The 6 storey (including car park) building proposed in the east precinct as part of Stage 2 looks to be too bulky and dominant for the area or compared with other buildings. Without precise dimensions and location it is impossible to be definitive but it is liable in the afternoon to shade parts of 11 Elamang Avenue


The 6 storey vertical connection pod proposed for the north precinct seems unnecessarily high by comparison with the buildings nearby - 2 storey above a 1 story carpark - and which it is proposed to connect. Is the pod a forerunner of an application to increase the height of those buildings?

I object to the development application.
This proposed building extends past the complying building codes and does not take neighbouring amenities into consideration.
It's design is not sympathetic to the area, it removes a greater percentage of views to neighbouring properties than is allowed.
There is no consideration for the need for daylight and options to reduce noise and disruption to neighbours.
There is no need for such a huge expansion of this school which encroaches into the residential area in which it sits.
The nature of the proposal goes well beyond its statutory compliance.

I have lived in Kirribilli for 35 years and built the property 50
years ago. In that time there have been massive changes to the village of Kirribilli and most of them due to the traffic for the
3 school campuses within less than one block of each other.Loreto in Carabella Street, St Aloysius Senior School in Upper Pitt Street and Junior School in Burton Street.
There are some days I cannot back out of my drive because of
Children being delivered in large SUV cars to Loretto.
Increasing the school population by100 to over 1100
Will make life even more difficult for residents. Parents park across my drive in the afternoon waiting to pick up their
daughters and can't understand when I ask them to move!

I oppose the proposed development because of excessive height of the building; the destruction of established trees; the lack of re-planting of trees; over-development of the site; increase in traffic because of expanded student numbers; and the fact that the school does not pay rates and makes no contribution to funding the costs (e.g. greater wear and tear on roads/footpaths) it imposes on the North Sydney Council.

Traffic is unsafe in Kirribilli. I was nearly run over by a Loreto's school parent driving her daughter to school in a 4 wheel driver, she was doing around 60 + Km an hour. She turned into Willoughby St from Broughton St. She kept going at a high speed.
I often see school children being dropped off at no standing areas (Carabella St) in busy corners etc., often cars double park to drop off and pick up Loreto students
We like to walk around Kirribilli (our daily exercise) in our local community but feel unsafe now.
Traffic is horrendous in Kirribilli in the morning and afternoon, accidents will happen, cars tend to speed as I presume they are often running late.
Please have consideration for the local community, avoid fatal accidents and maintain current limits on numbers of students at Loreto, also have a better and safer traffic plan.
I suggest students use public transport and walk the short distance to the school as we are very lucky to have public trains, buses and ferries available.
Thank you

Thank you for inviting submissions to this proposal. I'm a neighbour of Loreto and live directly opposite the school and have done so for many years.
I'm sure when Loreto was founded in 1907 it wasn't envisaged that the school would have over 1,000 students. Also that when the streets of Kirribilli were constructed that the planners of the time did not foresee the density of the neighbourhood.
However, we now live in a very dense neighbourhood with quite narrow streets, limited parking and a very large school.
Unfortunately, I feel these points have been glossed over by both the EIS and the Appendix G report by the traffic consultant.
Regarding the EIS I'd like to make the following comments.
1. Neither my family nor I are aware of any attempt by the school or their consultants to contact us.
2. I would be very interested to see if they would furnish to your the department and to all their neighbours a list of who in the neighbourhood they contacted and consulted and when they did so.

Regarding Appendix G I'd like to make the following comments.
1. The effect of the school on the neighbourhood streets is truly significant. This was very much underplayed by this report and the small sample period was either uncharacteristic of the true volume and stress caused by school traffic or perhaps poorly measured.
2. The McLaren report understates the effect of the school traffic in a number of ways by not mentioning the number of senior school students who drive to school each day or the large number of visitors and contractors who do likewise.
3. The most serious and dangerous issue is the parents who currently double park outside the school on Carrabella St, Peel St and Elamang Ave waiting for a parking or pick up sot for their child. This effectively stops the traffic flow in one direction and since the queue can be over 50 meters there is no exit once you are in it. The McLaren report is quite remiss in this area and can I suggest that the Department engages it's own consultant to investigate this very regular problem.
4. School functions, parent meetings, sports training and sports events seemed to be glossed over by the McLaren report which are very regular and natural events in any school.
5. I'm sure when McLaren made it's study there were some vacant parking spots in the street but generally on school days there are none after the teachers, students and other school visitors fill the surrounding streets.
6. The biggest pitch point for traffic flow is at the school pick up in the afternoons between 3-15 pm and 4pm. Unfortunately once again this is not discussed in the McLaren report. For in the mornings parents arrive at different times from say 7am to 8-30am and whilst disruptive it is nowhere near as disruptive as the afternoons when most of the junior girls leave at the same time and their parents or minders are waiting to pick them up by double parking until their daughters are available for collection. The school teachers are careful and conscious of the childrens safety and are carefully making sure that the girls are only picked up in a designated area but unfortunately thereby creating a problem for all the surrounding traffic as the carers wait in a long double parked queue.

In summary, no one wants to object to a school wishing to improve it's facilities but in this case the applicant is trying to grow an inner city school which has no supporting road infrastructure for the construction and ongoing operation of the facility.

I'd like to suggest that the department makes it's own independent enquiries into he traffic flow and parking issues created by the school as it is currently operated. Further I believe that Loreto should include parking and traffic flow solutions to as an amendment to this or to any new application.

Thanks for taking the time for reading my comments.

See attached submission

See attached submission

See attached submission document

Please refer to attachment for information relating to Support for Stolthaven Mayfield Terminal Facility - Stage 3.