‘We must investigate': Council forges ahead with street sale to elite Sydney school
Sydney Church of England Grammar School – better known as Shore – has formally approached North Sydney Council to purchase a chunk of Edward St north of Lord St.
On Monday night, council discussed a recommendation that it 'enter into discussions regarding the potential closure and sale' of the street section, including undertaking community consultations.
The independent, all-boys school – which has annual tuition fees of up to $46,000 – would be required to provide a minimum $20,000 bond to cover the cost of council's 'investigations', with any amount not spent on inquiries refunded back to the school.
Discussion began with a speech from the school's community engagement director Sarah Taylor, who read a statement on behalf of headmaster John Collier.
Parents who were 'agitated' and 'opposed' to the proposal were 'actually arguing against their own interests,' the statement said.
The school's intention was to move traffic during drop-offs and pick-ups within its property as part of an internal ring-road if it completed the purchase.
Local residents would lose 'perhaps four parking spaces in Edward Street,' while the school would 'probably reduce demand for these spots by enhanced spaces within the school'.
North Sydney Mayor Zoe Baker then added an amendment to the motion, specifying that discussions would include a 'possible land swap for the provision of a pocket park on the corner of Mount and Edward Streets'.
The motion was carried unanimously after several councillors voiced their support, though they added caveats.
'I want to make it clear that 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,' said Councillor Shannon Welch.
Ms Baker stressed the dire state of council's finances as justification for the move.
She said she felt the same way about the proposal as she did about two other motions passed earlier that night, which were also a reflection of council's financial position.
One of those was a motion to consider ticketing North Shore families watching Near Year's Eve fireworks from public vantage points, while the other was a decision to reallocate funds for rebuilding the Blues Point seawall to instead replace the PA system at North Sydney Oval.
'All of these things are matters that we must investigate and explore if we are to be a careful council who are seeking financial sustainability and strength in exceptionally difficult and precarious financial circumstances,' Ms Baker said.
' … I think we must investigate, but I would rather that we were a council in a position where we weren't needing to investigate, but that is not the case.'
The section of road that Shore has offered to buy currently separates the school's senior and preparatory campuses, and is a known traffic bottleneck during pick-up and drop-off times.
Before Monday night's meeting, Shore's offer had already been met with backlash from residents, who said closing the street would 'exacerbate the existing traffic chaos'.
'It is an education district but it is a residential district too,' Danielle Walters, who has lived in the area for two decades, told The Daily Telegraph.
'How much are we doing to allow a school to dominate a whole area and what does it mean for us?
'If this is all going to be (a) school, should we just be selling our properties to Shore now?'
Another resident said she was already 'frequently prevented from accessing my property by the queues of massive SUV's and the private traffic wardens employed by SHORE'.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Australian
12 hours ago
- The Australian
The strategies Australians are using to avoid Jim Chalmers' new super tax
The Australian Business Network While the federal government hopes to add $2.3bn per year to its coffers from the incoming super tax, savvy Australians are preparing to implement strategies via self managed super funds (SMSFs) to circumvent its impact. It may leave the government well short of its $40bn collection target over the next decade. When federal parliament resumes later this month Labor will welcome three extra senators, boosting their numbers to 29. And with 10 green senators and a further 10 crossbenchers, the government will have multiple pathways to get the required 39 votes needed to pass the contentious Div 296 superannuation tax on super balances above $3m. With the commencement of this new tax on unrealised gains looking more like a case of 'when' rather than 'if', Sydney-based accountant Timothy Ricardo from Accounting Advisor Group says that the key to overcoming Div 296 tax is to bring forward family succession planning arrangements. 'Rather than wait until death to transfer wealth to the next generation, a retiree with over $3m in a self managed super fund might consider adding their children to the fund and start to build their member balance now,' Ricardo says. The way this would work is that the retiree would withdraw a tax-free lump sum from their account-based pension and gift it to the child. The child would then contribute the amount back to the SMSF as a non-concessional contribution. By utilising bring forward rules, the maximum a child could contribute to super is $360,000 in one financial year. 'For someone with $3.5m in super and two children, withdrawing two lots of $360,000 and having the children contribute it back to the SMSF, this would reduce the member balance out of the danger zone of Div 296 to $2.78m while the overall fund balance would remain at $3.5m' Ricardo says. Although the children would be in the accumulation phase and their member balance taxed at up to 15 per cent on income and gains, it sidesteps the annual taxing of unrealised capital gains under Div 296 tax. It was only in 2021 that the Morrison government increased the maximum number of SMSF members from 4 to 6, which conveniently allows more children and family members to participate in this strategy. What you need to know to beat Div 296 The first is that you must have reached a condition of release to be able to withdraw lump sum amounts from super. This usually means reaching age 60 and having retired. For people aged between 60 to 64 who are still working, a transition to retirement pension can be established and up to 10 per cent of the balance withdrawn each financial year as a pension payment. You also need to have a high level of trust that your child or family member will contribute the funds you gift them back to the SMSF rather than take the money and run. And to state the obvious, even when contributed back to the SMSF by the child, it forms part of their members balance, which may be inaccessible for decades if the child is aged in their 30's or 40's. Administratively, as each member of a SMSF must also be a trustee, the operation of the fund becomes more complex. All trustees will be required to sign off on documents such as the investment strategy review, minutes, resolutions, financial statements and tax return. The final challenge is having sufficient liquidity within the super fund to make withdrawals to give to your children. Although this may seem like a deal breaker for those with lumpy assets in the SMSF such as the 17,000 farmers with primary production land inside of SMSF, a recycling strategy can be executed which achieves the goal of transitioning super out of the higher balance parent's name into the lower balance child's name. Ricardo explains the circular nature of the strategy: 'Say a 65 year old retired farmer with a $4m farm in their SMSF only has $100,000 in the fund bank account. To build the member balance of the children, the farmer can withdraw the $100,000 cash from the fund, give it to the child who then contributes it back in the fund, replenishing the $100,000 SMSF bank account balance. This process can then be repeated over and over again until either contribution caps are reached for the child or the desired level of dilution of the parents member balance has been achieved.' It is important to remember that although much has been spoken about the new super tax and its adverse consequences for people with more than $3m in super, its wording has yet to be finalised. Labor does not have a majority in the senate and they may need to compromise with the Greens or crossbenchers, which could see amendments to the final bill. As such, the advice coming from tax, legal and financial advisors is to prepare strategies to mitigate the Div 296 tax, however keep them on ice until the final legislation is passed and comes into effect. James Gerrard is principal and director of financial planning firm Read related topics: Wealth James Gerrard Wealth Columnist
ABC News
21 hours ago
- ABC News
CSIRO report shows renewables still cheapest form of energy
Chris Bowen is the Minister for Climate Change and Energy and he speaks to Sarah Ferguson about the increased government support for clean energy projects.
ABC News
21 hours ago
- ABC News
Could a 4-day working week be coming to Australia?
The 5-day working week has been the norm for as long as most of us can remember but across the world more companies and governments are trying out a 4-day version. Jason Om finds out whether Australia could be moving in the same direction.
