Weigall Sports Complex, Sydney Grammar School.

I, Casey-Ann Wainer, am writing to object, in the strongest possible terms, to the selected location for the Weigall Sports Complex on the tennis courts: Option 1 in the DA.

For 12 years my mother has lived in the Social Housing precinct at Lawson St, and I frequently stay with her as family and as a carer when her health deteriorates. I have come to know and socialise with the other residents who live at the precinct, as a connected and caring community of good hearted, interesting and intelligent people. They genuinely look out for each other. Whether chatting while they hang the washing or sitting outdoors in the garden, among them there is company for people, many of whom are elderly and live alone.

The site that Grammar School has selected for development of a new sporting complex, lacks any consideration for the impact that both the construction and ensuing permanent presence that the complex will have on the health, wellbeing and quality of life for these people - the School’s neighbours.

This DA for a massive construction site of blasting, drilling, noise, dirt, ground vibrations and later ongoing light spill will create an ongoing, entirely unhealthy environment and untenable living conditions for the more than one hundred residents of the precinct. Another entirely unconsidered outcome of the proposal is that it will render the outdoor washing lines useless due to inevitably of construction dust settling on residents' washing - washing lines provided through government funding for tenants use. Furthermore, the considerable air-pollution will render the entire outdoor garden space unusable and residents will be required to remain isolated indoors or leave the premises completely if they wish to access fresh air! This is completely unviable for most of the residents, some of whom are 93+ years and, mentioned, many of whom live alone. This is just one example of the extent to which no consideration has been given to the social impacts of the DA, nor to the well-being of individuals who will never be able to access or benefit from the construction of the Sports Complex. Furthermore, these conditions are totally contra to government policies for stable communities, neighbourhoods, and the rights of these government housing tenants to peaceable living, some of whom have called the precinct home for 30+ years.

The DA will also have significant ongoing effects for the young children living with their families in the precinct. The unhealthy conditions, noxious air pollution and disrupted sleep from construction noise and flood lights will have significant psychological and physiological effects on their levels of stress and anxiety, their capacity to maintain mental focus and, significantly, will be hugely disruptive to their capacity to manage school work and assessments at home. As an education provider, I find it hard to believe that Sydney Grammar’s interests would be so elitist as to only consider the benefits of the DA for their own student cohort, without considering the IMMENSE cumulative, detrimental effects for students living in the Social Housing precinct, even though these children attend other, less privileged schools.

As a high-school teacher with an MA education and an awarded First Class Honours degree in Learning Sciences, I have strong grounds, based on experience, to claim that Sydney Grammar’s proposed location for the Weigall Sports complex will arguably have a far greater NEGATIVE impact on learning than any benefits they purport. It would be entirely unconscionable to build a complex on the proposed site, given the insurmountable negative impacts on less privileged people in the community, and the undeniable likelihood of unforeseen externalities both during and after construction, especially when Sydney Grammar is in a position to consider OTHER POSSIBLE SITES.

When something is done well, with full consideration for the possible impacts, beyond immediate self-serving interests, you invariably prevent wasting time and money solving problems in the future. The proposed location for the Weigall Sports COmplex is NOT well thought-through in terms of the impacts for the WIDER community of Sydney Grammar School’s own neighbours, neither during construction, nor after when residents' access to sunlight and visible sky will remain affected. The details of the current DA are open ended and inconclusive, particularly considering the loss of sky, light, fresh air, community connections, healthy living and sense of security for the residents at the Lawson st precinct. As such I am requesting that you determine in favour of the right to a peaceful home and life for residents of the precinct and other neighbours in the immediate vicinity, and require the School to build it’s complex on a different site than the one currently proposed.

I am available to be contacted if you require further information from me on the basis of my experience as a visitor to the Lawson St Social Housing precinct, or my expertise as an education professional.

Sincerely,
Casey-Ann Wainer

I object to the Weigall sportsground demolition and redevelopment due to the below reasons:

1. Dust and air quality
o Residents in close proximity (western side of the sports grounds) will be exposed to dust and waste in the air from the construction site

2. Noise and vibrations from demolition, construction and truck movements including “Large vehicle access from Neild Avenue”
o Particularly disruptive as we’re working from home all day in the foreseeable future

3. Hours of operation (see below)
General site works Mon-Fri 7am-6pm
Blasting Mon-Fri 9am-5pm
Saturday 9am-1pm
o Given the very long (18 -20-month) construction timetable and many people working from home, general site works and blasting will be very disruptive especially in the early mornings, late afternoons and Saturdays

1, Base of the existing Woollahra LEP Height of Building Map, the proposed project is in an undefined height area. It is not appropriate to build up a 22 metre high building in a J2 9.5 metre high building zone.

2, Because of the height of the proposed complex and the width of Neild Avenue, it basically blocks out all the sky view from my apartment unit. It will cast a shadow over the whole apartment, creating psychological depression throughout me and my whole family.

3, The proposed complex will integrate multiple sports at the same time and in the same spot which will be continuously on going. This will create lots of pressure on the residential neighbourhood, such as noise and traffic. Some proposed sport facilities should be diverse to Sydney Grammar School's other vacancy sites near New South Head Road.

I object to the Weigall sportsground demolition and redevelopment due to the below reasons:

1) Dust and air quality - Residents in close proximity (western side of the sports grounds) will be exposed to dust and waste from the construction site
2) Noise and vibrations from demolition, construction and truck movements including “Large vehicle access from Neild Avenue”
3)Particularly disruptive as i will be working from home all day in the foreseeable future. I disagree with the suggested hours of operation. Given the very long (18 -20-month) construction timetable and many people working from home, general site works from 7am and blasting will be very disruptive especially in the early mornings, late afternoons and Saturdays.

As a resident of 8 Vialoux Avenue, I have grave concerns regarding the proposed development of the Weigall Sports complex. These include:
- Loss of solar
o Solar to our currently light filled apartment will be essentially obliterated from ALL rooms. We have no outdoor living space or balconies to compensate for this. This would be extremely detrimental to our well-being & mental health.
- Loss of views
o Essentially views will be onto a wall only 8m away from every single room of our apartment (The submission misrepresents the views from our apartment, number 12, by presenting trees which would take 10-20 years to grow this tall, if ever). We currently have green filled views with trees to the west & green fields all the way to the water in Rushcutters Bay.
- Parking:
o We currently have NO onsite parking in our apartment building and rely on the available & extremely limited street parking, which would be significantly impacted by the proposed development. Furthermore we purchased on a cul-de-sac street with minimal traffic, so our child could safely play outside (which will no longer be possible with increased traffic both during construction & use).
- Privacy – there is a high risk of complete loss of privacy in our living spaces – any windows on the south & east side of the buildings will be able to see directly into our living & bedrooms.
- Chemical & construction dust exposure
o Both from the construction & then subsequent plant exhausts (including mechanical & chemical exhausts from the proposed swimming pools).
- Noise pollution
o 2+ years of major construction works has not been adequately addressed. This is particularly concerning with a young child in early stages of development. The anticipated construction noise levels are well within the realms of causing hearing damage in addition to the mental health strain of living essentially within a construction zone.
o Furthermore, the noise pollution from rubbish removal of the existing sports ground is already above acceptable levels and there is no adequate plan to remedy this for the proposed development.
- Unacceptably high risk of property damage given our 3 story brick building was constructed circa 1910.
- Not in keeping with Paddington residential landscape, the development is excessive in size and scale.
- The development is within Paddington Heritage conservation area
- Environmental – we currently enjoy diverse array of birdlife (including cockatoos, kookaburras, lorikeets & magpies), whose homes would be destroyed.
- Significant financial loss – having purchased this apartment less than a year ago, with a young family, the value loss of our apartment from the above mentioned points will be massive.
If this proposal goes ahead it will pose significant dangers to our well-being & health (we are particularly concerned about the health & safety dangers to our newborn baby).
SGS has a huge amount of land and resources at their disposal, with many more suitable development options available. It is unfair and unnecessary for them to infringe upon the local community in such a detrimental manner.
Sincerely,
Dr Ella Darveniza
XXXXXXXXX

xxxxxxxxxxxx

The proposed placement of this Sports Complex is in the most physically congested vehicular and residential area of all of the alternate sites. I live on XXXXX and along with many of my neighbors, will experience the full impact of the bulk and size of this building.
Vehicle access, entry and exit from Advanx and Encore buildings is right opposite where parents will drop off pupils. They already often double park in this area when their children use the current tennis courts. The street narrows to one lane although it services three roads, Lawson St, Neild Ave and Boundary St, an already extremely congested traffic area at weekends and peak hours.
I am concerned that there is no detailed lighting plan given in this proposal and would assume that given the proposed outdoor spaces, entrance pathways, main access stairs, Balcony and utility areas, there would have to be a provision for night lighting and in some cases continuous lighting. As the proposed building is in such close proximity to the Advanx building this would need very careful consideration as this would impact on floor to ceiling glass doors to our living spaces and indeed bedrooms. Because the application includes a substantial "servery" facility, I assume that there will be options for functions to be held in the complex. Many of my neighbors are concerned about noise levels but I am sure these can be controlled during day hours.
Finally,there appears no clear reason to remove Critical Trees, shame on your Sydney Grammar School.

I am writing to object to this project in its current form. I am also writing in support of my sister, XXXXX objection to this project. XXX lives in the XXXXX Apartment Complex that will be severely impacted by this proposal. She has already experienced severe anxiety over this proposal and the effect it will have on her life and that of her neighbours in the housing complex, many of whom are vulnerable people and, like my sister, have lived there peacefully for most of their lives. I object to this proposal on the following grounds:
Site of the proposed building: The chosen site will severely impact residents of the Housing complex by creating an enormous brick wall in front of their windows. There will be no more views for residents, little sunlight and extensive over shadowing. With access to ample land owned by the School in this area, there is no well argued reason for locating this building in the direct vicinity of the homes of the Housing complex residents. It is highly unlikely that such a development proposal would have been submitted had the adjacent apartment complex consisted of typical upmarket Paddington residences. This is a shameful application by a School that supposedly prides itself on its moral and ethical standards.
Construction impacts: If construction goes ahead, albeit at a different location to the one proposed, the movement of trucks in the vicinity and the hours of operation of the building site are not adequately addressed in this proposal in terms of ongoing community consultation to preserve the amenity of residents in the area by mitigating noise, dust and vibration.
Community benefit: The proposal must be required to allow public use of the facilities when they are not being used by the School. Such public use should not only be limited to other private schools but also public schools and residents in the neighbourhood. The Paddington Greenway Project should also be a condition of approval for this development.
I request that my concerns are addressed in reviewing this application and that the current siting of the proposed development be rejected.
Helen Drury

HI there,
Please see attached objections to the Weigall Development.
Sinead

I have seen the submissions of Margaret Shearer of XXXXX and XXXX of XXXX and agree with these submissions. Regards, XXXXXX.

I have seen and read the submissions of Margaret Shearer of XXXXX and of XXXX of XXXXX and agree with these submissions.

Please find attached submissions objecting to this proposed development.

The placement, overall size and bulk of the Development is inappropriate in the context of the Woollahra DCP 2015 and in the context of the current surrounding environment. The Development provides no local community or public benefit, yet its construction, existence and ongoing use will create many disruptions and disadvantages for local residents and community. As proposed in its location at the southern end of Weigall fields, it will have a significant negative impact on residents to the west and south, with loss of views, trees, noise, traffic and construction impacts. Proposed siting of the Sports Complex at the southern end of the Weigall Playing Fields means it encroaches on and overshadows residences in the local residential community area. It is not a residential building and it cannot piggyback on nearby residential uses as a precedent for its approval.
The alternative sites considered (but not pursued) for the Development on Weigall 4, closer to the rail overpass and next to New South Head Road, offered a site away from residents and the local community and close to the existing Weigall sports buildings on the north of the Weigall Playing Fields. It offered better traffic and pedestrian access. Overall, Weigall 4 is a much more appropriate site for any proposed sports complex.
The increased traffic and pedestrian traffic caused by construction and use of the Weigall Sports Facility Development will have a harmful effect on the village community and on the enjoyment and access of Neild Ave and the connected Rushcutters Bay Park in particular. The Application relies on a gross underestimation of the traffic ( particularly at peak times and at school drop off and pick-up) that the proposed increase in activities at the new facility will generate.
The consultation process undertaken (resulting in the Consultation Report (Appendix FF)) was highly inadequate and systematically excluded key stakeholder groups . Apart from occurring during the peak COVID period (making access to the meetings impossible for many and causing some sessions to be cancelled at short-notice), the information given was insufficient. Written queries and requests for further information were ignored, as was the responses to requests for further information and engagement. This means a number of the required reports are seriously deficient ( Visual Impact, Noise, Traffic, Construction Management and Community impact) in that they do not take into account a group of key impacted stakeholders.
We submit that the Department make the following findings with respect to the current proposed Weigall development (SSD-10421 EXH-10669307):
1. That the Main Sports Facility Building (Building 1) be rejected as too high and large for the SSDA site.
2. That the Development be rejected at its current location on the Weigall Playing Fields and consideration be given to placing further to the East at Weigall 4, where it would have less impact on all local community stakeholders and be better for transport accessibility.
3. That the appropriateness of the Development with its functions as proposed be assessed against the green space in which it historically sits. Any Weigall Development, if approved, would need to be smaller in size and bulk than the Development as proposed in order to be appropriate in the overall context.
4. Trees along the Neild Ave boundary including Critical Trees and those to the southern end of the SSDA site should be retained. There is no justification given for removal of Critical Trees (numbered 31,21,34-36, 122, 125, 126 in the Tree Report)– along the western boundary of the SSDA site on Neild Avenue.
5. Any approval for development of Weigall should require landscaping measures that include retention/planting to maintain the current density & mixture of mature tall trees on the western and southern side of the Weigall Fields, further north and south along the Neild Ave boundary, inside the Weigall Playing Fields and on the north side of the Western Building to mitigate the visual impact. Planting proposed along the western side of the Main Building is currently not in keeping with the surrounding landscape.
6. A footpath should be required from the bus drop off to the Sports Complex inside the Weigall Playing Fields
7. An upgrade of the Neild Ave public footpath (a major pedestrian precinct), should be required as a condition of any development to include undergrounding of powerlines and cables, and street lighting modernization.
8. The Main Sports Facility Building (Building 1) cannot stay within sound limits even in normal use, impacting on Neild Ave residents. Any approval should require that the Main Building be closed to the North and West (only open on the Eastern aspect) and ventilated.
9. The lighting from the Main Access Stairs and Balcony will add significant light pollution. This impact on surrounding residents and stakeholders is not considered, and is absent from the Application, a major deficiency of this SSDA.
10. The function of the Main Sport Facility Building should be exclusively for indoor sporting activity-not as a large grandstand for outdoor sports or a venue for large scale social functions. The SSDA cites 84 as maximum number of spectators and for only 14 functions per annum during daylight hours. This should be a condition of approval.
11. The roof of Main Sports Facility Building (Building 1) is intended to have solar panels across its entire surface. Solar panels facing west reflecting towards Affected Neild Ave Properties should relocated and be removed from plans.

I have closely read and endorse the submissions filed by Margaret Shearer of XXXX (attached) and/or the submissions filed by XXXX of XXX.

Yours sincerely
Steven Pongrass

Please find attached objecting to SSD-10421.

Dear Sir/Madam, please see attached objection to the Weigall Sports Complex submission.
Regards
George Lawson

Please see attached submission.

See attached submission

Please note attached objection to this project

An objection is lodged opposing the granting of consent to the Facility based on a detailed submission citing
• Location & Context
• Planning Controls
• Access & Parking
• Height, Bulk & Scale – Impact on Adjoining Residential Amenity
Submission in detail is attached.