Loreto Normanhurst School Redevelopment (Concept Proposal and Stage 1)

Further to the letter received on 3rd December 2019 regarding the above-mentioned development application we strongly object to the proposal.

As a resident immediately effected by the application, we object to the proposal which involves significant detrimental effect to immediate residents and the surrounding neighborhood. The major concerns are:

• Traffic
• Height of Buildings
• Increased Student Numbers

These areas of concern will impact our property significantly. We believe other submissions have been made with the above points explained in great detail in which we strongly support.

The proposal might be considered appropriate for the School and the planning organization, however no consideration has been given to the effected and nearby residents directly impacted by this proposal. We are seeking Council to reject the submission by Loreto Normanhurst Ltd on the grounds the changes are of immediate benefit to the School, not the residents, to enable continued revenue opportunities through their grand Master Plan

I object to the proposed project because of traffic concerns, streetscape issues and safety.

The traffic impacts on local residents caused by the school have been evident since we moved in three years ago. We have previously objected to the now approved addition of a child care centre onto the grounds of Loreto. Please remember that this is another 80 students being added to the projections. These are all small children who need a parent to drop them off and pick them up, mostly in cars. This is already adding a lot of additional traffic to Mount Pleasant Avenue as the entry is via our street.

Now add another 800 students. Even if only 10% of them are driven to school, that’s another 80 cars on our road. And what about the teachers that will teach these extra 800 students - where are all these cars going to park? Already on the first day of school this week, there was not a spare car space as far as I could see either side of my driveway (apologies I did not get a photo). Where on earth are more cars going to go, and more importantly how is that going to impact local residents? Very poorly is my assumption.

Loreto has not accurately predicted the increase in traffic, nor come up with an adequate solution.

To combat the safety issues that increased traffic will have on a dead-end neighbourhood street with only one entry and exit point, we propose traffic management such as speed humps, a pedestrian crossing and traffic lights. As parents to three young children, we fear for the safety of our children who need to walk to the local Normanhurst Public School. That entails crossing Mount Pleasant Avenue which is already difficult without the additional cars the child care centre and this proposal add. In additional, we have a 6-year-old in a power wheelchair who will never be able to independently cross his own street in the current state of the traffic nor the increase that Loreto is asking for.

Regards the streetscape, the proposed boarding house at a height of 22m is ridiculous. Other parts of the proposal are substantially high too. It does not fit into the streetscape at all, where the majority of the street is single or double residential dwellings. It presents an eyesore on the street and would project a large shadow across many houses. The street is currently in the Hornsby Council LEP with a maximum of 8.5m. Loreto should respect the surrounding landscape and submit plans with a suitable height to complement the street and moving the buildings further back from the street to protect the existing trees and not encroach on residents privacy.

I object to the proposed project because of traffic concerns, streetscape issues and safety. Loreto has submitted a poorly designed development plan that has used flawed methodology in describing the impact of their developments on local residents, environment and community. I would like to understand how phase 1 was approved when the intersection between Mount Pleasant Ave and Pennant Hills Rd is a category F. Is this not illegal? Which governing body will be made accountable when there is another fatality at this intersection?

The traffic impacts on local residents caused by the school have been evident since we moved in three years ago. We have previously objected to the now approved addition of a child care centre onto the grounds of Loreto. It is my understanding that the traffic management plan was conducted whilst half the school was either on retreat or camp and remaining staff and students were instructed not to park on the street. Loreto’s projections are flawed.

This week has been a nightmare with school back at current student numbers. It was hard pulling out of our driveway, you had a big backlog of cars attempting to get onto Pennant Hills Road that delayed rate paying residents to get to work on time.

Loreto has not accurately predicted the increase in traffic, nor come up with an adequate solution. At a minimum traffic lights/pedestrian crossing should be put in given current congestion. My son is a powered wheelchair user and has nearly been hit twice by speeding cars. Speed humps would reduce this risk to him and other residents.

I’d also like council to put parking restrictions in place and ensure a ranger regularly reviews non-residents that park on the street (ie no permits). Why should Loreto benefit from council owned land?

To combat the safety issues that increased traffic will have on a dead-end neighbourhood street with only one entry and exit point, I would also propose connecting Mount Pleasant Avenue with Osborn Street to ensure residents can get out if the intersection is blocked due to a traffic accident that will happen given the category F rating.

Regards the streetscape, the proposed boarding house at a height of 22m is ridiculous. Loreto should be forced to move their building further onto their lands and ensure that no established trees are removed due to this development. These trees are one of the reasons residents enjoy living in the surroundings.

Furthermore, is the existing site large enough to warrant a school with 2000 students? Surely there are student to space ratios that need to be considered?

There appears to be no logical reason why this would be approved without political interference. Should there be a Royal Commission into Church conduct which includes how they prey on vulnerable residents (forcing people to sell) and using political influence to get flawed projects approved? I can see no reason why the child care centre was approved based on community feedback.

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

Attention: Director - Social and Infrastructure Assessments.

1. The Notification of Development.
The absence of information about this proposal is extremely distressing. If a claim is made that the original notification was sent to a few nearby properties, that is essentially useless, as very big area of residential streets feed into Osborn Road and a substantial one into Mt Pleasant Avenue. There was absolutely no notifications of this development proposal sent by letter to all these residents in the surrounding streets. Reading some of the local correspondence, it appears an attempt has been made to excuse this evasion by claiming there was a notification in a local paper. This is just legal waffle, as local papers are delivered irregularly, sometimes not at all, and are quite often they are rain soaked, or run over by cars, and hence totally unreadable. Nor was any significant street signage visible. The timing of the later notification was less than satisfactory, because of it's coincidence with the December/January school holidays when most families are pre-occupied with Christmas and holiday activities.

2. This development is quite inappropriate for several reasons.

(a) This development will tower over the general neighbourhood, and would be totally out of character for what is supposed to be a low density housing area.

(b) The total number of students at the school appears to have increased significantly in recent years, despite previous protests. The current situation is that there are long queues and very long delays at the Pennant Hills Road intersections at anywhere near school commencement and departure times, which is very restrictive for local residents. The opening of the Pennant Hills Road tunnel in the near future, will not do anything to improve this situation It sometimes takes almost a half hour to access Pennant Hills Road from our home in Nepean Avenue. As a result, the times at which we can make important appointments is restricted.
Extreme caution is needed when traversing the length of Osborn Road, to avoid colliding with something, or even running into somebody, and that is because Osborn Road is already ridiculously narrow for the traffic it has to take.
The Loreto organisation doesn't seem to have considered the damage their school traffic already does and could do to their local community. The southern portion of Loreto College grounds and the surrounding residences are clearly at risk of bush fires. We have recently seen how fast these fires can travel and the devastating consequences. Fire trucks could be hampered in getting to an emergency, and a minor fire could become a catastrophe.
Also, any emergency requiring an ambulance could have it’s progress obstructed, with very serious consequences.
The Loreto school generated traffic is the main cause of this problem and it needs to be addressed before any further school development is considered.

(c) The Loreto organisation is taking an unfair advantage of the limited parking in the surrounding streets, and have made only a token attempt to accommodate the flood of cars for which they are responsible
Large, wide delivery vans, and tradesmen’s service vehicles are often parked in places where they obstruct traffic.
Cars driven by senior students increase in number as the year progresses because more and more girls drive themselves to school as soon as they get their P-plates, which also adds to the problem. Osborn Road parking problems often spill over into Currawong Avenue, and even into Nepean Avenue or Rivertop Close. Currawong Avenue is so narrow that there should be strict ‘no-parking’ rules applied there at all times.
Adequate parking for the school staff, visitors and students should be provided on-site. Something like a large three or four level car-park building, one level underground, could replace or supplement the limited parking facilities provided at present. Then, Osborn Rd could be given back to the residents.

The proposed huge increase in school student numbers should never be considered.

I would like to voice my objection to the above referenced development application by Loreto Normanhurst which would provide facilities to increase its student intake from approximately 1,250 to 2,000 students. Please find herewith my letter setting out our objections.

I am a long standing resident at this address, about 40 years, and have seen this school grow and as a result the increasing traffic issues that have occurred.

I do very strongly object to this application. Osborn Road is very narrow and at the best of times I have to be very careful and often wait for oncoming traffic to pass before I proceed. The exit onto Pennant Hills Road is definitely a problem at school opening and closing times particularly as parents drop and pick up children. I cannot imagine how I would cope if this development is granted.

Also weekend traffic is currently a huge problem along this narrow road. Very often I have great trouble exiting my driveway as people struggle to find parking and encroach across my driveway.

I should also mention that Osborn road is the exit road for quite a large community of people living around the cul de sacs off Nepean Avenue and I can see a very real safety issue presenting.

Please consider my issues and block this application.

I am one of Osborn residents. I object to Loreto's increase of students intake without concerns about the traffic chaos, hassles to the local environment, etc. Currently, we have already had problems getting through the traffic light every morning due to the parents dropping off students at Osborn Road. They choose to use Osborn Road (presence of traffic light) because it is so much easier to get in and out, instead of using the main entrance along Mt Pleasant Road. However, the Osborn Road is narrow and too many cars are causing long queues.

We have selfish parents who choose to block our driveways several times over the years in order to pick up the kids. They don't seem to care at all. We make complaints to schools but we still get cars parked occasionally, blocking our driveway. We have had to ring the police several times. This is a nuisance for us.

I strongly object the increase in students' intake at Loreto.

I’ve lived in Mt Pleasant Ave for over 60 years and have seen Loreto morph from a pleasant community school that took boarders from the country and was a very good neighbour, into a monster that impinges on the daily lives of all those that live in the surrounding streets.

I object to the proposed development for the following reasons:

1. TRAFFIC ISSUES

There are 2 main aspects to this. The intersection of Mt Pleasant Ave and Pennant Hills Rd, which is known to be dangerous and the blocking of the side streets, to the extent that they impede traffic flow and prevent the residents, emergency and service vehicles from using them efficiently. These issues have been well covered by others objecting to the proposed development of the school, but I would like to make the following comments:
The issues with the intersection have existed since the Osborne Rd traffic lights were installed but are made worse during term times and the recently approved Child Care Centre will add an ongoing burden to those wishing to enter or exit the street. Requests have been made on many occasions for Traffic Lights at this site, but these have been rejected. Impact on traffic flow on Pennant Hills Rd is one reason given – this wouldn’t be a problem if they were linked to the lights at Osbourne Rd, (I’ve been told that the necessary cables are already in place but can’t verify this) and proximity to the lights at Osbourne Rd is another – it is however the very proximity to those lights, which cause traffic to back up past the end of Mt Pleasant Ave, that make it such a dangerous intersection, and has already cause the loss of at least one life.

Installation of traffic lights, linked to those at Osbourne Rd, would eliminate most of the risks encountered by all users of this intersection.

Loreto currently has insufficient on-site parking to accommodate those staff, senior students, parents and visitors that drive to the school. They use Mt Pleasant Ave and Osbourne Rd as their “overflow carparks” to the extent that they limit the streets to one lane from early morning to late afternoon on weekdays and sometimes even on Saturdays and Sundays. Those who live in the streets have nowhere for their visitors to park and are delayed whenever they need to use them during these times. That these issues disappear outside of term time is evidence of their cause.

Loreto needs to provide sufficient on-site parking to deal with their current needs now before ANY expansion of the school is considered. Something that might encourage them to do so would be the introduction of timed parking on the residential side of each of the side streets and booking any cars that don’t comply.

2. INCREASE IN STUDENT NUMBERS TO 2000

I object to the increase in Student numbers to 2000 because Loreto has failed to show how this can be done without further negative impact on their neighbours. The EIS states that there are currently 300 staff for the 1150 students now at Loreto but that they will only need 77 more staff (EIS clause 3.4) for the extra 850 students anticipated (a 25% increase in staff to manage a 75% increase in student numbers - sounds rather optimistic even unrealistic). Most of these will need somewhere to park yet the development proposal leaves the construction of a major parking area until many years into the future.

3. THE PROPOSED BOARDING HOUSE

The proposed Boarding House will impact on my family directly as our home is situated opposite the site and will be overlooked AND overshadowed by such a large building. As its presence and operation will impact negatively on my day-to-day life and that of my family, I object to it being built in the proposed location and in the suggested form.
The area is zoned R2 Low Density Residential and whilst some allowances can be made for schools within an R2 Zone, we would expect that any such development would blend sensitively with the surrounding area. The proposed structure has the look and feel of a block of flats, hardly R2 zoning, and as it contains 3 residential units within it, it IS a block of flats but one with a loading zone added.
The design itself is not compatible with the style of the residential homes in the area nor the existing buildings in the school. The height at 3-6 storeys is overpowering and is out of keeping with neighbourhood. The height of the Boarding House needs to be reduced to 2 storeys, and preferably only 1, above Mt Pleasant Ave street level and it needs to be set much further back from the road if it is to reduce the impact on its surroundings to an acceptable level.
The representative pictures provided showing how the Boarding House would look to the neighbours opposite implies sweeping lawns in front of the Boarding House which won’t exist and are designed to mislead, using a technique usually employed by real estate agent to indicate that a property is bigger than it actually is. The reports used to show where shadows will be cast relate to the period around the middle of the day when they would be at their least. Again why? Is this another attempt to mislead. The shadow length of the proposed Boarding House at 4 pm or 6 pm or later, with the setting sun to the west of the building, would be more informative.
The EIS (section 4) states that the proposed Boarding House will accommodate 216 boarders. In another part (clause 2.2.2) it states that there are 155 boarders. Loreto has on several occasions said that they currently have just over 100 boarders, which is confirmed in the traffic surveys they have had done. Is this an error or does it mean that they currently have excess capacity and, if that is the case, why do they need a Boarding House large enough to cater for 216 boarders? If this is only a desire and not a need, thought should be given to a smaller structure located closer to the centre of the school with a green space around it to lessen the impact it has on the neighbourhood.

4. REMOVAL OF TREES

The site chosen for the Boarding House requires that a significant number of trees will need to be removed to accommodate the building. Although they have indicated that they will plant other trees to replace them Loreto seems to have conveniently forgotten that these trees are ALREADY REPLACEMENTS – the ones that they were required to plant to replace those that were lost from their Protected Forest area when they built their oval some years ago. The location of these replacement trees was Loreto’s choice – they could have put them on the fringes of their protected forest, but they didn’t, they chose the boundary with Mt Pleasant Ave. They were planted to replace PROTECTED TREES SO THEY THEMSELVES SHOULD BE PROTECTED and not destroyed because they are now in an inconvenient place. Most of these replacement trees have NOT reached maturity so they have yet to replace the ones that were removed. Removing them now means that they never will, and for this reason I object to the removal of any trees in that area of the school’s grounds.

5. INTERNAL ROAD NETWORK

I also object to the part of the proposal that involves all but eliminating the school’s internal road network. Whilst a nice idea, in theory, the proposal indicates that this would be done by utilising the surrounding streets as their road network. They know that their current impact on the surrounding streets already creates enough congestion for the neighbours to be complaining yet they are openly stating their intention to make things worse, so that that can have the school environment almost free of roads. This seems to be an unfair price to ask their neighbours to pay and I object to it.

People have a fundamental right to the quiet enjoyment of their homes.

Loreto was a good neighbour for many decades, but since the Loreto nuns stopped running the school and it became a commercial enterprise, it has become increasingly hard to live with – with more and more taken from the surrounding community and nothing given back. Loreto seems to feel that it has a right to do what it wants without regard to the impact that its activities have on its neighbours. They claim that they are providing community benefits. Those benefits do not extend to most of their neighbours, however the cost of all their activities does and this should be factored into any decision being made in regard to this proposed development.

I confirm that I have made no reportable political donations in the past two years

Thank you for taking the time to read what I realise is a lengthy submission.

I object because there are no improvements or increase in traffic lanes proposed for the intersection between Osborn road and Pennant Hills Road. The traffic report done in terms of this intersection does not account for the increased trucks and construction traffic, nor the recent changes in terms of the link road between Osborn and Mount Pleasant Ave.
I suggest some of Loreto’s land at the current intersection of Osborn and Pennant hills road be excavated and demolished to extend this intersection. This should allow at least 2 more lanes of traffic to wait at the lights, a designated right turn bay from Osborn and perhaps a left hand lane or an extra lane to allow for overflow from the drop off at Osborn road. At drop off and pick up times currently, I wait for at least 20 minutes to reach Pennant Hills Road from the bottom of Osborn. With construction traffic, a link road from Mt Pleasant and increased student numbers, the current intersection will not be able to cope. This is the major reason I object to the development.
It is a shame my previous suggestions in the objection were not attended to in the amended development application. I am very concerned from a community member perspective about this intersection and as I am frustrated at the moment without construction nor increase in student numbers or link road from Mt Pleasant. I cannot imagine how frustrated we will all be (including parents and students from the school) if nothing is done BEFORE the construction begins on site. Please take this into consideration.

I'm not sure how to make a submission, so I will just explain my objection.
Osborn Road is a narrow street. During school hours and on Saturday's the street is incredibly dangerous to navigate due to the volume of cars parked in it. My concern is that there is only one way in and one way out of Osborne Road, Currawong Avenue, Rivertop Close, Nepean Avenue, Wendy Avenue. There are a significant amount of residents who live in these streets. Many of whom are elderly. If an ambulance or a fire engine is required during term time or during sport time on a Saturday, it would be impossible for the residents to receive help from Emergency Services. Further, if there was a bushfire in the area ie. the bush owned by Loreto or any of the blue gum high forest canopy caught on fire, the residents are not able to escape. If you increase the student population and the facilities, the situation will only be exacerbated. Please re-consider the proposed redevelopment.

As a resident who is currently affected by the traffic issues created by parents dropping off/picking up their children at Loreto Normanhurst, I object to any application to increase the intake of students at the school without a solution that doesn’t mean an increase in cars on Osborn Road.
Currently, as has been seen many times this year already, Osborn Road becomes a carpark at school pick-up time, as parents arrive extremely early to pick up their children from school. I have called the school on this, relaying my current concerns which are a) residents can’t get into their own street at this time, b) cars get stuck trying to enter Osborn Road, blocking lanes of traffic on Pennant Hills Road, which is extremely dangerous, c) as one of the many parents who walk their children home from Normanhurst Public School, when the traffic is backed up like this it becomes extremely dangerous to cross both at the pedestrian crossing, and walk down the footpath, crossing the Loreto Normanhurst entrance. This is because the cars are often so close to each other, there isn’t much room to walk, between the cars, and you can’t keep a safe distance from the car at the front (in case it rolls back when starting to move), plus your vision is obstructed by the cars around you. Often you are made to walk out onto the actual road in order to get around the cars/buses waiting in the driveway to the school. I am genuinely worried that one day a bad accident will occur. Having complained about this to the school, there seems to have been very little attempt to fix this issue. If this is an issue now, I can’t imagine how the school will handle the increase in student (= traffic) that they are wishing for.
It’s also worth noting that cars often block the whole of Osborn Road as they come out of the school’s driveways (if traffic is banked up at the lights), so many of the parents/students that drive turn around using the residential driveways, which if often done suddenly. This maneuver and is very common, dangerous, and concerning as both a pedestrian and another driver.
The solution that Loretto Normanhurst is entertaining (more car spaces), is not a solution at all. They need to discourage driving, and push for better use of the great public transport in the area if they want to increase the number of students at the school.
Also, here is my declaration that I have made no political donations at all in the last two years.

Kind regards,

Kristine Pymont