Moriah College Redevelopment

I am 100% in support of the Queens Park Precinct Exec Committee submission dated 16/07/2020 and confirm objections for the reasons provided in this document.

I refer to the Queens Park Precinct Submission dated 16 July 2020 and affirm my support for their noted objections to the Moriah College Redevelopment.

MORIAH COLLEGE REDEVELOPMENT – MAJOR PROJECT 14741

I strongly object to this development as a resident of Queens Park for the following reasons:

1. The size, scale and bulk of the buildings overlooking Centennial and Queens park are completely out of keeping with the appearance and amenity of the immediate surrounding heritage open parkland area.
2. The school has, via ongoing development, continually increased the number of students using the space and at some point a hard limit needs to be placed so as to stop this creep and associated pressures placed on the surrounding area by increased student and servicing population at the college.
3. Traffic congestion is already a major problem particularly between 7:30am and 9:30am and later in the afternoons. There is an almost continuous flow of traffic blocking local streets at peak times generated by student drop-offs and pick-ups particularly in areas where it is agreed they will not occur.
4. Moriah College has failed to manage its own Transport, Traffic, Parking Plan (TTPP) for a long time, evidenced by the number of students, parents and staff vehicles parking daily in local streets contrary to its own TTPP.
5. Moriah College night-time events are frequent, attract large numbers of people and use local streets for parking. This will only worsen for residents if this proposal is approved.
6. Pedestrian safety risks and general road safety risks will escalate as a result of the increased traffic in local streets.
7. Noise and air pollution in our local streets will increase due to more traffic and people, and as a result, noise will increase and air quality will reduce.
8. The streets of Queens Park are becoming ‘traffic sewers’ which is impacting friendly interaction between neighbours, resulting in a decreased sense of well-being,
community, connectedness and security.
9. The visual amenity of Queens Park and Centennial Park will be adversely impacted by the sheer size of the proposed new buildings.
10. 15 days, especially in the middle of a pandemic, is grossly inadequate for informed responses to the new proposal – more time is needed.
11. The ripple-on effect of the increase in traffic, congestion and pollution will extend to many residents who have not been notified of the proposal and who deserve the
right to be informed and to comment.
13. Queens Park residents would like Waverley Council to conduct their own independent and public traffic survey so that all stakeholders can better understand
the impact.
14. The school has effectively taken ownership of the traffic flow and footpath on Baronga Avenue which is nearly impassable for both traffic and pedestrians when school dropoff and pickup vehicles, buses or students or security guards or faculty are using it. If the entrance is reoriented here this problem will significantly worsen. This is an important public thoroughfare and should be treated as such.
15. The objections to the development overwhelmingly came from local residents. The supporting submissions overwhelmingly came from people outside the area.
16. Bike racks are a furphy. I've never seen a cyclist enter the school. The school is addicted to car transport which places an enormous burden on the streets and parking in the area. And it will continue to do so.
17. I don't understand the role of the Moriah College Consultative Committee now. It seems redundant given the ability of Moriah to ignore any decisions they don't agree with.
18. The traffic plan: No mention of enforcing the plan. Has this been sidelined?
19. Use of the school pool, gym etc: (appendix G) This is not correct. I have tried to get access to the pool and have been told this is not possible by the private operator (prior to Covid). Please explain how access is possible.
20. Visual Impact and Overshadowing – onto Queens Park and Centennial Park: The document justifies the significant visual impact and overshadowing by saying it is less than the original DA. This is like saying a 200 storey building should be approved in Bondi Junction because the DA has been reduced from 210 storeys. I don't understand this argument.
21. Security Guards – Imposing nature of the boundary wall and security guards. Recent developments are that Security Guards are now more active than before. They are now a very visible presence in Queens Park while the students play there. They are also shining torches into cars parked around the school area in the mornings before sunrise. This intimidating behaviour should be stopped.
22. Overshadowing of the ESBS: This has been done at 9am in July. This should also be done from 8am in July as well as 9am in December/January. Logic would show that the reduction of total sunshine to large areas of the ESBS is significant. The statement saying "The majority of the ESBS (to the west) and Queen’s Park (to the east) receives unobstructed sunlight." is very misleading. This is justification to allow a deprivation of light to a minority of the ESBS. If this is done every time Moriah submits a new DA (and they are coming thick and fast), then eventually the whole ESBS will be deprived of sunlight for the majority of the day.
23. Visual Impact: The visual impact will continue to be substantial. There can be no argument here. The original images as seen from Queens Park show the buildings dominating the western section of Queens Park. The amended plans don't appear to change this at all. The earlier DA document represented that the visual impact to the eastern end of Centennial Park would not be significant. You only need to stand in this part of Centennial Park and look across to the school to where the new, large buildings will be to realise this is totally incorrect.
24. Use of Centennial Park as a parking lot by the school. The proximity to the Ian Potter Wild Play garden leaves mothers of small children unable to park to use this amenity as the school parking uses up all of these adjacent spots.
My son is profoundly disabled and this play area is a important source of enjoyment and therepy for him.
25. The updated Green Travel Plan assesses cycling as a future mode of transport. See 4.1.5 - the Urbis/Moriah response to Waverley Council’s Submission. The measures to minimise traffic impact need a 10% reduction in the post development traffic to retain the status quo so we can expect 1) no improvement on the current situation and 2) post development traffic has to be reduced by 10% to just maintain the current traffic level.
26. Page 22: This proposal is most disrespectful to local residents - Urbis says that traffic through the surrounding road network cannot be directly attributable to the College - and propose that Waverley Council investigates traffic in the surrounding roads (ie in our precinct - our biggest issue) separately with the residents - ie outside the DA process. This seems an absolute abrogation of responsibility. The Traffic and Parking Management plan also appears to have changed form and is embedded with general facetious statements such as contained on P35 ‘ measures will be introduced through the Green Travel Plan to discourage; referring also to alternative forms of transports including several references to bikes. The tone is that the new traffic/parking plan discourages as opposed to prohibits students parking in certain streets etc.
27. I could see no reference to staff restrictions.
28. What teeth does the traffic plan (TTPP) have?
This has been changed over time.
The first one included staff in the exclusion zone for parking, dropping off etc.
The second one has introduced a second map for parent drop offs, and excluded staff from the exclusion.
The result is that our streets are getting filled by staff.

This proposal is aggressive and out of keeping with the neighbourhood. It needs to be sent back to the drawing board so that the living conditions desired by local residents and council are considered in the process and the buildings are scaled back to not impact heritage areas and amenity of the local area.

Mark Baldassarre

MORIAH COLLEGE REDEVELOPMENT – SSD 10352

I strongly object to this development as a resident of Newland Street for the following reasons:

1. The size, scale and bulk of the buildings overlooking Centennial and Queens Parks are completely out of keeping with the appearance and amenity of the immediate surrounding heritage open parkland area.
2. The school has, via ongoing development, continually increased the number of students using the space and at some point a hard limit needs to be placed so as to stop this creep and associated pressures placed on the surrounding area by increased student and servicing population at the college.
3. Traffic congestion is already a major problem particularly between 7:30am and 9:30am and later in the afternoons. There is an almost continuous flow of traffic blocking local streets at peak times generated by student drop-offs and pick-ups particularly in areas where it is agreed they will not occur.
4. Moriah College has failed to manage its own Transport, Traffic, Parking Plan (TTPP) for a long time, evidenced by the number of students, parents and staff vehicles parking daily in local streets contrary to its own TTPP. I have had many conversions with students over the years with the vast majority claiming they were not aware that they were not allowed to park on the local streets. There are only 2 explanations to this: 1) The students are playing dumb; and/or 2) Moriah management are not educating the students about the TTPP.
5. Moriah College night-time events are frequent, attract large numbers of people and use local streets for parking. This will only worsen for residents if this proposal is approved.
6. Pedestrian safety risks and general road safety risks will escalate as a result of the increased traffic in local streets. In term 2 last year a male student wearing a Moriah 'rugby' top (licence plate BNB 14R) drove down my rear lane at excessive speed and claimed it was doing the speed limit, but was unsure what it was. He also admitted he was aware he shouldn't be parking in the area. Many young children and pets frequent this lane and I am worried there will be an accident, or worse a fatality. In term 3 last year a female student (wearing a Moriah 'rugby' top) driving at excessive speed in a westerly direction along Culbert Street, nealy hit me while I walking to work at the top of Newland Lane.
7. Noise and air pollution in our local streets will increase due to more traffic and people, and as a result, noise will increase and air quality will reduce.
8. The streets of Queens Park are becoming ‘traffic sewers’ which is impacting friendly interaction between neighbours, resulting in a decreased sense of well-being,
community, connectedness and security. This is REALLY REALLY important to understand. The attached file called Driven to Excess is profound. If you have not read it, I would love for you to read it.
9. The visual amenity of Queens Park and Centennial Park will be adversely impacted by the sheer size of the proposed new buildings.
10. 15 days, especially in the middle of a pandemic, is grossly inadequate for informed responses to the new proposal – more time is needed.
11. The ripple-on effect of the increase in traffic, congestion and pollution will extend to many residents who have not been notified of the proposal and who deserve the
right to be informed and to comment. It is hard to know how to speak up and object.
13. Queens Park residents would like Waverley Council to conduct their own independent and public traffic survey so that all stakeholders can better understand
the impact. The traffic study paid for by Moriah College could never be viewed an independant by a fair minded person.
14. The school has effectively taken ownership of the traffic flow and footpath on Baronga Avenue which is nearly impassable for both traffic and pedestrians when school dropoff and pickup vehicles, buses or students or security guards or faculty are using it. If the entrance is reoriented here this problem will significantly worsen. This is an important public thoroughfare and should be treated as such.
15. The objections to the development overwhelmingly came from local residents. The supporting submissions overwhelmingly came from people outside the area. Surely much more weight has to be placed on the local residents concerns.
16. Bike racks are a furphy. In 16 years, I've never seen a cyclist (staff or student) enter or leave the school. The school is addicted to car transport which places an enormous burden on the streets and parking in the area. And it will continue to do so.
17. I don't understand the role of the Moriah College Consultative Committee now. It seems redundant given the ability of Moriah to ignore any decisions they don't agree with.
18. The traffic plan: No mention of enforcing the plan. Has this been sidelined?
19. Use of the school pool, gym etc: (appendix G) This is not correct. A number of local residnets have tried to get access to the pool and have been told this is not possible by the private operator (prior to Covid). Please explain how access is possible.
20. Visual Impact and Overshadowing – onto Queens Park and Centennial Park: The document justifies the significant visual impact and overshadowing by saying it is less than the original DA. This is like saying a 200 storey building should be approved in Bondi Junction because the DA has been reduced from 210 storeys. I don't understand this argument.
21. Security Guards – Imposing nature of the boundary wall and security guards. Recent developments are that Security Guards are now more active than before. They are now a very visible presence in Queens Park while the students play there. They are also shining torches into cars parked around the school area in the mornings before sunrise. This intimidating behaviour should be stopped.
22. Overshadowing of the ESBS: This has been done at 9am in July. This should also be done from 8am in July as well as 9am in December/January. Logic would show that the reduction of total sunshine to large areas of the ESBS is significant. The statement saying "The majority of the ESBS (to the west) and Queen’s Park (to the east) receives unobstructed sunlight." is very misleading. This is justification to allow a deprivation of light to a minority of the ESBS. If this is done every time Moriah submits a new DA (and they are coming thick and fast), then eventually the whole ESBS will be deprived of sunlight for the majority of the day.
23. Visual Impact: The visual impact will continue to be substantial. There can be no argument here. The original images as seen from Queens Park show the buildings dominating the western section of Queens Park. The amended plans don't appear to change this at all. The earlier DA document represented that the visual impact to the eastern end of Centennial Park would not be significant. You only need to stand in this part of Centennial Park and look across to the school to where the new, large buildings will be to realise this is totally incorrect.
24. Use of Centennial Park as a parking lot by the school. The proximity to the Ian Potter Wild Play garden leaves mothers of small children unable to park to use this amenity as the school parking uses up all of these adjacent spots.
25. The updated Green Travel Plan assesses cycling as a future mode of transport. See 4.1.5 - the Urbis/Moriah response to Waverley Council’s Submission. The measures to minimise traffic impact need a 10% reduction in the post development traffic to retain the status quo so we can expect: 1) no improvement on the current situation; and 2) post development traffic has to be reduced by 10% to just maintain the current traffic level.
26. Page 22: This proposal is most disrespectful to local residents - Urbis says that traffic through the surrounding road network cannot be directly attributable to the College - and propose that Waverley Council investigates traffic in the surrounding roads (ie in our precinct - our biggest issue) separately with the residents - ie outside the DA process. This seems an absolute abrogation of responsibility. The Traffic and Parking Management plan also appears to have changed form and is embedded with general facetious statements such as contained on P35 ‘measures will be introduced through the Green Travel Plan to discourage; referring also to alternative forms of transports including several references to bikes. The tone is that the new traffic/parking plan discourages as opposed to prohibits students parking in certain streets etc.
27. I could see no reference to staff restrictions.
28. What teeth does the traffic plan (TTPP) have? This has been changed over time. The first one included staff in the exclusion zone for parking, dropping off etc. The second one has introduced a second map for parent drop offs, and excluded staff from the exclusion. The result is that our streets are getting filled by staff.
29. I completely agree with the objection from the Queens Park Precinct Committee. See attached.

This proposal is aggressive and out of keeping with the neighbourhood. It needs to be sent back to the drawing board so that the living conditions desired by local residents and council are considered in the process and the buildings are scaled back to not impact heritage areas and amenity of the local area.

See attached.

See below - from the outset I’ve been either unable to reset my password or even create a new alternative account via a new email.
I objected the first time and want to object again.
I refer to the updated exhibition period for SSD-10352 and note the revised submission fails to address matters raised in my initial submission namely the impact of the surround traffic network and residential amenity as a consequence of the over-development of the site. Traffic conditions have worsened since COVD-19 with the school taking no action whatsoever to manage the impact of parents clogging residential streets on a daily basis to collect children. I am now unable to access my garage and property almost on a daily basis. Other items noted have also not been addressed which is very unsatisfactory and typical of Moriah’s disregard for residents.
I refer to my initial submission as attached.
Please confirm receipt of the submission and also could you assist with getting me access via the portal?
Kind regards

Submission attached.

Submission attached.

Grahame Jackson and Phyllis Fong
Queens Park
NSW 2000


18 July 2020


Ms Karen Harragon
Director, Social and Infrastructure Assessments
Department of Planning, Industry and Environment
Locked Bag 5022
Parramatta NSW 2124


Dear Ms Harragon

RE: Moriah College Redevelopment – Application Number SSD-10352

In December 2019, we lodged separate submissions to express our concerns about the redevelopment of Moriah College (the Applicant), as proposed in SSD-10352.

The Applicant has submitted a Response to Submissions (RtS) to comments made in submissions to SSD-10352 received by the Department of Planning between November and December 2019.

The RtS proposes amendments to SSD-10352, including the following:

• reducing the height and scale of the Stage 1 Science, Technology, Engineering, Art and Mathematics (STEAM) and Independent Learning Centre (ILC) building and making changes to the building façade;
• reducing the bulk and scale of the Stage 2 Early Learning Centre (ELC) building;
• relocating the Gate 4 entrance on York Road to enable the provision of a dedicated slip lane; providing an additional 52 bicycle parking spaces;
• providing an additional native tree species as part of the landscape master plan; and
• making internal changes to the arrangement and location of learning spaces, services, amenities, access and egress.

We consider these proposed amendments to be inadequate to address our concerns and we continue to object to the SSD-10352, as amended.

It is noted in the Department’s Notice of Exhibition that the Minister for Planning has not decided that a public hearing should be held. We consider that a public hearing should be held so that the views of residents and members of the public, including from the adjacent communities in Randwick and Woollahra, who are likely to be affected if the proposed redevelopment were to proceed could be heard. From our experiences of the many changes to Moriah College to date, following the development approval process and making submissions have not resulted in the concerns of residents and affected members of the public being considered adequately.

We reiterate our comment in our earlier submission that Moriah College has already benefited over the decades from the largesse of the State, Council and the community, including the following:

• in the 1980s, the College was allocated land belonging to Queens Park to start a school for about 300 students;
• since that time, the College has expanded into adjacent land and constructed additional buildings, enabling it to increase the number of students to the current 1,680; and
• the College has established the ELC, which it now wishes to expand in Stage 2.

If Moriah College wishes to expand further, then it should do so by seeking alternatives, such as having the ELC on another site. There is no imperative for such a facility to be co-located with College students, especially when the proposed redevelopment is expected to increase the number of students by 17% over time, that is, to close to 2,000 students.

We consider the current number of students is more than adequate for usage of the land, which is surrounded by already heavily used roads - Queens Park Road, Baronga Avenue and York Road. So any further increase in the number of students and traffic introduced by redevelopment of the College would be detrimental not only to residents, but also to members of the public who use the nearby Centennial Park and Queens Park, the latter including by other schools and the community for sports.

So we say again, enough is enough! Allowing Moriah College to expand, as proposed in SSD-10352, would be highly injudicious!

Sincerely

Grahame Jackson and Phyllis Fong

See attached.

See attached.

See attached.

Submission attached.

Heritage NSW, has no additional comments regarding the RTS, as our recommendations for an Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report to be prepared will be implemented as conditions of consent. This was also was agreed to by the applicant, who accepted it as conditions of consent.
Please don't hesitate to contact me if you require any additional information. Apologies for the delay in responding.
Regards Nicole Davis A/Senior Team Leader - Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Regulation - North, Heritage NSW