New High School in Bungendore

The chosen site for the school is strongly opposed by a large part of the Bungendore community. It is inappropriate for the centre of an historic town and will involve significant loss of amenity.

The planned school will be overcrowded from day 1. It can only accommodate “up to” 450 kids, but the Department of Education’s own estimates show there will be almost 480 within 3 years, and almost 570 within 10 years.

The site is almost 3 acres smaller than the State Government’s own minimum standards.

And the plans are guaranteed to create dangerous traffic chaos as hundreds of primary and high-schoolers, along with dozens of cars, trucks and buses, cram into a small section of Gibraltar Street at the start and finish of each school day.

Bungendore deserves better. A properly planned facility, on a properly chosen site.

Our local Council is betraying the Bungendore community by handing over our parkland, roads and community assets, and refusing to take responsibility for the traffic chaos and destruction of heritage which will follow.

To be clear, this is not about whether or not Bungendore needs a high school. However, the proposal is completely unfit for purpose and damages our town. The State government has claimed that it has no alternative but to take over our park — yet we know that alternative sites have been identified and found suitable, while others have been ruled out for reasons that were simply wrong.

Dear Sir or Madam,

New High School SSD 14394209
I refer to the above state significant development application.

I object to the proposal for the following reasons.

1. The closing of a road that is utilised by the town. Making the increase of traffic in front of the Preschool and Turallo an accident waiting to happen.

2. I don’t want to attend Anzac Day with a fence around our cenotaph our diggers deserve more respect than to have this fenced off.

3. The Park is utilised by families and travellers that call past to go to the toilet. Whilst travelling through.

4. The size of High School is below the standards of which they like to build. The High School has no room for growth. The Ag plot will flood more often than not when it rains as the creek rises.

5. The first site chosen was a better option but for some reason at the last minute the decision was changed.

6. No other town has lost their Park to a High School so why should we.

7. I have lived in Bungendore my whole life and I like many caught a bus to High School so to see Our Park be taken over by a High School would be detrimental to me you take an inch of our park and than it will be all of it.

The building is not fit for purpose and we loose to much like our pool yes it may have issues but still it has provided lessons for our children and can be fixed to provide many more.


I have not and no associate of mine has made any political donation to any person in the preceding this submission.

Yours Faithfully

Ian Humphries

I strongly object to this proposal. It will significantly adversly affect the amenity of the town through closure of a road heavily used by residents to move from the older part of town to the newer developments, forcing diversion of traffic and causing longer travel times and great inconvenience. It will also involve closure or significant diversion to a public walking path that is heavily used by residents, myself included. In addition it will interfer with enjoyment by residents of existing and long term leisure and recreation facilities that have always been central to the town. The proposal involves changing the ownership of a large amount of public land, placing it in the control of the Department of Education rather than the local council. Unlike the council, the Department of Education has no responsibility to the residents. Public space and amenities will be taken out of the hands of local residents and will not be freely available to be used as they are currently. While there is no doubt that a local high school will be used and appreciated by residents with school aged children, these are not the majority of residents. Many residents are older and have chosen the town because of its amenities, including that public spaces are readily accessible on foot and close to other services such as shops, post office and medical services. To build a school over those facilities will be to deprive residents of that amenity. It will significantly disadantage residents, like myself, who have purchased properties close to the center of twon in order to be able to easily access a wide range of facilities on foot. The proposal will interfere with easy walking access to the train station and will be likely to make it difficult for those with reduced mobility to drive and park close to the station. In addition, the proposal to build several two storey school buildings in the centre of the town's historic and heritage area will destroy the appearance and feel of the town, reducing the amenity fo the area in another way. It is not clear why additional school facilities cannot be built on the land already owned by the Department of Education (where the primary school is), with the students making use of the public sports areas as required. Alternatively, a high school could be built in one of the newer areas, avoiding compromise of the town's heritage character and any loss of central, well used, public facilities. I oppose this proposal in the strongest possible terms as I consider that it will damage the amenities I currently enjoy and reduce the value of my property, which is close to the site.

I object to the proposal, for the following reason(s):
1. refer EIS (Mecone) Pg 19." Each (alternative) site was assessed based on its suitability to support the needs of the project however, no suitable site was identified through this process".
There was limited scope for the community to assess the suitability of alternative sites because there was no information provided, that was easy to access by the general public, that discussed the merits of other sites.
The EIS does not adequately address the SEARs for the EIS that states it is required to describe “alternatives considered”. Although alluded to in the table (pg 20), where it suggests this component is addressed in Section 1, Section 3 or Appendixes 2,3 and 4, the EIS only superficially states that “other sites were considered’ without detailing where these sites were, or why they were deemed unsuitable.
An open approach to alternatives sites would do much to alleviate community concerns (as expressed in the Community Consultation Report).
My objection is that this part of the process has not be adequately completed.

2. The Community Outcomes Report
The Community Outcomes Report notes that: "There have been some concerns within the community about the location of the site and the potential impacts to existing social infrastructure and the amenity of the town. Concerns were also raised about the transparency of the site selection process. SINSW has sought to address these concerns through the release of public information about the due diligence process and amendments to the design."
Where exactly can this information be accessed from? My objection is that the information released on the web site is promotional material rather than expressly addressing concerns about the due diligence process.

3. Future Expansion
The school is proposed for a capacity of 400 – 500 students, depending on which report one is reading (Structural Design Report mentions Stream 5, 500 students; EIS refers to core 4, 450 students). The EIS mentions that the design” allows for future expansion to meet forecasted demand to 2036” but provides limited detail on this matter.
My objection is that the design detail does not adequately show how the proposal will meet expected future expansion.
I have a concern that the site selected does not allow for an increase in size without impacting the only space available i.e. Mick Sherd Oval. The growth of the existing primary school through the use of demountable buildings and the reduction of green space is a classic case in point.

4. Lead Contamination
There is no mention of the potential lead contamination in the EIS at the school site, along the rail corridor, in the “Report on Preliminary Site Investigation” by Integrated Practical Solution. This could be because the finding is a relatively recent development.
Given the potential danger to construction workers and future users of the site, what assurances will be provided that lead contamination risks and any other risks identified after the EIS was completed risks will be appropriately managed?

5. Overall.
Overall, while it will be great to get a new high school for Bungendore, the loss of community facilities including the area used for staging Anzac Day memorials, reduction of green space in the community owned Bungendore Park, and centrally located community buildings, is objectionable.
Being a retired school teacher, I realise that schools need solid fencing to minimise truanting and vandalism. Despite assurances otherwise, it is highly likely that Mick Sherd Oval, a community facility, will be fenced, preventing use by the community.

I object to the proposal because of its location, and feel that the proposal needs reconsideration due to a lack of transparency regarding the choice of site and the significant impact on community facilities.

My objection is based on one major issue. The law. As per the CLMA -- Crown Land Management Act 2016). Bungendore Park is a DEDICATED Crown Land Reserve. The law prohibits the sale of dedicated Crown Land, and legal limitations apply throughout SEPP2011 as it relates to State Significant Development (SSD), precluding the proposed location of a new High School in Bungendore. This advice (the basis of this objection) was provided to all QPRC Councillors, Mayor and General Manager in August 2021. Yet the campaign to build the High School on Bungendore Park continues regardless.

LAND OWNERSHIP STATUS
As it stands at the moment the Department of Education has a “proposal” but no standing in law. It doesn’t own the land involved, (Bungendore Park); have “Owner’s Consent” with regard to Bungendore Park; or have legal right to negotiate with anyone in regard to development, subdivision or any disposition of Bungendore Park. There is no MOU, no Heads of Agreement. QPRC is Crown Land Manager for Bungendore Park and as such, Council is responsible, and depending on action required, ONLY Council, or the Crown Lands Minister), can act with regard to Bungendore Park. And while the Ministers role has many powers, the sale of a dedication or reservation is NOT one of them. It is expressly prohibited. The following shows how, when, who, why – and why not.

STATE SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT (SSD)
The SEPP2011 states that SSD prevails over all other “environmental instruments”. and automatically includes “educational establishments” The DoE use it all the time.

Has the SSD ever been used to resume part of a Crown Land Reserve (dedicated “for the public purpose of public recreation”)? Probably not. Crown Land can only be managed under Crown Lands Management Act (CLMA) “s.1.15(1) Crown Land must not be occupied, used, sold, leased, licensed, dedicated, reserved, or dealt with in any other way unless it is authorised by this Act. “

When it comes to Crown Land, the CLMA pre-empts SSD, which may confer big powers, but these are based on the statutory format for a Development Application. Such applications start with the land involved, and owner’s consent. For a dedicated reserve (Bungendore Park), this is the Minister, Administering the Crown Lands Act – not the EP&A Minister, nor the Minister for Education

LAND ACQUISITION
If it is proposed to subdivide Bungendore Park and sell part to DoE then the CLMA section on the Minister for Crown Lands powers are explicit: s.5 (5) This section does not authorise the sale of Crown Land that is dedicated or reserved for a public purpose.

It may be possible to subdivide Bungendore Park, but that would involve legal issues like the dedication purpose, and then either require revocation, or raise title issues with the Registrar General (ie Real Property Act). Either way could take years – and probably have the same negative outcome. The process would have to be initiated with the Minister for Crown Lands, and then get lodged as conditional in overall SEPP-DA. This would be unlikely to succeed given other CLMA factors including current community resistance.

OWNERS CONSENT.
DoE doesn’t own Bungendore Park, and as long as CLMA s.5 (5) applies, never will, presenting another hindrance to any SSD process, SEPP2011 or not. DoE simply cannot sign the DA application needed to start a Bungendore Park Development Application or subdivision. It has no authority, and trying to railroad a signature through would invite legal challenge as fraud.

DoE could ask the Minister of Crown Lands to sign owner’s consent for them. The CLMA has no provision for any such proxy dealings or delegations. Other than revoking the dedication (which opens up a different can of worms) the Minister of Crown Lands has no lawful way to approve the proposal. According to s.1.15(1) he must refuse to sign.

LAND AQUISITON BY SUBDIVISION
If DoE intends to acquire the top end of Bungendore Park by subdivision and then purchase, or by some form of lease arrangement, the issue for QPRC is that while Council manages Bungendore Park, it does not OWN it and thus has no say in when/if/how this dedicated Crown Reserve might be sold, either in whole or in part, to DoE or anyone.

NOTE-Section 714 of the Local Govt Act 1993:
s.714 Estates and Interests of the Crown in Land. This Division does not enable the sale of ---
(a) any interest or estate of the Crown in land
(b) any interest in land owned by the Crown that may not be transferred at law

NOTE-CLMA .s.1 (15)(1) and s.5 (5) combine to prevent its sale even by the Minister for Crown Lands.
And if any such “sale” or subdivision is purported, the Registrar General has explicit power under Property Act s.13D (1) and (2) to question and/or investigate changes to title when it involves dedicated or reserved Crown Land.

LAND ACQUISTION BY AGREEMENT
Other than radical change to the CLMA itself, the only way for a Minister for Crown Lands to circumvent this ban would be to revoke the dedication. To do so, notice of revocation must be formally gazetted, and this placed on the table in BOTH houses of Parliament for at least ten days. If neither House acts, approval is assumed and it then takes effect.

But BOTH must agree.

So if ether House objects, rescinds or refuses to let the revocation proceed, then it fails. The dedication remains. No sale agreement can occur.

The proposed take-over re Bungendore Park has triggered such visceral community reaction that equivalent response is likely from MPs in at least one House, if not both. It would be a brave Minister, and/or government, that tabled “revocation” to destroy a dedication in place since 1884. Any move to ‘revoke’ will meet with widespread community revulsion, not just Bungendore. Sale by agreement would be anathema.

COMPULSORY ACQUISITION
The LA(JTC) Act does have provision for acquisition of Crown Land. But when it comes to dedications, no known instance can be found on the public record. Apart from rarity, compulsory acquisition is a question mark when confronted with CLMA s.5 (5).

Even if DoE could somehow succeed with compulsory acquisition of all or part of Bungendore Park (or LA(JTC) s.20 (1A) still applies. This means that any dedication or reservation goes with the land. This continuation of its “public purpose” is reinforced by reference to LG Act s.186(3). In short -- DoE will lose time and legal fees, to end up with some heartland Bungendore real estate they can then only use for the public purpose of public recreation.

TENURE BY LEASING
It may be possible for DoE to opt to lease the top-end of Bungendore Park. But only “may” – since CLMA s.2.19 (3) (a) to (f) gives a 6-point site-specific list to ensure that ancillary or “secondary” use of CL Reserves MUST BE SECONDARY. This limits size, scale, scope and impact, including for social context. A two-storey High School that visually dominates the remainder of its site, with a further 2/3rds usage that takes over the main oval for 5 days of every week is unlikely to qualify.

Crown Land Fact Sheet 19/216495 which stipulates the longest lease term legally possible for Bungendore Park is maximum five years. Not 99, not even 21. The legal ref is CLM Regulation 2018 s.70 (2)(e).

We are in this disastrous position purely because QPRC has no. operative/current Plan of Management (PoM) that applies to Bungendore Park. There isn’t even a valid Draft PoM and the 2019 amended PoM for Queanbeyan Parks explicitly excludes Crown Land.

To overcome the 5-yr limit on pre-PoM lease tenure, QPRC would need to prioritise a whole new Plan of Management process. Then, and only then, would QPRC (as Crown Land Manager of Bungendore Park) be in a position to negotiate a longer lease with DoE, and ONLY then, after that is in place (which not a sure thing, given the CLMA 6-point list) could DoE start towards a DA, even under SSD procedures.

On top of the Crown Lands issue, ancillary and associated issues are also being ignored such as

• DoEs proposal also takes in a section of the Turallo Creek Reserve often referred to as the “Off-leash Park”. Which is also a Crown Land Reserve for public recreation - not dedicated, but still reserved from sale. CLMA s.5 (5) and s.1.15(1) still apply. Use of this as an agricultural study centre within the Bungendore High School context would also require a change in purpose.

• Turallo Creek Reserve is subject to two, Aboriginal Land Claims dating from 2008 and 2009. Given a backlog of almost 40,000 ALRA claims awaiting decision, it unlikely that these will be resolved any time soon. The Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1983 s.36B (1) means that so long as an ALRA claim is outstanding, the status quo must be maintained. Even if the traditional owners do consent to interim use until their claim is decided, this can only be in line with CLMA provisions. Since there is no Plan of Management for the Turallo Creek Reserve, the 5-year limit on tenure applies here too.

• NO notification was sent to a property owner who will have NO access after the closure Majara Street (2) leaving the property land-locked. The closure of Majara Street (2) can be gazetted but QPRC then loses all ownership rights in regard to that land. QPRC has no say, no sale, no lease - or not quickly and not without Minister for Crown Lands consent.

The time, costs and work involved, (the research, community engagement, drafts, revisions), and then waiting for ministerial approval, would be staggering.

In June 2020 DoPI identified and selected a suitable site on Tarago Road as the location for the proposed Bungendore High School. Two weeks later without supporting reasons DOE indicated that “ ... the preferred site has swung towards the Mick Sherd oval ....(Bungendore Park)”.

This application should be rejected outright, and DoPI should insist on using the original site on Tarago Road saving unnecessary expenditure of time and money.

I object to the proposal for the following reasons:
1 I feel this will create traffic chaos and parking problems. I have safety concerns, having a high school next to a primary school and also a daycare centre. There will be increasing inexperienced young drivers creating a dangerous mix at peak times.
2 The loss of Bungendore's historic heart will occur if this plan were to go ahead. This area is now used by many families and tourists. The erection of large buildings on this site will greatly lessen the area's appeal to people.

The proposed high school in Bungendore is a fantastic opportunity for local children and their families. As an educator of more than a decade, I highly value the concept of placing the high school in the proposed location, creating an education hub with the preschool and primary school. I hope that this creates many rich opportunities for students to interact with peers of different ages, and even opportunities for enrichment and leadership for the students. It means one pick up and drop off point for families of multi age children. The locality to community facilities is another benefit that families will experience. The high school will also serve as a great employment opportunity for the community. The artist’s impression implies a very comprehensive and cohesive design.
I am excited for the children of Bungendore that they will not have to travel for long periods of time to attend secondary schools in other districts.
I would like to add two requests for consideration by the planning and design team - firstly, that strong consideration be given to inclusion. As a parent of children with complex disabilities, I would love for my children to be able to attend their local schools and experience success with their local peers. I understand there is a specialist school in Queanbeyan for children with disabilities, but I believe in an inclusive model for all children, and for families to be able to choose their schools.
Secondly, that ample shade be provided across the school grounds. Many high schools do not enforce SunSmart policies yet we live in a very harsh UV environment. It would be sensible and in the best interest of the staff and students if they were given protection from the sun.

I object to the proposal to situate the new high school in Bungendore in the area where there is currently a park, council buildings and an historic railway station, for the following reasons:
* Traffic - the surrounding streets and residential areas are not designed to carry the amount of traffic that the school will generate. In addition, the roads around the site that will remain open are already used by some drivers to avoid traffic on the Main Street through Bungendore. Any kind of traffic calming or similar in this area (including closure) will exponentially increase traffic on the Main Street and frustrate drivers and pedestrians alike.
* Future-proofing - the site is too small for present needs and does not allow room for expansion to accommodate the growing number of families and children in the wider area.
* Health and Safety - the adjacent railway line has known lead contamination; this is not conducive to the health of growing children who will be exposed on a daily basis.
* Loss of amenity - the park is a known and well-used space for visitors and residents alike; people arrange to meet here, use bathrooms, run around and play on the field … all with the knowledge that it is safe and free.
* Heritage - the new school will not be consistent with the heritage buildings in the area and this will detract from the attractions of the village and potentially affect local businesses.

Suggestion - could the new high school be sited near the new recreation area?

I object to the proposal to situate the new high school in Bungendore in the area where there is currently a park, council buildings and an historic railway station, for the following reasons:
* Traffic - the surrounding streets and residential areas are not designed to carry the amount of traffic that the school will generate. In addition, the roads around the site that will remain open are already used by some drivers to avoid traffic on the Main Street through Bungendore. Any kind of traffic calming or similar in this area (including closure) will exponentially increase traffic on the Main Street and frustrate drivers and pedestrians alike.
* Future-proofing - the site is too small for present needs and does not allow room for expansion to accommodate the growing number of families and children in the wider area.
* Health and Safety - the adjacent railway line has known lead contamination; this is not conducive to the health of growing children who will be exposed on a daily basis.
* Loss of amenity - the park is a known and well-used space for visitors and residents alike; people arrange to meet here, use bathrooms, run around and play on the field … all with the knowledge that it is safe and free.
* Heritage - the new school will not be consistent with the heritage buildings in the area and this will detract from the attractions of the village and potentially affect local businesses.

Suggestion - could the new high school be sited near the new recreation area?

I am supportive of a High School for the local community, however the site proposed is not conducive to the strategic development of the township and surrounding areas.
While it will address the now obsolete Palerang Council offices, it provides little benefits other than a quick solution to a community and local government need. The proposed site will limit further growth of education services in the area (set to grow significantly in the years to come) with the Primary already over capacity, this development will only compound the problem of an increasing population and given costs to rectify will grow exponentially, the community will be left with a High School not fit for purpose.

I strongly object to application SSD-14394209, the proposed Bungendore High School, in its current position.
Yes we need a High School but we need to take the time to look at this as an opportunity to attract future residents. This school will need to be expanded as our town grows – the proposed site will have limited scope to grow and be developed for our future needs. The high school will not be big enough to be able to offer a diverse education. Where will the present Primary school expand into if we do not allow for the influx of more residents’ children and it is hemmed in by the high school?
Under the current proposal, the surrounding roads will quickly become over-crowded with vehicles and buses, and restrict movement around a precinct that currently only caters for the general public and the primary school traffic flows and pedestrian access.
We have been recently informed the site could be contaminated with mining waste and lead – surely this is not somewhere we should be locating any school.
We have recently been informed that the Bungendore War Memorial will have a bus interchange built in front of it. Apart from the galling lack of respect this shows to the town’s former soldiers, every ANZAC Day and Remembrance Day hundreds of residents, many of them current or former serving Defence personnel, gather here to pay their respects. How will the bus interchange interfere with these services?
Bungendore certainly needs a high school, but have you thought of the great opportunity it could become to build the high school that Bungendore residents and children deserve. The school, if planned properly, could be a drawcard for people in Bungendore and surrounding districts to bring their children here to be educated now and in the future. A sports hub is being built for our town - logically the high school campus could be encompassed into the hub for general and school activities.
Queanbeyan-Palerang Council proposes large future development of Bungendore - why not make the high school the drawcard to attract future residents? This would encourage new families to come to Bungendore as they could be assured of a quality education for their children.
We have sent our children to other parts of the region to be educated for too long. We live next door to Canberra and the Department of Defence’s HQJOC. Children educated at a premium high school will have a greater employment opportunity in these areas.
If we miss this once in a lifetime opportunity to build a school that will serve the community well into the future, we are selling our children short. The current proposal does not offer a high school nearly large enough to cope with the district’s growing population.
We want people to come to Bungendore, attracted by the high school their children will have access to. We want people to move into the catchment area specifically so their children can receive an excellent and diverse education at Bungendore High School. We want the high school to be the envy of the district and a high school that that is looked upon as the gold standard in education.
I have no affiliation with any political party, Local, State or Federal, nor have I ever made a political donation.

Name: Ann Martin
Address: Street Address Withheld WAMBOIN NSW 2620


I strongly object to the
NSW Government Planning Industry and Environment
Exhibition of State Significant Development Application SSD-14394209 New High School in Bungendore

for the following reasons


Bungendore Park and the adjoining Common across Turallo Terrace, is Crown Land that is dedicated for public use and recreation. It is a focal point for sport, recreation and general community usage, as well as the site of our much-revered War Memorial. Because of its central location it is thought of and described by the majority of locals as being the heart of our growing village and wider community.

While there is other green space along the creek (which is subject to flooding), there is no other centrally located open space easily accessible to the whole of the village.

The Park is a stop off point for travelers, both individuals and buses, who use the public facilities and take in the atmosphere of a truly old Australian public park. It is, in its own right, a tourist attraction.

The loss of the Park would be a significant cultural, heritage and focal loss for the village and surrounding communities.

The proposed site is totally inappropriate for a High School. It is bounded by a railway line and 3 suburban roads, is limited even for a high school of 450 students. It does not have room for expansion; it does not consider projected population growth with development of new housing estates outside the heritage village and within the catchment area. With the growth of student numbers, demountable school buildings as seen in every other jurisdiction will encroach on Mick Sherd oval and eventually swallow up Bungendore Park, the Common and its heritage precinct. The Park and the Common will cease to be a site for community use and recreation.

The claim that there are no other suitable sites is a lie. Contracts were prepared for early works and access deeds by DPIE for Ashby, just outside the village confines, but were suddenly halted and the Bungendore Park site was announced. Land immediately to the east in a new development was offered, but dismissed, as were other sites for spurious reasons; “no infrastructure” when there is a new housing development on the other side of the road, or “flood prone area” when the area has never flooded in living memory!

The sudden announcement to close Majara Street, a vital thoroughfare from Elmslea Estate to the Railway Station and Kings Highway, between Turallo Terrace and Gibraltar Street, to provide extra land for the high school was made without any community consultation or feasible traffic studies. This closure will undeniably lead to traffic congestion, parking problems and safety issues at the drop off point between the kindergarten/preschool and high school, mixed with through traffic from Elmslea. Traffic will be diverted down Butmaroo Street, an urban street and pedestrian thoroughfare from Elmslea across Turallo Creek footbridge to the Park, IGA and commercial centre.The only realistic traffic survey was done by a very patient local with an academic/science background.

The almost total disregard by the Department of Education and School Infrastructure NSW for honest and open engagement with the community in the planning phases, and any understanding of the location and history of Bungendore village and the changing demographics with new, planned and future housing developments adjacent to the village, including surrounding farmlands and settlements, did not inspire confidence in the attention to detail in the early planning stages.


There is no evidence that the State Government consulted “stakeholders” of the Mick Sherd oval, the Community Centre, Swimming Club, and St Mary’s church, owner of the kindergarten/preschool property. The outcome of the two Information Sessions at the primary school Hub, and the on line questionaires claimed that there was overwhelming support for the high school. However, no objections to the proposed site were ever taken into account ! To support the high school but object to the site was simply counted as a pro high school vote. The whole process was an insult. Our questions were dismissed or disregarded, and the on line questionaires were hardly worth the trouble to complete. They were presented as if the high school on Bungendore Park was a given and asked what sort of classroom configurations would be preferred and how we would like certain courses to be conducted. The chance to question and contribute was denied as were any objections to the site.


The demolition of community facilities, namely the swimming pool complex and the Community Centre, in this central location, and the restrictions imposed on community use of Mick Sherd oval during school hours, 7.30am-6pm, with proposed 2.1m fencing around the school buildings, will have a huge impact on the nature, character and use of Bungendore park. These facilities were the result of community fundraising initiatives and efforts. Who will be responsible for maintaining Mick Sherd oval, a green grassed playing field that, unlike the Warren Little playing field across Turallo Creek, doesn’t flood in winter?


Both “the Common” and Bungendore Park, are on Crown land. It is evident that this has not been considered or addressed in the acquisition of land for the high school complex. The high school plans to subsume a large portion of the Common for agricultural plots and sheds, and possibly parking. Majara Street road infrastructure between Turallo Terrace and Gibraltar Street will be demolished along with a street-scape of trees. The swimming pool and change rooms, storage shed, built of bricks from the mid 1800s, and the Community Centre will also be demolished. The Rotunda and Bush Balladeers stone memorial at the other end will be removed to another site. With this space, and land taken from the Park and Mick Sherd oval, three 12m high prefab buildings, a hall, a gym, library, canteen and administrative facilities will be constructed, buildings totally out of character with a heritage precinct of single storey stone, brick and timber buildings.


The heritage precinct around the park contains the core of Bungendore’s village history; Railway Station and railway cottages, School of Arts, original Primary School, PO, Court House, Cobb and Co. Stables, St Phillips Church, Old Catholic Convent, and heritage wooden cottages, all beautifully maintained; low set and built of stone, bricks and timber; a relic of Australia’s colonial history. The vistas to Mt Gibraltar will disappear. The scaled down replica of the Menin Gate War Memorial, build over 100 years ago, visited by tourists regularly and huge crowds on ANZAC Day and Remembrance Day will be overwhelmed, and suffer because of limited access and parking. The Social Impact Assessment of the high school on Bungendore Park almost got it right; “a low positive impact on the community”. Hardly something to celebrate, though!

The loss of 73 mature trees, many planted by individuals and Landcare groups, (“don’t ask for Council permission, just do it”) that transformed a “windy, flat, dry and dusty treeless wilderness” in the late 1970s into a pleasant area for community use and recreation by both tourists and locals alike will be replaced by fenced school buildings, out of character with a heritage precinct.

And now we find that the railway corridor and adjoining areas at Bungendore Station are lead contaminated. Surely this is not unexpected as lead and zinc ores brought by train from Captains Flat mines were unloaded at Bungendore Station and reloaded for the line to Port Kembla. Lead contamination had earlier been discovered at Tarago Railway Station.


Surrounded by greenways and with government policies promoting greener and cleaner environments to facilitate outdoor activities and improve the health of a community, why would we sacrifice a long established well treed Park, today, to build a hastily planned high school on a small, costly and limited site away from the areas of current and future population growth? Why would we sacrifice trees and pleasant outdoor spaces now that will help lessen the impact of climate change in the future?

I am angered by the way this matter has been conducted.

There is no doubt that the community agree that Bungendore needs a High School. This, however, is not a reason to proceed with a process that is flawed, has not been based on sound research and genuine consultation, and will not give the best long-term outcome for the community or public expenditure.

I object to the proposal, for the following reason(s):

As someone who grew up in Bungendore and had to go to high school in Canberra, which entailed a hour long bus ride each way, I am well aware and supportive of Bungendore getting a high school. However, the proposed location of the high school is frankly problematic to say the least.

Firstly, simply the high school needs to grow as the town itself grows. It has no space to develop further unless it just continues upwards and as a two-story building already it is going to dominate what has always been a public space.
Continuing from that point the oval has always been for the Bungendore public and not only has a place as a recreation space but also, due to the presence of the War Memorial, as a place of remembrance for everyone. People should have access to the space beyond the weekend when the oval is already used weekly for sport by Bungendore teams.
The school is also going to create huge traffic problems as there is not the infrastructure to support the influx of traffic especially when the nearby low-level crossing floods.
The school is also looking to turn the lovely green space around the preschool, oval and my own home into parking space.
And finally, the school’s intention to put the agriculture plot on the dog off-leash area is asking for problems. When I talked to some people at the info days at the school, they said that the agriculture plot is looking to have animals on it as well, right next to the off-leash area with dogs? Really? Dogs are put down if they attack farm animals and putting them right next to the space they go for free time, is asking for problems to occur.

I have not, and no associate of mine, has made any political donation to any person in the 2 years preceding this submission.


Yours faithfully,

Matthew Wain-Palmer

I am supportive of the proposed school site and the proposed school plan. My one concern is the planned fence where the school borders Mick Sherd Oval. The proposed height is obstructive and in opinion detracts from the integrated and inviting feel of the majority of the proposed development.

That aside I am supportive of the proposal. It is vitally important for this town to have a high school. For me the most important factors in terms of the school building proposal are safety, accessibility and vicinity to public services. In terms of the current proposal the location of the school in a central location of the town ensures good accessibility and vicinity to public services, particularly given the planned integration of public services. Also I feel the central location is safer than other suggestions on the town boundaries. Some suggested sites on Tarago Rd or Kings Hwy would have significantly higher traffic loads, including higher volumes of heavy vehicles. I feel this would represent a significant danger to travel to and from school, and would inhibit the uptake of active types of travel such as walking & riding. The roads in the proposed area have decent but not excessive traffic flows and with appropriate traffic management will provide a safe environment.

Please see attached submission

I am supportive of the proposed school site and the proposed school plan. It is vitally important for this town to have a high school. I consider that the most important factors in terms of the school building proposal are safety, accessibility and vicinity to public services. In terms of the current proposal the school is centrally located. This ensures good accessibility and vicinity to public services. I also feel the central location is safer than other suggested sites promoted by the “Save the Park” group such as Tarago Rd or Kings Hwy sites. These roads have significantly higher traffic loads, in particular higher volumes of heavy vehicles. This would represent a significant danger to travel to and from school, and would prevent active types of travel such as walking & riding, which is something many parents would expect in a town like Bungendore. The current proposal is much more appropriate and far safer in my opinion.

My one concern with the current proposal is the planned fence where the school borders Mick Sherd Oval. The fence height is obstructive and in opinion detracts from the community feel of the proposal and certainly the visual impact from Bungendore Park.

I object to the application - see attached

Dear Sir or Madam

NEW HIGH SCHOOL IN BUNGENDORE
APPLICATION NO. SSD-14394209

I refer to the above state-significant development application.

I object to the proposal, for the following reasons:

- The historic character of Bungendore is under threat as a result of this development. Bungendore Park is the heart and soul of the Bungendore community. The Park is an accessible, green public space, used daily by members of the public for sport and recreation. Losing this site will significantly affect the town’s amenity and harm cultural heritage.
- The proposed site is grossly inadequate at 2.9 hectares. This is almost 3 acres below the minimum standards set by the NSW Government of 4 hectares. This paltry site does not leave room for growth. It robs the students and teachers of an adequate learning environment.
- The closure of Majara Street will see traffic currently using this section of the road, diverted past Bungendore Preschool and onto surrounding residential streets. This increase in traffic volume presents a serious safety issue. Morning drop off and afternoon pick up at this site can only be described as a nightmare.
- The identification of elevated levels of lead in the soil within the development site poses a significant health risk to students and teachers.
- The proposed Agriculture Plot is situated in a flood zone. It is a ridiculous idea to house livestock in a known flood zone.

I have not, and no associate of mine, has made any political donation to any person in the 2 years preceding this submission.

Yours faithfully,
Meagan Jacobs

I object to the proposal. Please see attached document

I object to the proposal. I wish to make it clear that I do not oppose a high school in Bungendore. However, I believe that the current location and plans are extremely poor choices for the following reasons:

• Bungendore is continuing to grow, with one development in progress to the North and another proposed development to the East. With it will come increased demands for services. The current proposal both reduces services by impacting the existing park and is unable to expand to meet increased demand. It is restricted by the railway line to the East, historic buildings to the North and South and the primary school to the South. The only way the site can grow is to expand over the existing Mick Sherd oval, further reducing amenities.
• The proposed plot for an agricultural college covers part of Bungendore common, used by many people for exercise and is the only area in Bungendore where dogs can be exercised off-leash. The presence of an agricultural plot will severely reduce the general amenity of the common.
• The proposed development blocks a commonly used route from Elmslea, crossing Turallo Creek and following Majara Street to Bungendore primary school and Malbon Street. Traffic using this route will now be routed further into the centre of the town.
• The existing park is a centrepiece of Bungendore life, hosting numerous events and surrounded by historic buildings such as the post office, war memorial convent and police station. Despite assurances to the contrary, it is simply impossible for the existing park to continue to serve the community without conflict.
• The proposed development retains very few of the trees in the area. The arborists report only definitely retains 9 out of 19 high priority and 28 out of 110 medium priority for retention trees. Even if all the trees identified as having a potential for retention (ie. no guarantee at all) are kept, the result will involve the destruction of much of the park’s value to the community.

Since there are existing developments in Bungendore and, in at least one case, a developer made space for a high school in his plans, I find it astonishing that the chosen site is one that will either eventually destroy one of the major features of Bungendore or result in a sub-par school as the town continues to grow. I ask that the proposal be re-examined with a view to finding a more suitable site.