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,

I would like to lend my personal support to the application relating to the Graythwaite proposal from Shore School.

Dear Sir/ Madam

I am writing in vehement objection to the Shore school proposal MP 10_0149. The school has refused to appropriately address any of the major concerns of the local community including the western boundary buildings being too high and not erecting any marking poles for the community to view the revised building bulk.

Aside from this the traffic and parking congestion has not been addressed appropriately. The area is already struggling with traffic and parking issues and adding a further 450 students (either self driving or dropped off by private car) and 45 teachers will create a disastrous situation.

I urge the council to seek a revision of the plans and consider an app ropriate community consultation where the school asexually takes on board the local communities concerns in revised plans.

Yours sincerely

Union Street is already a very busy thoroughfare for traffic during peak times, and the idea of additional motor vehicles in large numbers over a relatively short time interval turning into the Shore school complex then exiting again without some extensive remodelling of the entrances is very shortsighted. At the very least, ALL school traffic should be made to travel West-East along Union Street by preventing right turns, then ensuring a properly constructed lead-in/lead-out lane at the junction points.

I OBJECT to the proposed Shore school development. The effect on parking and traffic in the area will be very deterimental to character of the area and the local community.

I strong urge the local council to reconsider this proposal.

4 December 2011


Major Projects Assessment
Department of Planning
GPO Box 39
Sydney NSW 2001


Attn: Ben Eveleigh


Dear Sir


Graythwaite - Over Development by Shore School
Concept Plan (MP10_0149) and Stage 1 Project Application (MP10_0150)

I wish to lodge objections to the revised plans by Shore for the redevelopment of the Graythwaite site.

For the record, I live directly opposite Graythwaite Park on Union Street and wish to express my strong concerns and opposition to the proposed redevelopment plan as submitted by Shore School under Part 3A. I confirm that I have made no politica l donations.

Firstly, I would like to state that I do not object to Stages 1&2. It is the Stage 3 development that I wish to lodge my objection to.

It is my understanding that, so far as possible, it is a basic provision of good planning that developments should "internalise" any disruption to neighbours.

The proposed West building does not do this. The building is too large, overshadows the homes on Bank Street and by adding an additional 450 students and 45 staff, will create traffic chaos if allowed to proceed.

Before dealing with the latest plans I would like to record that I have previously made submissions in respect of the first proposal by Shore. I do not feel that the revisions, which I see as tokenism, have done anything to alleviate my previous concerns. Accordingly, and rather than repeat them here, I would refer you to my previous letters of 21 February 2011 and 10 March 2011 and note that I do not feel these have been dealt with in the revised application.

Turning now to the revised application, I am very concerned that the current plans for Shore's expansion do not provide an acceptable traffic solution. The proposal provides something like 8 options but doesn't state which one they propose.

Furthermore, there is no supporting traffic consultant's report.

I feel that as a result, the Stage 3 development should be excised from the current process and be re-submitted providing a properly thought out and justified traffic solution. Each options effect on local traffic should have been analysed and I believe these would show that the Union Street options, at least, do not provide sufficient waiting space and would result in cars queuing on Union Street.



I can only assume that this was not included as such a solution is unacceptable to the school.

Notwithstanding the fact that Shore has included 8 options in their revised plans, none of these adequately satisfies the issue of cars queuing for the afternoon pick up. The plans would only permit about 14 cars queuing on site (my guesstimate) while the report states that about 132 cars will make the afternoon pick up with an average 35 cars waiting. These will presumably wait in Union Street either trying to turn right into the site or queuing up the hill and blocking through traffic and the buses. Thus during the afternoon pick up Union St would become both unsafe and grid locked!

The report makes no comment on pedestrian safety yet with this number of cars crossing and/or exiting onto Union Street, this is a very real issue. This is further heightened by the fact that the main time is when children, from both Shore and other schools are returning to their homes.

As stated above, I believe the application should be rejected on this point alone, clearly the numerous options, which the proponent states "presents the full range of options investigated for a new afternoon pick up area for Shore school students" do not satisfy the basic principles of internalising and pedestrian safety.

The school occupies an enormous parcel of land and to suggest that 8 options represent the full range of alternatives is either incompetent or at best misleading. The school regularly holds functions and is able to park cars on the school oval. Thus one alternative is to utilise the oval for pick up and drop off. I am no traffic engineer or consultant but why has no consideration been given to the Centenary building (cars could utilise the carpark here) or the existing Graythwaite turning circle or the basket ball courts on Mount Street...................clearly the only alternatives considered are those that inconvenience local residents but not the school.

It is unreasonable for the Department of Planning to approve a masterpl an
without knowing the full impact of that development - the application should therefore be rejected due to lack of clarity.

Summary
My submission can be summarised as follows:
* I have no objection to Stages 1&2
* The Stage 3 Building should be excised from the application and the applicant should be made to re-submit its plans for the Stage 3 West building when it can satisfy the basics of a clearly thought out, analysed and supported traffic management plan that internalises the issues as much as possible.
* While not directly affected, I also feel that the height and size of the buildings and their closeness to the homes on Bank Street should be ameliorated.


Yours faithfully,

I fully support the proposal for the restoration and development of the Graythwaite site. The school has the opportunity and funds to restore not only the mansion with very minimal impact on neighbours, but also maintain the extensive grounds - both of which have been neglected for far too long. If approval for this restoration continues to be drawn out any longer, I fear that the house will not stand up to any more neglect and be lost permanently.

I wish to register my objection to the revised proposal for the development of the Graythwaite estate site by Shore school.

I have perused the revised submission and do not believe the revision is substantial enough to allay the fears from the community that this development is in fact an over-development of the site, particularly if the concept plan is approved, and will create havoc on our streets and have adverse outcomes for the residents in Bank Street and Bank Lane.

I have also looked at the supposed revision to the west building and I still believe that this building will adversely impact local residents. The development still does not adhere to the height requirements of the local government area.

This also goes to the degradation of historic and heritage elements on the site. The removal of so many wonderful trees and, ultimately, with the intention of the concept plan, to completely alienate the whole community from the Graythwaite site. Being able to look up from the grassed terraces to the old mansion is a privilege; such a wonderful open space in the inner city is rare indeed! The concept plan paves the way for the whole of the beloved Graythwaite site to be excised from the community and become simply a compound for the amenity of the school alone. This was certainly not the intention of the original owner of the property when he bequeathed the property to the people of North Sydney!

The general view of the community is that this school chooses to build on the perimeter of its land leaving all the amenity for the students and school staff in the interior. This is profoundly unfair and arrogant and is detrimental in terms of aesthetics to the rest of the community.

In respect of the proposals submitted by Shore to manage the traffic to be generated by increased numbers of students and staff, none are satisfactory to the local community. Shore must manage the generated traffic wholly within the grounds; there is certainly enough land to enable this. The future of local streets, local residents, pedestrians and generally, will amount to chaos! Someone will need to take responsibility for the ensuing traffic chaos once the proposal becomes reality and the schools drop off/pick up routine becomes a reality and then negatively and dramatically impacts our streets.

For years this school has caused unimaginable chaos in street such as Mount, Edward and William. Valuable car parking spaces have been removed to the advantage of Shore and its buses! This is not to mention the queue of cars already in pubic streets as parents drop off/pick up students. All this with North Sydney station just metres from the school doorstep! Now, with the proposed increase in student and staff numbers, this chaos is set to be borne by Union Street as well. None of these streets have the capacity to support this level of traffic; these are suburban streets.

Shore, residing in an inner city CBD and being a member of the community, must take the decision that now is the time consider the local community ahead of a broad take-over of the community!

I respectfully request that the Department refuse the application and consider the community when assessing the future of any development application in respect of the Graythwaite estate.

I do not wish my personal details be made available to the proponent.

I do not make political donations.

Thank you.

I strongly object to the shore school proposal for development. The local community has not been consulted and the affect on the natural bushland and traffic in the area will be devastating.

I seek the local councils reconsideration of this proposal and would like a formal public enquiry into the development.

I support the concept of Shore restoring the historic Graythwaite house and and grounds, with the addition of two purpose-build buildings that provide economic viability,support the school's purpose and blend in well into the site.

Shore will provide an economic use for the building which will ensure its future preservation as an historic building, as it uses and preserves other historic buildings in its grounds.