Skip to main content
Back to Main Project

SSD Modifications


Trinity Grammar School Mod 1 - Regularisation of Student Numbers

Inner West

Current Status: Determination

Interact with the stages for their names

  1. Prepare Mod Report
  2. Exhibition
  3. Collate Submissions
  4. Response to Submissions
  5. Assessment
  6. Recommendation
  7. Determination

S.4.55(1A) application seeking to modify approved student numbers from 1500 to 1655 prior to car parking works commencing.

Attachments & Resources

Notice of Exhibition (1)

Notice of Exhibition_09032022_120016

Response to Submissions (5)

RFI Letter
Appendix A-Response to Public Submissions
Appendix B WTJ22-024-S4.55 Mod Statement- RFI
Appendix C- Traffic Response
Request RTS Trinity

Agency Advice (2)

TfNSW Response SSD-10371 (MOD1)
TfNSW Response SSD-10371 (MOD1)

Additional Information (3)

RFI Trinity
RFI Response No. 3

Determination (4)

Notice of Determination
Trinity Mod 1 - Modification Assessment Report
Trinity Mod 1 - Instrument of Mod Determination
Trinity Mod 1 - Notice of Decision

Consolidated Consent (1)

Trinity Mod 1 - Consolidated Conditions


Showing 1 - 7 of 7 submissions
Christine MCCARTHY
ASHFIELD , New South Wales
We are residents and owners of 140-142 Victoria St Ashfield, a residential dwelling that currently borders properties owned by Trinity Grammar School (TGS), Summer Hill on three sides (east, north and south). We are the only non-TGS owned residential property on the block and will be most immediately impacted by construction and any expansion of student and staff numbers on site.

We write to oppose the proposed modification to the approved State Significant Development (SSD-10371) to permit 155 additional students on site.

The multi-year period of construction for the larger TGS Redevelopment will already markedly erode the residential amenity of the surrounding streets. As TGS traffic consultants admit in their submission, the proposed expansion of student numbers will further worsen traffic around the site and especially on Victoria St. We note that their submission makes no mention of the impact on congestion and traffic from the additional coming and going of industrial vehicles and machinery, construction supplies and debris or contractors throughout the period of construction. It is obvious that construction will intensify activity around the campus and compound the burden we and other neighbours already shoulder in the form of growing congestion and substantial competition for street parking as a result of ongoing school expansion. Boosting student numbers in this context is not reasonable.

We are additionally concerned with the burden imposed on neighbours on evenings and weekends when TGS hosts inter-school events for sports and other occasions where it is possible that parents might attend using two vehicles instead of one. We note that TGS has historically failed to provide sufficient on-site parking for these large numbers of guests nor ensured that parents and students from other schools do not use street parking when they visit the campus. This has regularly resulted in the residential amenity of surrounding areas, especially around our dwelling on Victoria St (immediately adjacent to the Delmar Gallery Entrance), being jeopardised by visitors who occupy all available street parking and frequently double-park and park over residential driveways. On multiple occasions this behaviour has resulted in NSW Police issuing infringement notices. It is not clear how TGS plans to manage this issue during construction or once the redevelopment is complete.

For these reasons, we do not believe it is reasonable to expect immediate neighbours to shoulder the burden of increased student numbers, especially whilst construction on the site is in its most intense phases.
Yours sincerely,

John and Christine McCarthy
julie smith
ASHFIELD , New South Wales
Over the past 17 years, Trinity Grammar School’s Council has justified the need to build more buildings and carpark facilities by citing growing student numbers and demand for places. At the same time, the School has marketed itself to current and potential school families. This logic appears to be circular and disingenuous. The school chose to establish itself on a site closely surrounded by residential conservation zones, presumably because this reflects the school’s values. The school should be respectful of its surrounds and its impact on the environment.

Residents were assured several years ago that there would be a cap on student numbers by way of ruling by the Land and Environment Court. This number has been well and truly exceeded, both overtly and covertly, by Trinity Grammar School. Exactly how many students are enrolled to attend Summer Hill campus? It seems strange that in 2021, the number of students (n=1655) is exactly the same as it was in 2019 (n=1655). I find this difficult to believe.

This modification overstates the mitigation measures put in place in 2021. Two of the "new" COVID-19 measures mentioned in the traffic report (staggered start/finish times and no right turn from Jubilee Drive) were in place in 2019 (see minutes of IPC site visit). The modification also understates the success of the "new" COVID traffic mitigation measures. Local residents are well aware that these mitigation measures have done nothing to mitigate the 100m of queueing on the western boundary of the school (google maps clearly shows a solid red line on Victoria Street between Seaview Street and Harland Street between 7.45-8.30am every week day).

Essentially the school is admitting that their car park cannot cope with the volume of school generated traffic, such that an additional street-based drop off is required. However, even this is not enough to lessen existing queuing. Rather than deal with their ongoing car park inadequacies, the school repeatedly requests permission to increase student numbers regardless. The refusal (to increase students numbers to 1655) as outlined in the original SDD findings ( both DPIE and IPC) and as refused by the LEC must be upheld.
Name Withheld
SUMMER HILL , New South Wales
SSD-10371 - Mod-1
We wish to lodge an objection to development application SSD-107 - Mod-1 from Trinity Grammar School.
We live only a block away from the School, and previously lodged an objection to the full Development Proposal SSD-10371. Our objection then was based on the proposal’s adverse impact on amenity in our residential area, particularly relating to increases in road traffic. We were pleased that, drawing on the many critical comments from our local community, Trinity Grammar was required to commission further work on some aspects of the proposal, and the final Consent included detailed arrangements for linking project development with enrolment growth.
The rationale of the modification proposal is again hard to grasp from the nature of the documents presented, prepared more for a professional audience literate in planning terminology and processes. Again there is no community-focused analysis that residents and others interested can readily access. The lack of a requirement to provide an independent analysis looks to be a serious flaw in current planning processes.
Our interpretation is that, because it is argued current traffic flow and drop-off/ parking arrangements have been working well, the School seeks ex post approval for exceeding the current limit of authorised student enrolments. This is not a trivial matter, the current enrolment of 1655 students being just over 10 per cent more than the approved ceiling of 1500. Staff numbers are also up by a similar percentage, from 251 to 277.
We struggle to see any principle underlying this modification. Trinity Grammar has clearly exceeded its approved student limit, and now wants a tick for that – the term ‘regularise’ appears throughout the Modification Application (document 2). What is the point of setting a maximum student number and then allowing Trinity to substantially exceed that maximum apparently without penalty? What faith can residents around the School have in the regulation of the School’s expansion under the full development proposal? Might student numbers start to creep up past 1655 without strong control mechanisms and associated completion of required works?
In our view, the correct course of action is to deny the proposal. Indeed Trinity Grammar could be requested to wind back total enrolments toward 1500 students until all relevant work is completed, consistent with the Determination. Expansion of the enrolment cap should then proceed in a phased manner against particular milestones being met, as the Development Consent sets out.
Name Withheld
SUMMER HILL , New South Wales
The school has ignored a court ordered limit of 1500 ENROLLED students for the last few years. It now seeks to validate that by applying to up the limit to current enrollments.
It's justification for over enrollments is that the ruling did not specifically mention enrollments, and pretended that it meant students on the property. A reading of the paragraph of the ruling make it clear that it was enrollments the judge was addressing. A few years ago, all primary school students were told not to attend with a days notice when the court was to attend the school to ensure it stayed under this artifical limit. Notice that the school never uses the word enrollments in any of it's applications to ensure it can use this defence in future.
I would appreciate any rulings specifically use the word "Enrollments" in their determinations.

The traffic reports undertaken in this application were taken at times to suit the school, such as when the whole of year 12 was not in attendance, so can not be trusted. These are my objections:-
- staggered start and stop times do not work when most kids should be taking buses - the buses all still need to leave at one time for each destination
- the proposed temporary drop off zones on Old Canterbury rd are a bus stop and the front of peoples properties. Locals are already sick of the infrigment of the school has on their lives without taking their parking away from them. Last I heard, a bus zone can not be used as a drop off area.
- the area to the west of the bus stop is used for up to 10 buses to park while awaiting the correct time to enter Prospect rd as only 2 can be accomodated on Prospect rd at any one time
- the queue on Victoria street often extends past Seaview street in the north and into Harland st on the south, more than 300 metres, in contradiction to the traffic reports findings. Photos in my last submission support this. The street can not be used by locals over this time to drop their children at Yeo park school because of the queuing
- parents ignore the no right turn from the car park unless the exit is supervised
- parents currently park outside my home for up to 30 minutes waiting for children with their engines running, this is probably exacibated by the staggered start and stop times
We are about to get trucks and other heavy traffic associated with the build, which will make these current problems worse.
I suggest that Trinity be forced to reduce it's numbers back to the approved 1500 enrollments until the building work is completed to alleviate the traffic issues and risk to children during the lastest proposed build.
Name Withheld
SUMMER HILL , New South Wales
My major concern is how dangerous crossing the front school gate at Prospect Rd and Hurlstone Ave Summer Hill has become due heavy vehicle circulation of traffic during pick up and drop off and the many schools buses in this intersection. This danger with recent near misses will only increase with this project

Parents picking up-dropping off, making u-turns, coming out of parked positions and with schools buses turning at this junction, makes it very dangerous

I strongly recommend for a solution such as narrowing Hurlstone Ave at the Prospect Rd end to allow cars and buses through but make pedestrians more visible. This will cater for residents and local students using the roads to cross.
Jennifer Iversen
ASHFIELD , New South Wales
See attached
Name Withheld
ASHFIELD , New South Wales
I have lived in Holwood Avenue for twenty years. Trinity Grammar School claim to have fixed their traffic issues, but traffic has become so much worse over the last five years. There continue to be cars (often large SUVs) parked in “No Stopping” zones in the vicinity of Holwood Avenue every single day. This might seem all fine – each car is only stopped for ten minutes – but as one moves off, another one arrives. The problem I have is that sight lines are obscured as I try to exit my cul de sac (I’m generally on my Vespa scooter and I would be the one hurt if I was involved in an accident).

Both the Department of Planning and the Independent Planning Commission carefully considered the request by Trinity Grammar School to “regularise the student numbers at 1655” as part of SSD 102371; and determined that there should be Conditions before student numbers increase. These carefully considered Conditions should not be overturned and seriously, the school is now suggesting the wording of its own conditions!

The fact that it has been necessary to establish a new drop-off/pick up zone on Old Canterbury Road indicates that they have more students travelling by private car that ever before. The traffic report attached to this Modification relies on data collected in 2019 – these traffic counts and travel modes of staff and students are no longer applicable. At the very least a proper assessment in relation to this modification should have included updates on travel modes of staff and students, traffic counts (including the new zone on Old Canterbury Road) and an update on progress towards the targets outlined in the Green Travel Plan that accompanied SSD 102371.

Excerpt from the headmaster Term 4 2021:

Text, letter

Description automatically generated

With the exception of Canterbury Road adjacent to Yeo Park, the school is actively encouraging parents to drop students off in residential areas. Why – because the carpark cannot cope with the number of currently enrolled students, let alone more. These kids can then be counted as “walking to school”.

Trinity Grammar School needs to adhere to the Conditions as determined by the IPC and refrain from imposing additional burden on the residential community. There was clear direction in the IPC statement of reasons, clearly stating that certain conditions must be met BEFORE any further increases in students. This repeated request for more students should not be approved. MICHAEL THOMAS 11 HOLWOOD AVE ASHFIELD NSW


Project Details

Application Number
Main Project
Assessment Type
SSD Modifications
Development Type
Educational establishments
Local Government Areas
Inner West
Determination Date

Contact Planner

Ingrid Berzins