To whom it may concern...

Having been a resident of the McMahon's Point Region for some years, I was disturbed to hear that the proposed development of Graythwaite and The Shore Expansion Programme would add - 450 students and 50 staff.

This will undoubtedly result in considerable congestion in the streets of McMahons Point, Lavender Bay and North Sydney.

These streets barely cope now with the traffic, especially during school arrival and departure times.

This addition will bring an increased, unwanted and unsafe burden.

It won't be long before this will result in serious injury to person or property damage in the area.

I urge you to reconsider this unnecessary over development.

Sincerely

Stewart Kennedy

The revised application for the Graythwaite redevelopment has many problems from our point of view. The revised application will result in dangerous traffic congestion as the proposed pick-up and drop off in Union street is situated on the crest of the hill in Union street. Traffic approaching form both east and west are unsighted until almost at the school gate.

Living in Thomas street we anticipate being subject to a massive increase of traffic in our quiet suburban street.

The lack of consultation with the locals from the school authorities is arrogant in the extreme. This has been our experience with the school over a great number of years.

We hope the department will reject this application until the concerns of the local community have been addressed.

Regards
Victoria and George Liddle
60 Thomas Street
McMahons Point

A home owner living at 4 Short St, North Sydney, I wish to make a submission regarding the above plan and Stage 1 application, both of which I oppose for the reasons outlined below.



I am particularly concerned by the failure to address signicant traffic issues until Stage 2 as obviously decisions made concerning Stage 1 will impact on the subsequent stages.



While the Graythwaite Transport and Accessiblity Impact Statement includes a street layout, there is no mention in the text that Lord and Short are dead-end streets and that the only vehicular entry and exit for residents is via the end of Edward Street near Shore school. Currently the phalanx of four-wheel-drive vehicles dropping off and picking up children at the prep school each school morning and afternoon makes both extremely difficult. The line of cars often stretches into the main section of Edward Street and also Mount Street, creating a traffic snarl which residents are forced to negotiate.



No additional pickup facility is proposed for Stage 1, even though Edward Street gets the majority of pickup traffic (56 per cent according to the statement). This means that Shore parents will continue to take precedence over residents because of their shear numbers -- a situation which is hardly equitable.



The above-mentioned transport document states that pickup facilities will be addressed in Stage 2 "depending on whether there is an increase in Preparatory School numbers" (page 45). Given that option A for Stage 2 is an increase in prep school numbers of 100 (page 40), this is disingenuous to say the least and entirely ignores the amenity of local residents. The school apparently sees nothing wrong with funneling hundreds of cars down a narrow residential street twice a day and adding to existing traffic congestion in the future.



Another traffic issue not addressed in Stage 1 and perhaps never to be addressed is the impact on Edward, Lord and Short streets of parking by family of Shore boys and by driving-age Shore students. I have on occasion arrived home to find that my private off-street parking space has been appropriated. How do I know who the culprits are? When a boy in Shore uniform arrives to drive the car away you can be fairly sure of an identification. Complaints to the school have fallen on deaf ears.



The school is showing a blantant disregard for its neighbours and should address the critical issue of parking in its Stage 1 application. In doing so it should aim to direct cars away from a narrow suburban street that is patently inadequate for pickup purposes.



Political donations: I declare that I am not currently a donor to any political party in NSW or Australia, nor have I been a donor in the previous two years.





Julie Harders

4 Short St

North Sydney NSW 2060

t: 9969 4456 and m: 0414 482 021

Director

Government Land and Social Projects

Dept of Planning





Email to: [email protected]



Attention Mr Ben Eveleigh







SUBMISSION IN RELATION TO :



Application Number - Concept Plan (MP 10_0149) and

Stage 1 Project Application (MP10_0150)



Location - 20 Edward St, North Sydney

Lot 2 in DP 539853 and part Lot 1 in DP 120268.



Proponent - SYDNEY CHURCH OF ENGLAND GRAMMAR SCHOOL (Shore)



Council Area - North Sydney Council





Submitted by :



Name : Julie Bindon

Address : 37 Bank Street North Sydney, NSW 2060



I have made no political donations in the past two years.



I have no objection to this submission being made publicly available.



Submission Below.



I support the Stage 1 works proposed provided the Union Street fencing is reduced in height and/or opened up to allow full visibility of the lower terrace and House from the street for the entire street frontage.



The consent authority is able to partially approve the development, and I would support approval of the Stage 1 works ONLY. I strongly object to any approval for the proposed subsequent stages 2 and 3 until:

a) The number of additional students is reduced to a level that can be sustained on the site in terms of containing its impacts on the locality;

b) All loading and unloading of students, whether by private vehicle or by coaches used by the School, must be contained on the School's land in a safe manner that does not impact on the local street system. The current proposal fails to do so.

c) The West Building envelope is reduced in height (to not exceed 8.5 metres) and footprint (to be less than that of the historic House) and is setback at least another 6 metres from the western boundary than currently proposed.





The proposed Stage 2 and 3 development is unsatisfactory, and should be refused for the following reasons:



1. It constitutes an overdevelopment of the site in terms of the increased population, and the unresolved impacts this will have on the traffic, access, parking and student loading facilities on site. The School must properly address these issues. These critical issues cannot be left to a future date in the hope they can be resolved as part of a future stage DA. The resolution of these issues is absolutely fundamental to establishing the capacity of the School to accommodate such a major increase in its population.



It is a long standing planning principle that development must internalize or contain its own impacts where this is at all possible. In this case there is no sound reason for externalising the significant impacts of the traffic generated by student drop off and pick up, and by the Schools coaches. The use of the local narrow streets for these school purposes impacts on the operation of the affected Streets ( William Street, Edward Street, Lord Street, Union Street and Bank Street) and the resultant congestion is excessive and dangerous.



The School campus has been significantly expanded with the acquisition of Graythwaite and is now over 7 hectares in area. I have no doubt this campus can accommodate the on-site loading of coaches and new student drop off and pick up areas. These facities must be included, properly documented, and fully assessed in terms of their impacts before any Concept Plan is approved. The failure to do so is contrary to sound planning practice and cannot be justified. The current application raises several options for management of student loading / unloading; none of which work. None allow for sufficient onsite queuing of vehicles, are there are very real difficulties of inadequate sight lines at Union Street which result in safety issues for motorists and pedestrians. Even the School's own consultants acknowledge these options all need further assessment.



2. The proposed West Building which accommodates the bulk of the students and teachers remains too large, bulky and unnecessarily close to the immediately adjoining Bank Street houses including my own. It also exceeds the 8.5 metre height limit in the existing and draft LEP, without any sound justification for doing so. Because the topography slopes down towards the neighbouring private properties the dominating effect of the additional building height and it's mass is exacerbated. The building remains unacceptably overbearing and visually intrusive, notwithstanding the introduction of additional landscaping to try and mask it.



This building can in fact be moved further east without impacting adversely on the heritage significance of the House and outbuildings or the cultural landscape and significant trees. this has already been demonstrated by an alternative scheme prepared by local residents, and submitted to the Department of Planning. Furthermore the alternative proposal does not result in a major loss of floor space for the School. It is a most reasonable compromise, and one that I would support. One of the advantages of the alternative proposal is that it narrows the face of the western elevation, reducing the exposure to the adjoining houses. It also complies with the 8.5 metre height control, which is appropriate for this Heritage site located within a residential area that is also a conservation area. The design of the current envelope reverses the fan shape proposed by the residents, so its broadside faces the affected residences, compounding the bulkiness and visual impact.



Should any building envelope be approved west of the heritage House then strict and specific conditions of consent must be applied to prevent any noise emission from the building and completely protect the privacy of the adjoining dwellings, including my own.



Noise impacts must be contained by sealing the West Building with fixed glazing, on all the west, north and south windows, and by the denial of all access for students to the area west or north of the West Building alignment. It is also important to add a condition of any consent that there be no vehicular access for any purpose, including for construction, along the western side of the site adjacent to the neighbouring properties. These access controls will also help mitigate privacy impacts by ensuring the boundary areas are not used by students, workers or staff.



Privacy impacts must also be mitigated by the inclusion of the dense screen planting (as proposed) and this must be established early. Fixed privacy screens on the west, north and south elevations must also be included to preclude any potential for down-looking into the rear yards of any potentially affected houses on the east side of Bank Street.





Julie Bindon, BTP DipLE, FPIA

Dear sir, I wanted to lodge my objection to the planning application for the ref as above.


As a property owner at 113 Union Street almost opposite the site we believe that the planned changes will have a major impact on traffic at Union Street.


Kind Regards,
Andrew Simpson

Fundamentally I disagree that Shore School should be allowed to seek to increase its student numbers by 450 -500. I do not believe this is beneficial to the school community or educational standards and at the current site it will have a significant detrimental impact on the local environment.



In terms of the revised plan I have the following comments:-

· The revised plan for the West Building continues to be non-conforming in regard to height standards this should not be allowed to proceed as it will unacceptably impact the surrounding residential area.

· Union street should not be used as a student drop off or collection point.

· I am pleased to have it reconfirmed that the tennis court below the headmaster's house has no plan for change of use and continues to be excluded from the Graythwaite development programme or any other development under consideration by Shore School.



In the event that a plan is approved to allow Shore School to increase its student numbers, then parents that wish to drop off or collect their children should be instructed to do this at a separate location that has the capacity, perhaps the Shore playing fields, with Shore employing buses to transfer students to and from this location to the school. This would remove the inevitable traffic burden on North Sydney, Waverton and McMahons Point and significantly reduce the occurrence of those that infringe the RTA traffic rules and policies despite whatever protective procedures are employed.



Regards

I am making a submission on behalf of Edward Precinct which borders on the northern side of the Graythwaite landholding. Firstly we appreciate the applicant providing its' traffic planners at our recent 7 December Precinct meeting. This gave more colour and detail to the various possible traffic arrangements. The Precinct engaged relatively early with the applicant in the process.

1. One of Precints' initial and most concerning issues was traffic which the applicant has now stepped up to and sought to manage. We fully support these attempts and particularly Option One with entry from William Street and exit via left hand turn to Union. North Sydney Council should be required to provide a Traffic Management Plan to support this. Currently we understand that they have a 2003 TMP which only covers the CBD. The current mire of traffic at both dropoff and pickup times at the Edward/Mount St junctions has been aggravated by Council approving large buildings on the western side of the Pacific H'way, by increasing student numbers at the ACU, more visitors to Mary Mackillop post-Sainthood etc. Edward St is categorised as a local street and should not be taking more than 2-300 movements.

2. From a safety perspective the jam of traffic down the south end of Edward St that you can see in Council photographs (see NSC submission) is not accptable. If there is an emergency in Lord or Short Sts at 3.15 no emergency vehicles would be able to access these dead end streets due to the convoy of 4wds and other vehicles that clog Mount and Edward Sts at this time. This is one of the main reasons to support Option 1. Limiting parental dropoffs to Grade 3 only may alleviate this. A condition on review of this post implementation should be inserted. Yr 3 pickups may also need to move to the Hunter Crescent option.

3. The applicant's bus use also contributes to the choke on Mount and Edward Sts. The Precinct would support pickup from William St (in conjunction with Option One which should limit through traffic). Council should be requested to support this by providing a bus pick up zone from 2pm to 5pm on William St north of Blue St (with buses to turn motors off while waiting). Appropriate studies and works supporting movements of buses from Blue to William should be done in support. Council should also implement restricted parking hours on Saturday in the broader Precinct to prevent even further impacts on parking availability in surrounding streets from increased parents and students attending sport etc on a Saturday morning. Or the applicant could be conditioned to provide onsite parking on Satrurdays in their two available carparks.

4. The other outstanding issue that Precinct has concerns public access/thoroughfare. Other School sites provide either permanent or temporary access to the public (this may occur at the applicants Northbridge site for example). Public benefit is required under this application as well as access/thoroughfare being incorporated in the current DCP from memory. We would support the State in investigating more deeply possible public benefit/access/thoroughfare.

5. Precinct is also concerned about the envelope of the East Building. The adjacent building has a peaked roof and this flat-topped 3 flr block doesn't match either this building or provide appropriate curtilage to the Graythwaite building. In Precinct's view it should be lowered to 2 flrs on the nthn façade or have a set back to step it up. It also will be the main aspect from the Edward Precinct heritage area and would denigrate this. There are lots of listed buildings both on and off site from Mary Mackillop to the Prep School buildings to the terraces at the top of Lord St. Currently the aspect risks jeopardising this. If the Applicant is having problems with capacity it should look to the Western Building. They have kindly provided all sorts of setbacks and amelioration to this building. Edward Precinct has seen much greater amenity impacts from Pt 3A proposals bordering on the eastern side of the Precinct including 177 Pacific Highway for example.

6. Precinct supports Council's startegy on parking and would not support a further 48 parking spaces on the site. The site currently supports two large carparks. Teachers seem to presume that they have a right to park onsite whereas they (and the Applicant) should be looking to alternate methods of getting to the site. Council's Traffic Management Plan or strategy should be supported in this respect. A further 48 movements to these local and minor collector roads, all presumably happening between 7.45 and 8.30am, and combined with the extra parental dropoffs should not be supported in Precinct's view.

Precinct would like to comment on the quality of the applicant's advisors and consultants. We see a reasonable range of work from DAs and Pt 3As. The applicant should be complimented on the quality of the retained consultants and most of the work that they have produced. As always they act under instructions which can inhibit their output.

Thankyou for your time and consideration of these comments.
Angus Finney per Edward Precinct

re: MP 10_0149-Graythwaite Concept Plan


This is a letter of objection regarding Shore School's Over-Development of Historic Graythwaite in McMahon's Point, Sydney.


Graythwaite is an historic ANZAC estate and gardens that the NSW Labor Government sold off to Shore Private Boys School in 2010 against the community wishes.


We object to Shore's development for five main reasons.


First, there has been very little community consultation about the development of Graythwaite even though this estate has been in the hearts of the community for many decades. The suggestions that have been offered by the community have been ignored.


Second, there are plans to remove historic fig tress that were planted over 100 years ago, and the justification of the removal of 80+ other trees has not been justified. One aspect of Sydney that distinguishes it amongst major cities of the world is the conservation of large amounts of bushland and large trees even in the most built up areas around the harbour. Removal of the Graythwaite bushland will reduce the green space of Sydney Harbour.


Third, the additional 450 students and 50 staff will significantly increase the already unacceptable congestion at Edward, Lord and Mount Streets, and the parking in local residential streets by senior students on a daily basis. The massive influx of cars into the areas around Shore causes traffic chaos, and residents are not longer able to find places to park in their own street, even though they have parking permits. Shore's proposals make no attempt to address the increased parking or traffic due to the development, and hence shift the load of traffic and parking entirely onto the community, who are already suffering from Shore's lack of responsibility for their own traffic.


Fourth, the Stage 3 building envelope is unacceptable in its current form. It is excessive and unacceptable in terms of its height, bulk, and scale (approximately 30 metres x by 35 metres in area and over 5 levels); it does not comply with the 8 metre maximum height limit for the adjoining residential area (in places it is over 14 metres); it will have significant visual and shadow impacts on the adjoining houses within the conservation area to the west and south-west; the use of this building for classrooms will have an unacceptable noise impact and loss of privacy for the adjoining owners; the proposal does not satisfy the relevant noise standards.


Fifth, the Design Principles report prepared by the heritage consultants for Shore identifies a further area (in the south-west corner of the site) that they think is suitable for future development. This indicates that further development of this heritage site is already planned. These areas need to be protected by The Minister.


Thank you for considering the opinions of the community who will be very much affected by Shore's ever-increasing expansionism at the expense (and without any regard for) the community.

Dear Mr Eveleigh,

Unfortunately a temporary suspension of email services for BigPond customers since yesterday has meant my email regarding the Graythwaite development has been delayed. I do hope it will be accepted.

Having read a number of submissions regarding the initial submission, and looked at the amended submission, it would appear many concerns have been addressed.

Tree Loss
The Earthscape Horticultural Services report (v5 dated 19 October 2011) has explained very well the reasons behind removal of certain trees. Not all trees are good trees and not all trees must be retained. The opportunity exists for additional screening planting at the boundary with residential lots, which will be of benefit to those residents as well as the school. Retention and reinstatement of the Victorian garden - particularly in the vicinity of Graythwaite House - is important in the context of the historical setting. The recommendations included might well form part of the conditions of consent.

Loss of Open Space
Given more than 70% of the site is retained as open space, it would seem the adjoining owners' concerns regarding loss of open space are unfounded. Their concerns regarding loss of public access to privately-owned open space cannot form part of the considerations.

West Building
The amended concept would appear more reasonable on the site and sits better with the contours, without the visual dominance of the earlier scheme, by separation into two elements.

Parking & Traffic
If insufficient parking was included in the proposal, objections would be made to that also. Providing additional parking would seem prudent.

Heritage Value
Retention of Graythwaite in this form is a successful retention of an item of heritage value. The application indicates it will be renovated/restored where appropriate and maintained properly in the future. It will be enjoyed and treasured by generations of Shore staff and students. While it will not be in the public realm, it will be available to a wider school community.

In short, I support the amended proposal for Graythwaite.

Sincerely
YE Middleton
BArch Hons (UTS), BA (Comm)
Registered Architect

Dear Department of Planning,

Re: MP 10_0150 & MP 10_0149 - Graythwaite Concept Plan

I write to request that the Revised Environmental Assessment for Graythwaite Concept Plan and Stage 1 Project Application not be approved.

So far as the traffic disruption is concerned, the revised plan offers little improvement over the previous plan (i.e., only reducing the number of additional students from 500 to 450). This represents only a token reduction and will do little to prevent an excessive increase of traffic not only on Union street, but also the smaller connecting streets, such as Chuter street, where the quiet residential amenity will be lost.

The revised plan also does not include a publically accessible pathway between Union street and Edward street. Such a pathway would not necessarily need to disrupt students and staff at the school.

Thank you for your consideration,