I am a resident who lives very close to Trinity Grammar School. In fact, I live within 50 metres of the front gates of the school. I object to the latest submission to expand the footprint of the school and increase the student numbers as it will greatly inconvenience residents such as me and my family. The last few years have seen the school expand its student numbers and the activities it supports greatly. Whilst Trinity has very little community involvement outside its own students and their parents, it operates as a 7 day a week leisure centre - complete with staff, students and their families filling the nearby streets with parked cars and traffic. Any expansion of its activities will be unbearable for local residents who already have to contend with outrageous levels of interference by parents especially. The pickup and drop off times see our streets full of double parked cars, cars parked across driveways and parents standing in the streets blocking traffic.School buses idle for up to 1/2 an hour in Hurlstone Avenue whilst they wait to pick up students. In addition, Trinity staff, many who I presume are casual or part time, park for up to 8 hours a day in our streets. Trinity have opposed any time restrictions on parking in our streets, so their staff and students are free to park all day, for free, in local streets. The noise of the traffic is already oppressive. In addition locals have already endured years of construction on the school site and do not deserve another extended period of construction noise, dust and trucks over the next 5 years. This is a school who has virtually no respect for local residents and who has bullied their way into building a veritable commercial hub under the pretext it is running a school. At its most basic - there should be NO increase in student numbers on that site - and no further expansion of the facilities Trinity has to offer. It is also obvious Trinity should not be demolishing any more houses that it owns. We are a residential neighbourhood and do not want more modern multi-storey buildings intruding on our streetscape.

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

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.

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 the project and rely on the attached submission.

Please refer to attachment.

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