New Epping South Primary School (Concept and Stage 1)

I do not object to the project & am supportive of it on the whole. However I do object to parts of it.
I object to the following:
1. The reclassification of Grimes Lane, as well as First and Second Avenue as "collector" roads, as per "Appendix 25. Noise & Vibration Assessment - NPES" section 7.2. They should either retain their current "local" classification or be subject to the same noise restrictions outside of day hours - "LAeq,9hr 55
(external)" - for the period of 10pm - 7AM is not accept for a local residential area & it should remain as "LAeq, (1 hour) 50
(external)" for the 10pm to 7AM period (see https://www.epa.nsw.gov.au/-/media/epa/corporate-site/resources/noise/2011236nswroadnoisepolicy.pdf table 3 in section 2.3 - this document can also be found via https://www.epa.nsw.gov.au/publications/noise/2011236-nsw-road-noise-policy). I will also note that according to the nsw road noise policy document - "collector" is now referred to as "Sub-arterial roads", but this might now be out of date itself as that document seems to have been published in 2011.
2. Additionally my understanding of https://roads-waterways.transport.nsw.gov.au/business-industry/partners-suppliers/documents/guides-manuals/environmental-noise-management-manual.pdf is that the changes might be considered a "new" / "redevelopment" in terms of application and that seems to suggest that the target should be + 2 DB(A). What seems to be missing is mitigation and or predictions in terms of traffic noise impact, especially for the 10pm - 7am period, in the documents, which I might have missed.

I would like to make the following suggestions:
1. Access to Grimes Lane in the period of 10pm to 7am - is restricted to local residents of Grimes & Second Avenue only, except for special events/occasions (e.g. school events etc.). This should help to mitigate noise issues for those in Grimes and Second Avenue.
2. The consideration of not having the grimes & second avenue connection by expanding the vehicle pick up and drop off found found in the eastern section - as it appears that there are no high or medium significant trees or ones that the council suggested keeping (T9-T16) in the area to the east of First Avenue - on Chelmsford avenue inside the school grounds. Therefore, it might be possible to support a roundabout style kiss and drop off area. I'll note that this approach seems not to have had any traffic modelling nor seemingly was it considered. Another alternative could be to make use of the area around Chelmsford & First Avenue to provide a kiss and ride pick up area. (This may also help avoid any potential traffic flow issues between staff entering/leaving the staff parking and parents using a Kiss & Ride area).
3. Were any alternative staff car parking access means considered - e.g. via Grimes Lane - in order to avoid removing the highly significant T145 tree ?

Not enough schools in the neighbourhood for children considering the increasing number of residents in the area, I think it is a great idea to build a new primary school.

We would like to stay in the school catchment of Epping West Public School. We like this school very much. We don't want to be transferred to the catchment of a new school.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposal. With the increase in units and duplexes in this area and the number of young families moving in there is a great need for more primary schools. The old TAFE site which has been abandoned for some years, is an excellent choice for the location for the school.

I was unable to find information in the documents on the catchment area for students for the new school and as such my comments may be irrelevant, but I think worth mentioning the traffic volume on Mobbs Lane. Mobbs Lane has become a very busy road of late and there are no pedestrian crossings on it. It is a hilly road and as such is quite difficult to cross safely at times. If the idea is to encourage children to walk to school and some will be required to cross Mobbs Lane, I believe at least one pedestrian crossing should be put on Mobbs Lane. Suggested locations for a crossing are near Edenlee Street, Epping Park Drive or at the bottom of the hill near Mobbs Lane Reserve.

Thanks again for the opportunity to comment on this proposal.

I would like to comment re the proposed traffic modelling for Dunlop St / First Avenue. Please ensure it is conducted in the morning and afternoon around the times of school zone hours. A lot of primary school children cross Dunlop St to Ryde St going to or returning from Epping West Public School. The increased traffic from an additional school at such close proximity to First Avenue is going to increase the risk of pedestrian accident involving children. At present it is already a danger point with vehicles parked on either side of Dunlop St around that intersection obscuring vision of pedestrians and vehicles. A safe crossing point is required at that intersection and possibly No Parking signs need to be erected to prevent vehicles parking too close to the intersection. The double line on Dunlop St near First Avenue doesn’t have any impact on people parking and congesting that area.

I object to the project in its current form requiring the removal of over 60 large trees. Many of these trees are remnnt Sydney Blue Gum from the Blue Gum high forest that covered this area. There were many large trees in this area until the last 15 - 20 years where there has been mass removal. This project will have a major effect on what is left. Flying foxes feed extensively on the blossum when in flower - they will hve yet another food source removed. It is well known the cooling effect and micro climate benefits of a tree canopy - again the removal of this canopy will have a major effect on the local micro climate. Please do not remove all these trees - please relocate the school or change the design

Since there is upgrade work planned for Epping West Public School could not this additional capacity have been included in that plan?
We live directly across from the site and we are concerned about:
- The potential amount of noise during construction
- The amount of traffic during construction
- Parking on upper Chelmsford Avenue both during construction and when the school is operational
A solution to the parking issue would be to make the upper part of Chelmsford Avenue parking for residents only, except directly adjacent to the site. This should happen before construction starts

Concerns listed as follows

Significant reduction of the “low significant trees” according to the Environmental Impact Assessment, especially on the eastern end of the development (ref. P.10 vs. P.4 of EIS) – a total removal of 48 trees

Visual privacy enhancement and noise reduction fittings for the windows and balconies facing the development at the Meriton Apartments are desperately needed, especially for those at the eastern end with particular proximity to the building structures of the development (hall & OSHC, future homebases in Stage 2 and Stage 3 ref. P.10 of EIS).

Alternatively there could be hedging structures like trees between the development and the Meriton Apartments without compromising ventilation

There is a lack of mentioning of need of more public transport (only briefly on P.14 and P.23 of EIS). Going forward, public buses 521 and 541 (connecting to other buses and Eastwood/Epping train stations) should increase in frequency to reduce congestion, air pollution, and parking limitations for vehicles around the new school site. In Appendix 23, it was already stated that “while there are bus routes that service the site (route 521 and route 541), the hourly frequency makes bus travel less attractive for trips requiring interchange / multiple destinations. Additional frequency on this route would increase the attractiveness for parent onward journeys and increase the rate of walking to school”. Actions are clearly needed.

1. I am concerned with the significant reduction of the “low significant trees” according to the Environmental Impact Assessment, especially on the eastern end of the development (ref. P.10 vs. P.4 of EIS) – a total removal of 48 trees. This affects the greenness of the area and drastically reduces wildlife which this area is currently proud of.
2. Visual privacy enhancement and noise reduction fittings for the windows and balconies facing the development at the Meriton Apartments would be required, especially for those at the eastern end with particular proximity to the building structures of the development (hall & OSHC, future homebases in Stage 2 and Stage 3 ref. P.10 of EIS).
3. There is a lack of mentioning of need of more public transport (only briefly on P.14 and P.23 of EIS). Going forward, public buses 521 and 541 (connecting to other buses and Eastwood/Epping train stations) should increase in frequency to reduce congestion, air pollution, and parking limitations for vehicles around the new school site. In Appendix 23, it was already stated that “while there are bus routes that service the site (route 521 and route 541), the hourly frequency makes bus travel less attractive for trips requiring interchange / multiple destinations. Additional frequency on this route would increase the attractiveness for parent onward journeys and increase the rate of walking to school”. Actions are clearly needed.
4. Moreover, the demographic background of the area is highly dependent on public transport. I foresee many parents/grandparents will be picking up/dropping off their kids with the use of public transport
5. The EIS does not provide detailed information on the setback from the existing development with Epping Park in Stage 2 and 3 for any consideration. It needs to provide a generous transition from the Epping Park residential development.
6. The school building should include provisions for rooftop gardens in order to maintain the greenness of the outlook and does not drastically affect the views of residents in the high rise buildings.

I regularly visit my grandmother's house at 84b Chelmsford Ave, and periodically work from the property. The proposed Epping South Primary School would significantly and negatively impact the local community. The surrounding suburban streets would be overwhelmed by the amount of traffic such a large school would bring in. Further, the height and proximity of the school to the neighbouring properly lines is problematic - it would significantly impact the privacy and quiet enjoyment of the houses of my grandmother and her neighbours.

A smaller educational use of the site - with more space between the building and the houses and that has a lower traffic / noise impact on the nearby community - would be much more appropriate.

Child care and primary school were in high demand at Epping, I really appreciate if we have a new one nearby.

I would like to raise several concerns with this proposal.
1. The proposed colours of the three-story classroom buildings is not appropriate for the area. The area is a leafy area full of greens, subtle blues, greys and whites. To construct a three-story buildings in bright red and yellow will make these buildings standout like eyesores, rather than blending in with the surrounding area. The persons who have come up with these colours probably don't live in the area.
Recommendation: Provide a selection of colour schemes for the people of the area to assess and vote on.
2. Currently Grimes Lane provides access to garages for three (3) homes, and as such the tarred section is only 67 cm from the fence line of these homes. The proposal doesn't clearly show any footpath on this side of Grimes Lane.
Recommendation: That a footpath be built adjacent to these three residences from First Avenue to Second Avenue. That this footpath be curb-and guttered, contain a sealed section for pedestrians, and driveways be constructed for the three residences.
3. That the proposed one-way road in Grimes Lane be two lane wide where the drop-off sections are proposed, to ensure traffic flow along Grimes Lane is not impeded.
Although you are suggesting that most students will come/leave school by foot or bus, the current trend is to drop-off by vehicle, especially on wet days.
4. That the two proposed pedestrian crossings be raised to act as speed inhibitors, as Grime Lane was initially closed following a serious accident where the vehicle rolled into 1 Second Avenue.
5. That Grimes Lane, First and Second Avenues be deemed as "no stopping" during school hours, other than the drop-off zones in Grimes Lane.
6. That the two large gum trees at the end of Second Avenue be appropriately pruned , especially the lateral branches. Branches from these trees have fallen in the past, and usually not on windy days i.e. totally unexpected. No pruning has taken place for some years!!

Please see attached PDF document.

My main concern is Second Ave is a quiet cul-de-sac with no current traffic besides residence driving in. with this proposal, our quiet street will then turn into a busy street, getting more traffic from the upcoming proposal.
I express deep concern and object to the opening of the lane . - reason being, pollution from the cars -, safety for the residence - in terms of traffic of cars and also for the pollution the extra cars this will bring with it.
I do not agree with Second Ave being the access of the staff parking or the opening of the lane - I do not agree with the quiet street turning into a busy street.
I'm sure, there are other ways without opening our quiet street .
We have young children and older residence so the extra increased of traffic flow , which will bring in pollution, and that is a problem . As well as the extra cars that would want to park in our street is a huge concern that I object to .
These are my deep concerns.
In short we do not want the Second Ave to have any traffic from the opening of the new school

I strongly object the opening of the cul-de-sac at Second Ave to link to the staff car park. This also may lead to a potential disruptions of street parking for the residents and disturbing the current tranquility of the area.

Please refer to the attachment

Residents of Second Avenue have serious concerns about motor vehicle access to and from the proposed school. Our objections are outlined in the following attachment below which includes a diagram showing more favourable alternative access options for consideration.

Regardless of any motor vehicle access, when operational, the school will have a noticeable effect on the present environment in Second Avenue. Its residents obviously wish to minimise the effect of motor vehicle access without interfering with proposals within the site itself.

We request serious consideration be given to the alternative options for motor vehicle access proposed in the attachment below, which includes signed petitions by Second Avenue residents.

Thank you for allowing residents the opportunity to raise these objections.

See attached.

Please find attached EES response

HNSW ACH advice attached.