Lindfield Learning Village

See attachment.

See attachment.

See attachment.

Please see attached.

See attached

as attached

I am writing to you as a resident of Dunstan Grove apartments, to express my concerns with some aspects of the proposed planning for Lindfield Learning Village Stage 2.

Our Owners Committee recently met with representatives of Schools Infrastructure and was advised of a change in pupil transport arrangements to and from school. In particular, the proposal to have all pupil transport travel down Dunstan Grove and then circulate around the rear of the school. The loop road is not making any sense and didn't consider all the residents live in this area. I object to the loop road in this project.

Dunstan Grove is an extremely narrow and winding road, has poor visibility, no marked crossing from our apartments, and is completely unsuitable for the number of cars and buses necessary to cater for the projected 2,000 students. With commencement of school operations this year, the increase in traffic has already shown that the local road and footpaths (where they exist) are inadequate and creating safety issues for all local residents.

As a local resident there, I have already experience parents are dropping kids in wrong area, I can't imagine how bad it will become if move all the traffic down to our community, not to mention the traffic in the morning right in front of our door, how depressed that will be for us living there everyday! This proposal is completely unsuitable, and the School should revise their planning to enable all transport to be done from the existing road and car parks on the Eastern side of the school.

I support the Committee’s objection to this plan and ask for your assistance to ensure this proposal is withdrawn, and more suitable, wider consideration is given to planning and accommodating the school within the community.

My main objection is to the moving of the school's drop-off and pick-up access route down Dunstan Grove. By 2022, 14 school buses, 312 staff and parents driving children will total 300-400 cars and 14 buses twice a day. Dunstan Grove's road infrastructure is incapable of accommodating such heavy traffic safely and efficiently. The road is very narrow and there are several blind corners. It is not possible for buses to navigate the road without going over the double lines. Also, the proposed car entrance through the school and the construction traffic entrance are both very close to Dunstan Grove's car park entrance. All of this means that accidents are a certainty.
Another objection is that only about 60% of staff will have parking spaces in the school. The rest will have to clog up neighbouring streets together with older students with their cars.
Finally, because of the eventual very large size of the school, traffic volumes especially in the morning peak hour between 7.30-9.00am will cause significant delays for Grosvenor Road vehicles turning onto the Pacific Highway, as well as for the Grosvenor Road - Lady Game route.
I submit that:
1. the school be capped at 1,000-1,500 students to reduce the overwhelming impact on the local area;
2. the drop-off and pick-up route be contained wholly within the school - the Dunstan Grove Committee has already supplied Schools' Infrastructure with solutions;
3. the school be provided with parking for all its staff.

Proposed Lindfield Learning Village

SSD8114 application by the NSW Department of Education

FURTHER COMMENTARY ON TRAFFIC, PARKING AND BUSHFIRE ISSUES

UPDATE FOR PHASES 2 AND 3
30.11.19

Neil Willetts
A local Bent St resident

Introduction

As a Ku-Ring-Gai resident living near the proposed Lindfield Learning Village (previously “Lindfield School of the Future”), I wish to make a supplementary submission regarding the issues of road access, parking facilities and bushfire safety. This is in addition to my earlier submission dated 30.6.17 which still remains relevant. It is in response to the Lindfield Learning Village SSD 8114 Phase 2 and 3 Response to Submissions of which I was notified on 22.11.19.

Traffic Access

It is clear from all the other earlier submissions including mine that traffic access is of major concern and that this issue remains to be adequately resolved – if indeed this is possible. In passing, I note that at least three of the public Submissions deceptively denoted “Supports” actually raise serious concerns and objections regarding the expected traffic problems (Coates, Name Withheld and Mohan).

Suggestions such as “encouraging residents to move in off-peak hours” are unreasonable and unachievable. The schedules proposed for staggered bus and car transport bringing students to, or taking them from, the school are also unachievable in practice, both in Phase 2 and especially Phase 3. Have current traffic figures have been used in the Arup response?

The exceptionally poor access to the School via only Eton Rd is a major problem that has not been resolved and indeed is now far worse than at the time of my earlier submission because of the construction of many more new residential buildings (ca 1000 residences) on adjacent sites also served solely by Eton Rd.

It is clear that Eton Avenue and Austral Ave, although classified as local roads, are already carrying in excess of what should be acceptable for a residential street. Therefore, with the extra traffic resulting from the School, they will be subjected to usage even further above that expected or desired for a residential street for several hours per day. This could be for an even longer time if students need to be transported during the day to better nearby Sports Facilities than those available at the School. Access by Emergency Vehicles would be problematic.

There are also major problems in the large increase in traffic that would need to access Eton Rd via the Pacific Highway/Grosvenor Rd or Lady Game Drive/Grosvenor Rd. Consideration was given to improving access to Grosvenor Rd from the Pacific Highway which may or may not help, but amazingly, no consideration was given to the reverse - accessing the Pacific Highway from Grosvenor Rd as must be required by cars returning from the School both mornings and afternoons. I emphasize that this Grosvenor Rd/Pacific Highway junction (and equally the Shirley Rd/Pacific Highway junction) is already badly congested during rush hours. Gridlock will result. Ku-Ring-Gai Council confirms that the Grosvenor Rd/Pacific Highway junction is already at capacity.

Furthermore, residents in the surrounding area will undoubtedly be subjected to an unreasonable amount of extra traffic in their previously relatively quiet residential streets because of the emergence of “rat-runs” as school-related traffic seeks to avoid the resultant road blocks on the major roads. This would be exacerbated during the construction phase for Phases 2 and 3 by the use of such rat-runs to avoid the difficulties of using Grosvenor Rd by construction trucks etc.

In summary, the responses given by Arup to the traffic and transportation problems expected to result from the hugely increased number of students in Phases 2 and 3 will not solve these problems.

Parking Availability

The issue of parking availability within the School grounds has also not been resolved by the Arup response; it was simply glossed over. It remains clear that more parking needs to be made available, perhaps in the form of a multi-storey carpark as suggested previously. The Arup suggestion to “promote alternative travel” by students is a cop-out, not a solution.

I remain strongly opposed to the sentiment repeated in the Arup response, that “local residents will accept problems caused by access and parking associated with the School because of “real benefit to the community” received from the presence of the School. In fact there are few if any benefits for nearby residents, who will bear the brunt of the traffic and parking problems. This is an expensive residential area and residents are entitled to expect their amenities to be maintained.

Bushfires

Bushfires are obviously an increasing hazard in the Australian and NSW environment yet it is clear from the informed submissions on the topic that this bushfire-prone site is not fully compliant with all the necessary bushfire protection legal requirements. The expected traffic congestion resulting from the increase in Phase 2 and 3 student numbers worsens the potential bushfire hazard.


Conclusions

My conclusions are that the original proposals in the TTA Document and now in the Lindfield Learning Village SSD 8114 Phase 2 and 3 Response to Submissions do not resolve the problems associated with the use of this limited-access site as a School for 1000 or 2000 students in Phases 2 and 3. Following the current DoE/Arup plan would create a nightmare for local residents and a difficult and dangerous situation for the students and their families.

I concur with the view expressed in of one of the other submissions, that urgent consideration should be instead given to re-purpose the site for a TAFE college or at the most, a Senior School only. Even then, a complement of 1000 or 2000 students will be unachievable for the reasons given above unless a new road is built from Lady Game Drive to the site (simultaneously, the Lady Game Drive junction near Fullers Bridge needs to be re-designed and re-built).

I am a resident on 7 Dunstan Grove with two kids of 7 and 5 years old who attend LLV. I have major concern about your proposal to put buses through Dunstan Grove for following reasons:

1)The road is unsuitable for this purpose - too narrow with blind turns. It is very narrow even for two cars passing mirror to mirror. There is no way a bus can pass without crossing the line which is the violation of the law.

2) This is the only road for residents of 5 and 7 Dunstan Grove who drive to work and back every day. 14 buses on the road will put tremendous stress on traveling residents as the car should yield to the bus.

3) Should an accident occur (and it will as said road is unsuitable for buses), the whole two buildings will be isolated and cut off from the road as this is the only road connecting the building with the the road stream. This will compromise work obligations for people of more that one hundred households.

4)In case of EMERGENCY the road blocked by buses and accidents will be NOT available for EMERGENCY VEHICLES which puts lives and property of residents at huge risk.

5) the crossing is located at bling spot and it is unsafe for kids who walk to the school and back. With increased amount of vehicles a risk of accident involving kids is very high.

To summarize this project compromises and puts at huge risk life and safety of residents and their kids. I vote NO.

My proposal is not to let buses past the current bus stop at Crimson Hill.

I am writing to you to lodge my objection to the proposed Lindfield Learning Village Stages 2 and 3.

I do not want my personal information released

While I am very supportive of the school, I am very concerned to learn that it is planned to modify the existing access route for drop-off & pick-up of children from the eastern side of the school into Dunstan Grove. This is contrary the Amenity of the area. The traffic report states that from 7.30am - 9.30am and 2.30pm - 5.00pm there will be 350 cars and 14 buses down Dunstan Grove in the morning, and it is likely the same number in the afternoons. This equates to a car every 20 seconds and a bus every 8 minutes! I am sure these are very conservative estimates. With the total School population of students and staff nearing 2,400 at capacity these numbers will become greatly increased.

My concerns about this are as follows:

• Vehicle Safety – Dunstan Grove is a very narrow and curved road and was only built for very limited access. It is already very tight for cars to pass each other, with limited sight lines due to numerous Blind Corners and there are already delays while cars park at the oval community centre.
• There is no assessment of how buses can fit down the road safely with traffic travelling in the opposite direction. This is a very narrow cutting through rock and a Bus transiting down the roadway will either force oncoming traffic to reverse back down the road or force a collision into either the Bus or a Rock Wall.
• Schools Infrastructure has made no attempt to demonstrate investigation of alternatives to the proposed Loop Road. They have clearly chosen the cheapest and easiest option for themselves, at the expense of the Dunstan Grove community, who will experience significant road and safety issues and increased congestion. Our Committee has provided 2 alternative proposals that keep the traffic on the eastern side of the site (within the school boundary) which would remove these safety issues. I want these to be further considered.
• The proposed Loop Road will also create a “Gridlock” situation as the flow of traffic will have to cross over its self on exiting the School. This will also cause safety concerns for children and residents as impatient parents drop their children off at the School. The eastern Alternative would effectively eradicate the “Gridlock” situation and provide a far safer, smoother and improved Traffic Flow
• Pedestrian Safety – Dunstan Grove residents and school children must cross Dunstan Grove to get to the school or bus stop. The current unmarked crossing is on a blind corner and is already very dangerous with the current light traffic. This will become extremely dangerous with the proposed increased traffic. There is no consideration in the proposal about how this will be dealt with. Similarly, there is no provision for a crossing at the school entry and the current crossing there is not suitable for accessible use. Again, I want the eastern alternatives to be further considered.
• The proposal also relies on 200 children walking to school as part of its traffic assessment. It claims that the there is a safe, continuous walkway from the school to Lindfield Public, but this is not the case. There are no pedestrian crossings and school children will be forced to cross the road unsafely in four situations. There are also sections where the footpath is not compliant with no space for children, cyclists and other footpath users to safely pass (people are forced to use the roads) Additionally, there is no footpath to Roseville Station and children will be forced to walk on the road in Abingdon Rd with the buses. I want the footpaths and pedestrian crossings to be properly installed to ensure the safely of school children and residents before the additional increased traffic commences.
• Noise impacts – The noise report only considers noise impact once the cars and buses are inside the school grounds. It gives no consideration to now bringing all the school traffic within 10 metres of our residential buildings. This will have a huge impact on our residents not only with additional noise but unnecessary pollution and has not been addressed at all. It is another reason why this proposed loop road should be rejected for a far more efficient alternative.
• Construction Impact – During the Phase 1 of construction, we had continuous issues with road blockages due to deliveries down Dunstan Grove and trades people parking to unload. This generated considerable noise (reversing beepers) as well as numerous delays in trying to get in or out of our property, and this was when the main access was at the front of the school! The Construction Management Plan for Stage 2 and 3 now shows the main site access being directly at our driveway and buildings. We will experience more noise and impact from this site access than in stage 1. There is no reason for it to be here, when they can access the site from the existing roads on the eastern side. I want this plan changed to enforce access from the eastern side of the school. This was also requested by our Owners Committee and ignored.

Further to my points above I am also concerned that

 A School with little or no Green Space for Children to play on, will have what little they have, dug up to provide a Loop Road, leaving them with Bitumen to play on. The grassed area leading on to The Lane Cove National Park must be maintained to provide a vehicle free safe zone for children to actively play on.
 A heritage-listed and Sulman Medal-winning building is partially being demolished to accommodate the loop road proposed as well as the removal of significant trees. The E3 zone was specifically drawn at the edge of the existing buildings so that the bushland setting of the heritage buildings could be maintained. The proposed Loop Road undermines this planning framework that set the community’s expectations for how this site would be developed in the future.
 This proposal has been kept secret from local residents for 18 months and is now being rushed through during the Christmas period. There has not been adequate time allowed for proper consultation or time to understand the impacts of the proposal. The Department must not rush the planning process and give proper consideration of the community’s objections, particularly given the errors, misleading statements and inadequate assessment in the RTS submitted.
 Inconsistent and inadequate documentation – The RTS incorrectly states that no works are proposed in the E3 Environmental Management Zone, when in fact the Loop Road and various other works are proposed. There are also inconsistencies in the documentation that are unclear about who will be able to use the Loop Road. The Noise Report is unclear and doesn't properly identify which dwellings will be affected by noise.

I hope that you take my concerns into consideration when processing the LLV Schools Infrastructure proposal.

Regards,

A Concerned Resident
Dunstan Grove
Lindfield NSW 2070

Dear Navdeep Singh,

I am writing to you to lodge my objection to the proposed Lindfield Learning Village Stages 2 and 3.

While I am very supportive of the school, I am very concerned to learn that it is planned to modify the existing access route for drop-off & pick-up of children from the eastern side of the school into Dunstan Grove.

The traffic report states that from 7.30am - 9.30am and 2.30pm - 5.00pm there will be 350 cars and 14 buses down Dunstan Grove in the morning, and it is likely the same number in the afternoons. I am sure these are conservative estimates.

This equates to a car every 20 seconds and a bus every 8 minutes!

My concerns about this are as follows:

• Vehicle Safety – Dunstan Grove is a very narrow and curved road and was only built for very limited access. It is already very tight for cars to pass each other, with limited sight lines and there are already delays while cars park at the oval community centre. There is no assessment of how buses can fit down the road safely with traffic travelling in the opposite direction. Schools Infrastructure has made no attempt to demonstrate investigation of alternatives to the proposed Loop Road. They have clearly chosen the cheapest and easiest option for themselves, at the expense of the Dunstan Grove community, who will experience significant road and safety issues and increased congestion. Our Committee has provided 2 alternative proposals that keep the traffic on the eastern side of the site (within the school boundary) which would remove these safety issues. I want these to be further considered.

• Pedestrian Safety – Dunstan Grove residents and school children must cross Dunstan Grove to get to the school or bus stop. The current unmarked crossing is on a blind corner and is already very dangerous with the current light traffic. This will become extremely dangerous with the proposed increased traffic. There is no consideration in the proposal about how this will be dealt with. Similarly, there is no provision for a crossing at the school entry and the current crossing there is not suitable for accessible use. Again, I want the eastern alternatives to be further considered.

The proposal also relies on 200 children walking to school as part of its traffic assessment. It claims that the there is a safe, continuous walkway from the school to Lindfield Public, but this is not the case. There are no pedestrian crossings and school children will be forced to cross the road unsafely in four situations. There are also sections where the footpath is not compliant with no space for children, cyclists and other footpath users to safely pass (people are forced to use the roads) Additionally, there is no footpath to Roseville Station and children will be forced to walk on the road with the buses. I want the footpaths and pedestrian crossings to be properly installed to ensure the safely of school children and residents before the additional increased traffic commences.

• Noise impacts – The noise report only considers noise impact once the cars and buses are inside the school grounds. It gives no consideration to now bringing all the school traffic within 10 metres of our residential buildings. This will have a huge impact on our residents and has not been addressed at all. It is another reason why this proposed loop road should be rejected.

• Construction Impact – During the Phase 1 of construction, we had continuous issues with road blockages due to deliveries down Dunstan Grove and trades people parking to unload. This generated considerable noise (reversing beepers) as well as numerous delays in trying to get in or out of our property, and this was when the main access was at the front of the school! The Construction Management Plan for Stage 2 and 3 now shows the main site access being directly at our driveway and buildings. We will experience more noise and impact from this site access than in stage 1. There is no reason for it to be here, when they can access the site from the existing roads on the eastern side. I want this plan changed to enforce access from the eastern side of the school. This was also requested by our Owners Committee and ignored.

Further to my points above I am also concerned that

 A heritage-listed and Sulman Medal-winning building is partially being demolished to accommodate the loop road proposed as well as the removal of significant trees. The E3 zone was specifically drawn at the edge of the existing buildings so that the bushland setting of the heritage buildings could be maintained. The proposed Loop Road undermines this planning framework that set the community’s expectations for how this site would be developed in the future.

 This proposal has been kept secret from local residents for 18 months and is now being rushed through during the Christmas period. There has not been adequate time allowed for proper consultation or time to understand the impacts of the proposal. The Department must not rush the planning process and give proper consideration of the community’s objections, particularly given the errors, misleading statements and inadequate assessment in the RTS submitted.

 Inconsistent and inadequate documentation – The RtS incorrectly states that no works are proposed in the E3 Environmental Management Zone, when in fact the Loop Road and various other works are proposed. There are also inconsistencies in the documentation that are unclear about who will be able to use the Loop Road. The Noise Report is unclear and doesn't properly identify which dwellings will be affected by noise.

I hope that you take my concerns into consideration when processing the LLV Schools Infrastructure proposal.

Regards,
Resident from 5 Dunstan Grove, Lindfield

Strongly object to proposed Lindfield Learning Village Stages 2 and 3.This proposal is done badly, it’s lack of consideration and assessment. The Department must not rush the planning process and give proper consideration of the community’s objections, particularly given the errors, misleading statements and inadequate assessment in the RTS submitted. Detailed concerns is in attached document. Thank you.

Hereby I'm lodging my strong objection to the proposed Lindfield Learning Village development stages 2 and 3 project.

I'm generally supportive of the school, although I notice that its teaching model and layout are not a fit for every child. I'm objecting because of the planned change of the access route to Dunstan Grove from the eastern side of the school.

Historically, Dunstan Grove was an internal road of UTS campus, very narrow and bendy, and since becoming a public road it hasn't become wider. Two cars moving in opposite directions can barely pass each other on those bends; a car and a bus just won't. When asked about it, a planner's representative simply shrugged and said, 'A car would stop and let the bus pass'. In the past year, every time a single construction truck had to pass along the road, a "lollypop person" would shut the road for safety reasons - now imagine 14 buses driving along. Speaking of numbers, it looks like those estimates have been made for buses loaded at full capacity; in practice, there will likely be more of less loaded buses. Same for cars: the application assumes approx 200 children walking or cycling to the school, but there is neither a safe footpath (or not any at all, if we talk about Roseville station) nor a cycling path, existing crossings are unmarked. All that needs to be in place before opening more seats at the school.

Meanwhile, the only crossing on Dunstan Grove - the only way to walk from the building uphill to a bus stop - is also unmarked and in a blind spot. With increased trafic it will be very unsafe for pedestrians, while no alternative for walking outside would exist. If there is a queue of cars on the Dustan Grove, and, God forbid, an accident happens, or some resident needs urgent medical assistance - an ambulance would not just be able to drive through that bottleneck.
On the way to the school all traffic would have to pass Charles Bean sportsfield, which is currently used from 7am to 9pm. The parking spot next to the field is tight, and cars have to either reverse in or reverse out. In case of heavy trafic, both maneuvers would make the trafic worse and be unsafe.
That's just safety, not mentioning that quality of life in apartments facing the road will be worsened. Noise impact on the residential building has not been assessed at all. In a residential complex of this size someone is bound to move once in 2-3 months, and the only spot where a pickup truck can reasonably park is exactly the roundabout that's gonna be choked by the loop road. Lastly, accessibility of Simons Trail, which starts right behind the building, will be greatly decreased, which impacts not just Dunstan Grove, but everyone in the community who uses that trail. Construction works are said to last for two years, while they've been running for the past year, and already put a lot of pressure on the residents.

Lastly, I'm outraged by the way the community has been treated. In the LLV project update leaflet, the diagram explaining the proposed loop road crops the the Dunstan Grove buildings out of the view, and what couldn't be cropped has been coloured light green, like it's just some bush. For months before the strata committee tried to contact people responsible for LLV construction works, and got no answer, until in September they came back only to deliver this news without any consultation. Now this development application is submitted in a busy pre-Christmas period with only 3 weeks consultations time, and it looks very much an attempt to play the system and force the way towards approval. Even that it's been submitted now, the supporting documentation is poor and inconsistent.

A possible alternative might be to plan the loop road on the Eastern side of LLV, and Dunstan Grove strata committee had submitted an inquiry about it, but that inquiry has been ignored by the planning authority. The project leaves impression that it hasn't been thought through, and planners tried to find the cheapest solution instead of a safe and sustainable one.

I support the school expanding to its originally announced size. The extra school buses are a good idea and an essential step to encouraging more students to use public transport instead of cars. The things I worry are not been addressed properly are - The site has plenty of room to enable all staff to park - 40% is inadequate. Apart from considering traffic problems at Grosvenor/Lady Game and Grosvenor/highway, planners need to look at Shirley/Highway and at least increase the time the lights are green for traffic leaving Shirley. Don't underestimate the number of over 17 students who will drive to school - maybe that should be prohibited except where special need exists.

I object to the current LLV stage 2 project.

I object to the Linfield Learning Village project.

As a local and owner of property on Crimson hill I support the new development proposed as overall it is a wonderful community development. However I still have reservations around the already growing parking, traffic and public transport challenges and whether the development plan addresses them sufficiently.

We have been residents within the Shout Ridge complex as of July 2019 and we have already experienced a noticeable increase in traffic congestion and parking. Almost daily there is no spare parks on the street at all and quite often double parked. With further developments the local streets will be further impacted if car parking is not addressed correctly.

Parking on streets will also impact the public transport access - the local streets are not wide enough to accommodate parking and bus traffic. This already occurs on a daily basis on Shout Ridge (the street itself). We would anticipate this to only increase as the school begins to use the oval for students and extra-curricular activities.

There is also so much more that should be provided in the way of public transport. For example more variety of routes and more frequent public bus services available to the community. The current traffic report only addresses the needs of the school but fails to consider the fact that any improvements to local public transport options will reduce community private vehicle use, hence helping to reduce congestion in the area. Bus frequencies on the weekend and non-school days should also be improved. At one stage over the last year or so I heard discussion of a possible shuttle service between the school and train stations (major bus hubs) – this sounded like a good idea to me as would take many cars out of the area. Hopefully this is still being considered.

I strongly support addition of footpaths to the area - they are currently not sufficient (and some unsafe) for the number of residents now let alone in the future.

I would also like to recommend that the Charles Bean Centre, school gym and sports hall be open for community use during the weekend. As locals we could certainly benefit from them and the school could benefit from hire fees for the maintenance etc.

Final comment is for the council to work with the school to install and shop/café of sorts for the benefit of students and the broader community. This could even

I am writing to you to lodge my objection to the proposed Lindfield Learning Village Stages 2 and 3. I am supportive of the school, but am very concerned about the approach being proposed. This relates to 4 specific areas of concern.

1.CONSTRUCTION PHASE:
During the construction works carried out during Phase 1. Dunstan grove was utilized as a major point of access to the site including the delivery of materials and the removal of building waste. The approach taken during this work proved the unsuitability of this approach. Dunstan Grove IS NOT a suitable point of access for any construction work. To learn that the proposal is to use the lower point of the site directly next to the Dunstan Grove residential driveway as the singular point of access is a clear indication that those making this proposal have either willfully not informed themselves about the issues associated with Phase 1 or have decided that the negative impact on 150 families who live in this complex are 100% irrelevant.
Having trucks up and down Dunstan Grove from morning to night 6 days a week is massively inconsiderate, inconvenient and most importantly down right dangerous. The road can barely accommodate two way car traffic let alone trucks. A cursory inspection of the site or enquiry into the phase 1 experience would tell you this.
• The road is too narrow to accommodate building traffic
• There is insufficient space for large vehicles to turn around without completely blocking all access
• All pedestrian traffic is put at risk as there is NO SAFE crossing point
• Access to Symons trail and the national park would be also be rendered completely unsafe
• Children walking to school from Dunstan Grove would be at risk of being run over
• The many commuters relying on the local bus service would risk the same fate
• The ridiculous and pathetic approach taken in phase 1 of employing outsourced traffic controllers who were clearly told to favor building traffic over residents would be ineffective and encourage unsafe driving
Why has no proposal been shared with the community to have construction traffic be directed down the eastern side of the school property? The road there has been upgraded and is twice as wide as Dunstan Grove plus the flat area on the south east side of the school property is far more accessible than the narrow confines of Dunstan Grove and the access drive to the apartment complex. Why is this not being considered? The entire approach by the developing team under the NSW state government auspices seems to have gone to great lengths to deceive the Dunstan Grove owners committee, the Dunstan Grove residents and not to forget the rest of the Lindfield community.

2. VEHICLE SAFETY:
This is in relation to the proposed loop road. Reading your report I was disappointed but cynically not surprised to see in “the joke of a report” prepared by ARUP, that the Dunstan Grove residential development was not only excised from the drawings, but barely rated a mention. How convenient.
The proposed flow equates to a car every 20 seconds and a bus every 8 minutes! Have the authors even walked this road? This proposal is farcical. A bus will barely fit down the hill with zero other traffic, let alone when a stream of outbound residents drive up the hill. This is massively dangerous. Will the bus reverse back up? Will the dozens of residents attempting to go to work each morning be forced to run the gauntlet of the hill and risk a serious accident? Why not redirect all Dunstan grove traffic THROUGH THE SCHOOL! There’s a suitable stupid idea for your consideration. This is a stupid, thoughtless and a reckless proposal that has no discernable benefit.
As with everything else contained in this plan for Phases 2 and 3, there is no hint of consideration for the 150 families living here. It sounds like the team have taken the advice of the Member for Davidson who wrote to me on the 4th of November justifying his thoughts by stating “I did not support the new residences but have always supported the ongoing use of the site for educational purposes.” Gee, Thanks!
Why has no proposal been shared with the community to have drop off traffic be directed down the eastern side of the school property? Why is this not being considered? The entire approach by the developing team under the NSW state government auspices seems to have gone to great lengths to deceive the Dunstan Grove owners committee, the Dunstan Grove residents and not to forget the rest of the Lindfield community.

3. PEDESTRIAN SAFETY:
This may come as a surprise to the author of the proposal, but when you have 150 families living in a development like 7 Dunstan Grove, there will be many people who choose to walk to the bus and even walk to the school. Your proposal to direct the massive flows of traffic down Dunstan Grove will put lives at risk. This flow will be so intense ie “a car every 20 seconds and a bus every 8 minutes” that safe pedestrian access will come a distant 2nd to MORE CARS. Your own transport department has been spending billions on public transport and singing the praises and benefits to commuters and pedestrians. What a shame that has not been applied here. Further the current unmarked crossing is on a blind corner and is already very dangerous with the current light traffic. This will become extremely dangerous with the proposed increased traffic. There is no consideration in the proposal about how this will be dealt with. Similarly, there is no provision for a crossing at the school entry and the current crossing there is not suitable for accessible use. Again, I want the eastern alternatives to be further considered.

4. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:
Naturally, the authors of this plan consider that they have ZERO responsibility or culpability when it comes to flattening more bushland. The fact that the development of a loop road will lead to so many more trees being removed (on top of the massive number already cut down) is simply SHAMEFUL. Where is your personal and collective responsibility? It just beggars belief that in the middle of a drought and a vicious bushfire season, such a proposal can be offered for serious consideration that presents a dumb and mute comment on climate change. It’s sad to see that the schools liberal and progressive approach to teaching has in no way found its way through to this proposal. You are effectively encouraging parents to drive their kids to school with the loop road proposal. This also sets an example for the generation we are SUPPOSED to be teaching to do better! Yes, its ok to be concerned about climate change, but it’s also ok to continue to drive anywhere you like for your own convenience. That is simply immoral.
Use your imagination (be innovative) instead of rushing to the simplest and most obvious easy answer. Andrew Constance has been berating the population with “public transport on demand”. Almost 50% of your students are being drawn from the Chatswood area...so why not run a shuttle service of small busses from the Chatswood interchange to the Eaton road bus stop? Flexible (even on demand) and it fits with the infrastructure as it stand (low cost), opportunity for overflow onto the eastern side of the school, ie smaller and more nimble vehicles. Please provide some evidence of extending the “Minister level” thinking and talking points into reality.

If all of the above is not enough to make an individual resident feel disenfranchised, the approach the project team has taken is down right underhand, tricky and deceptive. That’s quite a legacy to leave. The RTS incorrectly states that no works are proposed in the E3 Environmental Management Zone, when in fact the Loop Road and various other works are proposed. There are also inconsistencies in the documentation that are unclear about who will be able to use the Loop Road. The Noise Report is unclear and doesn't properly identify which dwellings will be affected by noise. Further to this, the proposal has been kept secret from local residents for 18 months and is now being rushed through during the Christmas period. There has not been adequate time allowed for proper consultation or time to understand the impacts of the proposal.

The Department must not rush the planning process and give proper consideration of the community’s objections, particularly given the errors, misleading statements and inadequate assessment in the RTS submission.

Please demonstrate that this is in fact a consultative process in more than name only. Have the courage and the intelligence to communicate with stakeholders who may not agree with you or share your values. To do otherwise is to trample the core purpose and mission of a public service.

Regards
Russell

I am writing to you to lodge my objection to the proposed Lindfield Learning Village Stages 2 and 3.

I am angry at your attitude and approach to engaging with the Dunstan Grove community. Your efforts so far feel like this is a completely one sided process where the planning team benefit at the cost of both the school and residential community.

I am a supporter of the school’s liberal and progressive philosophy to teaching but find it in total contrast to your approach to the construction and development proposal. Transparency, and honesty seem to be missing from your approach. This is also in stark contrast to the example we all strive to set to the children who will attend this school. This lazy attitude also informs the main issue at hand, namely how to get kids to school. Your proposal for a loop road effectively encourages parents to drive their kids to school. What kind of moral compass does this set for the students attending LLV!

The Department must not rush the planning process and give proper consideration to the community’s objections, particularly given the errors, misleading statements and inadequate assessment in the RTS submission. Your apparent disdain for the local residents can only be interpreted as deceptive and unethical. Your approach looks very much like a “tick a box” exercise.

To re-emphasize, I object vehemently to your development proposal as it stands.

VEHICLE SAFETY: This is in relation to the proposed loop road. The report you have shared completely ignores the requirements of the Dunstan Grove residents; free and unrestrained access to and from the residence for all 150 families, accommodation for numerous deliveries, frequent removalists’ trucks, service vehicles and the requirement for emergency vehicles to have unrestricted access. Will ambulances be forced to wait while buses navigate the hill twice a day? The collision of service vehicles, removalists and the countless deliveries on demand (Coles and Woolworths) are already choking the access. How will you prevent grid lock?

Dunstan Grove can barely cope with the current volume of traffic as it was only designed as a service road to the UTS. Now you want to put a car down here every 20 seconds and a bus every 8 minutes?

The answer is a simple one! DON’T DO IT. Direct the school traffic ONTO the school property on the eastern side of their precinct where the road is straight, wide and recently refurbished. Offer real public transport (ask Andrew Constance about on demand services), not the nonsense you have so far tabled.

Please make this a proper public service, namely a two way conversation. Don’t simply attempt to ram the project through approval before Christmas.

Sincerely
Sabine