Trinity Grammar School Redevelopment

See attached

The EPA does not have any interest in the EIS exhibition or the proposal as the EPA is not the appropriate regulatory authority.

See attached

- Trinity is currently legally allowed (court ordered) to have 1500 enrolments, it has 1600+ enrolments as admitted in their submission. It has ignored the court order. Will a limit of 2100 enrolments be enforced by anyone or is it up to the residents to take them to court when they breach the court order? No one is enforcing the current limit and the school is not honouring or even acknowledging the limit.
- Trinity does not currently have enough parking for it's staff and students, but proposes no more on site parking for the 25% increase in staff and students. This will impact the local community and the parents attempting to deposit and retrieve their sons from the school.
- Traffic in the area is currently atrocious. Buses park on pedestrian crossings daily. A traffic survey done while Year 12 students were not attending school does not reflect the current dangerous traffic situation. This will only be exacerbated by a 25 (or 30+?)% increase in students.
- The building work will add to the current dangerous traffic situation with heavy trucks thrown into the mix of cars and buses.
- Encouragement of bike riding is suggested in the plans, which would be highly dangerous to add to the mix of large cars and buses.
- How many times do the residents need to fight the growth of this school in a suburb restricted by streets originally built for horses and carts? Is there any way to permanently restrain the growth of the school on this property?
I included pictures and videos of current traffic problems in my original submission.

This development will entirely obliterate iconic views of the CBD skyline from Victoria Street residences and provide exclusive views to Trinity Grammar School. The view assessment classifies the view loss from my upstairs sitting room (159 Victoria Street, View position 1) as severe. The proposed height of the five-story building should be reduced to allow residents to retain iconic views or at the very least, share existing views. I note that there is significant open space located below the northern corner of the five-story learning and teaching facility and numerous other opportunities to relocate classrooms elsewhere along the 0.2km of proposed new development (spanning across two football ovals).

ENVIRONMENTAL AMENITY
I note that the applicant considers increased noise amenity impacts resulting from SSD-10371 to be imperceivable. An accurate assessment of residential noise and traffic impacts due to intensification of use at Trinity Grammar School can be readily identified by obtaining copies of previously conducted acoustic and traffic reports.
A) LEC 2007 (1490 students)
B) LEC 2015 (1466 students)
C) SSD-10371 reports (1665 students)
A comparison of current and previous acoustic assessments is likely to confirm that both volume and duration of intrusive noise has increased substantially, including the introduction of staggered recess/lunch to accommodate the increase in students beyond the 1500 LEC imposed limit, expanded use of Ovals to accommodate sport training requirements for 1600+ students, introduction of PE classes on oval boundaries adjacent to residents, with frequent shouting/blowing of whistles and increased traffic/deliveries.

Aside from recent CDC approved development at Trinity Grammar School, a retirement village (located one block away from the school) was also recently developed, however it is highly unlikely that the retirement village contributes to the current noise load. Therefore, the formula C minus A (or B) multiplied by 3 should provide the DPIE an accurate assessment of impacts associated with 600 additional students.

The 2007 condition limiting student numbers to 1500 was not an arbitrary one. Nor was the LEC assessment that an increase of 200 students would have significant environmental impacts. The fact that noise from Trinity Grammar School has increased to unacceptable (non-compliant) levels in recent years cannot be used as a justification to continue to do so or to further intensify use. Rather than increase students to 2100, Trinity Grammar School should be required to return to 1500 students enrolled until such time as current unacceptable environmental noise amenity impacts are reduced to levels that are compliant with environmental planning instruments.

Residents are very familiar with the implementation of temporary measures to improve residential amenity and compliance (with previous conditions of consent) while DAs are being assessed. For example, evening use of ovals has ceased, teachers are on duty at Jubilee Drive (in additional to a traffic controller) and parents are being urged to adhere to road rules and school traffic and parking guidance. However, under normal circumstances all streets surrounding the school become chaotic drop-off and pick-up zones, with frequent hazardous behaviour (parking in no stopping zones, double parking, reversing around corners). I am most concerned that if SDD-10371 is approved, the school will revert to the status quo (as generally occurs between DAs), noting that SSD-10371 plans to increase pedestrian egress points onto Victoria Street from the current one (at Jubilee Drive) to three (two at Jubilee Drive and a reopening of the egress at the Delmar Gallery). Double parking and other dangerous driving behaviour during street-based pick-ups and drop-offs is likely to exponentially increase once 100+ additional cars are parked on residential streets in the immediate vicinity of the school as a result of SSD-10371.

INTENSIFICATION OF USE
SSD-10371 has not mentioned (or assessed) the impact of the proposed 2100 students in conjunction with any other operations at the school, for example a) childcare facilities (pre-K not currently operated on the Summer Hill campus), b) commercialisation of pools for learn to swim classes (as occurs at most other independent schools with such facilities), c) commercial activity on Oval 2 (commercial activity appears to have temporarily ceased) and d) commercialisation of new facilities, namely pavilion and rooftop function centre. What mechanisms will be in place to limit additional noise, traffic and other amenity impacts due to intensification of operation of both existing (pools/ovals) and new (pavilion/rooftop) facilities, including intensification of use by students and commercialisation? Relatedly what mechanisms will be in place to prevent disproportionate increases in students (for example a quadrupling of primary age students) given future traffic modelling is predicated on current enrolments.

Mr. Neil Bettles, XXXXXXX, Ashfield, NSW 2131
Re: Trinity Grammar School Redevelopment (SSD-10371)
Please see the detail of my objections in the attached document.