New Eileen O'Connor School

Dear Council Members,
I am a Professional Registered Surveyor having delt with many Development Applications over many years and I am writing to offer my full support for the proposed development of the Eileen O’Connor Catholic School in Mardi—a specialised school designed to meet the needs of children with disabilities and additional learning requirements.
This school represents a significant and much-needed step forward for our community. At present, the Central Coast has very limited schooling options for students with special needs. The establishment of this facility will provide families with greater choice and ensure that more children have access to education tailored to their individual needs.
Beyond the educational benefits, this development would also bring lasting value to Mardi by creating new local employment opportunities and attracting skilled professionals to the area. Teachers, support staff, therapists, and administrators will all contribute to a more vibrant and inclusive local economy.
Importantly, a school like this sends a powerful message—that our community values inclusion, compassion, and opportunity for all. I believe the Eileen O’Connor Catholic School would be a positive and welcome presence in our suburb, and I would be proud to see it become part of Mardi’s future.
A great deal of local objection appears to be related to additional traffic flow. I am confident the traffic studies will clearly support this development.
I strongly support this proposal and urge the Council to approve the development.
Kind regards,
Phillip Orr
Registered Surveyor

Dear Sir/Madam,
I am writing to object to the proposed development of a three-storey school at 84 Gavenlock Road, Mardi. Having reviewed the Environmental Impact Statement and its technical appendices, I submit that the development is fundamentally flawed, legally non-compliant, and unsafe, and should be refused in its current form.
1. Traffic and Road Safety Impacts
Underestimated Traffic Generation: The Transport & Accessibility Impact Assessment (Appendix R, pp. 31–42) fails to model school peak periods. Queuing and congestion on Keefers Glen and Gavenlock Road are ignored, contrary to SEPP (Transport & Infrastructure) 2021 cl. 2.111, which requires safe and efficient transport outcomes for educational facilities.
Inadequate Road Capacity Assessment: Keefers Glen is a narrow residential cul-de-sac. Benchmarking against regional arterial roads is misleading and breaches DCP 2022 Ch. 3.1 (Car Parking & Access), which requires context-based assessment.
Pedestrian & Cyclist Safety Ignored: No safe crossing points or separated foot/cycle paths are proposed, breaching the Austroads Guide to Road Design (Part 6A) and exposing children to risk.
Parking Deficiency: On-site parking falls short of DCP 2022 minimum ratios, ensuring overspill into Keefers Glen.
Construction Traffic Deferred: The Preliminary CTPMP (Appendix T, p. 6) defers construction traffic planning until a builder is appointed, breaching EP&A Regulation 2021 Sch 2, cl. 6.
Cumulative Impacts Ignored: The report does not assess traffic interaction with St Peter’s Catholic College, in breach of EP&A Act s.4.15(1)(b).
Ground for refusal: Unsafe and inadequate traffic planning, inconsistent with statutory and local planning controls.
2. Noise and Acoustic Amenity
Baseline Monitoring Deficient: The Noise & Vibration Assessment (Appendix U, pp. 17–18) is based on short-term monitoring, not the 7-day standard required by the EPA Noise Policy for Industry 2017 (NPfI).
Outdoor Noise Underestimated: Intermittent, high-level playground and PA system noise was ignored, contrary to EPA guidance.
After-Hours Use Excluded: The report concedes that evening/weekend use of facilities (sports, assemblies, community hire) has not been assessed (Appendix U, p. 26), breaching EP&A Act s.4.15(1)(b).
Vague Mitigation Measures: Generic references to barriers provide no enforceable design, breaching DCP Ch. 3.3 Noise & Vibration.
Construction Noise Ignored: No modelling against the Interim Construction Noise Guideline (DECC 2009), contrary to regulatory standards.
Cumulative Noise Ignored: Noise from St Peter’s College has not been combined with the proposal.
Ground for refusal: Non-compliance with NPfI 2017 and ICNG 2009, leading to unacceptable amenity loss.
3. Flood Risk and Emergency Access
The Flood Impact Assessment (Appendix EE, p. 21) and Flood Emergency Response Plan (Appendix FF, p. 14) admit that evacuation routes will be cut during 1% AEP and PMF events, isolating the site.
The NSW Floodplain Development Manual (2023) requires not only raised floor levels but also safe evacuation routes. These have not been demonstrated.
The school is designed for children with disabilities, who may require assisted evacuation. Approval without proven evacuation safety risks breach of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) and the EP&A Act s.4.15(1)(b).
Ground for refusal: Unsafe flood evacuation and non-compliance with statutory floodplain management guidelines.
4. Bushfire Emergency Management
The Bushfire Emergency Management Plan (Appendix RR) confirms reliance on Keefers Glen as the sole access route. Planning for Bushfire Protection 2019 (PBP) requires dual safe evacuation routes for vulnerable uses.
The interaction of flood and bushfire risks has not been assessed, contrary to NSW RFS guidelines.
Details of hydrant access, defendable space, and APZs are incomplete.
Ground for refusal: Non-compliance with PBP 2019 and failure to ensure life safety in concurrent hazard scenarios.
5. Architectural Design, Height, and Privacy Impacts
The Architectural Design Report (Appendix I) describes the school as “predominantly two-storey” but in reality introduces three-storey built form at the northern ends of the wings. These sections will appear as full three-storey blocks when viewed from Keefers Glen and Brickendon Avenue, creating an imposing institutional bulk inconsistent with the surrounding one- to two-storey residential neighbourhood.
This bulk and scale directly conflicts with the planning intent of the Central Coast Local Environmental Plan 2022 and Development Control Plan 2022, which require new development to respect and integrate with the prevailing low-density residential character of Mardi.
Furthermore, the upper-level verandahs and learning spaces will enable direct overlooking into neighbouring backyards and homes, resulting in a significant loss of residential privacy. This impact breaches both the residential amenity provisions of the DCP and the broader objectives of the EP&A Act requiring protection of neighbourhood character and amenity.
Ground for refusal: Excessive building height, visual bulk, and overlooking, contrary to the LEP and DCP provisions for residential interface areas.
6. Social Impact
The Social Impact Assessment (Appendix KK, p. 12) is biased towards benefits and fails to assess negative impacts, including:
Loss of residential amenity and neighbourhood character,
Increased noise and traffic danger,
Reduced property values,
Cumulative stress on local infrastructure.
This omission breaches EP&A Act s.4.15(1)(b) and (d), which require full consideration of social and economic impacts.
Ground for refusal: Incomplete and unreliable assessment of social impacts.
7. Legal and Policy Non-Compliance Summary
The proposed development fails to comply with:
EP&A Act 1979 s.4.15(1)(b) – inadequate consideration of environmental, traffic, safety, and social impacts.
Central Coast LEP 2022 – inconsistent with local character and amenity objectives.
Central Coast DCP 2022 – breaches in traffic (Ch. 3.1), noise (Ch. 3.3), privacy, and rural-residential character (Ch. 5.51).
SEPP (Transport & Infrastructure) 2021 cl. 2.111 – inadequate traffic and safety outcomes.
EPA NPfI 2017 & ICNG 2009 – flawed acoustic assessment.
NSW Floodplain Development Manual 2023 – unsafe evacuation provisions.
Planning for Bushfire Protection 2019 – inadequate bushfire evacuation and APZ design.
Requested Outcome
I respectfully request that Council refuse the DA in its current form on the grounds of serious non-compliance and unacceptable risk.
Should approval be contemplated, Council must at minimum require:
Independent peer review of traffic, noise, flood, and bushfire reports;
Strict conditions limiting building height to two storeys along Keefers Glen;
Enforceable acoustic barriers and restrictions on PA/bell usage;
A prohibition on after-hours/weekend use unless subject to a separate DA;
Proof of dual safe evacuation routes for flood and bushfire;
Full compliance with DCP car parking ratios and additional on-site parking.
Conclusion
This proposal represents a serious threat to safety, amenity, and local character. It fails multiple statutory tests under the EP&A Act and associated instruments. I therefore urge Council & NSW development planning to refuse the DA in its current form.

Yours sincerely,
Melissa and John Weatherall.

m It May Concern,

Subject: Formal Objection to the Proposed Eileen O’Connor Catholic School Development – Mardi

I am writing to express my strong objection to the proposed development of the Eileen O’Connor Catholic School at 84 Gavenlock Road, Mardi, currently under public exhibition on the NSW Planning Portal.

While I support the provision of educational facilities for students with special needs, the current proposal raises serious concerns regarding traffic, infrastructure, and community impact—particularly due to the proposed access via Keefers Glen and Brickendon Avenue.



Traffic and Infrastructure Limitations

Keefers Glen and Brickendon Avenue were never designed to accommodate high traffic volumes. These roads are narrow, with limited passing opportunities and constrained parking. The proposed development will introduce:

Significant daily traffic from community buses transporting students from outside the area.
Construction traffic, including heavy vehicles and up to 100 workers on-site at peak times.
Staff parking overflow, with only 61 spaces proposed for 71 teachers and additional auxiliary staff.
This will severely impact road safety, increase congestion, and reduce amenity for existing residents.



Lack of Suitable Access Planning

The Diocese has not adequately justified why access cannot be provided via Gavenlock Road, which is adjacent to industrial zones and far better suited to handle increased traffic. The current plan funnels all traffic through a quiet residential area, which is both inappropriate and unsustainable.



Impact on Local Amenity and Property Values

The development will disrupt the peaceful character of Cobbs Village and surrounding streets. Residents will face increased noise, reduced safety, and diminished quality of life. Furthermore, the anticipated congestion and disruption are likely to result in a significant devaluation of residential properties in the area.



Environmental Oversight

The site borders environmentally sensitive bushland zoned C2 Environmental Conservation. Increased traffic and construction activity pose risks to this area, yet the planning documents do not adequately address these concerns.



Additional Comments

As a long-term resident, I am deeply concerned that:

The proposal does not include meaningful upgrades to Keefers Glen beyond a short footpath and a widened section near the school.
The design fails to consider the existing limitations of the road network and the burden placed on residents.
The consultation process has been misleading, with many residents initially believing the school would be accessed via the industrial area.


Conclusion

I respectfully request that the Department of Planning and Environment reconsider the access arrangements and overall suitability of this development. A revised plan should include access via Gavenlock Road and a comprehensive traffic impact assessment that genuinely considers the needs of the Mardi community.



Thank you for considering this submission.

This is a vital educational project for the central coast and will benefit many families and the community. We can’t wait to see the Eileen O’Connor School open and welcome its first students.

The entrance, school, driveways need to be in gavenlock road. In keefers Glen, Brickendon Avenue, doloriane Glen, streets are a pain as it is when school comes in & goes out, you cannot move in there. 3 storeys high it’s going to be an impact on everyone around with people looking into our yards & houses, not to mention all the wildlife that lives out & around there, what will happen to them? Our lives, our pets lives & everything around will be ruined & if any accidents, people/animals being bitten then it is all on you guys because you approved it & anybody or things that get hurt you will get blamed & sued! Change the damn area into gavenlock road & all the residents will be happy! Otherwise get ready to be fought all the way through the project!

I have lived in Brickendon Avenue for the past 6 years with my 2 daughters. I don't object to a school for special needs students. I do object when this school proposes to be built on paddocks that once housed St Peter's College livestock, and which backs onto houses along Brickendon Avenue. We live in a small village like suburb with streets certainly not equipped to manage the disruption caused by the huge machinery that would be needed. I also believe that a three-story high building will allow people to look into our backyards. We have very limited parking available already as lots of houses have two or more vehicles and park on the roadway, so to think we could cope with dozens of workers looking for somewhere to leave their cars is ridiculous. At the beginning and end of a school day you cannot drive down Keefers Glen because of the dozen or so cars waiting for their children who are students at existing College. It is a narrow winding lane meant only for the residents who live here.

I am concerned that the homes will suffer some degree of damage due to demolition, excavation and the removal of a large dam. What happens to the birds who live in tress that will be removed? Kookaburras, Magpies, butcher birds, small minors, lorikeets greet us every morning in our backyards. Red Belly Black snakes and the occasional Blue Tongue Lizard that slither under our fences. What happens when their habitat is bulldozed?

Busses needed to transport these students, plus parent and staff vehicles, will use a driveway that on the plans look to be only a few meters from our back fences. The proposal offers nothing to those of us who live in Cobbs Village except noise, lack of privacy, disruption to those who work from home, barking dogs who will need tranquillizers due to constant movement and noise and increased traffic on no more than lane ways that service our suburb.

I believe there is quite a large parcel of land on Gavenlock Road that would be a better site for this school. It is an industrial area and has no homes to be inconvenienced by building at Keefers Glen. The homes along Brickendon Avenue will have many aspects of this School sitting almost on the boundaries of our properties.

Who thought building a huge school in a small residential area was a good idea? Who thought the people who live here will welcome this proposal with open arms? Who thought that causing disruption to every aspect of our lives would be met with a smile?

Please respect the residents who choose to live in Cobbs Village and build your School in an area that is not residential.

I strongly object to this project as currently presented, and am asking for the proposal to be changed so that this school can be built WITHOUT the significant burden placed on residents that is proposed in this Development Application.

This school lists 84 Gavenlock Road as the area of development, which (although the school may technically be on that lot) is highly deceptive, as the main development will impact Keefers Glen, a tiny, narrow road that is effectively a one-way lane if two cars are driving on it. To get to Keefers Glen, you need to drive down similarly narrow streets, which all end in cul-de-sacs or dead-ends. There is no way for traffic to flow through. The cul-de-sacs that exist have to be turned around in using a three-point turn with current residential traffic that already park there.

Of greatest concern is the impact to traffic flow, and the fact that this school has a much more highly suitable solution to develop the already existing entrance via Gavenlock Road. This entrance already has a school zone and ample street parking. The only reason residents can see as to why the school instead wants to use Keefers Glen and put burden on residents is due to the fact that developing the Gavenlock Road entrance would reduce the ample green space of the school grounds. This is not good enough, and should be found as an unacceptable reason to allow the development of an entrance/exit via Keefers Glen. By the schools own admission, there is not enough parking on the proposed site, meaning they are aware that the development is going to severely impact residential streets throughout the day (not just at pick up/drop off), but they apparently do not care.

I would like to bring attention to the Council's comments on the proposed development:
-The proposed special needs school will generate considerably higher passenger vehicular movements than other schools of similar size
-Residents amenity will be SEVERELY AFFECTED by traffic and parking generated by the proposal
-Keefers Glen was not constructed to facilitate traffic loading associated with a traffic generating development
-The western boundary of the sit is fully fenced, partly to prevent parents and students accessing the existing school via Keefers Glen
-The existing intersections in the vicinity of Keefers Glen will NOT SUPPORT the swept path of buses
-All access to the new school IS TO BE PROVIDED BY THE EXISTING DRIVEWAY ON GAVENLOCK ROAD

The above only heightens the insult of the Development being proposed. As the council says, this isn't a matter of annoyance at pickup and drop off hours. This is a matter of the breakdown of roads (that already feature numerous potholes from residential traffic only), increased chance of collision between pedestrians and motor vehicles, and the lunacy of suggesting that local residents should 'foot the bill' and carry the burden of traffic generated instead of the school doing the right thing and following council's suggestion to develop the school on their own grounds. It is completely disheartening that they are not using their own land and resource after being informed how significantly unsuited the local roads are.

On social media, overwhelmingly the community is supportive of a school being built to allow more services for school children with disability. This is not about rejecting outright the needs for services, or even the school itself. What the community is overwhelmingly objecting to is the insulting suggestion that the best option is to create an entrance and exit via Keefers Glen, instead of using their own land to upgrade their already existing entrance via Gavenlock road that would stop the community feeling of ill-will. If this Development is rejected as it should be, I am sure the local community would be supportive of the school being built, as long as (and only if) the ONLY access point is via Gavenlock Road.

Although the access point is the main grievance, it is worth noting that there are suggestions that the school will be opened after school hours and on weekend as a facility to be used. Again, these are tiny residential streets. There are no through-roads. There is minimal parking as it is, and anyone parking awkwardly causes it so that residents must drive on the incorrect side of the road to get to their houses. Again, they can have their weekend hours easily if the entrance and exit is strictly via Gavenlock road, not Keefers Glen.

Please, I implore you to listen to what the community is saying. We are supportive of the school being built, but we are not supportive of the school taking advantage of residents and showing us such a blatant lack of respect by submitting the proposal as it stands. Please, they have the money and the land to be able to develop an internal entrance via Gavenlock Road. This is a simple request from the residents of Mardi. We don't want to block children from being able to attend school. We want to block a school from profiting off of tiny, unsuitable tax-payer streets, instead of utilising what they already have.

I have submitted several photos that offer a more true reflection of Keefers Glen and surrounding roads. What is not shown on the digital rendition of Keefers Glen is that there are two dog--legs in the street, both of these dog-legs mean that any traffic coming one way or the other effectively turns the street into a one-way lane, and one car has to pull over to allow passage. This is not uncommon on small streets, but demonstrates how unsuitable the street is to an increase in traffic. The curvature and the steepness of these streets further adds to blind spots and hazardous passage of traffic. Foot traffic similarly need to walk onto the road frequently to get around cars, increasing risk of pedestrian and traffic accidents, which obviously no one wants.

The other photos show that the surrounding streets have islands on them (to try to manage the residential traffic that already poses difficulty in passage on these streets). Even with these islands people park too to corners which leads to having to drive on the wrong side of the road to navigate the streets. There simply is not enough parking for the already existing residents The fact that the proposed development on Keefers Glen admits that it is short of parking by at least 20 cars is not good enough. There is not enough parking available to residents as stands now.

Please, stand with the residents of Mardi AND the potential students of the school. Increase their safety by not massively increasing risk of traffic accidents or worse, by rejecting this proposal until the school submits a proposal that has the entry and exit points via Gavenlock Road only.

Re: Objection to the Proposed Development – Eileen O’Connor Catholic School, 84 Gavenlock Road, Mardi (SSD 67173718)
Dear Sir/Madam,
I am writing to object to the proposed development of a three-storey school at 84 Gavenlock Road, Mardi. Having reviewed the Environmental Impact Statement and its technical appendices, I submit that the development is fundamentally flawed, legally non-compliant, and unsafe, and should be refused in its current form.
1. Traffic and Road Safety Impacts
Underestimated Traffic Generation: The Transport & Accessibility Impact Assessment (Appendix R, pp. 31–42) fails to model school peak periods. Queuing and congestion on Keefers Glen and Gavenlock Road are ignored, contrary to SEPP (Transport & Infrastructure) 2021 cl. 2.111, which requires safe and efficient transport outcomes for educational facilities.
Inadequate Road Capacity Assessment: Keefers Glen is a narrow residential cul-de-sac. Benchmarking against regional arterial roads is misleading and breaches DCP 2022 Ch. 3.1 (Car Parking & Access), which requires context-based assessment.
Pedestrian & Cyclist Safety Ignored: No safe crossing points or separated foot/cycle paths are proposed, breaching the Austroads Guide to Road Design (Part 6A) and exposing children to risk.
Parking Deficiency: On-site parking falls short of DCP 2022 minimum ratios, ensuring overspill into Keefers Glen.
Construction Traffic Deferred: The Preliminary CTPMP (Appendix T, p. 6) defers construction traffic planning until a builder is appointed, breaching EP&A Regulation 2021 Sch 2, cl. 6.
Cumulative Impacts Ignored: The report does not assess traffic interaction with St Peter’s Catholic College, in breach of EP&A Act s.4.15(1)(b).
Ground for refusal: Unsafe and inadequate traffic planning, inconsistent with statutory and local planning controls.
2. Noise and Acoustic Amenity
Baseline Monitoring Deficient: The Noise & Vibration Assessment (Appendix U, pp. 17–18) is based on short-term monitoring, not the 7-day standard required by the EPA Noise Policy for Industry 2017 (NPfI).
Outdoor Noise Underestimated: Intermittent, high-level playground and PA system noise was ignored, contrary to EPA guidance.
After-Hours Use Excluded: The report concedes that evening/weekend use of facilities (sports, assemblies, community hire) has not been assessed (Appendix U, p. 26), breaching EP&A Act s.4.15(1)(b).
Vague Mitigation Measures: Generic references to barriers provide no enforceable design, breaching DCP Ch. 3.3 Noise & Vibration.
Construction Noise Ignored: No modelling against the Interim Construction Noise Guideline (DECC 2009), contrary to regulatory standards.
Cumulative Noise Ignored: Noise from St Peter’s College has not been combined with the proposal.
Ground for refusal: Non-compliance with NPfI 2017 and ICNG 2009, leading to unacceptable amenity loss.
3. Flood Risk and Emergency Access
The Flood Impact Assessment (Appendix EE, p. 21) and Flood Emergency Response Plan (Appendix FF, p. 14) admit that evacuation routes will be cut during 1% AEP and PMF events, isolating the site.
The NSW Floodplain Development Manual (2023) requires not only raised floor levels but also safe evacuation routes. These have not been demonstrated.
The school is designed for children with disabilities, who may require assisted evacuation. Approval without proven evacuation safety risks breach of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) and the EP&A Act s.4.15(1)(b).
Ground for refusal: Unsafe flood evacuation and non-compliance with statutory floodplain management guidelines.
4. Bushfire Emergency Management
The Bushfire Emergency Management Plan (Appendix RR) confirms reliance on Keefers Glen as the sole access route. Planning for Bushfire Protection 2019 (PBP) requires dual safe evacuation routes for vulnerable uses.
The interaction of flood and bushfire risks has not been assessed, contrary to NSW RFS guidelines.
Details of hydrant access, defendable space, and APZs are incomplete.
Ground for refusal: Non-compliance with PBP 2019 and failure to ensure life safety in concurrent hazard scenarios.
5. Architectural Design, Height, and Privacy Impacts
The Architectural Design Report (Appendix I) describes the school as “predominantly two-storey” but in reality introduces three-storey built form at the northern ends of the wings. These sections will appear as full three-storey blocks when viewed from Keefers Glen and Brickendon Avenue, creating an imposing institutional bulk inconsistent with the surrounding one- to two-storey residential neighbourhood.
This bulk and scale directly conflicts with the planning intent of the Central Coast Local Environmental Plan 2022 and Development Control Plan 2022, which require new development to respect and integrate with the prevailing low-density residential character of Mardi.
Furthermore, the upper-level verandahs and learning spaces will enable direct overlooking into neighbouring backyards and homes, resulting in a significant loss of residential privacy. This impact breaches both the residential amenity provisions of the DCP and the broader objectives of the EP&A Act requiring protection of neighbourhood character and amenity.
Ground for refusal: Excessive building height, visual bulk, and overlooking, contrary to the LEP and DCP provisions for residential interface areas.
6. Social Impact
The Social Impact Assessment (Appendix KK, p. 12) is biased towards benefits and fails to assess negative impacts, including:
Loss of residential amenity and neighbourhood character,
Increased noise and traffic danger,
Reduced property values,
Cumulative stress on local infrastructure.
This omission breaches EP&A Act s.4.15(1)(b) and (d), which require full consideration of social and economic impacts.
Ground for refusal: Incomplete and unreliable assessment of social impacts.
7. Legal and Policy Non-Compliance Summary
The proposed development fails to comply with:
EP&A Act 1979 s.4.15(1)(b) – inadequate consideration of environmental, traffic, safety, and social impacts.
Central Coast LEP 2022 – inconsistent with local character and amenity objectives.
Central Coast DCP 2022 – breaches in traffic (Ch. 3.1), noise (Ch. 3.3), privacy, and rural-residential character (Ch. 5.51).
SEPP (Transport & Infrastructure) 2021 cl. 2.111 – inadequate traffic and safety outcomes.
EPA NPfI 2017 & ICNG 2009 – flawed acoustic assessment.
NSW Floodplain Development Manual 2023 – unsafe evacuation provisions.
Planning for Bushfire Protection 2019 – inadequate bushfire evacuation and APZ design.
Requested Outcome
I respectfully request that Council refuse the DA in its current form on the grounds of serious non-compliance and unacceptable risk.
Should approval be contemplated, Council must at minimum require:
Independent peer review of traffic, noise, flood, and bushfire reports;
Strict conditions limiting building height to two storeys along Keefers Glen;
Enforceable acoustic barriers and restrictions on PA/bell usage;
A prohibition on after-hours/weekend use unless subject to a separate DA;
Proof of dual safe evacuation routes for flood and bushfire;
Full compliance with DCP car parking ratios and additional on-site parking.
Conclusion
This proposal represents a serious threat to safety, amenity, and local character. It fails multiple statutory tests under the EP&A Act and associated instruments. I therefore urge Council to refuse the DA in its current form.
Yours sincerely,

I submit that the development is fundamentally flawed, legally non-compliant, and unsafe and should be refused in it current form

I am writing a submission to object to the proposal as it stands. I frequently visit the area as it is where my partner lives as it stands now it is difficult navigating the streets with just he typical residential and visitor traffic as the streets are very narrow, frequently requiring cars to pull as far to one side of the road as they can to allow other cars a safe passage as it difficult/impossible to go through side by side

My concern is with increased traffic in the area as well as transportation to get school children in and out of the area this simply cannot be accommodated with the size of the streets as it already extremely difficult as outlined above. This will be extremely inconvenient not only for residents and visitors, but also just would not e suitable for area for parents and other school transportation as it would cause massive traffic logs in the areas and could eve be potentially unsafe for students, parents and residents as the streets are not designed to accommodate to facilitate this kind of project, in particular Keefers Glen is extremely narrow allowing for only one car at a time and is dog legged in one section and was constructed as a residential street and not for heavy amounts of traffic.

SUBMISSION LETTER TEMPLATE: ****

After reviewing 68 documents and finding legal flaws within all of them, please see attached letter which you can use as a template for your submission to oppose the school.

I do NOT oppose the special needs school, I think it needs to be built in a more adequate location to protect both residents AND the special needs children.

LETTER; ****

“Re: Objection to the Proposed Development – Eileen O’Connor Catholic School, 84 Gavenlock Road, Mardi (SSD 67173718)

Dear Sir/Madam,
I am writing to object to the proposed development of a three-storey school at 84 Gavenlock Road, Mardi. Having reviewed the Environmental Impact Statement and its technical appendices, I submit that the development is fundamentally flawed, legally non-compliant, and unsafe, and should be refused in its current form.

1. Traffic and Road Safety Impacts

Underestimated Traffic Generation: The Transport & Accessibility Impact Assessment (Appendix R, pp. 31–42) fails to model school peak periods. Queuing and congestion on Keefers Glen and Gavenlock Road are ignored, contrary to SEPP (Transport & Infrastructure) 2021 cl. 2.111, which requires safe and efficient transport outcomes for educational facilities.
Inadequate Road Capacity Assessment: Keefers Glen is a narrow residential cul-de-sac. Benchmarking against regional arterial roads is misleading and breaches DCP 2022 Ch. 3.1 (Car Parking & Access), which requires context-based assessment.
Pedestrian & Cyclist Safety Ignored: No safe crossing points or separated foot/cycle paths are proposed, breaching the Austroads Guide to Road Design (Part 6A) and exposing children to risk.
Parking Deficiency: On-site parking falls short of DCP 2022 minimum ratios, ensuring overspill into Keefers Glen.
Construction Traffic Deferred: The Preliminary CTPMP (Appendix T, p. 6) defers construction traffic planning until a builder is appointed, breaching EP&A Regulation 2021 Sch 2, cl. 6.
Cumulative Impacts Ignored: The report does not assess traffic interaction with St Peter’s Catholic College, in breach of EP&A Act s.4.15(1)(b).
Ground for refusal: Unsafe and inadequate traffic planning, inconsistent with statutory and local planning controls.

2. Noise and Acoustic Amenity

Baseline Monitoring Deficient: The Noise & Vibration Assessment (Appendix U, pp. 17–18) is based on short-term monitoring, not the 7-day standard required by the EPA Noise Policy for Industry 2017 (NPfI).
Outdoor Noise Underestimated: Intermittent, high-level playground and PA system noise was ignored, contrary to EPA guidance.
After-Hours Use Excluded: The report concedes that evening/weekend use of facilities (sports, assemblies, community hire) has not been assessed (Appendix U, p. 26), breaching EP&A Act s.4.15(1)(b).
Vague Mitigation Measures: Generic references to barriers provide no enforceable design, breaching DCP Ch. 3.3 Noise & Vibration.
Construction Noise Ignored: No modelling against the Interim Construction Noise Guideline (DECC 2009), contrary to regulatory standards.
Cumulative Noise Ignored: Noise from St Peter’s College has not been combined with the proposal.
Ground for refusal: Non-compliance with NPfI 2017 and ICNG 2009, leading to unacceptable amenity loss.

3. Flood Risk and Emergency Access

The Flood Impact Assessment (Appendix EE, p. 21) and Flood Emergency Response Plan (Appendix FF, p. 14) admit that evacuation routes will be cut during 1% AEP and PMF events, isolating the site.
The NSW Floodplain Development Manual (2023) requires not only raised floor levels but also safe evacuation routes. These have not been demonstrated.
The school is designed for children with disabilities, who may require assisted evacuation. Approval without proven evacuation safety risks breach of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) and the EP&A Act s.4.15(1)(b).
Ground for refusal: Unsafe flood evacuation and non-compliance with statutory floodplain management guidelines.

4. Bushfire Emergency Management

The Bushfire Emergency Management Plan (Appendix RR) confirms reliance on Keefers Glen as the sole access route. Planning for Bushfire Protection 2019 (PBP) requires dual safe evacuation routes for vulnerable uses.
The interaction of flood and bushfire risks has not been assessed, contrary to NSW RFS guidelines.
Details of hydrant access, defendable space, and APZs are incomplete.
Ground for refusal: Non-compliance with PBP 2019 and failure to ensure life safety in concurrent hazard scenarios.

5. Architectural Design, Height, and Privacy Impacts

The Architectural Design Report (Appendix I) describes the school as “predominantly two-storey” but in reality introduces three-storey built form at the northern ends of the wings. These sections will appear as full three-storey blocks when viewed from Keefers Glen and Brickendon Avenue, creating an imposing institutional bulk inconsistent with the surrounding one- to two-storey residential neighbourhood.
This bulk and scale directly conflicts with the planning intent of the Central Coast Local Environmental Plan 2022 and Development Control Plan 2022, which require new development to respect and integrate with the prevailing low-density residential character of Mardi.
Furthermore, the upper-level verandahs and learning spaces will enable direct overlooking into neighbouring backyards and homes, resulting in a significant loss of residential privacy. This impact breaches both the residential amenity provisions of the DCP and the broader objectives of the EP&A Act requiring protection of neighbourhood character and amenity.
Ground for refusal: Excessive building height, visual bulk, and overlooking, contrary to the LEP and DCP provisions for residential interface areas.

6. Social Impact

The Social Impact Assessment (Appendix KK, p. 12) is biased towards benefits and fails to assess negative impacts, including:
Loss of residential amenity and neighbourhood character,
Increased noise and traffic danger,
Reduced property values,
Cumulative stress on local infrastructure.
This omission breaches EP&A Act s.4.15(1)(b) and (d), which require full consideration of social and economic impacts.
Ground for refusal: Incomplete and unreliable assessment of social impacts.

7. Legal and Policy Non-Compliance Summary

The proposed development fails to comply with:
EP&A Act 1979 s.4.15(1)(b) – inadequate consideration of environmental, traffic, safety, and social impacts.
Central Coast LEP 2022 – inconsistent with local character and amenity objectives.
Central Coast DCP 2022 – breaches in traffic (Ch. 3.1), noise (Ch. 3.3), privacy, and rural-residential character (Ch. 5.51).
SEPP (Transport & Infrastructure) 2021 cl. 2.111 – inadequate traffic and safety outcomes.
EPA NPfI 2017 & ICNG 2009 – flawed acoustic assessment.
NSW Floodplain Development Manual 2023 – unsafe evacuation provisions.
Planning for Bushfire Protection 2019 – inadequate bushfire evacuation and APZ design.
Requested Outcome
I respectfully request that Council refuse the DA in its current form on the grounds of serious non-compliance and unacceptable risk.
Should approval be contemplated, Council must at minimum require:
Independent peer review of traffic, noise, flood, and bushfire reports;
Strict conditions limiting building height to two storeys along Keefers Glen;
Enforceable acoustic barriers and restrictions on PA/bell usage;
A prohibition on after-hours/weekend use unless subject to a separate DA;
Proof of dual safe evacuation routes for flood and bushfire;
Full compliance with DCP car parking ratios and additional on-site parking.
Conclusion
This proposal represents a serious threat to safety, amenity, and local character. It fails multiple statutory tests under the EP&A Act and associated instruments. I therefore urge Council to refuse the DA in its current form.

Yours sincerely,”
Taryn Fuller

Re: Objection to the Proposed Development – Eileen O’Connor Catholic School, 84 Gavenlock Road, Mardi (SSD 67173718)
Dear Sir/Madam,
I am writing to object to the proposed development of a three-storey school at 84 Gavenlock Road, Mardi. Having reviewed the Environmental Impact Statement and its technical appendices, I submit that the development is fundamentally flawed, legally non-compliant, and unsafe, and should be refused in its current form.
1. Traffic and Road Safety Impacts
Underestimated Traffic Generation: The Transport & Accessibility Impact Assessment (Appendix R, pp. 31–42) fails to model school peak periods. Queuing and congestion on Keefers Glen and Gavenlock Road are ignored, contrary to SEPP (Transport & Infrastructure) 2021 cl. 2.111, which requires safe and efficient transport outcomes for educational facilities.
Inadequate Road Capacity Assessment: Keefers Glen is a narrow residential cul-de-sac. Benchmarking against regional arterial roads is misleading and breaches DCP 2022 Ch. 3.1 (Car Parking & Access), which requires context-based assessment.
Pedestrian & Cyclist Safety Ignored: No safe crossing points or separated foot/cycle paths are proposed, breaching the Austroads Guide to Road Design (Part 6A) and exposing children to risk.
Parking Deficiency: On-site parking falls short of DCP 2022 minimum ratios, ensuring overspill into Keefers Glen.
Construction Traffic Deferred: The Preliminary CTPMP (Appendix T, p. 6) defers construction traffic planning until a builder is appointed, breaching EP&A Regulation 2021 Sch 2, cl. 6.
Cumulative Impacts Ignored: The report does not assess traffic interaction with St Peter’s Catholic College, in breach of EP&A Act s.4.15(1)(b).
Ground for refusal: Unsafe and inadequate traffic planning, inconsistent with statutory and local planning controls.
2. Noise and Acoustic Amenity
Baseline Monitoring Deficient: The Noise & Vibration Assessment (Appendix U, pp. 17–18) is based on short-term monitoring, not the 7-day standard required by the EPA Noise Policy for Industry 2017 (NPfI).
Outdoor Noise Underestimated: Intermittent, high-level playground and PA system noise was ignored, contrary to EPA guidance.
After-Hours Use Excluded: The report concedes that evening/weekend use of facilities (sports, assemblies, community hire) has not been assessed (Appendix U, p. 26), breaching EP&A Act s.4.15(1)(b).
Vague Mitigation Measures: Generic references to barriers provide no enforceable design, breaching DCP Ch. 3.3 Noise & Vibration.
Construction Noise Ignored: No modelling against the Interim Construction Noise Guideline (DECC 2009), contrary to regulatory standards.
Cumulative Noise Ignored: Noise from St Peter’s College has not been combined with the proposal.
Ground for refusal: Non-compliance with NPfI 2017 and ICNG 2009, leading to unacceptable amenity loss.
3. Flood Risk and Emergency Access
The Flood Impact Assessment (Appendix EE, p. 21) and Flood Emergency Response Plan (Appendix FF, p. 14) admit that evacuation routes will be cut during 1% AEP and PMF events, isolating the site.
The NSW Floodplain Development Manual (2023) requires not only raised floor levels but also safe evacuation routes. These have not been demonstrated.
The school is designed for children with disabilities, who may require assisted evacuation. Approval without proven evacuation safety risks breach of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) and the EP&A Act s.4.15(1)(b).
Ground for refusal: Unsafe flood evacuation and non-compliance with statutory floodplain management guidelines.
4. Bushfire Emergency Management
The Bushfire Emergency Management Plan (Appendix RR) confirms reliance on Keefers Glen as the sole access route. Planning for Bushfire Protection 2019 (PBP) requires dual safe evacuation routes for vulnerable uses.
The interaction of flood and bushfire risks has not been assessed, contrary to NSW RFS guidelines.
Details of hydrant access, defendable space, and APZs are incomplete.
Ground for refusal: Non-compliance with PBP 2019 and failure to ensure life safety in concurrent hazard scenarios.
5. Architectural Design, Height, and Privacy Impacts
The Architectural Design Report (Appendix I) describes the school as “predominantly two-storey” but in reality introduces three-storey built form at the northern ends of the wings. These sections will appear as full three-storey blocks when viewed from Keefers Glen and Brickendon Avenue, creating an imposing institutional bulk inconsistent with the surrounding one- to two-storey residential neighbourhood.
This bulk and scale directly conflicts with the planning intent of the Central Coast Local Environmental Plan 2022 and Development Control Plan 2022, which require new development to respect and integrate with the prevailing low-density residential character of Mardi.
Furthermore, the upper-level verandahs and learning spaces will enable direct overlooking into neighbouring backyards and homes, resulting in a significant loss of residential privacy. This impact breaches both the residential amenity provisions of the DCP and the broader objectives of the EP&A Act requiring protection of neighbourhood character and amenity.
Ground for refusal: Excessive building height, visual bulk, and overlooking, contrary to the LEP and DCP provisions for residential interface areas.
6. Social Impact
The Social Impact Assessment (Appendix KK, p. 12) is biased towards benefits and fails to assess negative impacts, including:
Loss of residential amenity and neighbourhood character,
Increased noise and traffic danger,
Reduced property values,
Cumulative stress on local infrastructure.
This omission breaches EP&A Act s.4.15(1)(b) and (d), which require full consideration of social and economic impacts.
Ground for refusal: Incomplete and unreliable assessment of social impacts.
7. Legal and Policy Non-Compliance Summary
The proposed development fails to comply with:
EP&A Act 1979 s.4.15(1)(b) – inadequate consideration of environmental, traffic, safety, and social impacts.
Central Coast LEP 2022 – inconsistent with local character and amenity objectives.
Central Coast DCP 2022 – breaches in traffic (Ch. 3.1), noise (Ch. 3.3), privacy, and rural-residential character (Ch. 5.51).
SEPP (Transport & Infrastructure) 2021 cl. 2.111 – inadequate traffic and safety outcomes.
EPA NPfI 2017 & ICNG 2009 – flawed acoustic assessment.
NSW Floodplain Development Manual 2023 – unsafe evacuation provisions.
Planning for Bushfire Protection 2019 – inadequate bushfire evacuation and APZ design.
Requested Outcome
I respectfully request that Council refuse the DA in its current form on the grounds of serious non-compliance and unacceptable risk.
Should approval be contemplated, Council must at minimum require:
Independent peer review of traffic, noise, flood, and bushfire reports;
Strict conditions limiting building height to two storeys along Keefers Glen;
Enforceable acoustic barriers and restrictions on PA/bell usage;
A prohibition on after-hours/weekend use unless subject to a separate DA;
Proof of dual safe evacuation routes for flood and bushfire;
Full compliance with DCP car parking ratios and additional on-site parking.
Conclusion
This proposal represents a serious threat to safety, amenity, and local character. It fails multiple statutory tests under the EP&A Act and associated instruments. I therefore urge Council and NSW STATE planning to refuse the DA in its current form.

Re: Objection to the Proposed Development – Eileen O’Connor Catholic School, 84 Gavenlock Road, Mardi (SSD 67173718)
Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing to object to the proposed development of a three-storey school at 84 Gavenlock Road, Mardi. Having reviewed the Environmental Impact Statement and its technical appendices, I submit that the development is fundamentally flawed, legally non-compliant, and unsafe, and should be refused in its current form.

1. Traffic and Road Safety Impacts
- Underestimated Traffic Generation: The Transport & Accessibility Impact Assessment (Appendix R, pp. 31–42) fails to model school peak periods.
- Queuing and congestion on Keefers Glen and Gavenlock Road are ignored, contrary to SEPP (Transport & Infrastructure) 2021 cl. 2.111, which requires safe and efficient transport outcomes for educational facilities.
- Inadequate Road Capacity Assessment: Keefers Glen is a narrow residential cul-de-sac.
-Benchmarking against regional arterial roads is misleading and breaches DCP 2022 Ch. 3.1 (Car Parking & Access), which requires context-based assessment.
- Pedestrian & Cyclist Safety Ignored: No safe crossing points or separated foot/cycle paths are proposed, breaching the Austroads Guide to Road Design (Part 6A) and exposing children to risk.
- Parking Deficiency: On-site parking falls short of DCP 2022 minimum ratios, ensuring overspill into Keefers Glen.
Construction Traffic Deferred: The Preliminary CTPMP (Appendix T, p. 6) defers construction traffic planning until a builder is appointed, breaching EP&A Regulation 2021 Sch 2, cl. 6.
- Cumulative Impacts Ignored: The report does not assess traffic interaction with St Peter’s Catholic College, in breach of EP&A Act s.4.15(1)(b).
Ground for refusal: Unsafe and inadequate traffic planning, inconsistent with statutory and local planning controls.

2. Noise and Acoustic Amenity
- Baseline Monitoring Deficient: The Noise & Vibration Assessment (Appendix U, pp. 17–18) is based on short-term monitoring, not the 7-day standard required by the EPA Noise Policy for Industry 2017 (NPfI).
- Outdoor Noise Underestimated: Intermittent, high-level playground and PA system noise was ignored, contrary to EPA guidance.
- After-Hours Use Excluded: The report concedes that evening/weekend use of facilities (sports, assemblies, community hire) has not been assessed (Appendix U, p. 26), breaching EP&A Act s.4.15(1)(b).
- Vague Mitigation Measures: Generic references to barriers provide no enforceable design, breaching DCP Ch. 3.3 Noise & Vibration.
- Construction Noise Ignored: No modelling against the Interim Construction Noise Guideline (DECC 2009), contrary to regulatory standards.
- Cumulative Noise Ignored: Noise from St Peter’s College has not been combined with the proposal.
- Ground for refusal: Non-compliance with NPfI 2017 and ICNG 2009, leading to unacceptable amenity loss.

3. Flood Risk and Emergency Access
The Flood Impact Assessment (Appendix EE, p. 21) and Flood Emergency Response Plan (Appendix FF, p. 14) admit that evacuation routes will be cut during 1% AEP and PMF events, isolating the site.
The NSW Floodplain Development Manual (2023) requires not only raised floor levels but also safe evacuation routes. These have not been demonstrated.
The school is designed for children with disabilities, who may require assisted evacuation. Approval without proven evacuation safety risks breach of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) and the EP&A Act s.4.15(1)(b).
Ground for refusal: Unsafe flood evacuation and non-compliance with statutory floodplain management guidelines.

4. Bushfire Emergency Management
The Bushfire Emergency Management Plan (Appendix RR) confirms reliance on Keefers Glen as the sole access route. Planning for Bushfire Protection 2019 (PBP) requires dual safe evacuation routes for vulnerable uses.
The interaction of flood and bushfire risks has not been assessed, contrary to NSW RFS guidelines.
Details of hydrant access, defendable space, and APZs are incomplete.
Ground for refusal: Non-compliance with PBP 2019 and failure to ensure life safety in concurrent hazard scenarios.

5. Architectural Design, Height, and Privacy Impacts
The Architectural Design Report (Appendix I) describes the school as “predominantly two-storey” but in reality introduces three-storey built form at the northern ends of the wings. These sections will appear as full three-storey blocks when viewed from Keefers Glen and Brickendon Avenue, creating an imposing institutional bulk inconsistent with the surrounding one- to two-storey residential neighbourhood.
This bulk and scale directly conflicts with the planning intent of the Central Coast Local Environmental Plan 2022 and Development Control Plan 2022, which require new development to respect and integrate with the prevailing low-density residential character of Mardi.
Furthermore, the upper-level verandahs and learning spaces will enable direct overlooking into neighbouring backyards and homes, resulting in a significant loss of residential privacy. This impact breaches both the residential amenity provisions of the DCP and the broader objectives of the EP&A Act requiring protection of neighbourhood character and amenity.
Ground for refusal: Excessive building height, visual bulk, and overlooking, contrary to the LEP and DCP provisions for residential interface areas.

6. Social Impact
The Social Impact Assessment (Appendix KK, p. 12) is biased towards benefits and fails to assess negative impacts, including:
-Loss of residential amenity and neighbourhood character,
-Increased noise and traffic danger,
-Reduced property values,
-Cumulative stress on local infrastructure.
This omission breaches EP&A Act s.4.15(1)(b) and (d), which require full consideration of social and economic impacts.
Ground for refusal: Incomplete and unreliable assessment of social impacts.

7. Legal and Policy Non-Compliance Summary
The proposed development fails to comply with:
EP&A Act 1979 s.4.15(1)(b) – inadequate consideration of environmental, traffic, safety, and social impacts.
Central Coast LEP 2022 – inconsistent with local character and amenity objectives.
Central Coast DCP 2022 – breaches in traffic (Ch. 3.1), noise (Ch. 3.3), privacy, and rural-residential character (Ch. 5.51).
SEPP (Transport & Infrastructure) 2021 cl. 2.111 – inadequate traffic and safety outcomes.
EPA NPfI 2017 & ICNG 2009 – flawed acoustic assessment.
NSW Floodplain Development Manual 2023 – unsafe evacuation provisions.
Planning for Bushfire Protection 2019 – inadequate bushfire evacuation and APZ design.
Requested Outcome
I respectfully request that Council refuse the DA in its current form on the grounds of serious non-compliance and unacceptable risk.
Should approval be contemplated, Council and State Development NSW must at minimum require:
- Independent peer review of traffic, noise, flood, and bushfire reports;
- Strict conditions limiting building height to two storeys along Keefers Glen;
- Enforceable acoustic barriers and restrictions on PA/bell usage;
- A prohibition on after-hours/weekend use unless subject to a separate DA;
- Proof of dual safe evacuation routes for flood and bushfire;
- Full compliance with DCP car parking ratios and additional on-site parking.

Conclusion
This proposal represents a serious threat to safety, amenity, and local character. It fails multiple statutory tests under the EP&A Act and associated instruments. I therefore urge Council and NSW State Planning to refuse the DA in its current form.
Yours sincerely,
Concerned resident

See attached

Cobbs Village is a quiet little hamlet consisting of approximately 160 strata run residences. Streets leading to our village are almost exclusively used by those who live here. Most streets are no more than laneways, many ending in cul-de-sacs. Proposal lists address as “84 Gavenlock Road”. Many residents mistakenly thought the build was to be at the industrial end, where there is ample land, no houses, therefore, no disruption, chaos or impact on our everyday lives. Instead, it will be sitting the back fences of residential homes with street fronting and entrance on a tiny, crooked street called “Keefers Glen”. It also states access to new school at Gavenlock Road would have adverse impact on operation of existing college. No-one is concerned about adverse impact on Cobbs residents. We have no problem with St Peters college as buildings and activities are set well back from surrounding homes.
Brickendon Avenue will be worst affected as driveways, play areas, outdoor lessons will be directly behind our back fences. Demolition, excavation, heavy trucks and machinery, up to 100 workmen on site daily. Naïve of us to think we will escape some degree of damage to our properties. School will be taller than our homes, block sunlight and allow people to look into our backyards. We are a residential suburb, not a suitable site for a large special needs school, especially one that sits just meters from boundaries of homes along Brickendon Avenue.
Upon completion we will be subject to noise from outdoor learning and play areas, P.A systems, mechanical plants, vehicles delivering students. Proposal suggests we close our windows if bothered by noise from outdoor activity. We in Cobbs Village obviously sit on the bottom rung of the Care ladder. Many residents work from home. Construction noise will impact greatly. Some have one or more dogs. Extra noise and movement will cause non-stop barking and will disrupt residents and school activities.
Elderly residents are not equipped to protest online, being uncomfortable with technology. Was this done intentionally to limit number of objections? This area is residential, totally unsuitable for a project such as this. None of us need the disruption and noise, or a huge building almost touching our back fences.
Consulting with local estate agents advise that a build such as this, in a residential area such as ours, will have an adverse effect on the value of our properties.
What monetary compensation will the church offer for loss of privacy, disruption to every aspect of our lives and the devaluation of our properties?
To say our lives will become a nightmare during construction and upon completion, is not an understatement. It is a fact!!

As an educator with over forty years experience and with the additional perspective of being a grandparent of neurodiverse children, I feel I am both suitably qualified and experienced to lodge this submission in support of the proposed Eileen O’Connor school.
From an educational perspective it is overwhelming and unrealistic for educators to meet the needs of students with such diverse learning needs in a typical classroom. Acknowledging the rights of students with atypical learning needs, I have worked with many teachers who are exceptional educators but get frustrated and burnt-out trying to address the diverse needs of students in contemporary society. It is not because they lack compassion or a desire but they simply do not have the resources required. Consequently, the students are the ones to suffer and their learning gap becomes more significant.
I witness first hand the difficulty my son’s family faces with two boys who are independently diagnosed with significant developmental delay and the other a combination of ASD, ADHD and PDA - a relatively new condition, characterised by extreme emotional deregulation to any perceived demand placed upon them. Noting that typical school environments are a hotbed of demand based rules, this presents significant challenges to assure regular attendance. The family is in a constant state of distress and turmoil and experience the exhaustion of not only managing their home lifestyle but advocating for their children who are often misunderstood at best and traumatised at worst in the school setting.
The development of the Eileen O’Connor school will provide much needed support to both the educational sector and those families seeking a place where their child’s diverse needs are understood and provided for by qualified staff, in a purpose designed and built environment.
I advocate strongly for this development to be approved and look toward a future where the children who need society’s understanding, tolerance and support come before the relatively minor inconvenience of traffic congestion or other matters lodged in opposition.
Paul Nield

As a resident of Mardi for the last 21yrs I have seen the traffic build up here. The roads surrounding and including Keefers Lane will not support the traffic that will be generated by a new school entry\exit.
1. These streets are not much more than laneways, access roads for the residents.
2. The entry points from that part of the subdivision at Brickendon Avenue and Wagners Place onto Woodbury Park Drive are already dangerous intersections.
3. Our roads already suffer from the local buses on Woodbury Park Drive (sinking under the constant weight of the buses), not to mention the road humps (7 of) creating holes in the road surface with the constant breaking to negotiate them.
4. Our roundabout at the Wyong Road junction is already a nightmare to negotiate, especially during peak hour traffic, with it's 70kph speed limit exiting the M1 interchange. Traffic movement is slow due to the caution required building up a volume of cars. It was the reason my elderly mother was encouraged to surrender her licence.
5. During any detours of the M1 traffic we have to line up with the passing through traffic just to get to our homes. Many residents just gave up, parked their cars and walked home, returning to collect their cars later. This extra traffic will inhibit our exiting the estate to collect our own primary aged children from Tuggerah Public School.
6. I don't know of any reason why the school should not use and entry point on Gavenlock Road, Tuggerah. This is and industrial area where the roads wider and are able to withstand the parking required by parents collecting their children and traffic with multiple exit points. Those being Anzac Rd, Mildon Rd, Johnson Rd, McPherson Rd in two directions. A far better option.
7. Lastly, but certainly not the least, our own Central Coast Council does not support this school entry\exit through Woodbury Park residential estate.
This is a peaceful regional suburb, not a city suburb and we, the residents would like it to stay that way.

As a dad of a child with significant disabilities, I know the frustration of having so few schooling options available. When our son reached Years 10-12, the lack of suitable local opportunities meant I had to step in and home school him. While I did my best to support his learning, this arrangement came at a cost, particularly to his social skills. Without daily interaction with peers and the structure of a supportive school environment, he missed out on vital opportunities to connect, build friendships, and feel part of a community.

From my perspective, both as a parent and someone who understands the needs of learner diverse students, the proposed Eileen O’Connor School at Tuggerah is exactly what the Central Coast needs. With a growing population, the demand for inclusive, specialised education is only increasing.

This school, catering for learner diverse students, would be more than just a place to learn it would be a place where young people can develop socially, emotionally, and academically. It would provide them with purpose, a sense of belonging, and the chance to discover their strengths in an environment built for their success.

I wish something like this had existed when our family was making decisions for our son’s education. It would have given him the chance not only to learn, but to grow alongside peers who understood and accepted him. This development will finally give families like mine a real choice, close to home.

Dear NSW Government,

As an educator with a deep commitment to inclusive education, I am writing to express my wholehearted support for the proposed Eileen O’Connor Catholic School at Tuggerah.

This specialist school is not just a welcome addition—it is a critical necessity for our region. Every child deserves access to a learning environment where they are supported, understood, and given the opportunity to thrive. Yet, many children with disabilities on the Central Coast are currently without suitable educational pathways. Families are often forced to travel significant distances or accept limited options that cannot meet their child’s unique needs.

The Eileen O’Connor School will address this gap. Backed by the Catholic Schools Broken Bay network, it will offer highly trained staff, therapeutic supports, and purpose-built facilities designed to cater to diverse and complex needs. This is not just a building—it is a place where children with disabilities will be empowered to learn with dignity and belonging.
From an educator’s perspective, having a dedicated space that fosters both academic and emotional development for students with disabilities is transformative. It allows us to tailor learning, provide consistent support, and work in genuine partnership with families.

Named after Eileen O’Connor, whose legacy of compassion for the disadvantaged continues to inspire, this school embodies the values we strive to instil: inclusion, respect, and care for every individual.

I urge Council to endorse this project. The Eileen O’Connor Catholic School will change lives—not only for its students, but for our broader community. Let us take this opportunity to invest in a more inclusive future.

I object to the entry and parking to the school location. The suburban streets of Mardi and in particularly, the very street the project is planned to have access from is not wide and the connecting back streets are small suburban streets. They are not designed to accommodate the heavier traffic conditions that are sure to come from the entry gates being located within the estate. There are perfectly reasonable alternatives to this proposal.