Weigall Sports Complex, Sydney Grammar School.

The proposed development will not only be extremely disruptive during construction with respect to noise, parking and building reverberation, but the finished development will bring in excessive traffic and restrict natural light to my apartment. It is extremely close to our site line and impedes my privacy.

Dear Prity,
Thank you for providing Heritage NSW with an extension to submit our comments on Aboriginal cultural heritage matters for this SSD.
Regards,
Jackie Taylor
Senior Team Leader, Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Regulation - South

See attached.

The proposal is situated on the Paddington side of the schools property and it woud be intrusive to the streetscape and the current openness of the school grounds. The school has sufficient land towards New South Head Road and the development could be hidden from the streetscape. If the development was built closer to New South Head Road and the State Rail line, it woud provide far better access to train facilities. They are telling the state government what they want to hear. It is not substantiable. Parents drop off and collect their children from school as evidenced by the street blockages in Lawson Street, Alma Street, Glenmore Road and additional through traffic in Boundary Street and Brown Street.
The report by the traffic engineers refers to enabling the development to be tie in with public transport however that is an excuse for building an undersized car park. To realistically tie in with public transport, the development should be built on the New South Head Road side of the schools property, around the creek and closer to Edgecliff station. NSW State government is very unlikely to build another necessary station at the opening of the rail line at Rushcutters Bay unless funded by non-government sources. The school should make a financial contribution to the state to build a train station in that location and the school should build the development on that side of the property to take advantage of location of a new railway station there or buses along New South Head Road. Purported additional use of Edgecliff station as a public transport option for the school will create more pedestrian traffic at Edgecliff station and the footpath on the school side down New South Head Road is narrow. It is unlikely Edgecliff station woud be used by students or parents or spectators - especially on wet weather days as Edgecliff Station is not a practical walking distance to the school or the proposed location of the sports ground complex.
The area over the creek would be a far better site for buildings, stadium and a larger car park There is no public transport in Neild Avenue.
Furthermore, I believe the car park will be undersized for the number of attendees at the school and parents and friends. Car park sizes are always underestimated and there is already pressure on street parking for residents that is adversely impacted.

I strongly object to this development proposal. My mother is a resident of one of the blocks of residential units (29-33 Lawson St, Paddington), and as such will be very significantly impacted by this development in terms of severe reduction in outlook and natural light, and increased noise and disturbance.

Given the size of the Weigall sports grounds, it is unclear why the development is planned for the spot immediately adjacent to a densely populated residential area, which will thus affect hundreds of residents. The current development proposal appears to be highly inconsiderate of the impact on the local community, to the point of it constituting an antisocial act. There is currently ample space on the sports grounds to locate the development where it will have no or very minimal impact on other residents in the local community. The School’s claim that the proposed location is the only area that is not flood prone is unsubstantiated, particularly as there is a large building already on the grounds adjacent to New South Head Rd, Rushcutters Bay. In fact, the site of this existing large building would make a much more suitable location for the development given its distance from any residential areas.

In consideration of the above points, I urge the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment to reject this development proposal and to independently assess the merits of an alternative development site, in order to protect the neighbours’ quality of life.

Objections to Building 1
- This project should provide a Biodiversity Development Assessment Report. It is large scale construction on a green site. Old growth trees will be removed, and there will be a large impact on local fauna and flora. There is no reason that an exemption should be made.

- The height and bulk of this structure is not not in keeping with the area. This structure is not replacing an existing building, it is a building of massive structure on a heretofore level green area.

- Although the building is referred to as 2 levels, it has a basement, ground, mezzanine, first and second floor and stands 17.2 m tall (6.7m over prescribed).

- Page 39 of the Environmental Impact Statement (by RUP), shows the East elevation from Vialoux Ave. The structure is completely out of scale with its surroundings. It dwarfs the 3 storey residential building next door, standing almost 2 storeys taller. It is a full storey taller then the residential building on the South corner of Vialoux Ave and Lawson St, whose ground level is almost 3m higher.

- The elevations seem to take their ground level from Neild Ave ignoring the changing gradient running from West to East and from South to North. This negatively increases the impact on Vialoux Ave. The building height and bulk should be appropriate to the full site, taking into account the gradient and ground level.

For the sake of health protection, and climate change minimisation, please do not remove any trees. Thankyou

(attached)

I object to the Sydney Grammar School Weigall Fields sports facility project. I am writing on behalf of my elderly mother who is a resident on Lawson st, Paddington. I also grew up in her home 40 years ago since she started as a resident there.

Reasons to object:
Blocking sun, light and any view: to protect the adjacent residential surrounds and the surrounding residential community. The building plans show a huge ugly wall that will be built right in front of homes on Lawson Street and Vialoux Avenue Paddington, blocking sun, light and views.

Construction impact on residents: constant construction noise, trucks, major excavation on surrounding homes which are already very high density, no parking can be found.

Trauma to residents: As a brand and a place of moral standing Sydney Grammar School needs to care for it's surrounding neighborhood and protect their mental physical health. Taking away sunlight and any view they had outside their windows will affect their mental wellbeing long term. In addition in the construction phase be debilitating to live in a major excavation site and also a construction zone. there will be fumes, increased traffic and constant dust which will upset mainly elderly residents, babies and children. Sydney Grammar School will be responsible for their physical and mental health which will be permanently deteriorated because of this project.

I urge you as planning managers to your community to consider it's long standing residents stand up for them and cancel this project.

Given that the Weigall Sports Complex is situated on Gadigal Land of the Eora nation at Rushcutters Bay it would be more than appropriate to have an acknowledgement of this heritage displayed in a prominent position within the Complex [either inside or outside]. There is only minimal mention of this heritage in the Heritage Architects' Report. An acknowledgement of First People's occupation of this land is an ethical and pedagogical matter of great significance in Contemporary Australia - and an issue of generosity of spirit, and necessary redress, especially given that there appears to be no specific Indigenous Scholarships offered by Sydney Grammar School, unlike many other private schools, who offer such scholarships.
I draw your attention to the work of Paul Irish: 'Hidden In Plain View - The Aboriginal People of Coastal Sydney' - New South Publishers UNSW 2017 - for references and discussion of the Indigenous presence in the Rushcutters Bay area. [Also see details re The Rushcutters Bay Settlement on website www.sydneybarani.com.au]

Yours in hope,
Joanne Burns
Sydney Writer and Resident of Elizabeth Bay

While I will not be directly effected by the development I am a relative of a resident at 33 Lawson Street and I have experienced the stress and heartache this proposal has caused already.

The proposed development is sited too close to residents at Lawson Street and it will also have detrimental effects to residents at Neild Ave and Vialoux Ave. There seems to be ample space to keep the development away from existing residences (Option 4) and not build so close to people’s living spaces.

The proposed buildings will cause significant overshadowing and will impact on the views of existing residences.

The noise during construction as well as after completion (from buses etc) will be unacceptable.

The proposal in it’s current form represents the disrespectful taking over of a living space of a vulnerable community and is totally unacceptable.
I urge the Department to reject this proposal.

SGS should be able to do as they see fit with the land seeing that they own the green space.

Please see attached response letter.

The 26 individuals named in the attached document oppose the Weigall Sports Complex development in its current form due, in part, to the reasons outlined in the attached document.

see attached letter

To whom it may concern,

I have never objected to a development application before, however as a direct neighbour of the proposed Weigall Sport Complex development by Sydney Grammar school, I and my family stand to be significantly negatively affected by the proposed development.

The building proposed is unacceptably close to our apartment block, 8 Vialoux avenue, a mere 8m away. This raises a number of concerns

Significant risk of damage to property
Reading the geotechnical report (appendix AA) the volume of excavation for the development and the proximity to my home is likely to damage the building’s foundations. It states that and that underpinning and chemicals would be required to stabilise the soil and . I do not think this is a reasonable when there are comparable options without these risks ie. moving the building further away (as in option 4 provided by the applicant) or not having a below ground pool.

Loss of solar access, views and vista
The main reason that I purchased this apartment for my family and new baby is that the apartment is light filled and has a green outlook from the north and west sides. The current development plan obliterates views from all sides as well as significantly reducing the solar access of every room of my apartment. Additionally all solar access to outdoor areas of my apartment will be removed by this building design, reducing its amenity significantly – the clothesline will no longer receive sun and there will be no where with sun on our property to relocate it to.

The overshadowing diagrams provided in the application contradict the statement contained in the application – the applicant should provide more detailed overshadowing diagrams, additionally detailing the effect throughout the year.

The LEP 2014 principles in clause 4.3 state that the building’s height should
- Establish a transition between zones to protect local amenity
- Minimise loss of solar access to surrounding buildings and open space
- Protect the amenity of the public domain by providing public views of the harbour and surrounding areas.

The applicant’s submitted design does none of those things – engulfing my apartment block on 2 sides and dwarfing it by comparison when viewing the eastern elevation plans.

The applicant would have to move the building further away and or reduce the size and foot print to bring it into line with these LEP principles.


Traffic and parking
The construction in particular is planned have a truck entry in Vialoux avenue, this will increase heavy traffic. The street is a cul de sac and has little to no traffic currently. Our child is one of many who would be at risk from this increased heavy traffic and lose their outdoor space to play. The application makes no plans for road safety for the children and other vulnerable people in the area.

Additionally the street parking which is already inadequate will be further reduced during construction and after the development will also be in greater demand. The levels the application estimates for public transport usage are pre-COVID, the post COVID public transport usage is significantly lower, 75% less (as per the Sydney Morning herald article April 2020). Calculations should use the reduced value to assess impact as the COVID situation is unlikely to change in the near future.

Heath risks from construction
As a medical doctor, I am very concerned regarding the health risks from the noise and dust generated from the proposed construction work. The noise levels from construction are anticipated to be 120 – 122dB, assuming an open field between my apartment 8 meters away and the construction site the calculated sound power would be 101 – 103 dB. This level is well above industrial safety standards and at a level which is known to cause hearing damage. The development application to does not contain a plan to address these risks adequately.

Additionally there is no plan for mitigation and reduction of dust particles from demolition and construction, the silica dust that would be generated by these works at a distance of 8 meters away is likely to breach the recommended levels. An occupational hygienist should be engaged to assess the risk and develop a management plan to protect the health of surrounding residents.


I also have concerns regarding the development plan:

Not in keeping with the buildings and the environment of the surrounding area
Although there is nothing wrong with the visual design of the building when it stands alone, when juxtaposed with the adjacent apartment block circa 1910 build and the other low rise residences in the street the proportions become excessive and the geometric façade clashes with the residential landscape of the street.

Effects on the environment
The current design as stated in the geotechnical survey – the planned excavation for the pool will be below the level of the ground water and require significant re-enforcement with shoring walls and dewatering pumping to take place. This is harmful to the local environment and structures, I think that the applicant needs to have a detailed plan as to how they will address this risk.

The obvious alternative is to have an above ground pool and move the structure further from neighbouring buildings – given the large space this could easily be done.

Additionally in the local environment, due to the mature growth tress there is an abundance of native birds, insects and spiders. Which are not endangered species however they are a rare and valuable feature in the city where it is very difficult to access native wildlife. Removing these would decrease the amenity of the local community.

Poor design
The proposed building design does not minimise overlooking, the large parcel of land makes it very easy to locate the building further away from residential buildings which would eliminate this issue (ie. Option 4 in the development application). The application states that they have used landscaping to mitigate the overlooking of my building, this is not adequate as there is a variety of alternative designs, as per:

Meriton v Sydney City Council [2004] NSWLEC 313
- Overlooking of neighbours that arises out of poor design is not acceptable. A poor design is demonstrated where an alternative design, that provides the same amenity to the applicant at no additional cost, has a reduced impact on privacy.
- Landscaping should not be relied on as the sole protection against overlooking. While existing dense vegetation within a development is valuable, planting proposed in a landscaping plan should be given little weight.

Also situating the plant of the building on the roof will unnecessarily increase noise and height of the building, it should be situated within the building, or on the ground on the north side so as to minimise impact to surrounding residences.

In conclusion, I have grave concerns that in the application there are many statements conflicting with the evidence of reports contained in the appendices. The failure to address health and property damage risks to the neighbouring residences a lack of clear practical plans for risk mitigation are also of concern and not adequate. I feel that the development proposal needs to address these issues before a considered judgement can be made. I personally believe that a sports complex for Sydney grammar would be very beneficial to the students however the negative impact to the community health, surrounding property and the environment are not justifiable - the development design as it stands should not go ahead. There are so many design alternatives possible with such a large parcel of land that does not impact the surrounding neighbours and environment to the same degree.

Please find attached a submission on SSD 10421 Sydney Grammar School Weigall Sports Complex on behalf of the owners of SP 11962 at 8 Vialoux Avenue Paddington

Re: Weigall Sports Complex SSD - 10421
As an ex student of Sydney Grammar School I am strongly opposed to this development proposal. To propose
such a large development of swimming pools and basketball courts directly in front of housing commission residents is deeply offensive.
Given the size of Weigall Playing Fields, it is unclear why the development is planned immediately adjacent to a densely populated residential area, which will adversely affect hundreds of vulnerable residents. There is plenty of space to locate the development where it will have minimal impact on residents in the community.
Grammar's claim that the proposed location is the only area that is not flood prone is insubstantial, particularly as there is a large building already on the grounds adjacent to New South Head Rd. I think it's Option 4 on the planning submission.
Having played at the Weigall Grounds for 6 years I saw no evidence of flooding anywhere? I'm not against the sporting development, but just move it well away from peoples backyards, where it will detrimentally effect the light, views and quality of life of many many people.

Councillor Harriet Price
Paddington

See attached SSD response letter.