Concept Proposal and Stage 1 application for a new independent school in North Sydney

Please refer to detailed submission prepared by Savills on behalf of the Wenona School dated 8 May 2023.

Dear Mr Kim,

Please see attached, I also attach submissions made from the community who may or may not have lodged them with the Department. Regards

It is not fitting to have a K-12 school at 41 McLaren St for the following reasons:
- Traffic. North Sydney is already densely populated, being established as a core business district in Sydney. With additional traffic, especially during peak hours, this will cause increased congestion and decrease efficiency for many people going to work.
- Safety hazards for both commuters, students, and children due to increased traffic on both the roads and pedestrian area.
- Already an abundance of schools near North Sydney CBD

I object to the proposal for SSD-46014456, 41 McLaren Street North Sydney.
I have attached a paper containing my points against this proposal.

Simply put, the proposal as submitted will not work. The basic premise of the school is that students and staff will travel to and from school on public transport. There is little to no truth that this will occur. The truth is that since COVID, parents have taken to protect their children from crowding on public transport, and have chosen to deliver their children via the safety of vehicles. All traffic assumptions are resultantly wrong and in practice will not work.

I recommend the Government, and the proponent must look at and examine the total traffic management situation within North Sydney prior to moving forward, taking into account the combined impact of the 168 Walker Street and 173-179 Walker street developments. The reason to suggest his is two fold. 1) to save the community from a congestion that will result in a situation that will never be reversible, and 2) save the proponent from failure. Failure because their proposed venture will fail when potential constituents fail to subscribe to the school due to traffic density frustration.

As a government, do your due diligence and make a determination against this proposal based on facts around the real situation that relates to traffic management in the precinct.

Regards

Harold Henderson

We are owner occupiers in an apartment complex, 231 Miller Street, which at the rear borders the proposed development.

North Sydney CBD already accommodates approximately 8,000 students in private, public and selective education approx 5,000 within half a sq km of the proposed development. The majority of whom tavel from out of area. This is an increasingly densely populated area with a sever limitation on parking, and pressure on public transport. Ingress and egress for the proposed site is on a narrow street lane which is opposite the new Aura development. All vehicles need to travel along Mclaren street irrespective of their final destination. If they wish to travel north along Miller they need to first access Walker then Rydge then turn right onto Miller. To do this they need to navigate the traffic gridlock around Wenona and then queue on Rydge which curenlty only allows for 1 at best 2 right hand turners per phase.
Last week Monte had an excursion which required 3 or 4 buses, they left Miller St and turned left into Mclaren so they could access the Pacific Highway. THe resultant traffic jam took more than half an hour to clear with drivers dangerously navigating Miler Street on the wrong side of the road.

The footprint of the proposed development will not allow for outdoor play areas for the students and therefore we can only asume buses will be utilised to take children to sports venues, further adding to the congestion.

From a pure safety perspective I believe the ability of the emergency services to respond to a call out in this area during the peak traffic times of pre and post school hours could be severly hampered and therefore safety of the residents, students, workers and visitors in the area will be compromised.

Finally, our ability to enjoy of life will be impaired, the noise that school children can and do make when they congregate in groups pre school, at lunch time and worst of all after school is significant.

It is highly inappropriate to consider a large school as an “infill” development in the middle of a high-density residential area. It will clearly compromise the amenity of all surrounding residents in hundreds of apartments.

1. Traffic
- already in gridlock at peak hours and school times – the proposal does not address this fact except with poor “modelling”
- existing local roads cannot support any additional traffic
- ingress/egress from the area is already difficult
- one way lane access for the school would be a disaster
- difficult first responder access and/or emergency egress
- the constant spillover of queueing school cars into Walker and Miller Streets from McLaren Street would lock traffic in the entire area not to mention stationary cars under the school building causing noxious fumes for students

2. Future traffic pressure from other developments in the area have not been fully and properly defined or taken into account
- New Aqualand development at 168 Walker Street has its only access from McLaren Street directly opposite the proposed school – 300-plus vehicles – so that two opposing driveways will be competing for egress into McLaren Street which itself will be at the mercy of Miller and Walker Street traffic allowing entry
- 45 McLaren Street on the corner of Walker is proposing 100-plus vehicles magnifying the above issue
- Potential development in Hampden Street – 240-plus vehicles - ditto
- Western Harbour Tunnel – actual additional impacts are unclear and not properly addressed
- Warringah Freeway Upgrade – additional impacts are unclear and not properly addressed
Noise, both direct and deflected from tall buildings, would be a constant imposition on the peace of local residents
Another major residential development in close proximity to this site with very similar issues has been forced into the Land and Environment Court due to very similar impacts
Physical changes to the heritage-listed building, as well as changing the use away from “office building”, affect the heritage status of the building and require proper sign-off from heritage authorities as well as the original architect company.

The EIS Report in general is self-serving and either ignores or disregards proper reference to the local community. It does not define or respond to legitimate objections. The report is a box-ticking exercise prepared by outside “consultants” for the proponent, which explains why the conclusion is falsely all pro-development.

Appendix J - Engagement Outcomes Report states the major issues but does absolutely nothing with them, leading to a very poor and incorrect conclusion
Appendix L – Traffic Report is self-serving, contains amateur modelling and fails to grasp the full extent of a very major traffic problem
Appendix O - Operational Traffic Management Plan is simplistic and does not cover the most basic of traffic issues
Appendix R – Noise impact Assessment is self-serving and poorly constructed
Appendix Z – Social Impact Assessment is self-serving and glosses over the real issues

Independent and factual reports are required in order for decision-makers to have the correct information before approving a white elephant such as this proposal which is the epitome of a square peg into a round hole.

Good morning,

I am writing to you to support the Concept and Stage 1 Proposal for a new school at North Sydney.

The proposal incorporates good design solutions pertaining to car parking/drop-off and pick-off areas. The proposal's location near transport opportunities will allow the students to utilise these opportunities.

This proposal utilises an existing building and respects the heritage significance of the Harry Seidler building. There will be minimal adverse impacts of the proposal due to refurbishment of the existing building.

I encourage this proposal is approved to provide vital school infrastructure in this area.

Anja Morgan
BUrb&Env & MBA
Easton Planning Consultants P/L

Seriously, when is the OVER DEVELOPMENT of the Miller, Ridge and Walker Street precinct area going to cease? There are already severe amenity challenges with existing residential buildings, commercial operations, and currently approved developments such as 168 Walker Street. The fabric of this quadrant and the whole area is slowly collapsing under the weight of 'bulk' developments ruining the vista and infrastructure of the area. What happened to the North Sydney Master Plan?

My SPECIFIC concerns with this Proposal are:

1. It is a nonsense to consider a large school as an “infill” development in the middle of a high-density residential area. It will clearly compromise the amenity of all surrounding residents in literally hundreds of apartments.

2. Traffic - there is already vehicle gridlock at peak hours and school times – the proposal does not address this situation except by referencing biased traffic “modelling" The existing road infrastructure cannot support any additional traffic and a one way lane access for the school would be a disaster.
In addition:
- it will create difficulty for first responder access and/or emergency egress
- the constant spill over of queueing school cars into Walker and Miller Streets from McLaren Street would lock traffic in the entire area not to mention those parked cars under the school building, seeking a timely exit from the premises.
Furthermore - future traffic pressure from other developments in the area have not been fully and properly defined or taken into account.
For example:
- the new Aqualand development at 168 Walker Street has its ONLY access from McLaren Street directly opposite the proposed school – 300-plus vehicles. The two opposing driveways will be competing for egress into McLaren Street, which itself will be at the mercy of Miller and Walker Street traffic for allowing entry.
- 45 McLaren Street on the corner of Walker is proposing 100-plus vehicles magnifying the above issue.
- the potential development in Hampden Street – 240-plus vehicles - will also add to the gridlock.
- the Western Harbour Tunnel – the actual additional impacts are currently unclear and not properly addressed.
-the Warringah Freeway Upgrade – will also create additional impacts which are currently unclear and not properly addressed.

3. Street Noise - both direct and deflected from adjacent tall buildings, will be a constant imposition on the amenity of local residents . The proposed development at 173-179 Walker Street - a hideously HUGE residential development - near this site with very similar issues - has been forced into the Land and Environment Court due to the very negative impacts on the local community.

4. The EIS Report in general is self-serving and either ignores or disregards proper reference to the local community. It does not define or respond to legitimate objections. The report is a 'box-ticking' exercise prepared by outside “consultants” for the proponent, - which explains why the conclusion is biased in favour of pro-development - no matter what the cost to current residents and business owners.
Furthermore:
- Appendix J - Engagement Outcomes Report states the major issues but does absolutely nothing with them, leading to a very poor and incorrect conclusion.
- Appendix L – Traffic Report is self-serving, contains inadequate modelling and fails to grasp the full extent of a very major traffic problem.
- Appendix O - Operational Traffic Management Plan is simplistic and does not cover the most basic of traffic issues.
- Appendix R – Noise impact Assessment is self-serving and poorly constructed.
- Appendix Z – Social Impact Assessment is self-serving, superficial, and merely glosses over the real issues.

IN SUMMARY - Independent and factual reports are required for decision-makers to have the correct UNBIASED information on hand before seeking to evaluate this proposal for approval and development. This is currently NOT the case and therefore should be refused. It is simply NOT in the best interests of the local community and is out of step with heritage and related planning codes.

By way of background, I am a Reddam House parent and I also live in the North Sydney council area.

I support this application. Although there are a number of excellent public and private schools in the lower north shore, there is a sore lack of co-educational, non-denominational, private school options, particularly for high school. I believe that the local community would welcome and appreciate a school of this calibre and its unique offering, in the area.

In particular, it would be fantastic to see the site being designed and used for Years 7-12. The vertical nature of the site lends itself to the upper levels of schooling and the proximity to the new metro station and North Sydney train station is also ideal for high school students travelling from around Sydney.

I support the project and look forward to seeing it come to fruition soon.

I support the project

Attention Kevin Kim.
Focus is the additional traffic generation in an already very congested area especially during the morning peak.
Currently, the large number of pupils coming into the area each school day are mainly secondary students, the bulk of whom use public transport. The proposed Independent school is to include a junior division. Many of these much younger children are unlikely to be able to safely use public transport and will need to be dropped off by vehicle. While the designated drop off point is within the school ‘grounds’ the queue to access this point will be so long that cars will be forced to back up into McLaran, Walker and even Miller Street seriously disrupting traffic flow. Additionally, the drop off point is opposite the exit/entry lane for vehicles from the Aqualand building which has provision for over 300 vehicles. A significant number of these vehicles could be expected to exit during morning peak.
With over 1500 students ultimately attending the proposed school, noise is likely to affect residents in a number of high rise developments nearby, some of which are only metres away. Given the heritage building is to undergo ‘adaptive reusage’ rather than a total rebuild, noise abatement measures are likely to be comprimised.

Therese Mary Jordan
Richard Edward Brian Jordan
1301/ 231 Miller Street North Sydney
0413218957

Submission attached

Providing accessible education options to meet growing demand is of huge benefit to the community. As is the rejunivation of an unused, heritage building.

Good afternoon
As a long-term resident of 185 Walker Street, North Sydney, I strongly object to this proposed project.
This precinct cannot sustain another school of 1700 students alongside the existing schools (Monte Sant’Angelo Mercy College, Wenona, St Mary’s, Marist North Shore College and North Sydney Demonstration School) without major disruption to traffic flows in the area surrounding Miller, Walker, Berry, and McLaren Streets.
The development project pipeline (approved and pending) in the area must also be considered in line with this proposal as they are primarily residential buildings with owner parking. These developments include 168 Walker Street (300+ vehicles), 45 McLaren Street (100+ vehicles), Hampden Street (240+ vehicles), 50 McLaren Street, plus the Western Harbour Tunnel and the Warringah Freeway Upgrade. On completion of these developments traffic within the precinct will already be chaotic at best
The EIS report is self-serving and does not consider the interests of existing residents and/or their well-being. The modelling around traffic and vehicular movement is simplistic and amateurish in detail as it does not consider the full extent of the impending traffic gridlock should the proposal be approved. Furthermore, the report's sections on Noise and Social impact assessments are self-serving, poorly constructed, and provide no detail on the real issues that need to be addressed.
Notwithstanding all of the above, it is also the writer's view that the heritage listed office building at 41 McLaren Street is highly unsuitable for a densely populated school with the lack of space surrounding the building paramount. The implications for the health and safety of 1500+ students has not been properly considered with this location and building.
I urge the Minister for Planning not to approve this application in its present form and location, and that public hearings be held so that the Minister and his Department can hear directly from residents on their concerns with the proposal.

Yours sincerely
Stephen Kelly

North Sydney cannot sustain yet another major school. This area of North Sydney already contains in close proximity Monte Sant’Angelo Mercy College, Wenona, St Mary’s, Marist North Shore College and North Sydney Demonstration School. Another large school with 1700 students and staff would massively intensify local traffic and amenity issues. In addition, “infill” development in the middle of a high-density residential area. In combination the proposal is highly inappropriate and will clearly compromise the amenity of all surrounding residents in hundreds of apartments across many issues.

1. Current Traffic
- this area is already in gridlock at peak hours and school times – the proposal does not address this fact in a proper manner with poor “modelling” which bears no relationship to reality which only local residents are aware of
- existing local roads simply cannot support any additional traffic
- ingress/egress from the area is already difficult at McLaren, Ridge and Miller exits
- one way lane access for the school would be a disaster
- difficult first responder access and/or emergency egress
- the constant spillover of queueing school cars into Walker and Miller Streets form McLaren Street would lock traffic in the entire for extended periods of time
- the major limitations of the Walker/Berry Street intersection as a major egress point is not properly factored
- The traffic clash with Wenona students, staff and parents is also not properly or correctly addressed
- Harnett Street is a narrow dead-end and entry and exit will compete with other driveways into MacLaren Street including the driveways for the massive residential development at 168 Walker and The Miller Hotel which are both opposite. Footpaths are narrow, do not allow 2 students abreast and would be highly dangerous for the students not only at peak times but also at lunch and break times, let alone the 102 bike spaces proposed
- buses in the vicinity are already over-full and not stopping as they have already picked up passengers in the North Sydney CBD
- footpaths are already choked with students from the major schools outlined together with CBD and resident users
- there is no parking available in the area to support this proposal
- the area cannot support the additional traffic generated by the required trades, services and waste collection

2. Future Traffic
- pressure from other developments in the area have not been fully and properly defined or taken into account
- the new Aqualand development at 168 Walker Street has its only access from McLaren Street directly opposite the proposed school – 300-plus vehicles – so that two opposing driveways will be competing for egress into McLaren Street which itself will be at the mercy of Miller and Walker Street traffic even allowing entry
- 45 McLaren Street on the corner of Walker is proposing 100-plus vehicles magnifying the above issue
- Potential development in Hampden Street – 240-plus vehicles – ditto
- the approved residential development (circa 18 storeys) approved for 50 McLaren
- New ultra-tall buildings under construction in Walker Street
- Western Harbour Tunnel – actual additional impacts are unclear and not properly addressed
- Warringah Freeway Upgrade – additional impacts are unclear and not properly addressed

3. Noise and noxious fumes from stationary cars will combine to make this proposal unpleasant and unhealthy for students, staff and residents alike

4. Another major residential development in close proximity to this site which had very similar issues has been forced into the Land and Environment Court due to the unacceptable very similar impacts to this proposal

5. Physical changes to the heritage-listed building, including the change of use away from an office building, affect the heritage status of the building and require proper sign-off from heritage authorities as well as the original architect company.

DRAFT Response to EIS

The EIS Report and appendices in general is self-serving and either ignores or disregards proper reference to the concerns of the local community. It does not define or respond to legitimate objections. The report is a box-ticking exercise prepared by outside “consultants” for the proponent, which explains why the conclusion is falsely all pro-development.

Appendix J - Engagement Outcomes Report states the major issues but does absolutely nothing with them, leading to a very poor and incorrect conclusion
Appendix L – Traffic Report is self-serving, contains amateur modelling and fails to grasp the full extent of a very major traffic problem
Appendix O - Operational Traffic Management Plan is simplistic and does not cover the most basic of traffic issues
Appendix R – Noise impact Assessment is self-serving and poorly constructed
Appendix Z – Social Impact Assessment is self-serving and glosses over the real issues

Conclusion
Independent and factual reports are required in order for decision-makers to have the correct information before approving a white elephant such as this proposal which is the epitome of a square peg into a round hole. The community consultation undertaken does not reflect the true scope of the cumulative impacts on the local neighbourhood. Ethos Urban have conducted other surveys in this neighbourhood, and should be well aware of the real issues as outlined. Accordingly trust with them as a bona fide provider of proper analysis is at a very low level. There is no wisdom in placing a school with 1500 plus students into an office building which is incapable of providing the necessary health, safety and proper nurturing environment necessary in modern education. There is still time for Reddam House to reassess this proposal given its many deficiencies. The proposal is not fair on its own students, parents and staff, and residents have a right to the quiet enjoyment of their properties. We urge that this application in its present form and location not be approved by the Minister for Planning and that public hearings be held so that the Minister and his Department can hear first-hand the precise concerns of the surrounding community.