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

Comments attached and uploaded as PDF.

To Whom It May Concern,

Re: Chatswood Education Precinct Design
I am writing to express my strong disapproval of the propsed design for the Chatswood Primary school site for the Chatswood Education Precinct.
I am the owner of the property 3 Jenkins street which borders on the Chatswood Primary school playground site ‘the Lowers’. The property has been in my family for over 70 years and it was my childhood home. I attended Chatswood Primary school and subsequently Chatswood High School. I always loved living by the primary school, especially hearing the playground noise of happy children at our local community school. My son, his wife and my grandchild now live at the property.

I am therefore immensely saddened to learn such a lovely school built on a heritage site is being transformed into a high rise eye sore, in particular, building P1 which is to be built metres from the fence bordering my garden and will tower over my single level property.

As a community surrounding the school, we have had minimal opportunity to discuss the plans. Due to the COVID-19 situation, our neighbourhood has been unable to meet to discuss the design and the huge impact it will have on us all. Not only that, the 30 day period has coincided with school holidays, making it very difficult for families caring for children to wade through the overwhelming amount of information and reports that are presented online. More time needs to be given to the community to have a say about the proposed design, especially given the current government restrictions on meeting. I also question the hurry with pushing this design through, as it does appear to be a very short term band aid solution for a site that simply cannot support the amount of children proposed. All options have certainly not been considered – I would have expected that I may be approached to purchase my property and neighbouring ones, rather than building a high rise tower for children in a residential area. Other sites are also available for children to attend the school and would provide a much better solution not only for the residents surrounding Chatswood Primary school, but the children attending the school as well.

The design of P1 is not in keeping with a community school in a residential area and appears to be more like a 1970’s apartment building. Although I appreciate that it appears as a 4 storey building from the Pacific Highway view as it is built in a lower area of the school, there has been no consideration to the appearance of a 7 storey building from the Jenkins and James streets surrounding the school. As the primary school is on an elevated site, the actual appearance from my garden will be that of a 10 storey building ( please see attached photograph) which shows the height from the ground level of my garden to the top of the retaining wall varies from metres to 2 metres minimum). P1 has a height of 30.3 metres which drastically exceeds the 8.5 metre height of buildings control for the site under Willoughby LEP. Not only this, the enormous building is built only 4.5 metres from the boundary of the property. In reality, P1 has been hidden on the Lowers and essentially 'built in a ditch' to minimize the impact from the Pacific Highway view. It will have the appearance of a 33.3 metre building to myself and our neighbours. How is this legal?
The Environmental impact report has many incorrect statements
1. In the worst case scenario, the building will read as 7 storeys in height from a ground level that is lower than the base of a building, thereby accentuating the building height’. It will be viewed as approximately 9-10 storeys in height from 3 Jenkins street private garden and even more from surrounding properties situated lower down the incline.

2. ‘In these cases, the build form would not be viewed in its entirety at any standard viewing scenario (sitting, standing or moving about in private open space)’. – The building would be viewed in its entirety (plus additional height from existing elevated position) completely from my garden and the other surrounding properties.


3. ‘Where the building is viewed more in its entirety, the buildings design lends to high quality façade treatment that will increase the visual interest from that of the existing brick retaining walls of the lowers’ – this is incorrect, we are visually happy with the open spaces and existing brick walls and feel the building has an ugly appearance which is absolutely out of place and contrasting the the beautiful heritage buildings next door. We will have significant loss of view caused by P1 of these buildings.
The proposed building height, scale and bulk of P1 is excessive. There has been a total lack of consideration to changes in the landscape in a residential area – this will by far be the tallest building on western side of highway. It is also proposed to be built directly on the boundary overshadowing neighbouring properties (single or double story houses) which lie below the ‘ground level’ from P1.
The photograph from my garden which was provided in the report, is not realistic and taken not showing the ground level. I have recently had extensive landscaping done to my property and am currently in the process of growing plants to disguise the retaining wall. The retaining walls had previously been covered with vines and plants. I have attached a more realistic photo showing the speed in which the plants had grown and the true height of the wall from my garden. The impression given in the report that I do not care about the appearance of the retaining wall (and therefore the appearance of a tower building from my garden) is extremely far from the truth and misleading in the report. I also note absolutely no permission was asked to photograph parts of my property.

P1 is being built on a heritage site. The developers have simply picked and chosen which aspect of the site they will honor the heritage listing. Ultimately a tower block such as building P1 has no place in a community primary school that does not have the surrounding infrastructure such as parking and playground space to support it.
The parking report is incorrect or untruthful. Parking is incredibly limited already, with commuters already using the area. Jenkins street and Centennial Avenue is a bottle neck during peak hour, right where the proposed kiss and drop parking has been suggested. I have unfortunately had to call parking rangers many times over the past 12 months as parents block my driveway due to the lack of parking for the school. This severe lack of parking is a danger to young children who simply cannot use public transport, as much as they are ‘encouraged’. 500 metres up a steep hill is a lot to ask a kindergarten child to walk, and parents to push prams and keep other children safe. The school has a total of 18 parking spaces proposed which is totally inadequate for the potential number of children (1600) that will attend the school, further supporting the theory that the school has simply outgrown the site. The department of education requests 0.3 parking spaces per child – the developers are ignoring this recommendation and hiding the lack of parking by including the parking at Chatswood high school.

Furthermore, Jenkins street has a proposed ‘kiss and drop’ zone. This is an accident waiting to happen. Jenkins street has an unusual S bend one-way system through it – it will cause traffic chaos to have parents queueing up and obstructing the road and being unable to turn around safely. I strongly request a report is done on the safety of this plan, as it is poorly considered and dangerous for the children, parents and residents. In addition, with an increase in the amount of children attending the school, we will have further traffic congestion and safety issues to already crowded and congested streets.

Ultimately, I am strongly against the current proposal as I feel it does not offer the school community the outcome they are looking for and a solution to an already overcrowded school with limited parking, but the impacts on the proposed design for the surrounding neighbourhood are simply unacceptable. P1 should be removed from the design, and the local residents should be given more time to consider the other proposed changes. The suggestion of providing 18 parking spaces for a school of 1600 students is simply inadequate and poorly planned. The council needs to consider other options including purchasing surrounding properties to give the children more space, or moving the school or some of the children to another site. If P1 does get approved, the residents should be offered compensation for the loss of value to their properties and loss of rental income due to the noise and dust occurring during the construction phase. Overall, the design fails both the school community and local residents. It does not fulfill the brief of giving the children more play space, and overlooks huge safety issues and lack of parking. I urge the planning department to consider the impacts this will have on the local residents and the destruction of one of our beautiful heritage sites.

Regards,
Susan Rolph

Dear Planning Department,

I am saddened to see the propsed development on the site of Chatswood Primary School. Having just learned of this proposal from my mother who is the owner of 3 Jenkins Street, we feel strongly that our objections to a tower block being built (P1) on a heritage site directly on the boundary of the school neighbours is totally inappropriate. Chatswood CBD is on the Eastern side of the Pacific Highway, and this building will be substantially higher than anything else in that area. No consideration has been given to the residents in the surrounding streets, who are all built down the hill, thus the appearance of P1 will be even taller to them. The building exceeds all height restrictions placed by the council.
The plans also fail to meet the parking requirements for the teachers and students as laid out by the Department of Education.

This is a poorly planned design with no true winners - the school will suffer long term with parking issues and lack of space. The site cannot cope with the number of students and further thought should be given to a more sensible solution that is acceptable to the school community and local residents.

Sincerely,
Dr Heather Russell

1) It is unreasonable to expect an ordinary person to make an informed comment on the vast amount of documentation provided.

There should be an open meeting of at least one or two day’s duration to go through the documents with the authors.

2). The proposal for the primary school is oversize for the site and out of place for the precinct. The site is too small to do what is being asked of it.

There already is too much traffic congestion and any school expansion will make it worse. It is remarkable that the exceptionally long queue of cars in Centennial Avenue in the mornings and afternnons hasn't been picked up in the Traffic Report. It can sometimes extend down to Reginald Street into Park Avenue.

3). The proposal for the high school is poor and the design does not make the best use of the available space.

For example, there is room to build two floors under the columns of building K. If this was done there would be no reduction of the existing land footprint.

Any new building should be placed where the existing stairs are in Centennial Avenue and oriented in a north-south direction. To lessen the impact it could be two or three floors above street level and another three below street level (over the side of the existing steep cliff like drop). If this was done a person could walk straight off the street into the middle level of the building (or even drive into it).

4). The traffic report is just plain wrong and out of date as other traffic plans have been put in place since it was written.

For example, it states there are a free 191 spare parking positions around the streets but that just can't be correct. I have lived here 40 years and seen how the area has deteriorated. Some time back when looking at some real estate the real estate agent described the parking as 'scramble parking' that is you drive around and around until someone leaves their parking position and you jump in fast. That is what it has become here in the area of the two schools.

Since the report was written the Council has now littered our streets with parking restriction signs. Those 191 unrestricted parking positions are now severely reduced and it has become scramble time.

For example, Carr Street in the report is said to be unrestricted on both sides but it now has 4-hour restricted parking on one side and 12-hour no-parking parking six-days of the week on the other side. It is similar for Eddy Road, Beaconsfield and others.

The report has not taken into account that many of the houses in the collection area do not have off-street parking including some in Carr Street (and the other streets). Those car owners will be looking for those 191 spare spaces that don’t exist.

In addition, a number of the houses are rented and there can be six cars per house because of this.

The report should have taken into account the recent Roads & Transport department move to make the Highway all day clearway which has pushed short term parkers and some workers onto the local streets as well.

Furthermore, the report fails to take into account the Council rule that it allows only one parking place per unit of high rise development. The report should take this into account for the just finished but not occupied Eddy & Freeman road development and the Meridian development on the highway (a good example is Goodchap Ave both day & night where you can see the overflow of cars from the unit developments).

Another item that the report has failed to take into account is that the access/egress from the Eddy-Freeman development will be face on to the primary school from Whitton Road where the pedestrian crossing is. (Note: on a road map it can look as though Whitton Road is continuous from Centennial Avenue to Eddy Road but it is not. There is a break in the road even though the name continues on both sides.)

Also, it is foolish to think the school teachers and construction workers will park outside of the collection zone to relieve the impact on the local residents. They will fight for a parking position along with everyone else.

To alleviate the problem, some off-site parking should be found elsewhere and the teachers and construction workers brought in by bus.

5) The plan as submitted should be abandoned. A solution is to move the Primary School to the metro railway site on the corner of Mowbray & the Pacific Highway. It is ideally located halfway between Chatswood & Artarmon Railway stations. It is my understanding that the tunnel boring is completed so construction of a new school could start now as the metro rail equipment and buildings are decommissioned.

Years 11 & 12 students should go to the existing primary school as was originally planned.

We have 2 children currently at Chatswood Public School and we are generally in support of the proposal.
We have 2 concerns:
1. Concern with the shared entry access for cars and pedestrians at Pacific Highway. We believe it is critical the vehicle access be maintained to the school from Pacific Highway for emergency vehicles and deliveries however it is concerning that this is shared with the main pedestrian access to the site.
2. Concern with the staging of the project ensuring that playground and a suitable learning environment are maintained for the children throughout the project.

Please see attachment.

1. Why are they taking out of area children? These children should be going
to their local school.
2. Shift the OC class to alleviate stress on the numbers at the school.
These children could be moved to Mowbray Public School which is designed for
1000 students and has 600.
3. The new plan does not allow access to the inner area of the school for
deliveries. Currently access to the school yard is gained via the parking on
the Pacific Highway. A building is going there thus cutting off access for
deliveries. Access via Centenary Avenue has steps, making deliveries to the
school more difficult and possibly lead to more work place injuries.
4. It seems incredibly wasteful to demolish the BER building on Jenkins
Street, that had 3.2 million spent on it. What a waste of resources.
5. What is going to happen with the traffic around the school at pick up and
drop off time? It is already chaos.
6. The overlook and shading to adjacent residential properties must be of
great concern.
7. Where is the green space for the children to play. Roof tops are fine and
efficient use of space but it just adds to the concrete jungle feel of the
school.
8. If a new school is going in on the corner of Mowbray Road and the Pacific
highway, then get this one moving. It will not have such a detrimental
effect on the suburban look that in evident around the Jenkins Road side of
Chatswood Public School. The other location just has a pub, tanks or railway
looking at it.

Thank you for considering the above points in relation to the proposed
development of Chatswood Public School.

Please find attached EES comments

Submission attached.