Lindfield Learning Village

Please refer to our attached letter, and separate Attachments B-E

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

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.

Dear Sir/Madam,

I write with reference to the proposed Lindfield Learning Village Stages 2 and 3 and wish to express my objection to this.

Please note that I do not want my personal information to be made available.

Firstly, I’d like to express my disappointment at the lack of overall community engagement until a very late stage. I am aware that the proposal was drafted month ago and have only just recently made this information available to the Dunstan Grove Owners Committee. The Schools Infrastructure’s actions have been nothing but unreasonable and shows a lack of respect and consideration to community engagement.

Whilst I acknowledge the importance of a local school and am supportive of same, I am extremely concerned about the effects, changes and safety issues associated with modification and relocation of the existing children drop off and pick u routes into Dunstan Grove. Dunstan Grove’s demographic consist reasonable amount of downsized seniors and families with young children. With the existing pedestrian path and road, it only provide minimal safety and infrastructure for the existing residents. I am extremely concerned about our children and seniors safety if this proposal does go ahead.

I have learnt the traffic report provides 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. These numbers excludes certain estimates in the higher year students and as such, these estimates are conservative at best, meaning the impact on local residents is likely to be significantly higher than these understated numbers.

As a best case estimate, this equates to a car every 20 seconds and a bus every 8 minutes as an absolute minimum, resulting in a significantly increased and high flow of traffic in an area which can be described as not ever being suitable and and remains ill-equipped to handle this volume.

There are a number of issues with this and please note my concerns as follows:

Pedestrian Safety – Personally, I have a 5 year old daughter who will be attending a school nearby (not Lindfield Learning Village) and her safety as a young pedestrian practicing road safety is my priority.

Currently, 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 light volume of traffic currently in the area.

This is already extremely dangerous and with the proposed increased traffic, will become even more dangerous and in particular for children.

Currently, there is no consideration in the proposal about how this will be dealt with. 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 different situations.

There are also sections where the footpath is non-compliant with there being 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.


Traffic Flow Impact – I understand traffic will be controlled at certain times of the day with the use of gates into the School on the Loop road. There is currently a lack of information available to document how this may potentially impact on banked up traffic leading to gate-open times and how this will affect residents who just want to simply return home. This will be significant, particularly during the times between 230 to 5pm. I can only just imagine banked up traffic leading to extensive delays for residents. As mentioned earlier, there is a lack of consideration on the impacts of same and again, I wish for the alternatives submitted by the Dunstan Grove to be further considered.

Vehicle Safety – Dunstan Grove is a very narrow and curved road and was only intended for very limited access back when UTS was in existence. It is already extremely tight for cars to pass each other in opposite directions and I have personally experienced a number of near misses already with oncoming vehicles. Further there are very limited sight lines and blind corners leading into Dunstan Grove and with the introduction of many buses throughout the day, this will only deteriorate. Additionally, there are already delays while cars park (and double park) at the oval community centre and if Stages 2 and 3 of the current project proceed, it will only result in a further bottle-necking of the area.

Significantly, there is a lack of any assessments on how buses can safely fit down the road with traffic travelling in the opposite direction. Especially around the blind corners and the lack of line of sight.

Schools Infrastructure have made minimal, if not, nil attempts to demonstrate investigation of alternatives to the proposed Loop Road. Nor has it considered the safety of local residents with the introduction of many buses into the area.

In my eyes, they have simply chosen the cheapest, easiest and most convenient option for themselves, at the expense of the Dunstan Grove community, who will experience significant road and safety issues as well as 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 understand there has been no response to these alternatives and I wish for these to be responded to and further considered.

Noise impacts – The noise report is extremely limited in it’s estimates and lacks information on the real impact to residents.

I note the report selfishly considers noise impact only once the cars and buses are inside the school grounds. It fails to give consideration to bringing all the school traffic within metres of our residential buildings and it’s impact to our community.

From experience (see construction impact below), I am of the view that this will have a huge impact on our residents and I am very concerned that it has not been addressed at all. It is another reason why this proposed loop road should be rejected and further alternatives from our community to be considered.

Construction Impact – During the Stage 1 of construction, we had regular issues with road blockages in Dunstan Grove associated with deliveries and trades people parking illegally 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 simply no reason for it to be here, when it can be accessed from the existing roads and sites on the eastern side. I want this plan changed to enforce access from the eastern side of the school. Our Owners Committee also requested this and again, there has been nil response and the community’s feedback has been ignored.

Separately, I also wish to obtain any information from Schools Infrastructure in relation to the risks and impact from dust, disease and asbestos, noting the proposed construction site is only metres away from residential dwellings.


Further to my points above I am also concerned that: -

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 and due diligence to the community’s concerns and 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.

If Stages 2 and 3 proceed as planned, it opens up regular public access to our currently secluded area. My enjoyment of a peaceful and quiet community is likely to be impacted by a number of students, parents and cars including potential for trespassers and illegally parked cars. This is something I do not want and I respectfully request that the school return the flow of traffic back into it’s existing areas whilst considering the alternatives submitted by the Dunstan Grove committee members.

In summary, the proposed changes released at this very late stage gives me and my family serious concerns associated with pedestrian safety, vehicle safety, noise impact, traffic management impact and my family’s heath and well-being.

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

My objection is conditional on certain issues being addressed specifically to do with traffic management (speeding, pedestrian safety, congestion) and parking (congestion).

Living in the area and having a daughter of kindergarten age, I would like the school to be successful and increase it's capacity for students but not at the expense of general safety in the surrounding streets.

Eton Road has no traffic impediments aside from a stop sign at Austral and Ortana. This makes the the middle section subject to excessive speeding especially near the "dip" which we have had to identify to the police on a number of occasions. There are also no school crossings to allow passage to the school property and permit the safe and required flow of pupils in the surrounding streets.

Encouraging further traffic to the area needs to be carefully managed, to prevent the inherent dangers associated with a large increase in fast moving vehicles. Tired, distracted, rushed drivers can all be incredibly dangerous to young children which is compounded by the fact that they do not have a fully developed sense of risk and awareness of their surroundings.

Having been in the area when the UTS campus was still active I also recall the extensive parking problems that that introduced in all the surrounding streets, we should avoid a repeat of that level of disruption.

Lastly, the general impact on congestion in the area with increased traffic especially in the crucial morning periods should be managed, estimated and controlled as that has the potential to create significant delays and disruption.

In Summary pending the sufficient resolution of inherent traffic and parking problems it is difficult to support this project.

Community should be engaged with and concerns listened to and managed.

Hello,

I would like to lodge my objection as a very concerned local Lindfield resident to the proposed Lindfield Learning Village Stages 2 and 3.

There are accidents waiting to happen if the proposed so called “LOOP ROAD” goes ahead. The road is very narrow with blind spots. There have been numerous reports of near accidents. I have personally witnessed, and heard from other residents, cars speeding on the very narrow and curvy road endangering other vehicles and pedestrians. There needs to be another route to accommodate for the drop off and pick up of students and staff.

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!

We recently had a community consultation session on the 7th of December, and it was apparent that the project team has not considered numerous safety aspects. As a local resident 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.


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 -

# The parking for Charles Bean Sports field has not been considered. Currently a lot of cars are parked on the vacant areas of the former Screen Australia site. Once that site is built up were will the cars go? The field is on the proposed loop road and will add to the morning traffic.

# In the community consultation session, we were told that the existing pedestrian foot path will be reduced, and the pedestrians will need to access stairs. This will make it extremely difficult for people with disability and parents with prams.

# In many of the drawings and plans for the school, the Dunstan Grove residential complex is not even shown or considered. This constructs a false image of the immediate vicinity. This is a major slip.

# There has hardly been any consultation with the local residents who have real life understanding of what’s required. Even alternative plans being proposed by the Dunstan Grove community have been ignored.

# 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.

Please note - I do not want my personal information released.
Thank You.

The attached submission details the objection on the basis of safety, environmental impact and existing purpose-built infrastructure not being reused or extended.

I object to Phase 2 & 3 of the project with respect to the lack of provision of adequate parking and traffic management for the village. The Traffic Impact assessment is wrong, un-professional and does not take proper account of the effect of likely traffic generated by the addition of the full compliment of student, teachers and parents.
For example: In Appendix J Traffic Impact Assessment: KU-RING-GAI COUNCIL COMMENT: [4.4.3] Historical Traffic Volumes – 2007 - The comment is made that the desirable maximum of 2,000 vehicles per day for local roads assumes that the road services residential areas only, and that this would historically not apply to this area/proposal due to the presence of UTS Ku-ring-gai and Film Australia. This assumption is incorrect as the Film Australia site has since been rezoned for residential development, and the former UTS Kuring-gai site has partly also been rezoned for housing. Given that the whole length of Eton Road (with the exception of the southwestern-most end) is now a low density residential area, it would be unfair and inappropriate to apply this rationale and somehow avoid any ameliorative measures to the residents along Eton Road
ARUP RESPONSE: A public school is a community facility. It provides a real benefit to the community it serves and it is expected that some burden will be placed on the community to support its operation. A TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE RESPONSE – WE DON’T CARE. QUITE UN-PROFESSIONAL!!!

Also in the same Assessment: 4.2 Car parking for school activity
For Stage 3 with an allocation of 20 spaces for parent pick-up and drop-off parking there will be 117 staff parking spaces available. For 312 staff and assuming 90% in attendance on a typical day, this equates to a car mode of 42%. The primary way to achieve this low staff car mode is to promote alternative travel strategies identified in the Green Travel Plan. These focus on use of public transport, active transport and carpooling. NO CONSIDERATION FOR YEAR 12 STUDENTS WHO DRIVE THEMSELVES. WHEN UTS WAS OPERATIONAL, EVEN THOUGH THERE WAS CONSIDERABLY MORE PARKING AVAILABLE ON SITE THAN IS CURRENTLY PROPOSED IN THE LEARNING VILLAGE, THE SURROUNDING STREETS WERE CLOGGED WITH UTS STUDENT PARKING, ESPECIALLY PRE-HSC AND ENROLLMENT TIMES. THIS CLOGGING OF SURROUNDING ROADS WILL BECOME THE NORM UNDER THE PROPOSED 2,000 STUDENT POPULATION.
I could go on, but the above two extracts demonstrate the inadequacy of the Traffic Impact Assessment. The site and surrounding area is not appropriate for the volume of traffic and parking that the proposed Village population of 2,000 students will bring into this residential area.

I attach my objection based on safety concerns, the impact of construction on the neighbourhood and insufficient review of the alternatives.
It is also inconsistent with the surrounding environment (which is a National Park) and this kind of development could not be reasonably expected here.

I am writing to submit my objection to the Lindfield Learning Village Phases 2 & 3 application. My objection is based on the following matters:

1. Loop Road. The proposed Loop Road will create significant safety and amenity issues on a road that was not designed to carry the existing traffic, let alone the traffic proposed in the application. The school has made no attempt to examine alternatives to keep the existing eastern arrangements viable, and have simply taken a short sighted approach to move all their traffic problems to the western side of the building and at our front door! They have deliberately ignored or obscured the effect on surrounding residents to obtain their own advantage. The school has always known the numbers of enrolments it is projecting to accommodate, and should contain these numbers within their boundaries, and on the eastern side of the site. The existing internal roads and carparks can be modified (they should be expanded anyway) to accomodate their Clients. The Dunstan Grove roadway is extremely narrow, has very poor (no) sightlines around corners and is constrained between rock cuttings and building walls. The entrance to the Loop Road is exactly at the car entrance to Dunstan Grove and there is no doubt that this will cause traffic congestion and queuing at the entrance, and prevent residents from entering / leaving Dunstan Grove. The existing footpath is already obstructed with light poles and there is no opportunity to widen the road without removing footpath space. Again the school appears to be bulldozing through their needs at the expense of all others, with a very poorly thought out proposal. Alternatives have ben proposed by the Dunstan Grove Owners Committee which I support. In addition, the hours of the Loop Road have no reason to be extended beyond normal school hours (refer Traffic Report Table 22). No swept path details have been provided to demonstrate how 12.5 & 14.5 buses will fit down the road. Residents know that cars and larger vehicles struggle to fit down the road already, and buses will certainly not.

2. Car Parking. They are not providing sufficient car parking (only 40%) for staff, and again are dumping their car parking requirements onto the neighbouring streets. The existing car parks should be expanded to at least meet their known requirements (staff & students) as well as some provision for visitors and events. Again they are dumping their problems onto their neighbours. Prior to the school commencing operation, on weekends people using the sports field were able to park in the school parking areas which helped ease congestion on the local road areas. Since operation, the school has installed boom gates, which now force all people to park on the local streets. This again demonstrates how they are not interested in integrating with the local community, and simply want to push all their problems outside their boundary.

3. Footpaths. The Traffic Report responds to the previous objections about footpaths by stating that a continuous footpath has been provided to the stations. This is not the case at all, and this response is deceptive. They have installed some footpaths, however these alternate on each sides of road, and pedestrians are forced to cross roads without marked crossings.In instances, pedestrians are forced to cross the road on blind corners where buses are often parked. In many cases the footpaths have signposts or light poles in the path, and have no protection against falling down banks. Again this is a flippant response that simply shifts their problem onto Council and the local residents. They also say (in their Green Travel Plan) how they will promote students walking and cycling to school, but have provided no infrastructure to enable this to happen. Clearly they are not committed to it at all, and are simply providing a lip-service report to satisfy the application criteria.

4. Noise. The Acoustic report refers only to vehicle noise generated once vehicles are within the school grounds (refer section 6.4 first sentence), and then describes how this will be shielded from the adjoining residences by the school buildings, but will still exceed the limits. It makes no mention of now bringing 14 buses and over 300 cars down a quiet residential street (not a feeder road) and within 10m of residences. People in Dunstan Grove are already affected by air-conditioning equipment (under the Phase 1 gym) turning on at 6.15am every morning, and will now have the schools traffic noise forced upon them.

5. The consultation process has been extremely poor, and deceptive. There have been two formal meetings (25/9 & 19/11). No details were presented at these meetings, just vague descriptions of what was proposed, even though they clearly had the Traffic report (dated 11/9) giving full details of the road, car and bus numbers etc. Their conduct at these meetings was deceptive at the least, and made a mockery of any form of honest consultation. Again, these meeting were simply held to tick a box for the application, rather than engage in honest and constructive consultation. We were only given three days notice of a site meeting held with Schools Infrastructure & Council, in the middle of a business day. Clearly this was an attempt to ensure representatives could not attend.

6. Heritage. The construction of Dunstan Grove was deliberately done to compliment the outstanding architecture of the LLV buildings. This was also the appeal for most people buying into the development. Since Phase 1 the school has shown little regard for the architecture and heritage of the building through the dumping of mechanical plant on the roof with no screening or visual consideration, fencing in their boundaries and removing all trees that formed a buffer around the perimeter of the building (and particularly between LLV & Dunstan Grove). Now, in Phase 2 & 3 they want to demolish parts of the building to drive traffic through the middle of the building. There is no consideration of architecture and heritage at all, just short-sighted solution to a problem.

7. Construction Access. The residents of Dunstan Grove during Phase 1 works were already subjected to daily delays and road closures by the contractor bringing trucks and deliveries down Dunstan Grove. This was raised in the consultation meetings, but was another discussion point which was ignored by Schools Infrastructure. There is no reason why the construction access cannot be done through the existing school entry (direct off Eton Road) and into the eastern side of the site, away from sensitive receivers. Vehicles can then delivery direct to the rear of the school, turn around within the site, and drive straight out. The integration with students can be managed by traffic control very easily. Again, the proposal to use Dunstan Grove as the main access by Schools Infrastructure, is a lazy, self interested move which shifts the impacts of their construction away from themselves and onto the the nearby residents.

I request the following be considered in making the determination of this application:
- that the Loop Road proposal be rejected, and student drop-off & pick-up be done from the eastern side of the site
- that only the Phase 2 student increase be approved, until a suitable drop-off & pick-up arrangement is resolved (including further honest consultation)
- that the Main Construction Access be moved to the eastern side of the site
- that existing footpaths are to be upgraded to provide compliant width footpaths for pedestrians, and provisions be made for cyclists (so that the Green Travel plan actually has meaning)
- that pedestrian crossings be installed to Dunstan Grove, Eton Road & Abingdon Road to ensure that compliant widths are achieved for the full route to local stations.
- that the school take their role in the local community responsibly, and not bully their way to achieve their own outcomes at the expense of local residents.

Regards,
David Oliver

I am writing to you regarding concerns I have with the proposal of the Stage 2 and Stage 3 development of the Lindfield Learning Village, specifically, I oppose to the proposed loop road described in the development proposal.

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 for both private vehicles and buses into Dunstan Grove.

Having read the artefacts, visited the public information sessions and discussions with project members, I believe there has been inadequate planning and assessment (including community and local area environmental impact) and lack of proper community consultation.

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.

- Road Congestion impact - While it has been stated in the traffic report 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 likely the same number in the afternoons, I believe these are highly conservative.
- The loop road design doesn’t portray how traffic will be managed for the ability for Dunstan Grove residents to be able to enter and exit during these times (the same time when most residents will be heading or returning to/from work.
- Additionally there will be excursions, sporting events that will require moving a significant number of students OUTSIDE of the proposed hours and this hasn’t been adequately addressed.


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.

- The traffic report provided by Arup traffic consulting has many assumptions in place, especially on the Green Travel plan.

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

***Objection to the proposal for Lindfield Learning Village Stages 2 & 3*****

Dear Planning Department,

The proposed plan to change the existing Pick-up and Drop-off path of LLV to pass through Dunstan Grove is concerning because of different safety impacts, as well as creating numerous inconvenience and frustrations for us, as residents.

There will be 350 cars and 14 buses (and most likely more) from 7.30am - 9.30am and 2.30pm - 5.00pm exactly on our driveway. And this is the timeframe I go to work/return home every day. There is not enough space to allow all 14 buses in school, there is not enough car park for school staff and year 12 students, plus rushed parents will most likely drop off their children exactly in front of our driveway (as they do now). This means there will be traffic jam every day.

We had several meetings and correspondences with School Infrastructure in the past couple of months and I believe they have withheld information from us. In September meeting, they mentioned that they are looking at different construction plans, while the Construction Management plan is dated 28/08/2019. This is a deceptive behaviour. Our community has provided 2-3 alternatives, but school infrastructure has ignored them totally and proposed the easiest, cheapest plan, which is at their own advantage and totally disregards the locals. They rarely mentioned any name of Dunstan Grove in the documents/plan, while we are living 10 meters away from them!
In the community consultation session, their project manager stated couple of times that they have considered the interest of the school only!


While I am supporting the school, I should say that the idea of having a school with 2000 students at the end of a ***NO Through Road*** is irrational and I am not sure, how they have got approval for this number of students at first instance!

Although our community has provided number of alternatives for school to utilise their own boundaries, *** I strongly suggest they consider the option of constructing a road from Lady game Road. *** I understand this option involves negotiating with different entities and is a more expensive project, but it resolves the issue completely for ever.

My major concerns about this plan are as follows and I believe the plan should be rejected:

1- Safety (cars and pedestrians):
Dunstan Grove is a very narrow, built for local and limited access. ***Lindfield suburb population is around 10,000 ppl. How can they propose a plan for 2100 students, their parents, school staff, Oval Community centre’s visitors and residents of Crimson Hill (1100 ppl) to move along one single street every morning and afternoon? It’s more than 30% of Lindfield population just in one street! ***It is already very tight for cars to pass each other with blind points and impose a significant road and safety risk and increase congestion.
Also, the current crossing is unmarked and on a blind corner, which is very dangerous for school children and residents. There is not any continuous walkway from LLV to Lindfield public / Roseville station, which means children must walk on the road with vehicles, including buses (this is mentioned as safe in the proposal)

2- Safety (Fire crisis, Emergencies)
We are very close to Lane Cove National park. In case of bushfire/fire, the evacuation process will be considerably affected, which causes a huge risk for residents, as well as school children.
Also, in case of medical emergencies, the Ambulance/patient might not be able to get through during drop off/pick up hrs (around 5 hrs daily).

3- Noise:
I have bought a unit in Dunstan Grove to maintain a quiet lifestyle (I am sure this applies to most of the residents in the area). In this plan the impact of noise on residents of Dunstan Grove hasn’t been addressed. They have only considered the noise impact once the cars and buses are inside the school grounds.

4- Construction period:
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.

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

Best Regards

I am lodging an objection to the proposed Lindfield Learning Village Stages 2 and 3. I own an apartment in Dunstan Grove, adjacent to Lindfield Learning Village. I am supportive of the new school but I am very concerned that the Department of Education wants to relocate the existing school entrance from the front of the school to the end of Dunstan Grove. This proposed ‘Loop Road’ would be next to the driveway entrance for my building that has 129 apartments. Documents indicate that the Loop Road would be the access route for drop-off and pick-up of 2,000 students during school terms. The estimate of 350 cars and 14 buses travelling down Dunstan Grove is too much for a narrow road. In my view, the Department of Education’s Loop Road appears to displace congestion from near the school to Dunstan Grove residents. It is likely to cause queuing along Dunstan Grove back to Eton Road, which would impact the entrance roads to all four developments in Crimson Hill that surround the school.

I am lodging my objection to the proposed Lindfield Learning Village Stages 2 and 3. However as an architect and urban designer, I wish to be constructive. I have been assisting the Dunstan Grove Owners’ Committee by designing an alternative route to the Loop Road. My alternative East side road ramp solution can be seen attached.

I reside in Lindfield and am supportive of the new school but I am very concerned that the Department of Education wants to relocate the existing school entrance from the front of the school to the end of Dunstan Grove. This would affect access to 129 apartments in Dunstan Grove.

In my professional opinion, the proposed Loop Road has many problems, see attached.

We have a number of safety, traffic and parking concerns regarding this proposal. We only became aware of the short submission period this week, which has not left adequate time to peruse the submission in detail, however, some comments follow in no particular order of priority:


• Concerning the Construction Traffic Management Plan, we note that there is currently a 3T weight limit on Grosvenor Rd which we regret to say is often disregarded. Under the road rules, construction traffic would, therefore, not be permitted to use Grosvenor Rd as a route to site access as there is no direct site frontage to the road. In our view, there are reasonable alternative routes of access.
• Does the Plan take into consideration that all ongoing loading activities associated with the site would also be required to adhere to this restriction?
• We understand the need for additional school places in the area, however, the numbers proposed are entirely inappropriate. The campus is now undergoing development with residential buildings (Tubbs View, Shouts Ridge, Dunston Grove, Film Australia and more) bringing the permanent population to well over 1000 people and an additional 800+ cars. To add a school population of 2100 would cripple the site as well as the surrounding roads and parking. A more reasonable maximum enrolment could be the solution, say up to 1000 students.
• The traffic management plan will need to address the peak hour comings and population of both the local residents and the school drop-off/pick ups.

Good planning recognises the value of mixed-use suburbs. Whilst building a mega facility in one location might be convenient and satisfy quotas, this approach to planning can only lead to poor transportation options, forcing the community to travel long distances to a large centre, as opposed to providing each neighborhood with the means to sustain itself.

Malcolm and Lia Saunders
Grosvenor Road

Hi

I am here writing about some advice on how to improve the traffic at Lindfield Learning Village in the future. As an estimate about 400 cars or buses on Eton Road during school hours by 2022, it is predicted to be chaos.As a lack of planning ,people will find it horrible getting stuck in traffic. Here are ways to improve the traffic at Lindfield Learning Village if we want to continue upgrading this school.

Building a train station: Lies beneath Lindfield Learning Village is the Sydney Metro. If we can build a station,it can minimize the amount of buses or cars on Eton Road, coming from Macquarie Park or Chatswood. Staff and students can easily take it and save a couple of minutes from being driven, taking a school bus or a 565 bus.This means it won’t increase the traffic on Fullers Road or Pacific Highway as they’re both state route numbers and have heavy traffic during peak hours already! Also, the train stop is not just for students using it to go to Lindfield Learning Village, it can be used for a stop to go to Lane Cove National Park and either have a picnic or just going there for bushwalking.

Building an underpass under Eton Road: The numbers of pedestrians on Eton Road on weekdays is estimated up to 500 students or staff on every school day when Lindfield Learning Village reaches 2000 students by 2022. Pedestrians crossing intersections or footpaths that end without a safe crossing on Eton Road will be hard for cars to move ,that they'll be stuck. By improving this we should use some of the money for building an underpass from Abingdon Road Reserve or anywhere near the Eton Road bus bay to Lindfield Learning Village and Shout Ridge for residential people. However extending the underpass to the station that I proposed to you in the last paragraph would be even better. Therefore, building an underpass will take pedestrians who are walking on Eton Road off and cars and buses can get in and out of Lindfield Learning Village quicker and easier.

Adding another entrance/ exit from Chatswood West or Roseville: As approximately 400 cars or buses on Eton Road during school hours, it is most likely gonna be congested. But by building a road from Shirley Road, Roseville, students that live in Chatswood or Roseville will take that entry or exit to Lindfield Learning Village it can save at least 2 minutes instead of going around using Abington Road or using Grosvenor Road. However if you find it don't consider eco friendly or any other reasons, we can build a footbridge instead coming from Millwood Avenue,Chatswood West. This would save at least 5 -10 minutes or walking and possibly quicker than a car due to traffic on Fullers Road if you take the Chatswood West Exit/ Entrance.

Providing extra car spaces for staff and students: As there’s a lack of car spaces at Lindfield Learning Village, People will struggle which means parents will get frustrated that they park illegally on the streets and might cause accidents. To prevent this happening, we should add an extra 100 car space car park underground for staff and other vehicles can use the current car spaces we got. The car spaces can also be used if there’s any events at Lindfield Learning Village or for people using Charles Bean Oval. Also we must put signage of where the car spaces are so people won’t park illegally on our streets.

Even though it might be costly, it can still make an enormous impact to improve the traffic around Lindfield Learning Village. I am hoping to receive a positive feedback from you.

See attached PDF

Please refer attachment.

Hi
I am writing to voice my concerns about the expected increase of traffic around Lindfield Learning Village when it is finally completed in 2022.
Currently the only route to access Lindfield Learning Village is via Eton Road only. There are no other modes of transportation to the school other than buses or cars. The school is not within walking distance to many suburbs around the area (such as Chatswood West). It is expected many students will travel to school by buses. (as opposed to walk). This will add further strain to the traffic problems around the area. (eg. Long traffic queue on Lady Game Drive/Fullers Road on the East, Lady Game Drive/Ryde Road on the West plus Pacific Highway via Grosvenor Road on the North) The southern end is not accessible via bush land.
Hence it is important to address the traffic/parking problems around the area prior to the planned increase of student intakes in 2022. If not, we may experience similar problems at Shout Ridge where insufficient parking for visitors travelling to the Charles Bean Oval. Often, we see cars double parked on Shout Ridge whenever there is an event at Charles Bean Oval. This is the direct result of inadequate planning because of insufficient parking around the area. This is probably the first oval I see in Sydney without an on-field parking.
To avoid repeated mistakes made at Charles Bean, it is important accurate planning is done prior to any future development in the area.
Here are some of the ideas
- Improve the intersection of Lady Game Drive/Fullers Road and Ryde Road
- Improve the intersection of Grosvenor Road and Pacific Highway
- Improve access to the school via foot bridge linking between the southern end of Lindfield Learning Village to Millwood avenue
- Investigate the possibility of creating a new station (entrance) underneath the station facility on Lady Game Drive (reduces the number of buses and cars around the area, encouraging students to walk to school from the station)
- Restrict access to Shout Ridge/Dunstan Grove to residential only
For the project to be successful, it is important to address the traffic/parking issues around the area.
Otherwise the benefits of the project will not be able to realize.

Please see attached PDF

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,

Stuart Loynes

103/5-7 Dunstan Grove
Lindfield,
NSW 2070