‘We must investigate’: Council faces scrutiny over deal with elite school
- Replies 0
If you thought your local streets were safe from being snapped up by the highest bidder, think again!
In a move that’s got North Sydney residents up in arms, the local council is forging ahead with a controversial plan to sell off a chunk of public road to one of the city’s most prestigious private schools—Sydney Church of England Grammar School, better known as Shore.
And if you’re wondering what this means for the community, you’re not alone. The whole saga has sparked a heated debate about public assets, council finances, and the future of our neighbourhoods.
Let’s set the scene. North Sydney Council, facing a serious cash crunch, is considering selling part of Edward Street (north of Lord Street) to Shore, an elite all-boys school where annual tuition can reach a jaw-dropping $46,000.
The school’s pitch? They want to close off the street to create an internal ring-road, moving the daily drop-off and pick-up chaos onto their own property. Sounds neat and tidy—at least for the school.
But for local residents, the proposal is anything but straightforward. The section of road in question separates Shore’s senior and preparatory campuses and is already a notorious traffic bottleneck during school hours.
Residents fear that closing the street will only make the existing 'traffic chaos' worse, not better.
At a recent council meeting, the proposal was discussed in detail. Shore’s community engagement director, Sarah Taylor, read a statement from the headmaster, arguing that parents opposed to the plan were 'actually arguing against their own interests.'
The school claims that by moving traffic inside, they’ll reduce demand for street parking—though locals aren’t convinced.
North Sydney Mayor Zoe Baker, clearly feeling the financial pressure, added an amendment to the motion: any discussions with Shore would also consider a possible land swap to create a new pocket park at the corner of Mount and Edward Streets.
The motion passed unanimously, but not without some serious caveats.
Councillor Shannon Welch summed up the mood: 'I do not want to see this council forced into a position where we are selling community assets simply because our financial position is unsustainable.'
Mayor Baker echoed the sentiment, saying, 'I would rather that we were a council in a position where we weren’t needing to investigate, but that is not the case.'
Local residents haven’t been shy about voicing their concerns. Danielle Walters, a 20-year resident, questioned how much of the neighbourhood should be handed over to the school: 'If this is all going to be (a) school, should we just be selling our properties to Shore now?' Another resident described being 'frequently prevented from accessing my property by the queues of massive SUVs and the private traffic wardens employed by SHORE.'
The fear is that selling off public land to a private institution sets a dangerous precedent. What’s to stop other well-funded organisations from making similar requests? And what does it mean for the character and accessibility of our neighbourhoods?
This isn’t just a North Sydney issue. Across Australia, councils are grappling with budget shortfalls and tough decisions about public land.
Selling off community assets might provide a short-term financial fix, but it raises long-term questions about who our cities are really for.
Pocket parks and land swaps might soften the blow, but they don’t always replace the value of public roads and open spaces. Once these assets are gone, they’re gone for good.
For now, the council has agreed to enter discussions with Shore, with the school required to put up a $20,000 bond to cover the cost of council investigations.
Community consultations are promised, but residents are watching closely to see if their voices will truly be heard.
Also read: Cairns mayor accused of 'chilling' debate amid proposed 800pc retirement village rate hike
Have you seen similar deals in your area? Do you think councils should be allowed to sell public roads and parks to private institutions, even if it helps balance the books? Or should community assets be protected at all costs? Share your thoughts and experiences in the comments below!
In a move that’s got North Sydney residents up in arms, the local council is forging ahead with a controversial plan to sell off a chunk of public road to one of the city’s most prestigious private schools—Sydney Church of England Grammar School, better known as Shore.
And if you’re wondering what this means for the community, you’re not alone. The whole saga has sparked a heated debate about public assets, council finances, and the future of our neighbourhoods.
Let’s set the scene. North Sydney Council, facing a serious cash crunch, is considering selling part of Edward Street (north of Lord Street) to Shore, an elite all-boys school where annual tuition can reach a jaw-dropping $46,000.
The school’s pitch? They want to close off the street to create an internal ring-road, moving the daily drop-off and pick-up chaos onto their own property. Sounds neat and tidy—at least for the school.
But for local residents, the proposal is anything but straightforward. The section of road in question separates Shore’s senior and preparatory campuses and is already a notorious traffic bottleneck during school hours.
North Sydney Council is moving ahead with discussions to potentially sell part of Edward Street to the elite private school Shore, despite strong opposition from local residents. Image source: Sardaka / Wikimedia Commons.
Residents fear that closing the street will only make the existing 'traffic chaos' worse, not better.
At a recent council meeting, the proposal was discussed in detail. Shore’s community engagement director, Sarah Taylor, read a statement from the headmaster, arguing that parents opposed to the plan were 'actually arguing against their own interests.'
The school claims that by moving traffic inside, they’ll reduce demand for street parking—though locals aren’t convinced.
North Sydney Mayor Zoe Baker, clearly feeling the financial pressure, added an amendment to the motion: any discussions with Shore would also consider a possible land swap to create a new pocket park at the corner of Mount and Edward Streets.
The motion passed unanimously, but not without some serious caveats.
Councillor Shannon Welch summed up the mood: 'I do not want to see this council forced into a position where we are selling community assets simply because our financial position is unsustainable.'
Mayor Baker echoed the sentiment, saying, 'I would rather that we were a council in a position where we weren’t needing to investigate, but that is not the case.'
Local residents haven’t been shy about voicing their concerns. Danielle Walters, a 20-year resident, questioned how much of the neighbourhood should be handed over to the school: 'If this is all going to be (a) school, should we just be selling our properties to Shore now?' Another resident described being 'frequently prevented from accessing my property by the queues of massive SUVs and the private traffic wardens employed by SHORE.'
The fear is that selling off public land to a private institution sets a dangerous precedent. What’s to stop other well-funded organisations from making similar requests? And what does it mean for the character and accessibility of our neighbourhoods?
This isn’t just a North Sydney issue. Across Australia, councils are grappling with budget shortfalls and tough decisions about public land.
Selling off community assets might provide a short-term financial fix, but it raises long-term questions about who our cities are really for.
Pocket parks and land swaps might soften the blow, but they don’t always replace the value of public roads and open spaces. Once these assets are gone, they’re gone for good.
For now, the council has agreed to enter discussions with Shore, with the school required to put up a $20,000 bond to cover the cost of council investigations.
Community consultations are promised, but residents are watching closely to see if their voices will truly be heard.
Also read: Cairns mayor accused of 'chilling' debate amid proposed 800pc retirement village rate hike
Have you seen similar deals in your area? Do you think councils should be allowed to sell public roads and parks to private institutions, even if it helps balance the books? Or should community assets be protected at all costs? Share your thoughts and experiences in the comments below!
