer Hill Public School (when we go up Seaview St) and our regular morning and afternoon gatherings for craft and library sessions. This is how we live. We do not choose to become shut-ins. The vastly increased student numbers (by 445) mean even more traffic congestion and attendant increased worry about car / pedestrian accidents. Do not accept the coy statement that more students will mean more staff and therefore more cars. Staff drivers are a small part of the problem. It is traffic from parents, buses and boy drivers that constitute most traffic! I have been to a number of school & resident meetings, one that annoyed me as it centred on traffic. The school's view that it has no sway over the cars in and out of the area as that was up to the police: very much a Pontius Pilate attitude that I found sickening. I gave up then on the meetings. The sense of entitlement of the school and denigration of rate-paying and quiet living residents to grow and grow the school and the rest of us be damned makes me saddened. Enough!!

I would like to be the supplier for the supply and install of the roof and wall insulation.

I wish to object strongly to to proposed development. I live directly opposite Trinity Grammar in Victoria Street, Ashfield in the Holwood Avenue Conservation Area. That is, a heritage conservation area. There are a considerable number of houses opposite the school which are individually heritage listed and many of the streets surrounding the school are also heritage listed . It is one of the most beautiful precincts in the inner west and the integrity of the area should be preserved. When we purchased our home eight years ago, we have made a point of choosing one in a quiet, green, garden suburb and we were drawn to the heritage aspect as we felt it would ensure that the area would remain free from developments which would negatively impact the area.
In particular, the proposal to build up to five stories in height is deplorable. It is completely out of keeping with the charming and quiet, private nature of the neighbourhood. And it is completely unacceptable that they build something that high simply to accommodate more students - an increase of 600 from 1500 to 2100 Students. (In 2015 the Land and Environment Court determined that it was not in the public Interest to allow an increase of 200 students) Students they don't currently have. The only reason they have to increase enrolments is to make more money from the exorbitant fees that they charge. And there is no justification for ruining a heritage area just so that the school and its executive can make more money.
In increasing the number of students, the traffic around the school will also be dramatically increased with at least and extra 500 cars each morning and afternoon. As it is, it is almost impossible for me to get in and out of my driveway at school opening and closing time. This quiet residential area is simply not able to absorb these kind of numbers.
I have previously had NO inclination to leave the home I have established, and I really don't want to. But if this development does go ahead, I will. And since the development will, no doubt, affect the value of the homes in the area, since it will be a less desirable place to live, I won't even be in a position to buy in another nice, quiet area.
The school is trying to sugarcoat their application with a plan to redirect some of the traffic from the main driveway. Please note that this was what the local police and neighbours lobbied to have done when Trinity ran their last building project (about 10 years ago) and the school fought it and won. Now all of a sudden they are planning to fix the driveway, and the whole PR thing is an attempt to blindside the community.
This building project really will be a blight on the local area and Sydney's heritage - Five stories is totally out of place in an area where most buildings are single or two stories
The government has a responsibility to preserve Sydney's heritage areas, including this one, for future generations and for the sake of the people who have invested (financially and socially-emotionally) in living here.
Please do not allow this to go ahead.
Terry Armstrong

I strenuously object to this project on environmental, safety, and neighbourhood welfare grounds. I have detailed my objections in numbered format in the attached submission.

I object to Trinity Grammar School's proposed development application because the project expands on the number of students (and staff) agreed to at the time of the last major development without providing the appropriate infrastructure.
In 1994 the school went to the Land and Environment Court seeking to expand facilities and numbers without putting in extra parking but was required to do so by the court due to local streets being parked out on a daily basis. At that time the school population was capped at 1,500. Trinity now wants to increase the student numbers to over 2,000 and corresponding increase in staff with very little extra parking capacity. As in 1994, Trinity Grammar School should be required to provide an appropriate number of additional parking spaces, on a percentage increase basis, for both the additional staff and any increase in the number of students and parents requiring parking

The increase in the number of students will increase traffic on my street. as it is our road is neglected and is in desperate need or repairs (the whole street). Parents that drive on my street that are going to the school and after drop off don't adhere to road rules, speeding and reckless. NO consideration to the local residents.
The infrastructure around the school isn't there to support the extra traffic. There is only 1 school crossing around the whole school. I see students every day crossing Old Canterbury Rd to go to the light rail, drivers speeding recklessly pushing in to get on the road and they don't pay attention to the pedestrians. will it need a serious injury or death for this to change. This also applies to our street. There are a lot of young children that live in the street.
The school has not tried to reach out to the community to try and has treated it's neighbours poorly.
I understand that buildings need to be updated but since the school already has @1900 students i don't think the area can support an increase in students.
The congestion around the school at drop off and pick up times is already overwhelming. Trinity Parents are double parking near the pick up areas and blocking local traffic.
I have called the school in the past to discuss my concerns but i have not been contacted to discuss and address my concerns.
I am sure I am not the only person in the area that is fed up with the speeding drivers and the congestion.

I object to the project because there is already extreme traffic chaos with 1600 students let alone 2100. Most Trinity students live out of area which means there are way too many buses and cars clogging the local area at drop off and pickup times. This is especially the case along Victoria Road, Prospect St and Hurlstone Ave.
Several years ago the Land and Environment Court limited the student numbers to 1500 yet they have already disregarded this and have 1655 students. They limited the numbers for this very reason (traffic chaos) yet Trinity have totally ignored their decision and are looking to increase the numbers again despite the drastic impact on locals. Public transport buses must compete with privately run buses plus cars to get down Prospect Road which creates a daily nightmare.
Many P plate drivers also park all day around the area further clogging up the area.
The enormous scope of the building project will create chaos as well in the interim. The development is completely over the top, a five storey classroom! Please do not allow this to go ahead, local residents deal with enough already.

I write in connection with the above planning application. I have examined the plans and I know the site well. I wish to object strongly to the development of these changes to the Trinity Grammar site
this will cause heavier traffic in the area and will limit parking for residents in Victoria Sq and Tintern Road (which is already a problem in the area)
This will also increase noise and outdoor activity and will cause major dust and dirt in the area which can effect peoples health
The cutting down of 26 trees is excessive and will change the landscape of the area significantly
it will cause a further traffic bottle neck in the area which is currently a huge problem every day and with the increase of a further 600 students this means an increase of more cars
This development will also reduced value in surrounding properties

Thanks

Thank you for the opportunity to comment. The proposed development is inappropriate for the area and will generate issues with traffic

Proposed redevelopment of Trinity Grammar School SSD-10371
I write to object to the proposed significant expansion of Trinity Grammar School.
When the last large expansion of Trinity Grammar School was approved (work on the second swimming pool has only recently finished), Land and Environment Commissioner Roseth stated that he had an obligation to impose a condition limiting student numbers. Condition 5 of the approval became: “The number of students at the Summer Hill campus shall not exceed 1,500”. It is unlikely that Commissioner Roseth’s intention was for Trinity Grammar School to re-interpret this condition to suit themselves and enrol in excess of 1,650 students (with >1500 students in attendance at once, particularly in Terms 1-3).
Commissioner Roseth made a considered decision when imposing condition 5. It is clear from the congestion in and around the local residential area during pick up and drop off periods that capacity has been exceeded.
In 2015 the Land and Environment Court refused consent for an additional 200 students (increase from 1500 to 1700) because it was not in the public interest. Now Trinity Grammar is intending to increase its student numbers to 2,100. The public interest to limit overdevelopment and contain student numbers on the site has not changed.
Trinity Grammar School is proposing to join the two existing underground carparks (one for drop offs/pick ups, and one for staff). The purported reasoning as I understand it is to move the some of the daily traffic jam on Victoria Street from above ground to below ground. I fail to understand how this change will contain and accommodate the 40% increase in students, parents and staff who utilise the nearby roads and carpark. In fact the lengthy underground queuing is likely to frustrate parents further and operate to the detriment of local amenity.
The removal of a large number of trees and the purchase-for-demolition of a number of houses in Seaview Street is not in keeping with the history or philosophy of a heritage conservation area. Nor is the erection of a classroom building 5 storeys above ground which is completely at odds with the local environment and landscape.
I object to this State Significant Development proposal at Trinity Grammar School. I am extremely concerned that it will gain consent on the basis that it is a ‘shovel ready’ project, and that the approval will be to the long term detriment of our heritage conservation area.

See attached

As a local resident, there has been a serious lack of traffic flow solutions particularly as parents all now resort to queuing for up to 100m along Victoria St to enter the driveway. Similarly Harland Ave is queued constantly and Service Ave has started becoming a race track for frustrated parents post drop off. I struggle to leave my house and return with school age children requiring parental drop off and pickup in Summer Hill. I can't get past Victoria St or get onto Harland St safely from Service Ave. There are now frustrated drivers crossing to the wrong side of Victoria St at speed to pass said que and putting others at risk due to the traffic congestion caused by the school. Please consider rejection of the proposal based on increased numbers and no consideration for the neighbouring community.

My full submission is in the attached word document, but I am objecting for the following reasons:
- Increase in student numbers
- Heritage & Conservation
- Effect on Seaview Road
- Traffic Congestion

Please refer to attachment.

I object to the project and rely on the attached submission.

The planned project will put pressure on the roads around the area which is already congested especially during pick up and drop off times. Buses along roads such as Propsect Rd, Hulrstone Avenue, Seaview St are already causing major bottlenecks and potential danger. To have more traffic will be creating further danger.
In the past Trinity has increased the scope of projects and they have become different thna they made out to be and created issues.
It is a definite over development of the site. Their last project was supposed to be their final development or so the principal at the time told the residents, and now we see further scope creep.

I object to Trinity Grammar School’s proposed development application because the negative impact on the local environment – tree removal and road traffic increase – is only vaguely addressed in the application documents.

The EIS (SSD 10371) has ambiguous and/or conflicting information about the impact of the proposal on local trees. It is unclear what tree removal means. If it means the trees will be felled or destroyed, then the application should state this. Using the word “removal” implies the trees will be transplanted to new locations.

The EIS summary indicates 34 trees will be removed (at 2.6). But later the EIS states only 17 trees will be “removed” while 10 trees are “proposed for retention” (at 3.7). Yet elsewhere the EIS also states 39 trees are “at risk” due to the proposal (at 4.10).

The Arborist Report (Appendix 22) does not, in my view, support the claims made in the EIS that removal of trees is a necessity for the project.

The Report indicates 26 trees are proposed for removal (p. 3). The information shown in Table 4.1 and Table 4.3 of the Report does not, in my view, justify the felling of 26 trees (much less 34 or 39 trees). Only three (3) of these identified trees have a “life expectancy” of less than 5 years, while the others have a life expectancy of up to 40 years.

The Report (at 6.2) fails to explain why the nominated trees should be destroyed. It implies the tree felling would be a matter of convenience and not necessity. This understanding is also suggested by the EIS: “loss of any vegetation is considered to be acceptable given the substantial associated benefits of the project” (at 4.10). Thus, the proposed tree destruction is a trade-off between what would be convenient for the project sponsors against negative impacts for the ecological environment and local landscape. In my view, the asserted the “substantial associated benefits of the project” cannot justify such a trade-off.

The EIS and the Transport and Accessibility Assessment (Appendix 10) do not, in my view, fully appreciate the likely increase of road traffic in the local area: i.e. Victoria Street; Tintern Road; Prospect Street and Norton Street.

It is claimed in the EIS (at 7.4) and the Assessment (Table 6.1) the increase in the number of students and staff at the school will result in an additional 231 vehicle trips during peak times. From my own observations of road traffic in the area, this conclusion is an under estimate. My observations suggest vehicles traveling to or from Trinity Grammar School during peak times have only 1 person (a driver) or 2 persons (a driver and passenger) in the vehicle.

Both the EIS and the Assessment acknowledge the project will result in a notable increase in road use by private vehicles, buses and delivery vehicles in the local area. The Assessment (at Figure 6.2) indicates 40% of the newly generated road traffic will travel on Victoria Street. There is already traffic congestion at the Victoria Street and Norton Street roundabout during peak times.

In conclusion, I object to Trinity Grammar School’s proposed development application because: (1) the application fails to show why tree removal is a necessary requirement for the project; and (2) the application under estimates the impact of the extra road traffic in the local area.

In my view, Trinity Grammar School’s proposed development application does not explain how “substantial associated benefits of the project” are in the public interest generally or the interests of the local community.

Dear Sir / Madam

I am writing to object to the proposed Trinity Grammar School Redevelopment.

As a resident of Victoria Street for over 35 years, I am deeply concerned about the large increase in student numbers proposed and the local impacts this proposal entails.

An increase in student numbers of approximately 400 students represents an increase of c.24% in attendees at the school, which is unsustainable within our local environment.

The increase in traffic will be very impactful. This is already a heavily congested area due to Trinity Grammar School patronage. It is very difficult to enter or leave the school surrounding areas at morning and afternoon times in particular, due to the impact of Trinity Grammar traffic. An increase in traffic of this magnitude would not be workable or sustainable.

The proposed mitigants for traffic impacts will not adequately address the traffic and congestion impacts which will bring already heavily congested areas to a certain standstill.

The proposal to remove the traffic island is unsatisfactory and a significant safety hazard. This traffic island assists to mitigate safety impacts from Trinity Grammar traffic and its removal would greatly increase the risk of safety hazards at this junction.

Apart from the long term traffic, congestion, noise and environmental impacts, the proposed construction period of 5-6 years would entail a significant disruption to the local area and a large increase in noise levels. In the Noise Impact Assessment for example, it is noted that "Exceedances of NML's [Noise Management Levels] are predicted in all construction scenarios...". Furthermore, the impact to residents is acknowledged - the Noise Impact Assessment notes "The expected exceedances may be concerning for surrounding residents...".

I am also very concerned about the proposed removal of trees associated with this redevelopment. The trees to be removed are an important aspect of the local streetscape and local heritage and should not be removed. We ask our government to respect and protect our unique heritage.

Trinity Grammar School does not have the right to adversely impact our heritage and residential landscape with further disruption, traffic, congestion and noise.

Over the years the impact on the local area has been significant and detrimental. Trinity Grammar School has changed the local landscape, with our quiet residential neighbourhood becoming a busy thoroughfare, and heritage homes having been been sacrificed for more and more development at Trinity Grammar School. And now more houses and trees are to be demolished and residents are asked to suffer a 6 year construction program which is acknowledged in the impact statements to be impactful and undesirable.

Please do not approve this proposal, which has far reaching and long term negative impacts for our area. It will create traffic and congestion that is not sustainable and will serve to damage an area that is already under significant strain due to local traffic impacts.

Thank you for your consideration.

Regards
Concerned Resident