Loreto Normanhurst School Redevelopment (Concept Proposal and Stage 1)

I object to two aspects of the project as detailed below:

1) I object to the proposed increase in student numbers from 1150 to 2000 (an increase of almost 75%). This is completely out of line with projections of student numbers supplied by the College when making previous (approved) development applications. It would lead to a large increase in pedestrian and vehicular traffic and would have a substantial impact on amenity of residents in the two surrounding residential streets. These are Mt Pleasant Ave which has a long recognised dangerous intersection with Pennant Hills Rd (in meetings the RMS has acknowledged this but stated that they will not countenance installing traffic signals because of the likely impact on traffic flow in Pennant Hills Rd). Mt Pleasant Ave is a dead-end street so the only access for residents is via this intersection. The College also has a current development application before Hornsby Council for a childcare facility for 80 children with access and egress via the intersection (the two developments will obviously be additive in regards to loading on the intersection). I understand that in regard to the childcare facility many residents of Mt Pleasant Ave objected to the proposal and that the State Member (Alister Henskens) wrote to Council asking that the development be put on hold until difficulties at the intersection can be resolved. The other residential street is Osborn Rd which is a narrow street and cannot support a large increase in traffic density.

2) I object to the size and siting of the proposed six story boarding house. The size would be out of keeping with surrounding residential bungalows and would dominate what is currently an old residential area. In earlier College/resident meetings the College had envisioned a three storey building, partially below ground, with parking underneath. I believe that, in order to remain in keeping with surrounding residences and the College’s proposal at that time, only two storeys should be above the level of Mt Pleasant Ave. The College has a great deal of undeveloped land (apart from two houses and what appears to be a temporary building which I assume are to be demolished as part of this project) on or adjacent to the site of the proposed boarding house so a different design utilising this land could allow the College to build a boarding house with the same amount of accommodation but greatly reduced visual impact. In regard to siting, the building appears on the drawings to be far too close to Mt Pleasant Ave. If it were set further back from Mt Pleasant Ave there would be room for trees and other landscaping to ameliorate the visual impact of the building and, because the land slopes sharply away from Mt Pleasant Ave, a minor re-siting would assist to reduce the visual impact of the building from Mt Pleasant Ave.

In summary, I object to the increase in student numbers and with the size and siting of the proposed boarding house.

I object to two aspects of the project as detailed below:
1) I object to the proposed increase in student numbers from 1150 to 2000 (an increase of almost 75%). This is completely out of line with projections of student numbers supplied by the College when making previous (approved) development applications. It would lead to a large increase in pedestrian and vehicular traffic and would have a substantial impact on amenity of residents in the two surrounding residential streets. These are Mt Pleasant Ave which has a long recognized dangerous intersection with Pennant Hills Rd (in meetings the RMS has acknowledged this but stated that they do not want to install traffic signals because of the likely impact on traffic flow in Pennant Hills Rd). Mt Pleasant Ave is a dead-end street so the only access for residents is via this intersection. The College also has a current development application before Hornsby Council for a childcare facility for 80 children with access and egress via the intersection (the two developments will obviously be additive in regards to loading on the intersection). I understand that in regard to the childcare facility many residents of Mt Pleasant Ave objected to the proposal and that the State Member (Alister Henskens) wrote to Council asking that the development be put on hold until difficulties at the intersection can be resolved. The other residential street is Osborn Rd which is a narrow street and is unable to support a large increase in traffic density.
2) I object to the size and siting of the proposed six storey boarding house. The size would be out of keeping with surrounding residential bungalows and would dominate what is currently a residential area of mainly old homes. In earlier College/resident meetings the College had envisioned a three storey building, partially below ground, with parking underneath. I believe that, in order to remain in keeping with surrounding residences and the College’s proposal at that time, only two storeys should be above the level of Mt Pleasant Ave. The College has a great deal of undeveloped land (apart from two houses and what appears to be a temporary building which are to be demolished as part of this project) on or adjacent to the site of the proposed boarding house so a different design utilising this land could allow the College to build a boarding house with the same amount of accommodation but greatly reduced visual impact. In regard to siting, the building appears on the drawings to be far too close to Mt Pleasant Ave. If it were set further back from Mt Pleasant Ave there would be room for trees and other landscaping on the street side to ameliorate the visual impact of the building and, because the land slopes sharply away from Mt Pleasant Ave, a minor re-siting would assist to reduce the visual impact of the building from Mt Pleasant Ave.
In summary, I object to the increase in student numbers and with the size and siting of the proposed boarding house.

I object to the proposal to increase the student numbers from 1150 to 2000. ( a 75% increase). This is out of line with previous developments by the school who stated they would not increase the school size. This increase in numbers will lead to a large increase in pedestrian and vehicular traffic and will have a significant impact on our amenity. Our street is not coping now with the amount of day parking and cars entering the street to access the school. This will be amplified by the proposed childcare centre ( awaiting approval by HSC) and further exacerbated by the increase in student numbers. We have a very difficult intersection to ingress and egress the dead end street onto Pennant Hills Rd and further loading onto this intersection will create dangerous situations.

Secondly I strongly object to the size and siting of the proposed boarding school. My house is located across the road from the proposed site. I live in a pleasant residential street and this building - up to 6 stories is not in keeping with the area. I attended consultations with the school on the proposed development and they advised at most it would show as two stories facing MPA and it would have extensive tree and set back. This seems to have changed from what we were shown. There is plenty of school land and a more reasonable design could be provided that fitted with the current streetscape and still accommodated the boarders.

Finally I have already objected to the child care centre which was being assessed by Hornsby Council. This seems to be included in the drawings but not in your advertisement. My main issue with the childcare centre is the mission creep by the school as well as the projected traffic and difficulties this will create in an already dangerous and difficult intersection.

In summary I object to the signficant increase in school numbers as the area cannot cope with the additional traffic . Further I object to a 3 - 6 story boarding house located across the road from my house as it is not in keeping with local streetscape.

Fran Macdonald

See attachment.

My objections to the project are detailed below:
1) I object to the increase in student numbers from 1150 to 2000. It would lead to a substantial increase in traffic volume and cause a loss of amenity for residents in the two surrounding residential streets. These are Mt Pleasant Av which has a long recognised dangerous intersection with Pennant Hills Rd, an intersection which is not and will not be signalized because of the likely impact on traffic flow in Pennant Hills Rd. Mt Pleasant Av is a dead-end street and all access and egress for residents is via this intersection. The College also has a separate development application before Hornsby Shire Council for a childcare facility with access and egress via the intersection and the two developments would be additive in regard to traffic loading on the intersection. The other residential street is Osborn Rd which is a narrow street and cannot support a large increase in traffic density.
2) I object to the size and siting of the proposed six storey boardinghouse. The size would be out of proportion with the surrounding residences and would visually dominate what is an old residential area. I believe that, in order to avoid visually dominating the surrounding neighbourhood, the height of the boardinghouse should be restricted to no more than two storeys above the level of Mt Pleasant Av. I also believe that the boardinghouse should be sited sufficiently far back from the road to allow for tree planting and other landscaping to ameliorate visual impact from Mt Pleasant Av.

Planning Services,
Department of Planning and Environment
Attention Director – Social and Other Infrastructure Assessments
GPO Box 39
Sydney NSW 2001


Elisabeth Zorzetto
25 Mount Pleasant Ave
Normanhurst NSW 2076


24 July 2019


Dear Madam / Sir

Subject:
Department of Planning and Environment
Exhibition of State Significant Development Application

Loreto Normanhurst School Redevelopment (Concept Proposal And Stage 1)
Application No: SSD-8996
Location: 91-93 Pennant Hills Road, Normanhurst
Applicant: Loreto Normanhurst Limited
Council Area: Hornsby Shire
Consent Authority Minister for Planning and Public Spaces

Objection to Application No: SSD-8996, Loreto Normanhurst School Redevelopment (Concept Proposal And Stage 1)

I am writing to object to the above application of Loreto Normanhurst School Redevelopment (Concept Proposal And Stage 1), (“the Development”).

1. Notification of development

It is disturbing that there was NO notification by letter of this development to residents in the street. The notification was apparently in the local paper which is randomly delivered and usually tossed on the street when it is. The delivery of this issue of the Advocate was delivered on a day of intense rain and all the papers delivered were saturated. It was only that a patient neighbour dried out her copy to discover the notification of the said development. Nor was there any street signage.

This form of notification is totally inadequate and deceitful.


For the following reasons I consider this development to be inappropriate.

2. Size of the Development

The size of the development is very large and will tower over the street scape taking away from our street ambiance. Mt Pleasant Avenue is known as the best street in Normanhurst which is the reason why this street holds the record for the highest recorded house prices sold in the area. A one storey building would be more suitable and in keeping with the street ambiance and street scape with appropriate set back from the street, than the proposed development. This development would have a negative impact on the street.

Loreto’s aspiration to exploit the growth potential that the school is now envisaging by maximising every square meter of the small grounds it occupies so much so to the detriment of the street scape.
The proposed six storey building is not within keeping with surrounding residential bungalows and would dominate the street scape and would be considered another example of an “inappropriate development” decision.

The total number of students at the school has been increasing significantly over the years regardless of approved DA conditions in the past to cap school population. Currently there is a DA application with Hornsby Shire for an Early Child Care Centre for 80 children. The addition of SSD-8996 proposal of a 75% school population increase causes great concern as the pattern demonstrates that the school population will only continue at an exponential rate of grow, with or without the appropriate approval or monitoring.

This growth proposal creates an extremely high density school population within such small ground in a low density living area. This is totally inappropriate for this location.


The SSD-8996 is part of stage 1, which means there are many more stages Loreto has planned.
This is a major development in a “no through road” street. It is the residents who pay the rates to council for the street, not Loreto. This is evident with the “zero” contributions Loreto has made to the street and street scape over the years. The Loreto redevelopment plans shows no contribution to the street, with no footpaths, no street lighting, no curb street appeal or planting of substantial trees to give the street the ambiance it is known for, or any effort to street scape or to soften the daunting development proposed for the street.

The size and scale is too large which has every resident in the street concerned and extremely upset about the Development.



3. Traffic – On street and off street parking and drop off

Traffic in the street is wrought with danger. The streets surrounding Loreto are “no through roads and are narrow; when cars are parked on either side of the road there is only room for one vehicle to move through. At no point in time is there any consideration for the delivery truck traffic that will be required to service this high density facility.

Loreto has always taken full advantage of unlimited parking conditions in the surround streets to accommodate their lack of onsite parking. The parking has always been an ongoing issue for which Loreto takes no responsibility, albeit that it is Loreto generated. Therefore all traffic flow is impeded during school terms and events.

This development needs to address street parking and traffic conditions that will be created by this development.


4. Traffic – Intersection

The intersection at Mount Pleasant Avenue and Pennant Hill Road is already rated “F” by the RMS. This means RMS considers it is Unsatisfactory, in a previous traffic study which Hornsby council is fully aware of and has this information. Post the traffic study, traffic has significantly increased on Pennant Hills Road and in Mt Pleasant Avenue with the increase in street population and development, with the Retirement Village Estate and expanded Nursing Home and SAN staff, housing block subdivisions, Loreto swimming pool traffic, Loreto high school student population increase, Loreto staffing increase, Loreto Primary School and all service delivery and trucks for the nursing home, Loreto school and residence domestic services and deliveries and all subsequent “Knock on effects” . I take little comfort in the traffic studies convened by Loreto which have been undertaken at strategic times to give bias support to their proposed developments.

Currently accessing and exiting Mt Pleasant Avenue is difficult especially with young inexperienced school student drivers and the elderly who live in the Retirement Village Estate, especially as there is no “keep clear” lines drawn on Pennant Hill Road to allow traffic flow in and out of Mt Pleasant Avenue when traffic has banked up on Pennant Hill Road. Commuters on Mt Pleasant Avenue have long been canvassing and requesting Hornsby council and RMS for these lines to be painted on Pennant Hill Road, only to be stone walled with “justifiable reasons” why we don’t need these painted lines, even though we are an unsatisfactory intersection. The need for lights at Mt Pleasant Avenue has also been proposed as a solution to solve traffic flow and congestion in Mt Pleasant Avenue and Pennant Hill Road without success. This all results in hazardous access and exit from Mt Pleasant Avenue to Pennant Hill Road and vice versa. The increase in school population with the adjunct of the knock on effect of increased traffic and parking will render this intersection a “black spot”, I just hope it’s not me!


5. Traffic calming / safety

Traffic calming and safety are issues of great concern to resident and people using Mt Pleasant Avenue with the continual increasing of traffic and car parking congestion which reduces the dual carriage way to one. Strategic car parking bays and speed humps would greatly prevent all the near misses and car side swipes which are all too common in Mt Pleasant Avenue. The proposed development will increase the traffic and parking burden and therefore increase the already hazardous and unsatisfactory traffic and parking situation in the surrounding “no through” roads.


6. Noise

The proposed Development will have an Acoustic impact. Currently the noise generated from Loreto has been managed on an individual basis where residents ring up the school to turn down their PA, music, generator noise, sports whistle, screams and horns, etc. For Loreto events which have the potential to generate unacceptable noise (and other inconveniences like traffic and parking issues) Loreto usually gets around these issues by sending out notices to residents, usually twenty four hours or more, prior to the up and coming event.

The proposed development will just increase noise and noisy events. Acoustic barriers like the ones on highways would be a solution to and keep noise down to an acceptable level. Acoustic noise has long been a problem between Loreto and the residents with no appropriate barriers to mitigate noise pollution which has grown as the school continues to develop and grow. The proposed development increases the school population thereby increasing the current noise levels.


7. Street scaping / landscaping

In all of Loreto’s developments over the past 25 years, I have not witnessed any street scape improvements on their side of the road, in either their DA proposals or voluntarily. Over time Hornsby council has allowed Loreto’s parking problems to park on the verge in Mt Pleasant Avenue, compacting the dirt and vegetation and preventing vegetation from growing. One day Loreto started putting gravel down on the verge, to prevent cars from being bogged, until a resident complained and put a stop the this activity. The street scape is severely compromised as is the vegetation and the substantial trees by the Loreto parking on the verge. The proposed development continues with the same lack of zero contribution to the street scape and street ambiance, with no improvements scheduled for Mt Pleasant Avenue. Loreto has resources greater than the residents and should contribute to the street scape even to provide safety for their customers, students and employees with appropriate street lighting, pedestrian crossings, footpaths and curb and guttering.


Conclusion

For these reasons I object to the development. Please keep me informed about how this progresses, including any additional hearings.


Yours faithfully



Elisabeth Zorzetto

I object to the proposal because Mt Pleasant Ave is already unable to cope safely with the existing volume of traffic. Insufficient strategies are included in the planning documents to manage any increase in traffic.
The present difficulties in Mt Pleasant Ave include:
* When cars are parked on both sides of the road there is insufficient space for cars travelling in opposite directions to pass each other. This creates a tunnelling effect making it necessary for one of the cars to use a driveway space to let the other car to pass.
* There being no exit from Mt Pleasant Ave other than on to Pennant Hills Rd means that school traffic needs to make a 180 degree turn often by nosing into a vacant driveway then backing out. This presents a danger especially for students (P Plate drivers).
* Planning suggests that two vehicular entrances from Mt Pleasant Ave into school will be provided. Location is not specified. The present main entry from Mt Pleasant Ave is in a bend of the road and at the crest of the hill making for a hazardous situation with staff or student drivers who are stopping or turning.
* Vehicles turning left from Pennant Hills Rd into Mt Pleasant Ave (from Hornsby direction) are forced to cross double white lines if a vehicle is parked (legally) near the intersection.

To overcome existing traffic hazards and avoid increased risks from the development I suggest that the following improvements must be made before consent for the development is given.
1. No Parking/No Standing be permitted on the East side (i.e. opposite school) of Mt Pleasant Ave during school hours 8am to 4pm) Monday to Friday.
2. Parking restrictions on Mt Pleasant Ave near Pennant Hills Rd be moved down the road to avoid vehicles having to cross double white lines and/or make a very quick stop with the potential for collision from following vehicles on Pennant Hills Rd.
3. Man entry from Mt Pleasant Ave into school be moved away from the crest and the bend. Main entry should be controlled by a roundabout. This would allow for safer 180 degree turns and also have a traffic calming effect.
4. "No street parking will be allowed for construction workers" ( Section 6.14.2) is a worthy aim but no alternative seems to have been made. To suggest workers will be encouraged to use public transport lacks credibility.

CONCLUSION
It is hard to accept that "no new vehicular trips would be needed on Mt Pleasant Ave as a result of the proposal." The consultant's report claims three additional vehicles per hour (peak time) but I would suggest that an approximate 40% increase in enrolments will have a much greater effect on Mt Pleasant Ave despite Osborn Rd continuing to be the main artery for school traffic.
Mt Pleasant Ave is already a difficult and dangerous challenge for pupils, staff, parents and residents. It is my view that the proposal should be rejected until traffic changes and improvements are made.

Adventist Aged Care supports the project but have major concerns regarding the traffic

I object to two aspects of this project as detailed below:

1. I object to the proposed increase in student numbers from 1150 to 2000 (an increase of almost 75%). This is completely out of line with projections of student numbers supplied by the College when making previous (approved) development applications. It would lead to a large increase in pedestrian and vehicular traffic and would have a substantial impact on amenity of residents in the two surrounding streets. These are Mt Pleasant Ave which has a long recognised dangerous intersection with Pennant Hills Rd. Mt Pleasant Ave is a dead end street so the only access for residents is via this intersection. The College also has a current development application before Hornsby Council for a childcare facility for 80 children with access via the intersection and the two developments will obviously be additive to loading the intersection. I understand that in regard to the childcare facility, many residents of Mt Pleasant Ave objected to the proposal and that the State Member (Alister Henskens) wrote to Council asking that teh development be put on hold until difficulties at the intersection can be resolved. The other residential street is Osborn Rd which is a narrow street and cannot support a large increase in traffic density.
2. I object to the size and siting of the proposed six story boarding house. The size would be out of keeping with surrounding residential bungalows and would dominate what is currently an old residential area. In earlier College/resident meetings, the College has envisioned a three storey building, partially below ground, with parking underneath. I believe that, in order to remain in keeping with the surrounding residences and the College's proposal at that time, only two storeys should be above the level of Mt Pleasant Ave. The College has a great deal of undeveloped land (apart from two houses and what appears to be a temporary building which I assume are to be demolished as part of this project) on or adjacent to the site of the proposed house with the same amount of accommodation but greatly reduced visual impact. In regard to siting, the building appears on the drawings to be far too close to Mt Pleasant Ave. If it were set further back from Mt Pleasant Ave there would be room for trees and other landscaping to ameliorate the visual impact of the building and, because the land slopes sharply away from Mt Pleasant Av, a minor re-siting would assist to reduce the visual impact of the building from Mt Pleasant Ave.

In summary, I object to the increase in student numbers and with the size and siting of the proposed boarding house.

SSD-8996 Loreto Normanhurst

I’m writing to object to this proposal.

A development of this magnitude would considerably increase the adverse impact that the school is already having on pedestrian and cyclist safety in the adjacent suburban streets.

I ask that:
• the magnitude be significantly reduced
• a condition be that the 50m x 50m of Loreto land in the north west corner of the site be excavated down to the level of Pennant Hills Road to enable a dramatic widening of the traffic-light-intersection with Osborn Road. This would enable Loreto traffic (including to their proposed child care business) to remain on site; and with four exit lanes (two left turn and two right turn). This would reduce the adverse impact on residents.