To Who it may concern,


Re: New Student pick - up and drop off


The proposed plan nominates that all vehicles enter and or exit using Union Street. This would cause traffic congestion both in the morning and the afternoon.


Uses of Union, Chuter, Thomas, Bank , Dumbarton and Lavender Streets and Blues Point road will be heavily affected, along with the streets of Waverton as more traffic will have to use Bay Road.


These proposed changes and large increase in student numbers will only add to the problems that already severely affect William, Edward & Mount Streets.


I object to this application .



Kind regards

I DO NOT give permission for my name or address to be made available to the proponent, other interested public authorities, nor for it to appear on the Department's website.


I have made NO political donations in the last 2 years.

I object to this application. The provisions made for traffic management in Shore School's application are inadequate and will result in significant congestion throughout Union St and the roads leading to and from it. The provision for vehicles dropping off and picking up students to enter Shore via Union St is utterly untenable.

Union St is already the primary thoroughfare for residents travelling throughout the McMahons Point, Waverton and Wollstonecraft areas. Importantly, it provides the primary alternative to the Pacific Highway for vehicles exiting the Harbour Bridge travelling throughout the North Sydney and Lane Cove Municipalities. Crucially, this includes commercial and heavy vehicles. Blues Point Rd is also a major thoroughfare for several Sydney Bus routes.

The proposed driveway is 100m away from the traffic lights of Union St and Blues Point Rd. Drop off must occur during morning peak hour, and pick-up will occur at the beginning of peak hour, and crucially when commercial and heavy vehicle traffic is at its height. Where vehicles enter from the East, traffic in Blues Point Rd and Lavender St will be clogged and brought to a standstill. When exiting the Harbour Bridge at the Lavender St exit and travelling through to North Sydney it is necessary to travel through the aforementioned intersection. Where vehicles enter from the West, traffic congestion will block Dumbarton St and Bank St. Bank St is a dead end and Union St is its only exit. Shore's plan has traffic entering from both the East and West of Union St. Union St only has two lanes, one for each direction of traffic. At the proposed point of entry Union St is 7m wide and footpaths on both sides of the street are narrow. There is not enough room on either side of the street for an extra lane to be added to either side of Union St. Were this traffic plan to be approved the entire street would be blocked resulting in mass congestion likely effecting traffic on the Harbour Bridge. Surely this can't be approved.

Surely a thorough traffic management analysis would reveal the untenable nature of this proposal particularly regarding the wider impact on North Sydney, the third largest CBD in Australia.

I do not give permission for my name or address to be made
available to the proponent, other interested public authorities, nor for
it to appear on the Department's website.

I have made no political donations in the last 2 years.






Sincerely

Re: MP 10_0150 & MP 10_0149 - Graythwaite Concept Plan
I OBJECT TO THIS APPLICATION.

I DO NOT give permission for my name or address to be made available to the proponent, other interested public authorities, nor for it to appear on the Department's website.
I have made NO political donations in the last 2 years.
COMMENTS:

My concerns with the proposed new developments at Shore are in three general areas: Building regulations; natural environment and ecosystem; traffic.

New school buildings with a capacity for 350+ students. These buildings are above the regulatory height, size and bulk as they are proposed to date. There has been little consideration for visual or noise impacts on local residents.
Trees to be removed will greatly affect the flora and fauna of the area (the micro ecosystem) and they will impinge on the current views from many residents in Bank St.

The traffic impact of so many new students will be enormous in Union St, already difficult for traffic flow in peak times. The drop off and pick up points within the interior of the school needs to be further assessed and alternative routes through Hunter Cres and William St thoroughly investigated. Union St is definitely not the best option. What's more there are residents on this street who live directly opposite the school entrance. The traffic and noise directly and severely impacts on their residential lifestyle. As community members they have a right to privacy and quiet.

In relation to the above, if Union St is made a major thoroughfare for Shore traffic, the surrounding streets to the south and west, Chuter, Thomas, Mitchell, Victoria, Dumbarton and Blues Point Road will be subject to heavier traffic flows.


These issues are not frivolous ones, they are creating unnecessary aggravations that can be resolved. There needs to be further consultation, real consultation with residents and the community regarding these matters.


Yours sincerely

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



I OBJECT TO THIS APPLICATION.

I DO NOT give permission for my name or address to be made available to the proponent, other interested public authorities, nor for it to appear on the Department's website.

I have made NO political donations in the last 2 years. In fact I've never made any.

COMMENTS. As a former McMahons Point resident and a resident of North Sydney I object to Shore School's proposal to over-develop the Graythwaite site which will result in:



the loss of nearly 100 trees and encroachment on the landscaped areas of Graythwaite by large buildings
traffic chaos which will result from an extras 450 students and 45 staff
gridlock and/or accidents on the steep, narrow Union Street when children are dropped off and collected.


Graythwaite was donated to the people in perpetuity - please ensure that the community is not left with only old photos of a magnificent heritage which is now a gated enclave for the few.

Major Projects Assessment
Department of Planning and Infrastructure
GPO Box 39, Sydney NSW 2001
Email: [email protected]
Fax: (02) 9228 6455


Re: MP10_0150 & MP10_0149 - Graythwaite Concept Plan.
We are writing to object to Shore School's proposals for traffic management and pick-up/drop-offs of school students in Union and William Street.

The traffic associated with this application and an extra 450 students and 45 teachers would create huge issues for the local community.

These issues have not been adequately assessed in this proposal. The traffic options are unworkable.

Union St is already near to capacity and could not seriously be considered as an entry or exit for a pickup/drop off facility for the school. Union St has only one safe pedestrian crossing - the Blues Pt Rd lights. As a collector road, the current average hourly movements of over 450 cars per hour puts it near maximum capacity and any further traffic impacts from the school could create gridlock in the surrounding streets.

Waiting times to access the junction at Union St/Blues Point Road are currently excessive and cars back up on Union, Lavender and Blues Point Road during school peak pick-up /drop off times.

William St is the route for the "walking bus" - a "green" initiative implemented by the local public primary school which has been in place for many years. The option to use William St for parking for Shore School buses would again cause congestion and it potentially dangerous for the large number of pedestrians (including school children) using this street as a short cut from McMahons Point up to the Pacific Highway.

The Shore School must be able to deal with its impacts on its own site and not export them to the local community. This application does not achieve that.

WE OBJECT TO THIS APPLICATION.

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