State Significant Development
Darlington Public School Redevelopment
City of Sydney
Current Status: Determination
Interact with the stages for their names
- SEARs
- Prepare EIS
- Exhibition
- Collate Submissions
- Response to Submissions
- Assessment
- Recommendation
- Determination
The proposal entails the construction of a multi-storey school building consisting of 19 new homebases, new administration and staff facilities, new library and special programs rooms, new hall and canteen facilities and 3 new preschool classrooms.
Attachments & Resources
Request for SEARs (2)
SEARs (2)
EIS (65)
Response to Submissions (12)
Additional Information (15)
Determination (5)
Approved Documents
Management Plans and Strategies (31)
Reports (1)
Independent Reviews and Audits (4)
Notifications (6)
Other Documents (12)
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.
Complaints
Want to lodge a compliance complaint about this project?
Make a ComplaintEnforcements
There are no enforcements for this project.
Inspections
19/1/2021
16/4/2021
05/05/2023
Note: Only enforcements and inspections undertaken by the Department from March 2020 will be shown above.
Submissions
Rebecca Link
Comment
Rebecca Link
Message
Name Withheld
Comment
Name Withheld
Message
Von Dekker
Comment
Von Dekker
Message
However, after looking at the plans I am wondering if there isn't room for a dedicated "Indigenous Food Garden" space? Possibly on the rooftop of the current library? Or elsewhere within the current grounds?
This would fall in line with the NSW Governments Greener Places policy as reported here.
https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/nsw-government-releases-shared-backyard-vision-for-greener-city-20200624-p555m3.html
"The Department of Planning, Industry and Environment will release its draft Greener Places policy on Thursday, outlining guidelines for open spaces including parks, sporting fields, open corridors and rooftop gardens. It will inform planning controls at every level of urban development across state and local government."
As a member of the Darlington Public School P&C I am aware of some of the problems that the school faces.
I feel if we have an Indigenous Food Garden it would help the school in the following ways.
1. Indigenous lead development for the school - which would integrate, not just indigenous visual arts, but actually lived local knowledge, customs, and flora into the school's fabric.
2. Opportunity for our children to engage in growing, experiencing nature, and seeing local Indigenous customs in a lived real-world and holistic way.
3. Creating habitat for local species of birds and insects thereby increasing our local area/community's resilience going forward.
4. Opportunity for the school to fundraise money through selling produce to local Restaurants or Markets or possibly by hosting events.
The P&C has seen the great work being done by Clarence Slockee/Christian Hampson at Yerrabingin Indigenous rooftop farm as an example.
https://www.yerrabingin.com.au/
We understand Clarence Slockee has an existing relationship with FJMT architects, who are designing the Darlington PS Redevelopment. We hope to work with him or other appropriate parties to see this developed included in the Darlington Public School Redevelopment.
If there is currently no funding allocated to make this happen the Darlington Public School P&C is keen to explore ways to fundraise or apply for Grants to facilitate this.
Kind Regards
Biodiversity and Conservation Division
Comment
Biodiversity and Conservation Division
Message
Attachments
City of Sydney
Comment
City of Sydney
Message
Attachments
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Message
- Seek to redesign to accommodate an increase of 207 primary students, from 230 to 427, where current enrolment is 183;
- Seek to retain 60 preschool places, where current enrolment is approx 20
- Replace 1970s building stock with new building stock
- That Darlington PS has become part of the Newtown Primary Cluster (educational planning catchment), projected population increase of 350 by 2036, where in recent years it had been part of the Green Square Schools Cluster. As part of the Green Square Cluster, the population growth relevant to the school included the significant development in Green Square. It is not transparent to the public whether there has been a cluster recategorization, nor is it transparent what the impact of any such recategorization would be.
I object to the following aspects of the proposal:
- The expenditure on planning and consulting and building a structure that will reach capacity within 15 years, in the context of
o proposed limitless population growth,
o no proposed new local primary school site,
o no investigation of adaptation of the existing site configuration,
o a school system where some schools experience declining enrolments even in the face of population growth, which may indicate areas for action that do not relate to how new school facilities are.
- The incorrect justification basis that the 1970s building stock is nearing the end of its useable life expectancy, whereas 2021 building stock would be somehow longer lasting.
o No report indicates that the building is about to become unuseable, it is of solid and durable construction. Maintenance issues can be addressed by an improved maintenance program with attention to the root causes, eg drainage issues caused by hard surfaces at the north of the site which did not form part of the original landscaping design.
o Access issues could be addressed with a less intense renovation/rebuild program.
o The statement that “The existing teaching spaces are no longer fit for modern and future teaching methods”, is not a justification for the tearing down of a perfectly solid building. Adequate resourcing and support are enhancements that can be made with minimal disruption or negative impact to amenity.
- It is not clear that the proposal will meet projected capacity beyond 15 years. We cannot assess this proposal without transparency as to capacity projections.
o Is stated that “Under the ‘Do Nothing’ scenario, the current facilities at Darlington Public School would not be able to accommodate the projected increases in student numbers. This would likely result in poorer education outcomes and would compromise health and safety standards as student numbers would exceed the capacity of existing infrastructure."
o The school rebuild will result in the school exceeding capacity (415 projected, 407 capacity) by 2036. Will excess enrolments will be catered for by placing demountables on the playground shown in the figures?
o The figure of 350 additional students for the cluster is given for 2036, but it is not clear what the projection is beyond that. We know that significant population density increase is planned but not at the final detail stage for King St Newtown, Wilson St Newtown, Waterloo, and is underway in South Eveleigh, Erskineville and Alexandria (which is a source of out of area enrolments for Darlington). To what extent do changes in any of the figures for the given developments impact the student number projections?
- That a portion of the proposal has been split into a separate DA, with reduced transparency as to cumulative impacts of the proposal as a whole, in particular obscuring the number of trees to be removed.
- The significant proposed loss of trees.
o It is not clear how many trees will be removed – it appears all trees on site may go. In the main assessment the number given is 27 trees removed. In the landscaping report, the number given is 25 trees removed. In the main assessment, 19 trees will be retained. In the landscaping report, the number of trees on the school site guaranteed to be retained is 0. The landscaping report indicates that up to 5 trees may possibly be retained, subject to feasibility of landscaping around them. Several trees outside the school boundary will be retained.
o Figure 7 shows the abundance of mature trees on site. The arborists report and ecological report give more detail on the well established and healthy groves of trees on site, despite issues such as excessive concreting.
o Figure 5, the new school, shows many mature trees. The ecologist report indicates that almost all the trees on site are hollow bearing trees. However, trees of such size will not be achieved for decades.
o The loss of all trees on the site, to be replaced by new trees, does not align with the Premier’s Priority announcement of 2019 of “Increasing the tree canopy by planting one million trees in Greater Sydney by 2022”. Planting a tree to replace the one you cut down does not equal increasing the tree canopy.
o No consideration of cumulative impact of local loss of trees. Eg, a grove of trees was removed when Redfern Train Station was redeveloped; Council proposes to remove all mature trees along Lawson St; trees removed in the redevelopment of Alexandria schools; trees to be removed in redevelopment of Waterloo; etc etc.
o None of architectural design options a-d considered the impact on mature trees, which are a significant feature of the site.
o The benefit to students of such a well established group of trees is significant and no attempt has been made to assess how the loss of this benefit weighs against the gain of “modern, future proofed teaching spaces”
- The significant impact on native species:
o The MNE assessment for the grey headed flying fox, a vulnerable species, determined there would be no significant impact due to the loss of their feed trees. However this assessment does not take into account the cumulative impact of feed tree loss. All established feed trees for the fox on nearby Lawson street are also approved for removal, and many many more trees will soon be or have been recently been removed eg along Euston Road for Wesconnex, in Waterloo for redevelopment of housing estate.
o Almost all trees to be removed are hollow bearing. As in the point above, a significant number of hollow bearing trees have been / will be removed from multiple sites in inner Sydney, and the cumulative impact on wildlife is not insignificant and not considered in these development assessments.
o The biodiversity assessment concludes that the precautionary principle does not apply. However, there is a serious threat of irreversible damage to our environment from loss of habitat for species such as the flying fox, which is death by a thousand cuts. The precautionary principle does apply in this case.
o Intergenerational equity also applies, as the proposal would gift at least one generation of school children no mature trees on site. The loss of the trees is not an unavoidable impact.
o This proposal is not ecologically sustainable development – it will require 2 biodiversity loss offset credits, in the context of streamlined Native Vegetation Laws, extended drought, and more intense bushfire events, where tree loss is gathering pace, and biodiversity loss offset credits will never actually offset what is lost. Furthermore, the number of trees calculated for the biodiversity credit is only 27, whereas in fact a further number of trees are not guaranteed to be retained, and other trees are considered under a separate DA.
- The loss of amenity to the school due to loss of dedicated after care space. After school care hours are proposed to be changed to end at 5pm, rather than the existing 6pm, to enable community use of the shared space. It is bizarre to spend this money on enhancing the school and have one outcome be the loss of a dedicated after care space.
- The school playground will receive significantly more afternoon shadow in winter eg after 3pm than it does presently, while only capacity proofing the school for 15 years. Ie, it is possible that the playground will be further covered in buildings and will receive even less sun.
- It appears there will be insufficient bicycle/scooter parking space. This is not an improvement on the current situation, where there is insufficient/poorly arranged bicycle/scooter parking space.
o Only 67 bicycle/scooter spaces will be provided for a school of 437 students.
o In one part of the main assessment it is said that over 70% of students bike/scoot to school, and in another part of the report it shows approx. 30% bike/scoot. This range of 30-70% would require 131- 306 bike/scoot spaces.
o It is said that it is not expected that all students will keep their bike or scooter at school, without any explanation of the reasoning behind. All students who ride their bikes to school will keep their bikes at school, as it is very difficult for an adult to ride a childs bike away from the school. It is similar with scooters. Additionally many adults accompany their child on a bike or scooter and even if they could easily ride the child’s one, they cannot ride two at once.