Chatswood Education Precinct (Upgrades to Chatswood Public School and Chatswood High School)

as a local resident, I object this project.
Such a big school center should not build in such small area. And as a local resident, this long time construction would impact us a lot. from the public health and mentally health would give us very long time pressure.
From the government point of view, you should consider from resident point of view.

PLease see attached

We have a few major concerns with the current development plan for Chatswood Public School:

1. The location of the building P1 is too close to James Street (only 2.1 meters set back) from 2 James Street
2. The height of P1 is effectively 9 stories from James Street level, as the ground level of P1 is already 2 stories above James St level
3. Privacy assessment did not consider James Street neighbors, e.g. our backyard and balcony (6 James St) will be under direct sight of P1 building as all windows for P1 are on the north side; This would also have significant privacy impact for 2 and 4 James St as well as they are closer to the proposed building.

We strongly recommend the current development plan to be revised to minimize the impacts to the neighbours.

60 Centennial Ave.
Chatswood
NSW 2067
26/4/20
Director – Social and Infrastructure Assessments, Planning and Assessment,
Department of Planning, Industry and Environment,
Locked Bag 5022, PARRAMATTA NSW 2124.
Chatswood Education Precinct Application number: SSD-9483
24 Centennial Avenue, Chatswood
Dear sir/madam,
Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the submission. I am the owner of the heritage home at 60 Centennial Ave. My Eastern boundary adjoins the Northwest corner of the High School. My home lies within metres of the proposed new hall, building ‘T’.
My comments are confined to the High school precinct only. I leave it to others in my neighbourhood community to reference the Primary school. Suffice to say I agree entirely with the submission made by Carolyn and John Burgess.
Once complete this new High school will be a significant improvement to the State educational capacity. There are however a number of important matters that must be addressed prior to approval being granted.
The various consultant reports reflect the interests and perspectives of those paying for their commission and as such they are neither arm’s length, neutral, nor independent. This particularly so in the Traffic and Acoustic Assessment reports.
There are errors throughout. As example there is reference in one report to manually operated windows ‘in bedrooms and living rooms’; and in the social impact assessment doc. there is reference to 4 and 8 story residences to the West of the High School – yes, if you go out as far as Ryde!
The Community Engagement Report speaks at length about consultation with nearby residents. The fact is that Dept of Education held only two information sessions for the residents. The first, held very early in the planning process, resulted in strong negative reaction. The second in October last year saw several improvements to the planning concepts, but many serious concerns remained. I provided the Dept Edu. with a written list of these issues and they were good enough to meet with me. Several matters were clarified but many key issues were left unresolved.
The point must be made that at no time did the Dept of Education provide me, or my neighbours, opportunity to review or comment on the current plans prior to their submission to you. Recently they notified the residents that these reports were available on your website for comment. As a result, I reviewed the reports in detail and again sent a written list of questions and comments to the Dept’s. Community Engagement team. They were good enough to discuss these during a Zoom meeting. A number of questions were answered, but many important issues remain unresolved. These are set out in the attached document Appendix 1.
I have confined this submission to just the critical issues. I would ask that these be resolved to prior to any approval of the Dept. Edu. submission.
Yours faithfully,

Andrew Drysdale

1. Traffic: This area, and specifically Centennial Avenue currently cannot cope well with existing traffic at peak hours around school drop off and pick up. This is a well known problem that has existed for years. Therefore increasing school numbers at Chatswood Public School will exacerbate the issue. It is specifically and self evidently false to claim that delay time driving from Centennial Ave to Albert Ave at peak times is 28 seconds. This regularly takes 15 mins to travel 2 short blocks to the highway. At end of school hours, the mass exodus from Chatswood High School eg can delay traffic at the pedestrian crossing for several minutes alone. It is a no go zone, in other words, for residents and others trying to transverse the highway at peak times. The difficulty parents of the primary school have for years have struggled with to find parking in adjacent streets makes this proposal to increase numbers of children, and associated traffic numbers, unworkable. Therefore a realistic traffic impact statement has not been satisfactorily provided to address traffic congestion and parking limitations. I write as a resident of Centennial Ave for 26 years and our children attended both schools over a 16 year period.
It seems the increase in student numbers is responsible for planning new buildings at Chatswood public school that will set a precedent for changing zoning regulations, potentially bringing medium and high density development to the western side of the highway, which has so far resisted the pressures to change the unique character of the landscape providing a buffer against high rise on the eastern side of the highway.
As a resident I can attest that not infrequently there are increasingly numbers of buses associated with school activities clogging up road space in the narrow roads, often illegally parked around the pedestrian crossings.
The current site of CPS and it's location is not appropriate for up to 1600 children.
2. There need to be an extension of time so that affected residents could meet and discuss their joint concerns. The current social restrictions must be a factor in providing fair opportunity to consider in detail, together, the proposal details that are inadequate for the community.

We live in 9 Dardanelles Road, Chatswood, and the proposed Hall (Block T) of Chatswood High School (CHS) is positioned behind our house. We are very concerned that our privacy and quiet enjoyment of our house and land will be jeopardised as a result of the following:
1. Two doors are opened on the west side of the Hall T overlooking the backyard and bedrooms of our house. The 2 doors are circled in blue on the plan below for your easy reference. (see p.1 of Attachment)
The Hall is a venue for school and community events such as sports, concerts, presentation nights and events opened to public. The two doors will allow access to the west side of the Hall T that overlooks our backyard and the bedrooms of our house. This will also increase noise. This will jeopardise our privacy and quiet enjoyment of our house.
• We request that the design to be revised so that there will be no doors opened on the west side of the hall Block T, and the 2 doors proposed (as highlighted on the map per p.1 of the Attachment) to be removed. Alternatively, the doors to be opened on the other sides of the hall.

2. We noted on the Plan “Asphalt maintenance path to side of building to be retained” on the west side of the Hall T (see p.2 of Attachment). As the path to be retained on the west side of the Hall, the users of the Hall will be able to access and gather on the west side of the Hall that overlooks our backyard and bedrooms. Our privacy and quiet enjoyment of our house will be adversely affected.
• We request that the design to be revised to include appropriate screening along the path facing the west of the Hall T. The screening is to prevent negative impact on our privacy and quiet enjoyment of our property. The position of the screening suggested by us are drawn in yellow on the plan below for your easy reference (see p.2 of Attachment).

3. The Accoustic Assessment Report (section 5.5.2 of EIS Appendix 25) notes that the predicted noise levels from the rooftop condenser units at Residential Receptor No. 8 located at my next door neighbour’s address of 7 Dardanelles Road will exceed the noise criteria. We are concerned that the noise issue, if not addressed, will adversely impact on the quiet enjoyment of our property.
We noted that section 5.5.2 also suggests measures to address the predicted noise and privacy issues:
“…The AC plant areas can be either positioned or acoustically treated to further reduce the level of noise emission. We have assumed that there may be up to 10 condenser units located on the rooftop of each building, surrounded by privacy ventilation louvres….”
• We request that appropriate control measures that address noise and privacy, as included in section 5.5.2 of the Accoustic Assessment Report to be implemented so that privacy and quiet enjoyment of our property will be maintained. These measures include eg AC plant being appropriately positioned and acoustically treated; and the condenser units surrounded by privacy ventilation louvres.

4. We noted from the Preliminary Construction Management Plan (PCMP) that measures will be taken to reduce impact of noise and vibration, dust and sediment erosion that may impact on the residents during construction. As we live in 9 Dardanelles Road where Hall T is positioned on the top of the slope connecting our backyard and Hall T, we are concerned about erosion of soil, and noise and vibration during construction.
We further noted predicted noise issue highlighted in Table 31 of section 10.2 of the Accoustic Assessment Report that the calculated noise levels for R8 exceeds the Noise Management Level. R8 is located at our neighbour’s address of 7 Dardanelles Road.
Section 11 of Accoustic Assessment Report suggests Construction Noise and Vibration Mitigation Recommendations eg
“…erecting temporary sound barrier screens along the boundaries of the site near adjacent residential buildings to remain throughout all construction phases, as far as reasonably practicable. This includes the western boundary of the Centennial Avenue Site, and the northern boundary of the Pacific Highway site. Temporary sound barrier screens should be erected up to a height of 2.4 m, and constructed from, for example 19 mm plywood on steel posts or attached to temporary construction fencing. All sound barriers should be designed by a structural engineer to resist wind loads…”
As our house is just next to where R8 is located, we are concerned that our quiet enjoyment of our property will be jeopardised during construction, in particular, during the construction of Hall T and Block S.
• We request that control measures such as sound barriers and screening to be implemented during the construction of Hall T and Block S. These measures are noted in section 11 of the Accoustic Assessment Report and section 3.2 of PCMP. In addition, it is important to have appropriate Sediment, Erosion and Dust controls implemented (as suggesteg in section 3.5 of PCMP). This will prevent adverse consequences eg sendiment flow that may cause damage to our property and jeopardise our safety.

CHATSWOOD EDUCATION PRECINCT
Application no.: SSD-9483
Political donations in previous two years: nil

Re: Objection to the Proposed Development of Chatswood Public School (CPS)


My main objections to proposed development are as follows:

1) The increase in students is directly proportion to the increase of noise generated by the students.

2) The additional air conditioning plant, specification of which is not yet available for comment, further increase the background noise. No water cooled air conditioning plant shall be permitted, in fear of poor maintenance or lacking of it, which could be a source of Legionnaire Disease.

3) Lost of privacy to the students from the upper floors of the seven storey proposed Building 2, named The Lowers.

4) Lost of tranquil distant outlook to the south west would be totally blocked by the massive concrete block of Building 2.

Mr George Chen (OWNER)
1 James Street
CHATSWOOD NSW 2067
27 April 2020
CHATSWOOD EDUCATION PRECINCT
Application no.: SSD-9483
Political donations in previous two years: nil

Re: Objection to the Proposed Development of Chatswood Public School (CPS)

The current proposal for the development plays down the huge adverse impact on the existing neighbouring residents living on the western side of Pacific Highway. As I understand, the proposed development is a temporary solution to cope with the 1600 students planned for CPS. Why must the 1600 students be allocated to CPS, which has such a small footprint in ground area, and not elsewhere? The problem is that once the development goes ahead, the buildings will become permanent. No one will remember that it was meant to be temporary. The adverse impact to neighbouring residents will therefore also be permanent.

My objections and the adverse impacts are as below:

1. The proposed Building G (3) with its north facing wall would be right against the neighbour’s boundary instead of being a metre away from its neighbour.

2. There is an existing two storey high, long retaining wall of brick construction that runs along the full length of our property at 1 and 1A James Street. Construction of Building G (3) must not compromise the structural strength of this existing retaining wall.

3. The proposed seven story Building 2 occupying the air space above the existing playground will take away the openness and distant outlook towards the South West vistas from the standpoint of residents in properties of 1 / 1A and 3 / 3A James Street. The oppressive seven storey high Building 2 “The Lowers” is bearing down on the existing adjoining low level houses.

4. In the impact submission by the developer, elevation views from Jenkins Street and James Street have been omitted, which would have highlighted the adverse effects caused by the proposed seven storey Building 2, and it being the tallest in the West Ward of Chatswood. This tallest building, ironically named “The Lowers”, towers above the existing low line houses. It is completely out of character with the surrounds of West Ward. This can simply put down as a lack of transparency by the developer by omitting these facts in its impact assessments.

5. The students from the upper floors of Building 2, The Lowers could overlook clearly the activities happening at our front yard. We strongly object and are very concerned to the loss of our privacy.

6. By increasing students at CPS, the numbers of cars using James Street will inevitably be increased. Accidents endangering students, parents and the public will be increased when they negotiate the junction of Fullers Road and the sharp turn into and out of James Street. Numerous accidents in the past had occurred, resulting in the forming of a filter lane to mitigate this issue. Who would be held accountable if more accidents happened because of the proposed development?

7. Before Covid-19 parents dropping and picking up students often illegally park their cars in “No Parking” zones and block private garage access along James Street. With more parents using James Street, possible “road rage” and related incidents will be inevitable.

8. In this challenging time of COVID-19 self-isolation, group consultation is not possible. Therefore, now is not the appropriate time for requesting submission to the CPS development. The process does not provide a fair or equitable opportunity for the public to review or discuss the proposed development.

(For your convenience, the following has also been attached as a pdf)

I am writing in response to the current Community Consultation over aspects of the planned development.

1
The promised public (physical) consultation was interrupted by COVID-19 State Regulations which prevented a physical meeting for the community as has occurred in the past. This is most disturbing. Many of us in the community were awaiting the opportunity to have conversations with the planners and had eagerly anticipated doing so. In the past we have had positive outcomes from such engagement.

2
The links provided to the public for this "consultation" were for State Significant Development: Chatswood Education Precinct (Upgrades to Chatswood Public School and Chatswood High School). This contained 48 consultation links: https://www.planningportal.nsw.gov.au/major-projects/project/10561. They are all to SEARS papers relating to EIS only and are highly technical. They are not the documents the general public needs to see to form an opinion over development changes. In fact such a link is extremely difficult to find and is not evident in the email that was circulated advising of the consultation.
The link appearing on the URL given under "Where can I view detailed plans" promised detailed plans is incorrect:

This link does not work. It has a space after 'www' in the URL and has omitted the final '1'. Any person seeking to locate it will find it impossible.
The link the community requires is 'hidden' under "Community Updates> Project update March 2020 (PDF) and can only be accessed by expanding "Community Notifications" dropdown halfway down the page.
A more significant link is:
https://www.schoolinfrastructure.nsw.gov.au/projects/c/chatswood-public-school-chatswood-high-school-upgrades.html

This error and lack of clarity for the community in seeking actual drawn plans have severely impacted the involvement of the community in responding.

3
There is considerable concern over the height, bulk and proximity to heritage Building B of the proposed 6 storey Building P1 at Chatswood Primary School.
It will impact the aesthetics of existing valued heritage buildings as well as heavily impact upon houses in adjacent James St.
Of particular concern is that drawings or artists impressions that show the impact of Building P1 from James St or when viewed from the play area in front of existing heritage Building B are not supplied.

Acquiring the vacant site adjacent to the school 688-692 Pacific Highway, presently on the market, would eliminate the need for such a tall and overbearing building. This has been suggested many times by the community as a solution, to which the formal reply has been that it was uneconomical and/or offered insufficient space.

Aerial views show the land to be approximately the current footprint of the heritage Building B, and as such would provide ample room to avoid the present overdevelopment, avoid the need for lifts to classrooms and a rooftop play area and avoid the proposed loss of outdoor playground space.


4
The proposed overly crowded development of the Chatswood Primary site is unnecessary and unwise. There are three reasons:
A The stated goal of catering for 1600 pupils on such a small parcel of land is short-sighted.
B A new school is proposed for Mowbray Rd/Pacific Highway corner once Metro tunnelling is completed which will relieve population pressure on CPS.
C Mowbray Public School in under-utilised and currently has 600 pupils. Its recently completed buildings were designed for its future growth and has large grounds.

5
There are serious errors in the reports recognised by every resident who has sighted these statements. Two examples:
• "The average delay driving from Centennial Ave to Albert Ave. at peak AM and PM times is 28 seconds" . This is impossible. Peak hour congestion at this intersection (crossing the Pacific Highway at peak hour!) is more like 15-25 minutes.
• The reports reference 4 and 8 story residences to the West of the High School. This is a fiction.

Hello,
I live opposite the High School on Eddy Road. I am supportive of the upgrade of both schools as it is desperately needed. However, I have experienced significant noise disturbance as a result of waste being collected from the high school in the early hours of the morning.

Whilst this has stopped since I raised the issue at the community consultation session I would like to request that the Department imposes a condition of consent restricting the hours when waste can be collected so that this does not occur again in the future.

I would also like to request that the waste vehicles be provided with a suitable turning circle within the high school site as currently they reverse down the driveway and we can hear the reversing alarm. I note that there are no swept paths for waste vehicles servicing the high school provided in either the waste or traffic reports, only for the primary school. The waste report states that there is a suitable distance between the designated waste storage area and residential dwellings such that there is no potential for noise disturbance, however this statement is unsubstantiated and we can attest to the opposite.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comment on the application.

Please see attached:

Please see the attached letter

Please see attached.

We concentrated on the Chatswood Primary School plans and have concerns relating to the height of the proposed new buildings, and the close proximity to neighbouring residences. The design height and rooftop facilities seem inappropriate for young children.

Although it is admirable that school renovations are finally underway for the overdeveloped and populated Chatswood area, the education Department wants too many young children squeezed into a small area. Many students will have difficulty coping with such a large school which will have an effect on their learning potential.

How will they prevent sporting equipment, used by young children, falling from the rooftop sporting facilities and potentially hitting those below?

The design does not allow for enough teachers parking for the predicted increase of enrolments. Many resources are carried to and from home and it would be unreasonable to assume public transport can be taken on a daily basis. Traffic congestion will also be a nightmare in the back streets.

How is it possible to carry out this building work at the primary school with students on site and in close proximity? It seems dangerous and noisy.

Why such an overly large and costly development when a new school is being considered close by? Would it not be more convenient, for the students, if the Education Department constructed the new school and relocate students before renovating Chatswood Primary School?

Please see the attachment where my grounds of objection are clearly stated together with the relevant photos. Thank you.

I write to object to the Chatswood Education Precinct development as proposed, with particular reference to Chatswood Public School although many of my issues apply also to the High School.

I accept that a growing community requires increased educational infrastructure, but given the location of Chatswood Public School in an area zoned R2 Low Density and with two heritage sites in its immediate vicinity, the proximity of Mowbray Public School which I understand is under-utilised, and the proposed construction of a new school on the corner of Mowbray Road and Pacific Highway, I do not understand why Chatswood Public needs to be expanded in this way in contravention of established low level development protocols on the eastern side of the highway north of Albert Avenue.

Having lived in Chatswood for nearly 30 years I am concerned at the number and size of developments in and around the CBD that have been approved in recent years which have not been accompanied by appropriate upgrades to the infrastructure required to support them, in this case convenient vehicle access and parking, and the spill-over effect this has on all residents in the surrounding area.
Park Avenue, a cul de sac some distance from the Public School and close to the High School, has increasingly become a parking lot for CBD workers and now for Chatswood High School workers which means that often parking is not available for residents and their visitors and tradesmen. As the number of students at Chatswood High increases, the chance that growing numbers of students as well as staff will try to park in Park Avenue and surrounding streets also increases.
There are already parents who use my street in order to drop off and pick up their children, whether primary or high school students I do not know. Park Avenue is a narrow street as are most of the streets in this area, they were not designed to accommodate the volume of traffic and size of vehicles they now have to, with the result that they have become obstacle courses and not amenities.

Pacific Highway is No Stopping so all cars dropping-off at, and picking-up from, the Public School would be obliged to use Centennial Avenue or Jenkins Street. Cars doing the same to the High School spread throughout the streets lower down Centennial Avenue. The intersection of Centennial Avenue and Pacific Highway is congested and dangerous at the best of times, navigating the streets around both schools is a nightmare at drop-off and pick-up times, adding more children to both schools will only exacerbate that and worsen congestion.

I am very concerned that if approval is granted for the Public School to be redeveloped as proposed, which is to move to a higher density use of the existing small footprint, it will set a dangerous, and ultimately unnecessary, precedent. The western side of the highway north of Albert Avenue has traditionally been low rise, low level development, and I am concerned that to break the established protocols by approving an upgrade to a school that is merely to satisfy a temporary need that can be met in other ways (Mowbray Public School, the proposed new school) is both unnecessary and unwarranted. Residents of the Western Ward want to preserve the low rise, low level nature of this area of Chatswood.

To repeat, the amenity of the areas surrounding Chatswood CBD is increasingly being lost as ever-increasing expansion plans are pursued without reference to, or apparent consideration of, residents/rate payers and their amenity and quality of life. I urge that the Proposal in its current form be denied and that it be amended after due consultation with the residents who live in close proximity to both schools so that their needs and concerns can be addressed. And again I encourage the NSW Govt to purchase the building at 688 – 692 Pacific Highway to extend the footprint of the Public School rather than going for higher level development on the smaller footprint.

91 Eddy Road,
Chatswood 2067
28th April 2020
The Premier,
Ms Gladys Berejiklian,
Member for Willoughby
Parliament House, Macquarie Street, Sydney 2000

Dear Premier,

Re: SSD 9483 Chatswood Public School and Chatswood High Schools

The following submission is made in response to the NSW government proposals for Chatswood Public School (CPS) and Chatswood High School (CHS).

We have had close involvement with both CPS and CHS, as local residents and because our children attended both CPS and CHS. We were actively involved in the P and C Associations at both schools, on the executive committee at both CPS and CHS Parents and Citizens Associations, past Secretary and Life member. We are former members of the successful Save Chatswood High School committee, established to stop the proposed school closure about 20 years ago. For nearly 20 years I convened the Chatswood High School Bushcare site which was established to protect the identified critically endangered Blue Gum High Forest remnants in the grounds of CHS. Therefore we are very familiar with the two sites proposed for development and the needs of the community.
The proposed SSD developments will change streetscapes, building heights, bulk and scale detrimental to the amenity on the western side of Pacific Highway.
The proposals will set a precedent for building heights and pose risk for current zoning regulations, which could result in medium to high density to our residential areas, which are highly valued because of their vegetation, streetscapes, trees and links to bushland.
The Committee for Sydney (July 2017) submission to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Infrastructure, Transport and Cities (Submission No 88, page 9) confirmed that Chatswood’s population Growth Projection for 2017-2030 will increase by around 27 percent more than the 2017 population.

This population growth in Chatswood largely occurs through corresponding growth in high rise residential apartments, in turn reflecting a sustained growth in families with school-aged children.

The growth projected in young families residing in the Chatswood precinct is driving incessant growth in demand for school capacity. It is acknowledged there will be increasing demand by students for future school places.

Fundamental and essential ingredients to good planning are rigorous process, meaningful and effective community consultation and due process.

It is extremely disappointing that the so called community consultation for these state significant developments is being undertaken during the Covid-19 pandemic when people are in ‘lockdown’ and unable to meet. One questions how these proposals can be subject to rigor, and due diligence when the community is unable to engage, a fundamental ingredient to good planning? Further, many people who live near the schools have not received notice about the proposals from the DET and/or government.

Recommendation: That the DET/government proactively, properly and effectively informs the locally community of the CPS and CHS proposals to allow the genuine community engagement, planning rigor and due diligence reasonably expected by our community.

The SSD proposal fails to explore and/or plan for reasonable alternatives such as more equitably and fairly redistributing student numbers between Chatswood Primary and Mowbray Public Schools.

Traffic reports: these reports as presented are questioned by local residents who have closely observed major traffic problems generated by CPS and CHS and note that the traffic reports fail to comprehend the reality of existing traffic problems (pre Covid-19).
The reports suggest that the average delay driving from Centennial Ave to Albert Ave. at peak AM and PM times is 28 seconds is IMO, totally deceptive. The traffic at these times backs up into Centennial Ave. as far as Dardanelles Rd. I have frequently observed that it can take 15 -20 minutes from Eddy Road to exit at Pacific Highway to Albert Ave., approximately a 450M trip.
The photographs appear to present a situation far from normal. The report fails to recognise the breaches of law, double parking, congestion, safety risks and frustration that take place daily right now, let alone when this road system will need to accommodate more than double current student numbers. The report’s analysis of parking is IMO misleading, much of the parking behaviour is problematic, and/or dangerous along Centennial Ave. and Eddy Road.
The document fails to report or provide remedies for, the extreme difficulty that residents of this precinct and adjacent streets experience difficulty finding parking near their homes. Indeed, it appears to propose that the very few existing unrestricted parking places will be changed to short-term parking.
Further a significant number of high school students have cars, drive to school and park nearby, compounding an already untenable situation for the community generally.
There have been multiple occasions where residents have found cars parked, locked, and empty in their private driveways for long periods of time. This happens because parents are already unable to find parking to drop off and pick up their children. This is the present situation, before student numbers double.
The report fails to recognise the very large number of buses involved in sporting and other inter-school events that need to park and navigate these narrow roads. Photographs previously sent to your department document 6 buses were parked in Centennial Ave. – three of them illegally double parked, regrettably not an isolated incident.
Many children attending CPS are from out of area, 30% of whom are driven to school. With anticipated student population of 1,600, which represents 480s car movements twice daily in the CPS precinct, which with existing traffic gridlock conditions, will exacerbate an already untenable situation.
The Traffic management must integrate these identified problems and figures for any realistic analysis and management.
Recommendation: That a well researched, realistic, legitimate, traffic management plan be provided to the community regarding the SSD Chatswood proposals that accurately documents the existing parking, traffic safety risk situation, with proper plans to mitigate and control traffic, with realistic and responsible remedies.
Schools as places of learning and education, need to recognise scientific evidence of climate change and incorporate clean renewable energy, such as solar power (non fossil fuel energy) in school facilities to save increasing energy costs and to promote renewable energy to the community.
Recommendation: Any new school development must recognise the scientific evidence regarding climate change, hence ensure that the facilities are run by 100% renewable energy with Photo Voltaic Cells (PV) incorporated in design. Water sensitive urban design should be incorporated in each of the schools sites. It will also serve to educate both the school and wider community in a very practical and tangible way, about clean renewable energy moving to a cleaner de-carbonised future, in line with the international Paris climate agreements.

Concerns regard to the re-development of Chatswood Primary School (CPS) include the following points:

The proposal to develop Chatswood Public School is very ambitious.

1. A six story building with lifts could pose safety risks to children, and result in children being late for classes due to lift delays and/or limits to numbers of students on lift.

2. The proposed multi-storey developments are of bulk, scale and design unsympathetic to the two heritage buildings. The new buildings should be of lower height, recessive in design, bulk and scale compared with the heritage buildings. on site. The proposed building materials should be compatible with and sympathetic to heritage values.

3. CPS has two ‘Opportunity Classes’ which means that a high number of students from ‘out of area’ attend CPS. Many children from out of area attend the school hoping to access the Opportunity Class, and/or enrol on the “OC” if accepted. This means that many children from ‘out of area’ attend the school, which has contributed to over-crowding, and further emphasises that the education programme is discriminatory. Because many students are driven to school, there are serious unresolved issues including traffic generation, parking problems, gridlock and safety risks.
Recommendation: that the school ceases to run “opportunity classes’ and adopts a more egalitarian comprehensive education programme.

4. The CPS built infrastructure and its associated open-space is already “overcrowded” demanding that the State Department of Education remediate the present overcrowding and cope with the forecast expected future growth in student population.

Many local residents with a long interest in, and/or association with our local schools advocated that DET purchased 688 - 692 Pacific Highway for CPS student and school needs. As before, the owner of 699-692 may still be interested in selling these buildings to the DET.
Many have observed the proposed large multi-storey buildings using lifts to classrooms would not be required if the NSW Government acquired 688-692 Pacific Hwy for educational purposes. It has been noted problems occurred where lifts were installed in other schools (e.g. Parramatta) resulting in student delays reaching classes.
Recommendation: That the NSW government acquire 688 & 692 Pacific Highway for educational purposes (SP2) in the community interest.

5. The Department of Education planned expansion of School infrastructure will not increase available open space for children to play. Conversely, contraction of available open space is inevitable.
Recommendation: that useable open space be provided for CPS students.

6. The proposed new primary school plans to accommodate 1600 students, 250 more than the 1350 students attending Chatswood Primary School n

30/4/2020

Letter of objection to the proposed development of 5 Centennial Avenue Chatswood, Chatswood Public School (CPS) – SSD-9483

Whilst I had read of the acute overcrowding of CPS over the years, I only learned of the latest development proposals, and the deadline of online submissions regarding this proposal, late last week.

As such, I have serious concerns regarding these development proposals in which three are outlined below:

1. Lack of adequate consultation to residents.
This is a significant development to the area, and as mentioned, I only learned about this development proposal that will impact local residents, only recently – and not through Council or State Government. As online submissions close today – I have grave concern that there has been an inadequate consultation to some stakeholders – particularly residents. I have been advised by other residents that there was a letter dated 3rd April, sent out regarding this new proposal. I have not received this letter, nor feel this is adequate time to review the large number of documents associated with this proposal without the appropriate presentation of this material, and especially in these challenging circumstances of living in a pandemic.

2. Inadequate provisions for pickup and dropoff, as well as increased traffic and reduced pedestrian safety.
As a resident that commutes via Centennial avenue, over the years I have experienced the bottleneck on Centennial avenue during school dropoff and pickup times. There is double parking along Centennial avenue at these times, and this development proposal has not addressed this issue adequately, nor addressed issues of increased traffic and pedestrian safety on Centennial avenue, or in the R2 low density residential area surrounding the development.

3. Inadequate parking provisions in the development proposal.
The development proposal also fails to address the increased parking pressure that will occur with the increased capacity of the school as the development does not provision adequate school parking spaces. This will further impact residents in the surrounding area, following the recent loss of 17+ all day street parking spaces on Carr St due to local council changes for the bus route (where there was also inadequate consultation).

Recommendation:
Extend the consultation period, and provide appropriate platforms for stakeholders, including residents, to respond to the development proposals with their feedback. In discussing these proposals with neighbours, others share the same concerns above, but were also unaware of these proposals until now. I question the motives of not extending the consultation period in such an adverse and challenging time where people are not able to physically come together to discuss their concerns.

Regards,
Anthony Seeto

Please find my attached letter to object to the project at Chatswood Public School.

The proposed overly crowded development of the Chatswood Primary site is unnecessary and unwise for the following reasons:
• The stated goal of catering for 1600 pupils on such a small parcel of land is short-sighted. As a Primary School teacher, I firmly believe that no NSW Primary school should cater for such a large population, especially when the following alternatives are available.
• A new school is proposed for Mowbray Rd/Pacific Highway corner once Metro tunnelling is completed which will relieve population pressure on CPS.
• Mowbray Public School in under-utilised and currently has 600 pupils. Its recently completed buildings were designed for its future growth and has large grounds.

In addition, there is considerable concern over the height, bulk and proximity to heritage Building B of the proposed 6 storey Building P1 at Chatswood Primary School. It will severely affect the aesthetics of existing valued heritage buildings as well as heavily impact upon houses in adjacent James and Jenkins Streets. The proposed new building is significantly above local building heights. It will dominate the surrounding streets and the playground and be an eyesore, detracting greatly from the existing heritage buildings.

Local residents, with the support of Willoughby Council, have been working for many years prevent overdevelopment on the west of the highway and to maintain acceptable building heights that are in keeping with the ambience of the local community, including the Primary School. This overdevelopment of 6 storeys next to building B is a gross overdevelopment and not in keeping with community sentiment.

If further development is required, acquiring the vacant site adjacent to the school 688-692 Pacific Highway, presently on the market, would eliminate the need for such a tall and overbearing building. This has been suggested many times by the community as a solution, to which the formal reply has been that it was uneconomical and/or offered insufficient space.