Saints Peter and Paul Assyrian Primary School

As an adjoining land owner I have received notification of SSD 9210. I
have no immediate objection to the project.
However concerns are raised by vague and, in some cases, incorrect
descriptions of the adjoining land. I tried to assess the level of
misunderstanding among the authors of the reports submitted with SSD
9210 by phoning them. The responses varied from a preparedness to
listen and amend their ideas to a blunt refusal to acknowledge any
possible errors/faults and an insistence instead on instructing me as
to how to make a submission.
Examples include 'The site comprises a watercourse in its western
extent' and '- - adjoins the site`s western boundary and comprises a
tributary of Ropes Creek'; (Willow Tree); '- - bound by - - an unnamed
tributary of Ropes Creek to the west', ' The watercourse corridor near
the western boundary', 'The tributary is ephemeral, with no water - -
at the time of inspection.' (Martens)
In fact SSD 9210 is bounded to the west by part of a corridor of
privately owned land covered by CT 2/1222339 which extends north to
include Ropes Creek from Wallgrove Rd to Goodrich Rd and for a
considerable distance beyond. (It also forms the western and northern
boundaries of the school`s parent church and was previously the
subject of discussions with the church`s Financial Controller, Paul
Leotta, regarding possible sale to the church.) This corridor of
privately owned land happens to contain, as stated above, an
'ephemeral creek'.
This corridor was created in 1892 when the initial subdivision forming
DP 2954 was carried out according to 19th century surveying principles
named 'right lines' or 'traverse lines' (dependent upon whichever
authority one cites.)
During the 46 years of owning this and other previous similar
parcels of land in the area it has proved necessary to specifically
delineate the boundaries, description and private ownership of the
land to avoid the problems which have inevitably resulted from
incorrect assumptions and simply poor background research.
I would therefore request :-
a) that I be supplied with a full scale copy of that part of the
survey plan submitted with SSD 9210 which covers the western part of
the site adjoining Lot 2/1222339;
b) that in all plans, reports, correspondence, etc. the land adjoining
the western boundary of SSD 9210 bear its correct designation of Lot
2/1222339, as has been done with other adjoining privately owned
properties, in order to eliminate unprofessional, imprecise, vacuous
references and inevitable misunderstandings;
c) that a fence be surveyed, installed and maintained by the
proponents of SSD 9210 at their expense along our common shared
boundary;
d) that Lot 2/1222339 not be used or even considered in any way for
the disposal of surface water, storm water or any other substance
emanating from SSD 9210, in particular any item which could cause
pollution to properties adjoining the lower reaches of Ropes Creek.
Despite comments in the consultants` reports to the contrary I do not
consider Lot 2/1222339 to be a 'drain' and therefore expect it to be
treated as any other privately owned land and thus not subject to the
vagaries of adjoining owner`s actions
Thank you for the opportunity to comment,
Nigel Tully.

please find attached the submission below with comments about this
application.

See attached Cover letter and draft Submission