Sport and Wellbeing Centre, Roseville College

As a resident of Roseville I support this project as it is a significant enhancement to the school and the community. It provides much needed facilities that will support the education of girls in the area as well as providing for parking which will reduce the stress of parking in the surrounding streets. This much needed upgrade is a very positive step for the area.

As a local resident, I strongly support the proposed development which will provide Enhanced facilities for young women who are at school at Roseville College along with the greater community. Although my family members do not attend Roseville College, we have benefited to date from attending swimming lessons at the ageing pool. The redevelopment will provide enhanced facilities for young women who are at school at Roseville College along with the greater community. The pool is in desperate need of being replaced and more active outdoor space and sports facilities are clearly needed at provide a modern education.
Further, I am a strong supporter of providing appropriate outdoor spaces and sports facilities for young women in order to encourage their physical activity, self-esteem and general well-being.
II feel the enhanced parking will reduce pressure on nearby streets and the proposed development is much lower in height than the adjoining massive razing of homes to replace them with unit blocks on adjoining Victoria street. It seems relatively modest in comparison and well designed.
Overall, while not being across the high level detail relating to the proposal, I support it.

To Whom it may concern,
We would raise the following concerns and objections to the proposal to construct a Wellness Centre at Roseville College as detailed in their State Significant Development Project Application Number: SSD-9912.

1. The proposal is for the construction of what is effectively a 3 storey commercial structure that further expands the school’s existing footprint into the surrounding residential area via the demolition and rezoning of a residential property recently acquired by the school. We would object to the School expanding its footprint in what is a residential street and Heritage Conservation Area, bypassing the restrictions that usually apply and which all other residents must comply with. If allowed, we would be deeply concerned with what that means for all surrounding property.
2. Having reviewed the application and attended the school's briefing we are of the view that the development does not bring new or essential services to the school or the community but is modifying and improving existing assets and services already available to the school’s students. The plan aggregates a number of services already present in the school into a co-located area, however, there does not seem to be a strong argument that this is necessary or that some or all of the functions proposed to be co-located could not be provided elsewhere on the school campus, utilising improved existing school facilities and buildings.
3. The co-location results, in our opinion, the proposed development having excessive bulk and impact on neighbouring properties and also leads to the need to expand the footprint of the school via the re-zoning and demolition of the residential property at 37 Bancroft Avenue.
4. The primary drive for this development would appear to be purely commercial, with Roseville College looking to improve certain sporting facilities to compete f with other Private Girls schools in the region, namely Ravenswood, Pymble Ladies College, Wenona and Abbotsleigh, for students. We are unconvinced that this commercial driver is one of significance to the State.
5. We would argue that this is an insufficient reason for this development to proceed in its proposed form, particularly with the impacts it will have on neighbours, the reduction in the amenity of the residential area in which the school resides and the further degrading of already stressed traffic conditions.
6. We would suggest that the enhancements to its facilities that the school is looking to create through the application, if really needed, could be achieved via other means. A lesser development that remains on existing school grounds and involves the modification of existing structures that do not abutt long standing residential homes could serve the school community equally well. We question whether the school has truly considered other alternatives that would have less impact.
7. We would question whether this proposal it truly of significance to the State, other than the quantum of the capital to be invested in the project. As stated above, we would suggest that a proposal which was more sympathetic to the constraints of the area, including remaining within the existing footprint, and working with existing school infrastructure would also deliver the same economic benefit.
8. The traffic situation in Bancroft Avenue during school terms is diabolical, creating numerous safety hazards for students and residents alike. The street has high pedestrian traffic due to commuters and students of other schools walking to Roseville station, young primary school students walking to Roseville Primary School and the students of the College walking from Roseville station to the school. The street also forms part of a “rat run” for drivers heading to the CBD or Chatswood from suburbs further north and as noted in the study, is used by cyclists in their commute. Many senior students will drive to Roseville College and park in the surrounding streets resulting in both sides of the street being parked out. The impact is significantly reduced visibility for residents exiting their driveways, which creates risks for pedestrians, cyclists and vehicle traffic. It also creates choke points where the road can be reduced to effectively a single lane.
9. Far too frequently, due to the parking congestion and the lack of any effective drop zone at the school, residents will find parents of students parked across driveways as they wait to collect them, creating further congestion in what becomes very quickly a one lane street.
10. We are concerned that the proposed plan during construction for traffic, particularly considering the high number of trucks and heavy equipment that will be needed to support the construction does not give sufficient consideration to the actual traffic flows that occur in the street and the congestion that already exists. Thus we are concerned that the plan will prove to be ineffective once implemented.

Kind regards

I am writing as a concerned resident of Bancroft Avenue Roseville. I object to the proposal by Roseville College, application SSD9912. Below are the reasons for my objection:
Too large a proposal
We live in a vibrant community in Bancroft Avenue. We have a school, a park and the Kur-ring-gai Art Centre, all at our doorstep. Roseville College is part of this vibrancy, and provides a sense of community. However, in the last 2 decades, Roseville College has already encroached and begun to dominate our community. The school has almost doubled in size since 2000, and you have but to turn up at 8 am or 3 pm between February and November to grasp the school’s impact on the streets. We already have year 11 and 12 students parking dangerously close to our drive-ways making it hard to drive in and out of our home. Roseveille Station is swamped by students who refuse to give way to other commuters. Parents do u-turns to pick up their children. And then add this to the fact that Bancroft Avenue is a well-known local short cut for traffic heading into and out of the city at peak times. Most of these local residents already drive above the speed limit to beat the traffic. Also, Bancroft Park is a beautiful park, with a busy playground all year round. We really enjoy hearing the sound of children at play. However, we are always concerned about children dashing out onto Bancroft Avenue at peak hour and at any other time too.
To add a proposal that is more like a commercial style building in an area that is considered worthy of conservation (because of its heritage and history) will mean that Roseville College is being given the go- ahead to become a juggernaut that defies all values that we cherish about our community. The proposal is far too large, and with its glass and steel walls, will demean the value of heritage conservation. The proposal is going to be 4 levels above the current street level. Our streetscape, and our community will be irreversibly changed by this proposal.

Riparian Zone
Our home on Bancroft Avenue is in a riparian zone, as is most of the street. This is noted in all council and state planning maps. There are several streams running at the back of our property, and there is an easement on our property. There is a sump on our property to cater for the risk of flooding. I have grave concerns about what the impact to our home will be if this proposal to build an underground swimming pool and car park goes through. I am concerned about what this level of extensive drilling will do to the environment let alone our property. For example, we already are aware that it would be risky to build a small swimming pool at the back of our property. Surely, such a massive construction increases the risk significantly in a riparian zone?

Disruption to traffic
The proposed plans to have trucks driving in and out of an already busy street (see comments above) and will cause significant traffic jams on our street. The workmen’s vehicles will add to the already busting –at- the- seams commuter parking on our street and surrounding streets.

Health Risks to residents
Residents on Bancroft are at risk of experiencing vertigo, which is now acknowledged as a health condition when people are exposed to constant drilling and disruption to their homes.

CONCLUSION
As mentioned earlier, Roseville College has always been a vibrant part of our bustling community. We urge the school to re-consider their proposal. I urge them to accommodate our needs as a community. Perhaps the school should build this ambitious sports and wellbeing centre in a non-residential area, let alone a heritage conservation area. Other schools have been known to do the latter.

This is a wonderful opportunity to update the assets of Roseville College for it's future generations. Currently the pool is of no benefit for competitive swimming except for lap training and the 2 courts currently available are separated from the flow of the school by a house. It would be of enormous benefit to create a precinct dedicated to the fitness and well-being of the students, staff and community in this area.
At a time when female Sports are seeing a rise in support, it would be advantageous to support this development within the school. Girls education needs to acknowledge and develop strengths in every area for all girls to flourish. This new development will ensure that health and wellbeing is at the forefront of what is already an exceptional education. To have a pool that is a metric length would be a great first step in ensuring preparation for competitive swimming was at it's best; To have a multi purpose court setup would also be beneficial so students did not have to spend time being transported elsewhere for sport development; To have a kitchen and garden setup where health and nutrition can be taught side by side with the sports precinct would be of enormous benefit not only to the girls but also to future generations; This will have positive flow on effects and be of major benefit to our community. Also including off street parking will be a positive, especially to the surrounding neighbours.
The school is well managed and very mindful and respectful of the surrounding streetscape and neighbourhood. Every development design is done with them in mind as well as the students. The visible impact has been minimised using the natural topography and the design internally is agile to meet the ongoing needs of the future.
This is a wonderful opportunity to invest in the future of girls education and promote strength, growth and achievement in both academics and sport at a time when female achievements in many areas are being recognised and supported.

Object to traffic management plan, construction will cause undue disturbance and danger to the residents living in and around Wandella Ave and seek to have the intended travel routed changed or additional mitigating controls put in place.

Object to the scale of the proposal and would prefer to see a smaller scale facility within its
existing grounds and respect the Heritage Conservation Area with 37 being left as a private dwelling.
Concerned that this is a breach of the HCA and will contradict local character
Concerned on the school pupil size intake, and the Impact on quality of life of residents due to logistics.
Don't feel there is enough adequate additional support to the suburb infrastructure to provide Urban sustainability
Concerned about the quality of the build.

I object to this latest development of Roseville College on the following grounds.
The school is located in a quiet residential street , not on a main road like most other private schools. DA 0261/16 has approved a progressive increase of students from 830 to 1250 from 2016 to 2030. This has now become a large school and the site is not big enough to cope with the new facilities planned.I love the name of a Wellbeing Centre, a new trendy word for a major development !
Traffic is already a major issue in the narrow residential streets with the addition of many girls driving to school and parking in the street.
I object strongly to the demolition of No 37 Bancroft Ave and the change of it’s use from residential to an educational establishment. This house is a contributory item in a Heritage Conservation Area (HCA) known as The Clanville Conservation Area C32. The area has aesthetic significance for the highly intact quality Federation and inter-war houses.
The school continuously purchases houses adjoining their property , then degrades them and requests a change of usage for that property. One presumes Roseville College can continue to buy and demolish homes adjoining their land and so destroy the HCA !
I am also concerned about the impact the proposed development will have on No 39 Bancroft Avenue. It would appear the adjoining setback should be larger to allow for greater landscaping.
One suggestion is that they remove one part of the school, Junior or Senior to another site as many other private schools in Sydney have done eg Queenwood, Cranbrook,Abbotsleigh, Knox etc etc. to provide open space for their students.
Having viewed the plans I can see no consideration given to the streetscape of Bancroft Avenue.Large two / three storey buildings that are out of context with the rest of the street, no use of materials that complement the existing location.

The Roseville College development of the Wellbeing Centre could easily be on any other premises of the school and the college could respect the people of this suburb by not making it as large as planned. They initially said that 37 Bancroft Avenue would be renovated, not knocked down and turned into a 3 storey building as it is a heritage area and should not be knocked down at all, as a matter of respect to the land and governmental rules. The college already has suitable infrastructure for the college and there is no reason for this centre to be so large and disrupt so many peoples lives as the noise is already disruptive coming from the college it will only increase. With the project taking up to two years to build it will cause noise pollution to the area.. There are native animals in the area and this is not only a public nuisance but a major disruption to the nature that lives within the area.

Development is detrimental to the local community on these grounds:-
* 37 Bancroft Ave is in the Heritage Conservation Area and should be preserved. The school has expanded extensively over the last 20-30 years and already has had a negative visual impact on this residential area. All other residences in this Heritage Conservation Area have to meet strict standards for any renovations so that they conserve the look and feel of the area. What makes Roseville College exempt and what precedent will this set for any future applications for renovations or demolition in our Heritage area?
* further negative impact on traffic that is already seriously impacted during school mornings and evenings. Traffic management slow points in the streets around the school and parking by students and/or staff already effectively narrow the streets so that only one vehicle can travel down the street at a time. Long queues of traffic in Victoria, Glencroft, Lord and Wandella Streets and in Martin Lane occur during peak hour, particularly in the mornings.
* severe negative impact on traffic flow during construction would compound this issue.
* the height and scale of the development will completely dominate the local area around the school and is out of proportion to established adjacent dwellings.

I have given details of my reasons for objecting to the proposal in my attached SUBMISSION ROSEVILLE COLLEGE SSD-9912 20191210. In summary my objection is based on 1) reducing the value of the two HCA in which the proposal is located. 2)scale and bulk not in keeping with the surrounds. 3) no need to carry out the development as similar facilities exist at school and having a DA to increase student numbers does not give automatic right for rezoning and redevelopment. 4) the traffic Impact Assessment is in error such that it is unreliable and misleading and should not be relied upon. 5) The Preliminary Construction Traffic Management Plan is in error such that it is inadequate and misleading such that it should not be relied upon.
I declare that I have not made any reportable political donations within the relevant period.

See attachment

See attached letter

Dear Sir
We are the owners and residents of the property situated at 42 Bancroft Ave Roseville. Our property is located about 75 metres from the proposed development at Roseville College.
We write to notify the Department of our objection to the above proposed development on the following bases:
1. Bancroft Avenue is a Heritage Conservation area zoned R2. The street is full of heritage homes, the owners of which are and have always been bound by the planning and development restrictions applicable to such zoning. The proposed development contemplates the demolition of a dwelling and a subsequent change in zoning to Education. It is completely contrary to the tenor of the Heritage Conservation area and zoning that one property owner in the street should be permitted to take steps so blatantly in contradiction of the applicable planning controls, by which other property owners have been constrained over many years.
2. The scale and bulk of the proposed development is out of character with the local area and will have a severely deleterious effect on the character of Roseville and particularly Bancroft Avenue. For the most part, Roseville has, to date, largely avoided the multilevel high density developments that have turned Lindfield into a densely populated town centre. The proposed development is too large, too imposing and too high for the street and will be an eyesore which will ruin the aesthetic appearance of the surrounding area. If the applicant wishes to carry out development on such a scale, it should be required to do so on its Victoria Street frontage, directly opposite to the multilevel apartment buildings which have recently been constructed rather than on its Bancroft Ave frontage, which is adjacent to and opposite period homes. The proposed development would be much more in keeping with the street frontage in Victoria Street than in Bancroft Avenue.
3. The proposed development will create an unacceptable traffic problem for Bancroft Avenue, both during and after construction. Bancroft Avenue residents are already faced with serious traffic problems resulting from buses servicing the school's sport, camp and other activities as well as parking chaos caused by the large number of parents and students visiting the school (in addition to commuters parking in the street). "Near misses" with children crossing the street and driveways, and with residents unable to exit safely from their driveways, occur on a daily basis. Put bluntly, the street is at maximum traffic capacity already. The street is simply not wide enough to cope with construction traffic, or with the increased traffic that a sporting complex of the proposed size will generate, particularly on weekends. If, as it would seem, Roseville College has outgrown its current site (situated, as it is, in a quiet residential street with no room to expand), is is incumbent on the school to consider relocating some or all of its activities to a more appropriate location, not upon the local residents to suffer the adverse impacts of the school's overly greedy enrolment policies.
We submit that the Department must refuse consent to the propose development on the above grounds. To allow such a development to proceed will cause irreversible harm to the local area and its residents and a significant loss of amenity.
Yours sincerely
Elizabeth Frizell and Kevin Andronos.

Please see details in attached letter

Having reviewed the architectural plans my first comment is that on the design and the bulk of the project - extending right to the boundary of the College land on three sides, the roof top courts and extensive excavation are more in keeping with a project in Tokyo or New York where population density demands this intensive use of space. I think the rooftop courts in particular are not in keeping with the heritage buildings in Roseville. We as residents have to comply with generous set backs when we extend our homes. I am objecting to the fact that this development is not set back at all from the street or from the surrounding residences.

It is not clear from the plans if the tennis courts will have lights ?

As a resident of Wandella Avenue I drive my children to the station most mornings. The recent introduction of the no right turn at Hill Street means that en route to the station we pass the college and proposed site on the left, turn right into Glencroft Avenue and left into Lord Street to Hill Street and return home via Bancroft Aveue passing the College and proposed site on the right.

We already have traffic chaos in this area between 7 and 9 due to school drop offs and the fact that there is parking permitted on both sides of all the streets noted above. We get a lot of all day parkers on our streets - many of whom are staff and students of the college. The rest are commuters walking to the train and local residents. We really have problems in the area when Roseville College load coaches for excursions and camps - grid lock occurs within minutes, stressed girls and parents are jumping out of cars in traffic with backpacks with no time to say goodbye as they are being blasted by the horn of an impatient driver. Local kids miss their train. I am objecting to this development as there is zero provision in the design for set down areas eg kiss and ride for people dropping at swimming lessons or a coach bay for Roseville College. I am objecting because I think Roseville College 100% needs a bus bay that is off our residential streets for safety reasons and I think to build out the whole block with no provision for this is really inconsiderate to all concerned - students, staff and residents.

I would also like to suggest that the parking arrangements around the school be reviewed as part of this project plan. I suggest that we reduce parking to one side of Bancroft Avenue and Glencroft Avenue before 930 and after 230 weekdays to allow students, residents and staff to drive, walk and cross roads in a much safer manner.

Lastly as a resident of Wandella Avenue I am concerned about the traffic management plan and the demolition waste removal via my street. Again we have double parking on both sides of the street and multiple renovation projects ongoing so the street is already full of parked utes and residents cars. We really do not have space for these big trucks to remove demolition waste.

See attached.

See attached.

Demolition of a heritage listed house sets a dangerous precedent in a community that greatly values the character that these houses bring to the neighbourhood. The number of the houses remaining has already been reduced by numerous large scale developments in the area.

Roseville College’s sporting facilities are already beyond adequate. Indeed, the outdoor pool is unique and the sporting facilities are more than sufficient for students. Any impact that such a large scale development would have on the nearby Roseville community would far outweigh the purported advantages of this project.

Roseville’s neighbourhood is a community that values its character and close relationships, which will be strained by the loss of neighbours and heritage listed house proposed in this development.

I would encourage reconsideration of this project where close neighbours opinions and concerns are genuinely discussed and taken into account.

See attached.