As a resident of a residential block adjacent to the redevelopment site,
I'd like to submit the following for consideration: I have concerns,
and am disappointed that, the tallest structure in the development (5
storeys) is opposite and adjacent to the (only) two existing
residential complexes, blocking views both east and north. It appears
the most obstructive portion of the total redevelopment is placed in
the most inconvenient location for surrounding residents! Is it not a
possibility the 5 storey structure be placed on the eastern edge of
the site? Also if the current community garden is to be replaced with
a carpark (wasn't there a song about that?), is there scope to retain
the mature trees, thereby reducing the visual impact of the
redevelopment for residents in adjoining complexes?

I wish to oppose the development. The building exceeds the height
restrictions of the area and it out of keeping with the surrounding
buildings. It will create shadows on neighbouring properties. Height
restrictions need to be respected regardless of the nature of the
building.

While I acknowledge further educational facilities need to be built to
accommodate the growing local residential area, I would like to lodge
my objections to the proposal in its current form for the following
reasons: The size and height of the proposed 3 and 5 story towers
would cast shadows/overshadowing and block sunlight and "result in
reduced daylight". The height and visual bulk of the proposed
construction is out of character with the immediate local area and
exceeds local planning laws. The 5 level building will consume most of
the length of Alexandria Park. This structure is significantly taller
than other premises in the region. Loss of existing privacy level. At
present there is a single story demountable class room immediately in
front of my property. The proposed design includes a 3 story building
where windows will look immediately into bedrooms on level 1 and 2 of
my property. This will then be further exacerbated by the proposal to
utilise school buildings for community use outside of normal school
operating hours. Loss of Visual amenity Increase traffic congestion
and impact on available parking. At present it is near impossible to
secure a street parking space on Buckland Street or Park Road. The
proposed student numbers will make a substantial impact on local
traffic and parking conditions. Current students numbers are
approximately 600 students, this is prosed to more triple to 2200
students. The proposal to use the facilities not only during School
time but as general community facilities after hours and on weekends
will only exacerbate the parking and traffic congestion. How will the
additional noise from the dramatic increase in students be managed?
Have the wind impacts on surrounding properties been considered? In
summary the proposed development in its current form is in my opinion
not fit for purpose and risks substantially altering the local
community to be dominated by a gigantic school. I would not object to
limiting the height of the proposal to 3 stories and to dramatically
reduce the student numbers from the proposed 2200.

I have no problem with the school being improved or upgraded. But I
strongly object to the huge increase in enrolments, and the proposed
building height.....and the impact that this will have on the local
community. Can you please scrap the new building height from 5
levels(!) to 3 instead and limit the number of students accordingly?

Hi, I would like to raise my concerns about the development of the school.
I understand the requirement for the development of the school and bringing it into the 21st century, however, I am concerned about the significant impact this development will have in the community. The growth in student population, staff and parent traffic be it by car or foot.
I believe a 3 storey building would be more fitting with the surrounding area.The 5 storey building would just tower over my home and street. There is no need for additional sports facilities as we have facilities that can be utilised in the surrounding areas which could be transformed or upgraded.

Hi, I would like to make a few objections:
- 59 trees removed (given the lack of oxygen/too much CO2 in the area lack of green => should consider re-planting at least 59 trees or keeping more than 12!)
- construction 7am to 8am => consider 8am to 5pm for residents
- Construction on saturdays mornings 8am to 1pm=> to be removed. Residents need a break from noise in week ends.

Our family (including children) totally oppose the huge re-development proposal for Alexandria Park School for several reasons:
(1) It appears that no foresight was given for earmarking new School areas in the major redevelopment of the Green Square area. There will be thousands more people (and potential children) living in that area with the only real access to high school being Alexandria Park? Really? What happened to proper urban planning? What about investigations into the current Green Square Public school area on Botany Rd for re-development. This area needs more schools, not just one mega school that students in the Waterloo/Green sq/Zetland areas will have to catch a bus to get to, rather than being able to walk to school if a closer school was planned for. The school should limit the numbers of students, not create a mega school.
(2) It seems to me that the only real idea to mitigate the problem above is to make a mega school out of the Alexandria Park precinct. Making a 2200 student school, so nearly a 4x larger school than it currently is (600 students), is not in the best interest of students doing well. Mega schools tend not to perform as well as students essentially become anonymous. It is also not in the best interest of the surrounding houses as 2000+ students, their parents, and teachers will commute to the school, not just during school terms but for after-school and weekend activities. This will saturate the already busy road infrastructure in the surrounding areas. This development would mean that this area would be overshadowed by this mega school and change the whole dynamic.
(3) A 5 storey building at the Buckland St site, would be taller than the other buildings in the area and would set a dangerous precedent for taller apartment-style buildings to be built in the area that have not been approved until now. So unwittingly this re-development would negatively impact the families living in this area, that moved to this area to get away from the tall apartment concrete jungles. The development should be altered to a 3 level limit, that will limit the numbers of students.
(4) I am not happy about the proposed re-development of Alexandria park into sports fields to cater for this mega school. Open parks and green spaces are VITAL in these inner city areas. The existing neighbourhood sports facilities should be used or upgraded. Space gained should be used to extend the existing playground and add additional green space, not remove it

Hi, I would like to say that I am looking forward to getting my child to the primary school once it is refurbished, with the hope of having a better education for everyone and reaching better HSC rankings in the future for the gifted kids.
I would however like to express my concerns about:
- Height of the new school buildings where close proximity of existing residential buildings, blocking light and jeopardising privacy; a differentiated height could be adopted, higher where possible and lower where not.
- I doubt the pre-school is really justified and will add more spending and waste of surface for a so tiny 30ish-capacity; it would be better to reallocate the funding and space to the school itself and the education quality.
- The new car park size needs to be carefully aligned to teachers' needs and not promote unnecessary traffic, while the space could be reallocated to the school and outdoor areas for the kids.
- The potential impact of WestConnex on our kids health and safety on the street has likely not being considered by the WestConnex program, and I haven't seen any consideration in the school redevelopment submission.
Thanks for your consideration.

Please find attached the Port Authority of NSW's submission to SSD 7246 Response to Submissions.