Skip to main content

State Significant Development


Pymble Ladies College - Grey House Precinct


Current Status: Determination

Interact with the stages for their names

  1. SEARs
  2. Prepare EIS
  3. Exhibition
  4. Collate Submissions
  5. Response to Submissions
  6. Assessment
  7. Recommendation
  8. Determination

- Four-five storey building accommodating:
Junior School classrooms;
Laboratories, OOSH, Dance studios;
Health and wellbeing centre; and
ELC for 90 children.
-Outdoor play areas;

Attachments & Resources

Notice of Exhibition (1)

Notice of Exhibition_09112021_120016

Request for SEARs (2)

Preliminary Architectural Drawings_
Scoping Report for SEARs

SEARs (1)

Issued SEARs

EIS (51)

Final EIS- Grey House Precinct V2
Appendix 1 SEARs
Appendix 2 Section 10.7 (2) & (5) Ku-ring-gai
Appendix 3 Childcare Assessment Table
Appendix 4 Consultation Report
Appendix 5 Environmental Risk Assessment- GHP
Appendix 7 Survey GHP
Appendix 8 Architectural SSDA Drawings Pack2
Appendix 8 Architectural SSDA Drawings Pack1
Appendix 10 Visual Impact Assessment Part 1
Appendix 10 Visual Impact Assessment Part 2
Appendix 11 Wind Environment Study
Appendix 12 Landscape SSDA Drawings
Appendix 12 Landscape Design Report
Appendix 13 Traffic Impact Assessment
Appendix 14 Green Travel Plan
Appendix 15 CTMP
Appendix 16 Civil Engineering Plans
Appendix 17 Civil Engineering Report
Appendix 18 GA Advice Letter
Appendix 19 SDRP Design Response
Appendix 20 Waste Classification Report
Appendix 20 Geotech Report
Appendix 21 Preliminary Site Investigation Part 3
Appendix 21 Preliminary Site Investigation Part 2
Appendix 21 Preliminary Site Investigation Part 1
Appendix 22 ACHAR
Appendix 23 Archaeological Assessment Report
Appendix 24 BDAR
Appendix 24 Koala Assessment Report PLC Reduced
Appendix 25 Aboricultural Impact Assessment
Appendix 26 Noise Impact Assessment
Appendix 27 ESD Report
Appendix 28 BCA Report
Appendix 29 Fire Safety Statement (1)
Appendix 29 Fire Safety Statement (2)
Appendix 29 Fire Safety Statement (3)
Appendix 30 Accessibility Report
Appendix 31 Social Impact Statement
Appendix 32 Operational Plan
Appendix 32 Schedule of Users
Appendix 33 Site Waste Management Plan
Appendix 34 Hazardous Materials Survey
Appendix 35 Project Management Plan
Appendix 36 Structural Design Report
Appendix 37 Services Assessment 1 SSDA_002
Appendix 38 Services Assessment 2 HIMP_003
Appendix 39 Heritage Impat Statement

Response to Submissions (43)

Request RTS_13122021_010749
WTJ21-087 Final RTS ReportV2
A1-AR-DA-C10-AA-01-[8]ELEVATION - N & S
A1-AR-DA-C10-AA-02-[9]ELEVATION - E& W
A1-AR-DA-B10-02-00-[13]GA PLAN - LEVEL 02
A1-AR-DA-B10-01-00-[13]GA PLAN - LEVEL 01
A1-AR-DA-B10-00-00-[13]GA PLAN - LEVEL 00
A1-AR-DA-B10-04-00-[13]GA PLAN - LEVEL 04
A1-AR-DA-B10-03-00-[13]GA PLAN - LEVEL 03
A1-AR-DA-B10-05-00-[3]GA PLAN - ROOF LEVEL
Attachment B Design Report Addendum2-1
Attachment B Design Report Addendum1-1
Attachment E Access Statement-1
Attachment D1 Pymble Ladies College - TIA
Attachment C VIA Addendum-1
Attachment F BDAR_PLC A1
Attachment D2 Pymble Ladies College - GTP
Attachment I GHP Landscape Drawings-1
Attachment L PLC Letter-1
Attachment G SIA Addendum-1
Attachment H HIS Addendum
Attachment K4 Response to Council-1
Attachment K3 Response to Agency Submissions-1
Attachment J DCP Table Controls Assessment GHP-1
Attachment M Response to SDRP3-1
Attachment K2 Responses to Public Submissions-1
Attachment K1 Response to DPE-1

Agency Advice (6)

Sydney Water - Pymble Ladies College Grey H
TfNSW Response for SSD-17424905 - EIS - Pymble
SSD17424905 Pymble HCNSW
EES response -PLC-GHP- EIS -1 Dec 2021
Pymble Ladies’ College – EPA
SSD17424905 Pymble RFS

Additional Information (19)

Attachment A
Attachment B
RFI - Pymble ladies
Appendix 4 AR-DA-D10-AA-03-PDF-[6]SECTIONS
Appendix 4 AR-DA-A10-AA-00-PDF-[8]COVER SHEET
Appendix 1 BDAR V4
WTJ21-087 Response to DPE RTS3 June
s7.12 Contribution exemption requested
WTJ21-087 Response to DPE RTS2 June
Appendix 6 BDAR_PLC 2022 Update A3
Appendix 2 Pymble Ladies College - TIA (Final)
Appendix 3 Response to DPE RTS2
Appendix 1 Childcare Assessment Table-
Appendix 5 SDRP3_Advice
Appendix 2 DA009 Masterplan Stage
SSD17424905 Amdendment to SSD5314

Recommendation (6)

DPE Assessment Report PLC
Appendix E - draft IPC letter SSD-5314
Appendix D - recommended instrument
Appendix C - GML Report Part 2
Appendix C - GML Report Part 1
Appendix E - Notice to Modify SSD-5314

Determination (3)

Approved Plans
221209 Pymble Ladies College (SSD-17424905) - Statement of Reasons
221209 Pymble Ladies College (SSD-17424905) - Development Consent

Approved Documents

There are no post approval documents available

Note: Only documents approved by the Department after November 2019 will be published above. Any documents approved before this time can be viewed on the Applicant's website.


Want to lodge a compliance complaint about this project?

Make a Complaint


There are no enforcements for this project.


There are no inspections for this project.

Note: Only enforcements and inspections undertaken by the Department from March 2020 will be shown above.


Showing 1 - 20 of 130 submissions
Name Withheld
PYMBLE , New South Wales
I object to the project.
The school is already causing heavy traffic congestion at the busiest times.
What are the measures to prevent further inconvenience to the neighbours?
Also, this project will directly block my view.
It will reduce the value of my property.
What are the compensations?
Name Withheld
Pymble , New South Wales
I object to the project.
The school is already causing heavy traffic congestion at the busiest times.
What are the measures to prevent further inconvenience to the neighbours?
Also this project will block my view.
It will reduce the value of my property.
What are the compensations?
Name Withheld
Pymbl , New South Wales
I object to the project.
The school is already causing heavy traffic congestion at the busiest times.
What are the measures to prevent further inconvenience to the neighbours?
Also this project will block my view.
It will reduce the value of my property.
What are the compensations?
kim chang
PYMBLE , New South Wales
Pymble Ave is already severely congested during school hours , every day parents Cars lined up from Pymble Ave all the way to Golfer pde waiting for dropping or picking up student who exit from school site gate where the new building proposed
Due to the narrowness of the street , cars literally stationing , honking as it is too congested to pass each other . And this is happening while student are crossing street ,its not safe condition.
Given the situation stated above I strongly oppose to the proposed plane.
Name Withheld
AUBURN , New South Wales
The proposal will visually dominate the heritage items and individual properties located within the Conservation Area in the vicinity. The development of the site is not acceptable from a heritage perspective as there will be significanct impact on the character of the Conservation Area which embraces the heritage items in the vicinity.
Besides, the conditions of the traffic between Pacific Highway to Livingston Ave will be worse as a result of the increasingly high volume of come-and-go vehicles during peak hours which is surely foreseeable.
Name Withheld
Due to the siting, distance and height of the proposal, it will be readily visible from Pymble Avenue and as such, will alter views of the main facades of the heritage items in the vicinity plus individual properties located in the neighbouring Conservation Area. The legibility of these properties as historically and aesthetically significant dwellings, will not be retained.SIGNIFICANCE OF THE HERITAGE ITEMS IN THE VICINITY AND HCA IN THE VICINITY The boundary of the Pymble Avenue Conservation Area, which is in the vicinity of the subject site, also includes the individually listed heritage items which have also been identified to be in the vicinity of the subject site. Contributory buildings located within the Pymble Avenue Conservation Area, as well as individually listed heritage items in the vicinity of the subject site are of aesthetic significance for being good examples of houses built from the Federation era through to the mid- to late- twentieth century, set within generous garden settings. Their historic and aesthetic significance is understood and appreciated primarily from the public domain, looking northwest from Pymble Avenue. Hence I am not in favour of this development.
Ian King
PYMBLE , New South Wales
In summary, we submit that
(1) a small reduction in size of the new building to 4 storeys would reduce the visual impact of this inappropriately large building.
(2) PLC should be required to implement the recommendations of the traffic study (section 10) that would limit or discourage use of the Grey House Walk such as installing a gate with key-cards for local students. This requirement should also include limiting parking on Pymble Avenue starting during construction. This would stop Pymble Avenue being used as a parking area for PLC staff and the construction workers.
Name Withheld
PYMBLE , New South Wales
We object to the project due to concerns around traffic congestion and compromised the safety of local residents caused by it.

As noted in the Transport Impact Assessment, Pymble Ave is already subject to massive congestion during drop-off and pick-up hours. Exiting and entering the area towards the Pacific Hwy and towards Ryde Road by car during these time periods is already an annoyance due to the required waiting time. In fact, it can even be difficult to exit and enter our premises in 1 Pymble Ave by car due to the queued traffic from the roundabout down Pymble Ave. Even worse, we have witnessed near misses of cars and pedestrians on the pedestrian crossing on Avon Rd in front of the pedestrian underpass, at the side entrance of PLC down Pymble Ave that is used as an informal drop-off/pick-up location and on Pacific Hwy / corner Livingston Ave where at times the tailback can block the flow of traffic on Pacific Hwy.

The report states that the additional increase due to the new ELC is likely to be minor. We challenge this statement because an ELC is for very young children who will hardly use public transport, thus more car traffic will be inevitable.The existing road access to the school is already unsuitable relative to the traffic volume during peak hours so this would result in a bad situation getting worse.

While the Green Travel Plan is “encouraging” traffic mitigation measures, there is no tangible plan on how to directly enforce traffic reduction. The suggestion to reduce the traffic by 2% p.a. by raising awareness is below common error margins and well below the proposed increase of student numbers by the ELC. The affluent demographics of parents also suggests that behavioral changes are unlikely. The rather low feedback of just ~25% for the traffic survey already implies that many parents show little consideration of the topic and the impacts on the surrounding community. On the contrary, we have been observing that fewer students take public transport since the start of the pandemic when schools open again. It seems likely that ongoing health concerns due to COVID-19 will result in a long-term shift from public to private transport.

It is also worth noting that Pymble Ladies College never engaged with the community, at least not with residents in our apartment block, with respect to the obvious traffic problems, raising questions if there will be any serious effort made to mitigate the impact on the community.

It is well understood that increased traffic is a side-effect of essential infrastructure like schools. However, the interests of the education industry have to be balanced with the safety and interests of the local community. Unless the project is amended such that PLC and Council will be bound to agreements that directly and proactively enforce a significant reduction of traffic congestion, this plan will put Pymble’s livability at risk.
O-Cher Arrua
Northbridge , New South Wales
The proposal is going to be developed at the back of a residential area which would cause major disruptions to the quality of living for those residents
Han Arrua
NORTHBRIDGE , New South Wales
This project will have a major detrimental impact on traffic flow in when cars try to turn to Livingstone Ave from Pacific Hwy
This project will also affect the aesthetics of the area and is not in keeping with all the structures in the area. Having a very tall building will affect all surrounding houses.
Lastly, this project is affect conservation areas nearby.
Name Withheld
PYMBLE , New South Wales
Providing additional early learning centres is always a good thing (provided they are located in the right site). For this project, having additional spaces for "new" children will inevitably lead to increase in traffic despite the minimizing of the impact in the supporting reports/studies. My comments are mainly traffic related as this is the main issue among residents in the surrounding area.

Firstly, I would like to point out an error in Appendix 13 -The Stantec - Transport Impact Assessment:
Section 5.2 - On Street Parking - There are timed parking spaces along certain parts of Everton Street besides what is stated.

Comments in relation to the EIS prepared by Willow Tree Planning:
Section 2.8 - Site Suitability - The fact that the site has been zoned for a school since the early 1900s, does not mean that we can continue doing so in 2021 without considering current built environment and circumstances relating to the school and area surrounding it. The school has grown since then. Many buildings/facilities have been built to accommodate the 2,200 plus students. With these developments and the increased number of students, the number of cars using the local roads have increased over the years. New apartments in and around the area have also contributed to this increase. Have we seen any new or improvement to the local suburban streets surrounding the school? None whatsoever. Same number of streets and width over the last 30 over years I have been here (cannot speak about the years prior; doubt very much).

Comments relating to Stantec Traffic Impact Assessment:
Section 4.1 - Surrounding Road Characteristics - Even with 1 lane of traffic in each direction on Avon Road, Pymble Avenue and Arilla Road, traffic is sometimes only passable by only 1 car. This is due to the fact that roads are not wide enough to allow unhindered movement in both direction when we have cars parked on either side of the street. Certain parts are just too narrow. The size of cars driven by PLC parents make it worse (not foreseen back in the 1900s).

Section 6 - Existing Drop Off and Pick Up - The pictures in the report look very "neighbourhood" friendly. All the cars nicely queued within the school compound. This is very deceiving. The queues are not restricted inside the compound (if only). They stretch out to the one lane main thoroughfare of Avon Road, Everton Street, Livingstone Avenue, Pymble Avenue to South side of the Main Entrance & to Arilla, Allawah Road and Mayfield Avenue on North. See attached photos. As mentioned above, traffic is sometimes reduced to 1 lane due to on street parking.

Section 9.1 - Traffic Generation - With 90 new places in the proposed early learning centre, and assuming 32 of them taken by staff members, that leaves 58 places for the public. This will add at least 50 additional cars to the local traffic (leave 8 places for local residents). This increase will result in added pressure in finding a parking spot for train commuters.

Section 9.2 - Traffic Distribution - The approach route from the North East seems to have left out those making use of Telegraph Road and then onto Beechworth Road. The number of cars using this route is significant enough to be given due consideration. This would appear to be the main route taken to avoid traffic jam in the Mona Vale/ Pacific Highway junction, and also the jam in the Livingstone/Pymble Avenue approach.
As for departures, those travelling to the North East will also be using the same route as those to the North West; via Beechworth to the Pacific Highway. I may be wrong but the departure routes for all except to the North West appears to be a "cut & paste" job from the Table 7 (the approach routes). Makes one wonder how accurate are the surveys!! Percentages are also the same for approach and departures.
It would be best if a new traffic count and assessment be done on all streets leading to the school during normal school hours with the lockdown out of the way. For site visits to confirm, please do come during school peak hours (that's when it matters most).

PLC need to come up with a traffic plan if it plans to keep on expanding and be a good neighbour. Now is the time for the residents to say NO to the traffic congestion it has created and be heard.
Alister Henskens SC MP
WAHROONGA , New South Wales
Please see attached letter
Leah Dabron
Surry Hills , New South Wales
Please refer to the attached submission on behalf of XXXX.
Leah Dabron
Surry Hills , New South Wales
Please refer to the attached submission on behalf of 59A Pymble Avenue
Leah Dabron
Surry Hills , New South Wales
Please refer to the attached submission on behalf of 59B Pymble Avenue
Emma Rogerson
REDFERN , New South Wales
Please refer to the attached document XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX.
PYMBLE , New South Wales
I have lived in Avon Road since 1996 at #21, which sits right opposite PLC gate2. I have, for the most part, appreciated the presence of the school over the road, since it is a very attractive green space indeed. In particular, I enjoy the forest which exists opposite me which, of course, is recognised as Sydney Turpentine Ironbark Forest ("STIF").

For much of the time since arriving in Pymble I fought the high rise development known as 1 Avon Road as President of Pymble Action Group for the Environment ("PAGE" for short).One of the key successes of our campaign over 18 years was the recognition by the Land & Environment Court that there had to be meaningful transition zones between the high rise apartment buildings and adjoining single residences (whether single or two storey). In the particular case of 1 Avon Road, this was achieved to a limited extent by the medium density townhouse zoning of up to three storeys immediately upslope from 11 Avon Road. I believe the correct transition zone height should have been two storeys in this case, particularly since 11 Avon Road is a heritage -listed property known as Macquarie Cottage.

I was therefore shocked to view the plans for the new Grey House Precinct at PLC. A five-storey building block with substantial length in its easterly aspect absolutely towers over adjoining residences. The height, bulk and scale impact is increased by the short distance to adjoining properties (twenty metres) and by the fall in the land towards these residences: giving an effective height of six storeys as viewed from them. There is no height transition at all. This is unacceptable. The building should be less bulky and should transition down in scale towards the local residences.

The outcome is made the more unacceptable because Pymble Avenue comprises a Heritage Conservation Area. It is not permitted for an HCA to be impacted by inappropriate
development within its view lines.

I understand that it is proposed that two substantial healthy eucalypts be removed. PLC, as a custodian of STIF on its western boundary, should know better.
The building footprint should be adjusted to preserve these trees. Also, doing so will ameliorate the visual bulk impact to the east.

I would appreciate a response to my submission in due course.

Yours sincerely

Paul Cooper
Name Withheld
HOMEBUSH WEST , New South Wales
I oppose this project as its not part of the historical heritage. The new project stands out and does not blend with the community surroundings. The height of the proposal makes it stand out like a sore thumb. There will be increased traffic and pedestrian congestion plus the added issue of noise pollution.
Name Withheld
PYMBLE , New South Wales
Please see my objections in the attached document
Name Withheld
PYMBLE , New South Wales
I acknowledge that PLC has been on site for many years. Property owners and residents who move to the area know and accept this. Indeed, many people purchase in the area in part because of proximity to PLC. So, I am not objecting to the project per se. I am objecting to the lack of conditions and restrictions PLC is volunteering to undertake and abide by to obtain approval for the Project.
In particular, I object to the lack of appropriate traffic measures being offered by PLC as part of the project. From PLC's submission and , importantly, its limited genuine consultation with the community, it is clear that PLKC wishes to downplay the impact of the Project on its neighbours on Pymble Avenue. It does not concede there are problems now and so, do not see any increases in problems with the Project.
While the Planning Panel's job is not to consider existing arrangements, in this instance PLC's approach to current issues is highly predictive of the attitudes and approaches it will take during construction of the Project and, importantly, in the longer term.
So, my objections and comments relate to the lack of suitable robust conditions suggested in PLC's application to address the impact on Pymble Ave traffic from the location of the new buildings and, in particular, the creation of an Early Learning Centre - which is not part of the current school approved usage - and which will be open to non PLC families.
Many students access PLC on the side where this new development is to take place via the Grey House Walkway on Pymble Avenue (Walkway). That Walkway was originally intended (and I understand it was a condition of its use when originally created) as a means for students living in the local area to access the school on foot as an alternative to walking up steep Pymble Ave to the main entrance on Avon Rd. The Junior School Handbook refers to the Walkway being available for junior school students who live locally (the rationale being that this only includes pedestrian usage by a small number of junior school students).
In recent years that entrance has increasingly been used by students of all ages who are dropped off by parents in cars who choose to use this method of transporting students to school rather than using either public transport or the substantial infrastructure already in place for vehicular access on Avon Rd, which was a requirement under previous development applications by PLC.
This is problematic and dangerous for several reasons. Primarily, it is dangerous to the students using the entrance and the vehicles which use Pymble Ave generally. It also impedes the access rights of property owner and residents along Pymble Ave to safely enter and leave their properties via both cars and on foot.
This is not a case of residents just not liking traffic. This is a case of public safety especially the safety of children.
The Walkway is on the crest of a steep hill. There is a pedestrian crossing on the crest of the hill which, due to the topography, is not clearly visible from further down the hill or from the other side of the crossing where, while the slope is less, there is still obstructed vision. In the majority of trips where parents drop students off they do so by double parking, parking in No Standing zones (which were installed by Ku-ring-gai Council several years ago specifically to address this Council assessed safety issue and to provide greater visibility of the pedestrian crossing). PLC parents also park in residents' driveways. While some parents use these methods to drop off and pick up , some leave their vehicles while they escort students in. This results in cars parked in No Standing zones for considerable periods of time and cars being left in driveways unattended, thereby preventing vehicular access in or out for residents. Residents coming back into the properties , through no fault of their own, contribute to the congestion because they can't get back into their properties.
This is not only dangerous and illegal when they stop or park. When PLC parents do this they then reverse out onto the busy road obstructing both oncoming vehicles and visibility of the crossing. The risks created by this behaviour is exacerbated by students, eager to get into school, picking up bags from the rear of vehicles often oblivious to oncoming traffic while their parents remain in the vehicles or are themselves on the road supervising bag collections, themselves often on the road.
The only reason this set of traffic induced risks exist is because PLC allows students who do not walk to school to access the grounds via the Walkway.
While this behaviour is the result of existing improper usage of the walkway by students accessing Pymble Ave by vehicle, it will be further exacerbated and risk of accidents, injuries and death will be considerably increased by the construction of the building on the Pymble Ave side of the school grounds.
The other usage - which is new and not part of PLC's current development approvals - is the creation of an Early Learning Centre (ELC). PLC asserts that this will mainly be used by teachers and current parents and will., therefore, not impact on the use of the Walkway or traffic more generally. However, the ELC will be open to the public and so has the potential to bring in more traffic to Pymble Ave through additional people using the site. Traffic will increase because of a new cohort of parents who will not drop children off but will bring them into the ELC and will stay for sometime settling children in. Those children will not be "dropped off". There will be prams and other equipment t o be loaded and offloaded from vehicles, increasing the time parents are parked in the street, ;legally and very often illegally. When existing school parents use the Walkway for both current school students and younger children attending the Centre, they will bring in both their school age students and their younger ones. So, even if the ELC is mainly used by current PLC parents, traffic on Pymble Ave will be increased.
PLC advises that there will be parking for the ELC on site. However, it is clear from the plans that using these spots will require parents to enter via the main gates and traverse the grounds to get to the designated car spots. As the Centre is to be located on the Pymble Ave side of the grounds, there is clear incentive to look to access the grounds via the Walkway on Pymble Ave.
When the implications for traffic on Pymble Ave has been raised by the community and individual neighbours as a major concern PLC advised that their traffic study showed a relatively small number of students using the Walkway when compared with Avon Rd and so argue that there will be no increase in traffic. This is a flawed argument. PLC's "traffic" counting has, to my knowledge not included any study of vehicular traffic. It purports to count only students using the Walkway. Having noted that, the figures quoted by PLC on the number of students accessing the Walkway do not coincide with on the ground observations by the community. Hundreds of students use the Walkway every school day and PLC students and other children use it during the holidays for out of school activities. There is no apparent oversight to ensure that only local children use the Walkway.
On the basis that PLC's own traffic counting of use of the Walkway only monitors foot traffic, it it is difficult to see how claims of no impact on traffic on Pymble Ave can be maintained with any credibility. Due to school closures during the Pandemic it has been impossible for the community to undertake its own monitoring. However, there are numerous members of the community who have advised PLC of the actual extent of usage over an extended period of time (not only during the preparation of the Project)
and who would attest to their observations on the volume of both pedestrian and vehicular traffic which is caused by the unrestricted use of the Walkway. Residents can also attest to the number of vehicles with P plates parked in the street, often encroaching over driveways, which are driven by Years 11 and 12 students who use the Walkway (again, demonstrating that the assertion that the Walkway is only used by local junior students is incorrect). W hen this behaviour is brought to the attention of PLC they have advised that they have no control over where senior students park. That is true, but they do have control over whether they permit senior students to use the Walkway. Remove that access and students will not park illegally on Pymble Ave.
In any event, even if volume of traffic is disputed and not acknowledged as an issue, a more important consideration in this instance is the way in which traffic behaves- fifty dangerous parking events in a short period of time with the resultant cumulative risks to children and others using the crossing and the area creates a higher risk that one hundred drivers obeying traffic rules.
There is also the issue of traffic and use of Pymble Ave and the Walkway during the construction phase. The conditions PLC is suggesting do not comprehensively address the issue of construction workers using Pymble Ave to park and using the Walkway for access.
In the construction Phase, I request the Planning Panel to put in place strong and robust requirements on PLC to require its builders and contractors (as part of their contractual obligations) to refrain from using Pymble Ave for parking and not to use the Walkway for pedestrian access to the site. Further, there should be an obligation on PLC to enforce these contractual obligations.
In the longer term use of the Walkway, I request the Planning Panel to require PLC as a condition of use, to restrict access to the Walkway to local junior school students. This can be done via a gate restricting access to students issued with electronic tags and monitoring by teachers and senior students.


Project Details

Application Number
Assessment Type
State Significant Development
Development Type
Educational establishments
Local Government Areas
Determination Date

Contact Planner

Nahid Mahmud