New High School in Bungendore

The revised plans for the school address the concerns raised in the first consultation and demonstrate that this is the best way forward for our children and our town.

I support the school in the proposed location, provides a net benefit to the current and future community.

Location appropriate meets the towns needs and will support ongoing growth and development in the area.

Crown Land Our Land Inc is a community organisation established in 2015 and committed to education about, and respect for, all aspect of NSW Crown Land. We are a recognised stakeholder in this topic. Given this, CLOL made a detailed submission in response to the first version of SSDA-14394209 in October 2021. At that time, we were not aware that the Application lacked the essential consent-to-lodge as required by s.2.23(5) of the Crown Land Management Act 2016.
We are well aware of the current situation re Crown Land and the Dept of Educzation as it relates to its BHS proposal and this SSD Amendment . We have read the decision of 13 Dec 2023, whereby the Land & Environment Court upheld the CLMA re Ministers consent for “lodgment” as a constitutional requirement, and thus rendering the former determination invalid. We also know that the DoE threatened Appeal, but failed to proceed, and that it sought retrospective consent to lodge from the Minister for Crown.
But clearly, since such consent would be unlawful, it was not gained - hence this 2024 ploy for an “Amendment” which is larded with reminders about not involving Crown land. The CLMA is obviously now a key concern for DoE – and yet it still comes into so many considerations re this SSDA.
The following points of Objections are adapted from that prepared by community group, Save Bungendore Park Inc. The “applicant” of course is the Minister for Education. Reference to “Mick Sherd Oval” can read as Bungendore Park, dedicated Crown land since 1884.
If the Minister did in fact refuse consent, why has this not been disclosed in the Amendment Report? A coy phrase about being “set aside:” doesn’t come near the impact of the LEC decision. A major change to a proposed development caused by refusal of consent from a relevant Minister is serious. As such it must be disclosed so the community (and CLOL) can understand the truth of what’s involved.
Assessment must consider any relevant legislation, policies and guidelines.
The Applicant has failed to consider the State Strategic Plan for Crown Land, Crown Land 2031 (June 2021). Given the history of this project and its continued reliance on works being carried out re the Common, the State Strategic Plan for Crown Land is highly relevant to the development. The following are not addressed:
a) The Crown Land Management Act 2016
b) The Bungendore Park Master Plan adopted by Palerang Shire Council in March 2014;
c) Relevant aspects of the QPRC Towards 2040 Local Strategic Planning Statement (as it relates to a proposed aged care facility, green spaces, town character and heritage);
Other aspects should also be noted -
The EFSG requires at least one “games field” for a new secondary school. While the original proposal stated that “[Mick Sherd] Oval will be used exclusively by the school during school hours for delivery of the school curriculum”, the current Report states that “the amended proposal does not include any proposed shared use agreement over Mick Sherd Oval”, claiming that resident access “will be maintained” – this, although shared use arrangements “may occur in the future”. CLOL asks HOW?
The Amendment Report notes that access to the oval for sporting teams “will be maintained for weekend and after school use.” Yet the Applicant has no tenure, legal or management rights re any part of Bungendore Park outside the area compulsorily acquired. How can it make any such observation ?.
Is the Applicant suggesting it will require access to Mick Sherd Oval during school hours? Is so, why isn’t this set out in this Amendment?
CLOL also notes that it would be unlawful for the Applicant to use Mick Sherd Oval for the purpose of delivering the school curriculum - s1.15(1) of the Crown Land Management Act 2016 provides that: 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.
Further, s2.12 of the CLMA provides that dedicated or reserved Crown land may ONLY be used for the purpose for which it is dedicated or reserved, or for incidental or ancillary purposes. As noted, all of those parts of Bungendore Park which remain Crown land are dedicated for the purpose of public recreation. By definition, “Public Recreation” does not include public education.
CLOL believes that the proposed development is so lacking in open space that it may not even be feasible without use of Mick Sherd Oval. Such access would be unlawful. Consent must be refused on that basis alone, or specific undertakings enforced. The SBP Objection includes suggested conditions of consent which CLOL supports.
The Amendment Report suggests that the Applicant will “progress the proposal for the remainder of high school works [including works situated on Crown land] in the separate planning pathway application with a view to minimise any gap between delivery of the two proposals…” It isn’t clear what this “separate planning pathway” will involve, who will be the consent authority, what works are contemplated, who will undertake those works and when, or the basis on which those works may be permitted.
Nor is it clear how the Applicant would have any standing to make a DA re works outside the school site. CLOL rejects this two-track proposition as a sham, AN attempt to circumvent the CLMA, or to coerce collusion by QPRC as CL Manager.
Illegality of works on Crown land
The Amendment Report’s reference to “the remainder of the high school works” being approved under a separate pathway makes it absolutely clear than any ancillary works proposed to be undertaken on Council or Crown land are for the purpose of the proposed development.
“High school works” are not works undertaken for the purpose of public recreation and other than in strict compliance with the CLMA, no person may lawfully undertake such works on Crown land which is dedicated or reserved for public recreation
The decision of the Land and Environment Court in Save Bungendore Park Inc. v Minister for Education and Early Learning confirms that consent-to lodge from the Minister administering the CLMA was required PRIOR to determination of the original development application.
While CLOL sees “Crown Land” has been removed from this Amendment, the SSD Application-remians tainted by the original unlawfulness. This cannot be cured by any change to the Project which might “revalidate” the existing exhibition and assessment process.
However,
This is because, on a proper construction of the CLMA, the CLMA Consent was a prerequisite to undertaking any statutory process relevant to this application, in accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

The Applicant may seek to draw an analogy between the requirement for owner’s consent to “make” a development application under Reg 23 of the Environmental Protection and Assessment Regulations 2021 (and similar provisions in earlier legislation), and the requirement for Minister’s consent to “lodge” a development application under Section 2.23 of the CLMA.
As you would be aware, the Courts have held in cases such as Botany Bay City Council v Remath Investments No 6 Pty Limited [2000] NSWCA 364 that owner’s consent to “make” a development application may be provided at any time prior to determination of that application.
While CLOL agrees with SBP Inc that it may be appropriate to draw an analogy between EP&A Reg 23 (and equivalent prior provisions) and CLMA s2.23, we stress that this must be considered properly in context. The requirements of those provisions are NOT the same. Section 2.23 relates to timing, as in “lodgment” of a development application, while Reg 23 refers to the who – a person (who) may “make” such an application.
The difference in wording is highly significant.
The Court of Appeal in Botany Bay City Council was careful to distinguish between “lodging” and “making” a development application. In doing so, it firmly rejected the Respondent’s submission that an application was “made” at the time it was lodged.
Crucially, the Court found instead that the while the application may have been “lodged” at a particular time, it was not “made” until such time as the applicant complied with the relevant statutory requirements.
Just as the Courts have found that a decision‐maker has no jurisdiction to determine a DA which has not been properly “made”, so any statutory assessment process such as public exhibition cannot be properly undertaken in respect of a development application which, at the time it was lodged, was NOT lodged in compliance with the relevant legislation.
On that basis, the Applicant cannot argue that the removal of Crown land works from the proposed development somehow removes the need for Minister’s consent under Section 2.23 – a need which did exist at the time the application lodged, but which the Applicant ignore, ie failed to obtain. As a result, any statutory processes undertaken in relation to the Application since the purported lodgment, such as public exhibition, were not properly undertaken according to law.
Finally – a few CLOL comments re financing,.
The Applicant has suggested that compensation paid to QPRC for compulsory acquisition of community facilities on Crown land can be applied towards replacement facilities. Wrong. In s3.16(2) of CLMA. It stipulates that proceeds received by a Crown land manager from compulsory acquisition of Crown land – such as Bungendore Park and Bungendore Common – must only be applied “for a permitted purpose for that land” or other dedicated or reserved Crown land managed by Council.
The new Bungendore Sport Hub and proposed swimming pool, as well as the proposed new community centre, are on Council‐owned land and thus do not qualify. Acquisition funds re Bungendore Park and Bungendore Common cannot lawfully be used towards those facilities.
I am co-convenor for Crown Land Our Land Inc. and trust these comments assist. Emma Brooks Maher.

I and nine plus ther individuals are coming together to speak up and object to the Bungendore High School State Significant Development SSD-14394209.
We collectively do not object to the proposal to build a high school for Bungendore in general. We are objecting the site of the high school as proposed. A fit for purpose high school in an alternative location is a project that we would support. I ask that you consider our views seriously, as the health our community is a priority.

We are opposed to the current proposal which takes away the community’s green space for exercise and leisure, reduces the size of the highschools playground and overall footprint to be so small as to mean that students will be at high risk of being sedentary and not engaged in physical movement for a healthy mind a body. We object on the grounds of health concerns of the contaminated soil in Bungendore, that the current high school site (which can be located in a number of other viable sites around Bungendore) means that a critical community project for our elderly residents, Abbeyfield house will be squeezed out of its intended location, and have no room for expansion, when, as a community, we will certainly need Abbeyfield to expand. We also object on the grounds of concerns of risk of accident and injury due to an unmanageable traffic situation, and the overall risk to our community’s physical and mental wellbeing. We am calling for a school to be built on a new site, that is large enough to grow and enjoy future state and federal government investment in education facilities that overtime will help us to reverse the entrenched educational disadvantage faced by many Bungendore families, and provide a school which is equitable to those of other regional schools so that the Bungendore community can flourish.
Please read our attached objection

GERALD WILLIAM BROOKS
64 Stornaway Road
Queanbeyan NSW 2620

22 July 2024 - wordcount 1225 character+spaces -- 7075


OBJECTION -- re SSD-14394209 with Amendment.
BUNGENDORE HIGH SCHOOL (BHS)


Please accept this as a formal response to the public exhibition of SSD-14394209 in regard to revised plans for a new High School at Bungendore (BHS). I am not a member of a political party, nor have I made any political donation for at least 20 years.
1) This proposal is for a part school with the rest promised at another time, in another DA. This is ridiculous. How can anyone give a realistic comment on this Amendment to SSD-14394202 other than to say it’s not only a half-baked plan for a half-size school, it is self-admitted as UNFINISHED.
2) The plan as exhibited is not just unfinished, it is desperately confused in regard to the Bungendore Swimming Pool. It’s hard to follow what is proposed. I see the NW corner of the “school site” shrink because half the Pool remains within the BHS boundary, but will still be(maybe) managed as part of a community swimming facility ? How ??? By whom ? And for how long – this being a critical question, since
[1] Council has said it has no funding for any near-term replacement;
[2] the Federal Govt has already declined any funding to assist; and
[3] the NSW Govt is still locked into Court dispute with QPRC re compensation issues –
and Crown land money can’t be used for a Council project anyway.
3) This proposal is so unrealistic in other ways – like student numbers. The plans clearly state that the current plan is scaled for a school with maximum of 450 students. The SSDA of 2021 suggested that if needed, future “expansion” up to 600 total students could be catered for by building in a small “green space” next to the basketball courts. But in this 2024 Amendment, this area is the ONLY open play space available for the whole school – the rest is shown as access areas and pathways. The ag-plot might be open space, but it’s a work-study area, and does not qualify as safe for “play space”.
4) Student numbers are another mess. The Social Impact Assessment is emphatic that in 2023 there were 90 kids (Years 7/8) in the BHS demountables, and add another 50 for 2024. A recent Dept of Education report says that in the BHS catchment, there are currently 362 kids in Year 6 – ie potential intake to BHS next year. A number will move elsewhere, and some will go to private schools. A fair guesstimate says 60% ie 220, will transition to Bungendore - that means a total of 360 students. It’s 75% of the build-target of 450, or more than half the long -term figure of 600 – all at BHS before a brick’s been laid. This is inbuilt obsolescence on steroids and as a taxpayer, I object.

5) There are so many things wrong with the Traffic proposals it’s hard to know where to start. First – some of it seems to be based on “URBAN” factors (that’s the word used!) – which assume easy access to “public transport”, like a regular train service, or local bus routes. WRONG. None of this applies in a rural township of 4000 people, 25kms from the nearest city, Queanbeyan. It’s just plain WRONG.
6) Next, the ONLY buses remotely relevant to BHS are Govt-provided special school services. According to the Transport report, 60% of BHS students are “regional” rather than “local”, so these will have to cover the entire catchment area to collect/deliver the kids for school time, WHEREVER the BHS happens to be. Siting is irrelevant.
Likewise, similar “regional” requirements apply to senior student old enough to be DIY driving to school – and multiplying the need for easy, safe, all-day parking. See next.
7) Not only is a “central” location NOT essential – in the current plan it’s both anti-social AND dangerous. For starters, it turns the BHS section of Turallo Tce into a school carpark for almost 100 cars – most of them at a 900 angle to a non-existent kerb, with this twice-a-day parking schemozzle to be in front of , and directly time-competitive with parents of, a long-standing pre-school about to double in size to 100 places (with Govt funding already agreed)
8) This BHS proposal relies using part of Majara St as part of the site – ie as land to build on. I still object to this because that road closure was never assessed – in fact the first documents (and Transport assessment) of 2020 show it as still open. In 2024 we now know that, apart from being part of a 150yo heritage street grid, that strip of road was a vital “connector” section from Kings Highway to the rapidly growing residential areas of Bungendore North.
9) The impact of closing it has already been horrendous – with the school/pre-school section of Turallo Tce now bearing the brunt of traffic from the Kings Highway, as vehicles have to do a dog-leg of dangerous right-hand turns via Butmaroo before they can get into McCusker and then on to the hundreds of homes in Elmslea and new Elm Grove Estate. It’s a planning failure now – if this BHS proposal goes ahead, it will be a planning disaster – and this even moreso with the access problem ahead in the DoE’s 2-step DA process, especially re use of the unregistered roadway alongside the ag-plot.
10) There are huge parking problem on the other side of this BHS site, particularly in that section of Majara St alongside the Bungendore Public School. Closing that roadway, negated almost 70 existing car parking spots, many of these used by Primary teachers. Reports are rife re train passengers unable to park in the station forecourt, or even near in streets the station, because school-related users are monopolising all available spaces, all-day.
11) I object that this SSD-Amendment offers no real make-good for this major loss of parking other than Turallo Tce – which as the above comments indicate, will only make the whole situation worse.
12) As an active member of the Bungendore Bridge Club there’s no doubt about the poor outcome of what’s happened so far. I can say conclusively that the DoE’s takeover of the former Community Centre has had a very poor outcome for our Club. We now share a room in the old School of Arts building, but the shared pace is limited and storage of tables and chairs is an issue. Instead of having our “own” area, it means we have to set up every session – a waste of club time and energy.
13) Worse, the Social Impact Statement in the original SSDA plan said that for community facilities like our room at the Centre, there would br a replacement within the BHS school site, with this available immediately as PART of the school development. This Amendment makes it clear that promise will never be kept, because any funding from a cash-strapped QPRC is going to be a long time coming to Bungendore for community club rooms. It’s a disgrace.
14) I also object to the peculiar arrangements re Bungendore Swimming Pool. Yes it sounds good that they’re going to have some arrangements re community use – but it’s not very good planning. I read it as being all VERY conditional, and keeping half-a-pool doesn’t really help the school site either. Makes it even smaller, with less open space for the students. What a mess.
There are many other points that I object to – but perhaps my strongest objection of all s to the way the schoolkids are being used willy-nilly as an excuse to push a DoE site-agenda that not only defies commonsense but serves to disregard and even penalise the older generations of Bungendore who’ve fought so long , and worked so hard to give EVERYONE community facilities like that Swimming Pool and the shared access and services at the Community Centre . The treatment of the Bush Balladeers memorial just typical – they didn’t even ask – then lied to say they had !
I can see the growth here, and agree with everyone who says that Bungendore definitely needs a new High School – but it has to think big, and be planned for the future – for this whole region, not just a shoe-box size compromise on the wrong site in a small town.
Please send this nonsense back to the drawing board.- fast. So we can get on with the BHS that Bungendore REALLY needs.
Gerry Brooks

I support the high school proceeding as soon as possible. I'm devastated that the primary school has lost their oval for as long as they have without any foreseeable end in the near future. Sadly, families are leaving Bungendore or pulling their children out of the local schools because there are no definite plans to build the permanent high school and because the primary school no longer has an oval.

I strongly believe the Department of Education is best placed to choose the school site, as they are free from any conflict of interest and able to put children's best interest first. Unfortunately, there are many people in Bungendore who are connected to landholders who would like to see their land developed and others with strong political interests driving their motivation. For those who would like to see certain sites developed, they are desperately hoping that if a site was chosen on their proposed development, it would see the NSW Government pay for the expensive infrastructure to make their sites accessible. Added to that with the water shortage issues and these proposed developments stalled as a result, there is a hope that the NSW Government will avoid putting children at risk in out-of-town sites and will therefore be more amenable to getting these significantly large developments built i.e. getting water pipelines built from Queanbeyan/Canberra and giving state gateway approval needed for them.

I wish to lodge an objection to the Bungendore High School State Significant Development SSD-14394209 based on my professional concerns for the health and wider wellbeing risks to the Bungendore community that I serve.

I do not object to the proposal to build a high school for Bungendore in general, I am objecting the site of the high school as proposed. A fit for purpose high school in an alternative location is a project that I would support. I ask that you consider my views seriously, as the health our community is a priority, not politics.

A great many doubts remain regarding lead and asbestos contamination in and around the proposed new BHS site, especially regarding identifying the extent of the contamination and the best way to respond. Remediation plans are currently being considered by both DoE and TfNSW for their adjoining properties, yet without any obvious signs of collaboration, close or otherwise.
In the absence of any such collaboration between DoE and TfNSW to identify the true extent of the contamination of the Bungendore High School site, it might be argued that there is an unspoken conspiracy on one side, if not both, to conceal the true extent of lead contamination in the proposed new BHS site – perhaps with the intention of allowing the construction of the school to proceed as planned.
Page 30 of 64
If that is so, then DoE is displaying a callous disregard for the health and well-being of our children – WHY ? especially when a far superior site is available.
In the LIMITATIONS section of its report, EP Test make the following statement:
This Site Auditor Interim Advice #4 was conducted on the behalf of Hindmarsh Pty Ltd for the purpose/s stated in the Objective section. EP Risk has prepared this document in good faith but is unable to provide certification outside of areas over which EP Risk had some control or were reasonably able to check.
The report also relies upon information provided by third parties. EP Risk has undertaken all practical steps to confirm the reliability of the information provided by third parties and do not accept any liability for false or misleading information provided by these parties.
EP Risk failed to read Page 17 of 27 of DP’s DSI (Contamination) report, which states, without explanation: “It should be noted that BH101 -152 could not be drilled ...... due to access constraints”.
Clearly, EP Risk failed to take all practical steps to confirm the reliability of the information on which they then rely - a crucial factor when this has been provided by third parties such as DP.
Lanterra/EP Test Summary and Conclusions
Lanterra’ s summary and conclusions (based on false/faked data analysis results) includes the following statement:
Based on the results of the investigation, the site may be considered suitable for the proposed high school, subject to the recommendations above being undertaken and the site validated.
On Page 55 of their interim advice document, EP Test’s conclusions contain the following:
Lanterra conclude that the objectives of the onsite remediation will be achieved subject to the successful implementation of the actions contained in this RAP, which will enable the site to be made suitable for ongoing open space use and the proposed new high school in Bungendore.
Yet the request from DPHI for information of 10 January 24 does not ask for future promises or projections. It states:
The Department requests that you provide an interim Section A1 Site Audit Statement or an interim Section A2 Site Audit Statement prepared by a NSW EPA- accredited Site Auditor. The interim Section A1 or A2 Site Audit Statement must verify that the site is suitable for the intended land use. Should an interim Section A2 Site Audit Statement be provided, you are required to include an Environmental Management Plan prepared by a NSW EPA-accredited Site Auditor.
Page 31 of 64

The NSW EPA accredited Site Auditor engaged by EP Test has provided a Site Auditor Interim Advice #4 New High School in Bungendore, NSW. The objectives of the interim audit advice include:
Observations, conclusions and action items recommended by the Auditor based on a review of a Remediation Action Plan submitted by duly qualified environmental consultants, with an objective of providing independent advice in the assessment and management of contamination issues at the Site in accordance with relevant legislative requirements.
The nature of the interim advice as described by EP Test is:
Interim audit advice is provided to assist in the assessment and management of contamination issues at the Site. Interim audit advice should not be regarded as ‘approval’ of any proposed investigations or remedial activities, as any such approval is beyond the scope of an independent review.
This letter is provided as Interim Advice and does not constitute a Site Audit Report or Site Audit Statement. This letter does not pre-empt the findings of the site Audit. A Site Audit Statement and Site Audit Report will be issued at the completion of the Audit.
The DPHI request asks for full verification that the site “IS SUITABLE”, for the intended use as a school. Reporting that it “may be considered” doesn’t come close to an explicit “IS” – and this failure to comply is exacerbated, first by being “subject to recommendations” and after these are undertaken, then having “the site validated” – which is what “is suitable” asks for in the first place. In effect, this two-step answer admits that as-is, the site is NOT SUITABLE.
There is no indication of when the Site Audit Statement and Site Audit Report will likely be made available for comment.
Conclusions
• The failure to read DP’s DSI (Contamination) while relying on its content undermines Lanterra’s DSI (Contamination). The same applies to the Lanterra DSI. EP Test’s reliance on both reports in preparing their Site Auditor Interim Advice #4 New High School in Bungendore, NSW for Hindmarsh Pty Ltd EP3547.005 dated 24 May 2024 also undermines their report.
• The lack of any obvious collaboration between DoE and TfNSW in carrying out the search and testing for lead and asbestos is deeply concerning, and the true extent of contamination within the proposed new BHS site is still not known.
Page 32 of 64

• The proposed remediation plan seriously understates the magnitude of the task and cannot make the necessary amendments until the community centre buildings in Lot 14 have been demolished.
• Noting that the request for further information issued by DPHI stated that ‘The interim Section A1 or A2 Site Audit Statement must verify that the site is suitable for the intended land use’ has not been satisfied by the Site Auditor Interim letter, the matter must be held in abeyance until the request is satisfied.
• The results of the various investigation reports referred to in this review do not prove that the Majara Street site is suitable for proposed for the new BHS.
• The lack of thoroughness in the reports – particularly the Lanterra and EP Test reports – are deeply concerning because of their potential adverse effects on the children of our village.
Recommendations
1. RejectDoE’srevisedSSD.
2. Re-instate the site selection process aborted by the interference of John Barilaro.
3. Find an alternative site which is not contaminated.
4. Allocate the highest possible priority to the remediation of the Bungendore rail corridor in order to protect our citizens and especially our vulnerable children.
5. Hold a round-table discussion with all the key stakeholders to identify the lessons learned over the past four years and, hopefully, lessen the risk of it happening again.

I STRONGLY OBJECT to the amended SSDA 14394209 for Bungendore High School for the following reasons:

Lead Contamination:
The EPA has declared that the Bungendore Rail Corridor, especially the railway station and goods shed, is significantly contaminated as a result of the unloading and re-loading of ore, including lead, from open trucks that travelled from Captains Flat to Port Kembla via Bungendore from the 1930s to the 1960s. Any possibility of lead contamination on or close to the BHS Majara St. site should be taken very seriously, but the Department of Education seems to have dismissed the threat of lead toxicity as a trifling matter, even though children are extremely susceptible to lead poisoning with dire results for their health.

Site is way too small:
The amended DA provides no School Hall or Gym, and no Oval for BHS students, yet the number of students remains the same. Space for exercise and sport will be painfully inadequate. And we learn from the Transport Assessment that 342 Year 6 students who currently attend NSW public schools are zoned to Bungendore High next year. The school has a capacity of 450 students. It isn’t hard to calculate that the school will exceed capacity in a matter of a few years.
According to local MP Steve Whan, the solution for that problem is to build another, bigger high school in Bungendore when they run out of space. I do not accept that that is an acceptable use of public funds.

Planned Bungendore Pre-School expansion:
The amended SSDA fails to acknowledge that the Pre-School situated across Turallo Terrace from the High School site has been successful in receiving funding to allow major expansion. The Pre-School will need more room for parents to park during drop-off and pick-up. But the Pre-School’s current informal car park is now the site for an Abbeyfield House, so it stands to lose its current parking area. Not only that, but the Scout Hall will lose its parking area which was built on the land which is now slated for Abbeyfield. As well as a parking crisis, I anticipate difficulties in guaranteeing the safety of pre-schoolers and their parents and siblings due to the heavy traffic on Turallo Terrace once the HS has been built.

Alternative SItes:
SINSW has repeatedly stated that the Majara Street site is the outstanding site for a high school in Bungendore and that no other suitable sites exist. Anyone who lives in or around Bungendore knows that this is untrue, because Bungendore is surrounded by agricultural land, some of which would be ideal for a generously-proportioned campus close to new housing developments and therefore blessed with easy access to the necessary roads and services. A larger site would permit the development of a spacious Agriculture plot for students to learn animal husbandry and horticultural skills. The current “Ag Plot” plan is woefully inadequate, flood-prone and probably seriously contaminated with lead that has been transported by run-off water from the railway down to the Common. There has been no genuine investigation into this matter. The choice of a Greenfield site would mean: No Demolitions! Our precious community assets such as our Community Centre and Pool would be saved and restored to local users. And the green space of Bungendore Park would be protected in perpetuity.

I wish to lodge an objection to the Bungendore High School State Significant Development SSD-14394209

I do not object to the proposal to build a high school for Bungendore in general, I am objecting the site of the high school as proposed. A fit for purpose high school in an alternative location is a project that I would support.

The Department of Education states that the minimum size for a Regional High school is 4 hectares. In the original development application, the proposed site was stated as 2.9 hectares, less than 75% of the recommended area for a regional high school. The recently opened Jerrabomberra High is situated on 4.5 hectares, excluding the agriculture plot, while Googong’s site is 9 hectares. The new proposal states that the site is now 2.08 hectares, just over half of the Department’s own recommended area. This is a significant reduction in both floor space and open space. The Agricultural Plot is shown as 0.48 of a hectare, significantly smaller than similar regional high schools in our area, the smallest of which was 2.3 hectares with two others being 9 and 17 hectares. And no structures can be built on it – how do you expect me and my friends to practically study and learn when we can’t store equipment have a loo break or anything when doing Ag?

The DoE states that the capacity of the proposed school is 450 students and 41 staff. The department has estimated that there are 342 year 7 students within the high school’s catchment area. Projecting these numbers, if only 50 per cent enrolled in Bungendore High the school would have an enrolment of 1000 plus within just a few years. How will the proposed site of just 2.08 hectares cope with these numbers? The result will be overcrowding and increased stress on students and staff leading to mental health issues and adverse effects on learning outcomes.

Demountable classroom encroaching well into what remains of Bungendore Park will further limit the green space available for community use with resultant negative impacts on physical and mental health.

The Department of Planning has identified five other sites in the area that meet the DoE’s own minimum size for a regional high school. I object to the current site as unnecessarily picking a site for the high school that will result in overcrowding will place mental strain on students, and remove the possibility of future government investment in more facilities for students, which would positively impact our community.


The small size of the proposed site of Bungendore High School would result in significant disadvantage to the students in the future. Recently the DoE referred to Bungendore’s high school as being a “Suburban” rather than “Regional” high school. While this means that the 4 hectare site size no longer applies, significant disadvantages follow: “Suburban” students are not eligible for TER “bonus points” that are available to students of “Regional” high schools, “Suburban” high schools receive less Federal and State funding than their “Regional” counterparts, and many grants are awarded to ONLY schools that are regional or remote, meaning that our students will loose out both now and in the future.

Bungendore has low NAPLAN scores, well below, when you factor in for socio-economic status and student population. This means that to lift educational achievement we as a community need investment in our education facilities, to lift expectations, and attract engaged, capable teachers and retain them.

In an economic environment where we have a shortage of teachers, and a cultural crisis of highschool teachers being abused and sexually harassed regularly (impacting their mental health) why would a capable, skilled teacher chose to teach at a school that is overcrowded with adolescents, with nothing to do and nowhere to go to burn off energy in their break time, and not even offer the full curriculum?

Educational disadvantage of students can result in mental health issues. Adolescents report stress of looking into a future which their careers are adversely impacted by AI, climate change and their outlook is impacted by a housing affordability crisis. It is essential that we provide our teens with an education that supports their mental wellbeing, and a sense of possibility and an economic future for them after school.

The physical and mental health implications of approving a DA for a highschool that essentially has no playground or outdoor play and recreation spaces is serious. The new Development Application for Bungendore High School states that the site is 2.08 hectares, with an agricultural plot of 0.48 hectare. This is well below the DoE’s own minimum for a regional high school of 4 hectares. In the current DA this means Bungendore High School students, who could number over 1000 will have just two basketball courts as their “playground.” The potential impact on the well-being of both students and staff, the likelihood of social disruption as students seek personal space and the additional stress on those teachers on supervision duty will rapidly undermine the social cohesion of the student body and adversely affect the mental health of the students and their teachers.

The reduction in size has meant the removal of Block D from the original application. This block included the hall/gym and canteen. This means that there will be no indoor exercise space in the school, surely a vital resource in Bungendore’s climate, and for the health of our teens. The lack of canteen will mean that students will not be able to access healthy foods on site and may have to purchase food from take away shops in the town. Considering the obesity crisis in Australia this is not an acceptable prospect.

The size will also determine the range of subject option available to students, will there be the full range of Design and Technology facilities, will NSW School-based Apprenticeships be possible, will space be available for a gifted and talented program, for sufficient computing facilities and for PE and sporting activities?

The proposed site is clearly not fit for purpose and the DoE must rethink the site of the high school and more to an appropriately sized site as identified previously by the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure.

I call for the NSW Government to select one of the other, suitable, available sites around Bungendore that does not impact our community’s physical and mental wellbeing so negatively, in so many ways. A public, free highschool for our community that is good quality and attracts families to stay in the system is a fantastic way to reduce financial pressure on families, and by extension rates of stress, domestic violence, use of alcohol and suicide. I support the re-selection of a site that is safe for traffic, did not take away important community services and resources, provides plenty of room for us a community to try and turn around the educational disadvantage of the town, as well as supporting the community’s mental and physical wellbeing by keeping the green spaces where we exercise and recreate intact for us all to use.

I strongly oppose this project .
1. Site is too small & no room to grow with our community.
2. Lead contamination hasn’t been cleared
3. Parking is a huge problem
4. Traffic congestion will only continue to be worse and dangerous . With preschool primary school high school students all congregating at the same time .
5. Very little to no space for outdoor recreation
6. Our community has our centre park taken from us . This is a communal recreation space that has always belonged to the community for community use. It’s where we meet to socialise , play & enjoy family & friends.
7. We have a golden opportunity to create the most amazing school in NSW. With access to everything from rural farming including animals Wind & solar farms. On the doorstep of our national capital to the ancient Weerawa Lake . Bungendore is an equestrian centre. The opportunity & incredible potential this public school has for this region as well as NSW is extraordinary . We need to embrace the the BEST location for our future not pop them in a make do way too small school . Do it once and do it properly in a more appropriate location .
Thankyou

The proposed location is completely unsuitable for a high school and will negatively impact both the school and local communities.
A high school in the proposed Gibraltar/Majara precinct requires closure of a major road that connects the large Elmslea estate, the new Elm Grove estate, with Bungendore and the Kings Highway. Traffic is currently diverted to other local roads that have no footpaths and high pedestrian activity. Parking is currently difficult at the primary school during pick-up and drop-off times. I choose not to park at the school, as I find it more convenient to park well away and walk, than to deal with existing traffic. This situation will be exacerbated if the school proceeds in the proposed location, due to the extra traffic going to the high school.
The proposed location will take away public assets including the road, the nature strip, and the council offices, which would make the perfect location for a new library and community centre, if not required by council. Mick Sherd Oval, though not included in this DA, is clearly intended to be used but the school, as it is not viable to have a school without an oval. I suspect that the DOE intends to submit a follow-up DA that will attempt to take the park and other areas into account. Bungendore has limited town-centre green space, particularly for a country town. It is unreasonable to take public spaces and public facilities away, when more appropriate solutions exist.
This area is too small for a high school, and will result in overcrowded classrooms and play areas. Facilities that are crucial for student learning and sport are not included in this DA. This is not fair on students or teachers, and with the growth of the town, it will be too small for purpose within just a few years. Plenty of other schools, such as Queanbeyan High, are located away from town centres. High school students are capable of walking or catching buses to locations away from town centres.
The proposed ag plot is on the other side of a main road (a road that will be even busier with the completion of Elm Grove), and in an area that floods regularly. This will seriously limit the types of animals and facilities that can be kept there.
Finally, The idea of an ‘education precint’ is an optimistic myth, and co-location will not make collaborative activities between the schools more likely. Collaboration, should it occur, could quite easily do so between schools that are a few kilometres apart.

I am six years old and I live Bungendore. My parents are letting me stay up late and helping me write an objection. I wish to lodge an objection to the Bungendore High School State Significant Development SSD-14394209 based on that it is not right to take our park, community centre and pool and squeeze out Abbeyfield House which my Grannies might stay at just so you can build a school that is very badly designed.

I do not object to the proposal to build a high school for Bungendore in general, I am objecting the site of the high school as proposed. A fit for purpose high school in an alternative location is a project that I would support. I ask that you consider my views seriously, as I and my friends will be the kids who have to live with your choices.

I am opposed to the current proposal which takes away the community’s green space for exercise and leisure, reduces the size of the highschools playground and overall footprint to be so small as to mean that students will be at high risk of being sedentary and not engaged in physical movement for a healthy mind a body. I object on the grounds of health concerns of the contaminated soil in Bungendore. I do not want to be exposed to harmful chemicals. I object because, the current high school site (which can be located in a number of other viable sites around Bungendore) means that a critical community project for our elderly residents, like my grandparents, Abbeyfield house will have no room to expand. I also object on the grounds of concerns of risk of accident and injury due to an unmanageable traffic situation, ever since Majura st closed its been really hard and unsafe to ride to school and we do it less and less. I object because of overall risk to our community’s physical and mental wellbeing. My parents work really hard and tired and busy often. Our park is perfect because its just right there after school and its nice for us all to run on the oval, play soccer or kick the footy. We need that. It is important to me. I am calling for a school to be built on a new site, like the Ashby site that I learned was originally selected that is large enough to grow and enjoy future state and federal government investment in education facilities that overtime will help us to reverse the entrenched educational disadvantage faced by many Bungendore families, and provide a school which is equitable to those of other regional schools so that the Bungendore community can flourish. I am a gifted and talented student, school is important to me and its a terrible idea to approve this school which falls short of what we deserve in our new high school - and also loose the best part of our village.

As a parent of a toddler and a new-born baby, I am upset that the attractions and amenities of the historic Bungendore Park will no longer be available to my family if this high school goes ahead. Although the amended DA removes the use of Mick Sherd Oval as an option for High School sports curriculum, it seems inevitable that decision will be reversed given that a high school must have space for sports and outdoor recreation.

The future of Bungendore Pool continues to be under a cloud due to the DA. If we do lose it, who knows if it will ever be replaced? The new site at the Sports Hub is very inferior, being exposed to the elements, adjacent to sewerage works, frosty and flood prone.
Use of the Bungendore Park location for the school is counter-intuitive when this is a rural, and growing town with several housing developments on the outskirts. This site is a heritage area in the centre of the old town. Establishment of a high school there comes at the cost of heritage, community amenities, roads and facilities.

I hope that good sense will prevail so that in the future we have the advantage of a beautiful and historic central park AND a high-quality high school in spacious, attractive grounds.

• Why has the DoE never been asked to assess the consistency of its plans with the State Strategic Plan for Crown Land? Given that the project involves steal a large chunk of Crown land and using another chunk of it in breach of the law, why has DoE decided that the State Strategic Plan for Crown Land is not relevant?

• The materials posted on the Major Projects website are contradictory. It is not clear what the “separate planning pathway” for the Crown land works will involve. It’s impossible for the public to understand what’s going on.

• the compensation payable to Council for compulsory acquisition of Crown land cannot lawfully be spent on proposed replacement facilities in Bungendore, as these are not situated on, how can a replacement community facilities be funded?

• What’s happening in the long term with Bungendore Pool. Why isn’t this set out in the DA? How are we supposed to understand what is planned?

• Closing Majara Street was never approved by Council. There’s now a complete traffic and parking nightmare around the railway station and the Primary School. That’s only going to get worse if the High School is built. But the DoE is relying on traffic studies which are 4 years old and pre-date the closure of Majara Street or the opening of the temporary school. Why aren’t they using up-to-date information?

• There’s not just lead, but also asbestos. How will this impact children?

• The submission removes access to the ag plot, as well as toilets and storage facilities from the ag plot. Will kids be expected to cross the road in the middle of class for a toilet break? How will any agricultural equipment be brought onto the site?

• Major expansion is proposed for Bungendore Preschool, just across the road from the high school. The DA doesn’t consider this at all. Ensuring safe vehicle and pedestrian access to the preschool will be impossible given the likely mix of very young children attending the preschool, and young and inexperienced drivers attending the proposed high school.

• How is the school supposed to function without an Oval? The new DA states that “the amended proposal does not include any proposed shared use agreement over Mick Sherd Oval”. So how will the kids do PE? And that directly contradicts the original DA which stated that “[Mick Sherd] Oval will be used exclusively by the school during school hours for delivery of the school curriculum.” So how come DoE has decided it doesn’t need an Oval? Or is this just another DoE lie to try to get around Crown land law?

• the revised plans are much smaller than the original proposal, with a large reduction in both gross floor area and total open space. But the estimated capacity of 450 students and 41 teachers hasn’t changed. How does that work? Why does Bungendore High get a total of 2.5ha when minimum standards require 4ha and Googong gets 9ha?

• There is no school hall, No hall, no gym and no Oval. Where will the students gather?

• The Transport Assessment states that 342 Year 6 students currently attend NSW public schools and live within the Bungendore High School catchment area. All these kids are zoned to Bungendore High School next year. This suggests a likely student cohort at the proposed school which dramatically exceeds capacity and traffic estimates for this very small site. How will that work?

• The Transport Assessment shows that the majority of kids will travel from outside Bungendore. It makes completely unrealistic assumptions about car-pooling and bus travel, using densely-populated areas around Sydney, Newcastle and Wollongong as the base for its assumptions.

• The Department of Planning and Environment requested DoE to provide proper catchment data in the “Key Issues List” dated 26 October 2022 but this was not provided. Why has DoE refused to provide this information? How can a development be approved when the Department has tried to conceal this most basic information?

• There is no parking. We’re already seeing railway users unable to access parking at the station when they need it. Why has this never been addressed?

I support this project.
Get it done like yesterday.

EMMA BROOKS MAHER
64 Stornaway Rd
Queanbeyan NSW 2620
Tel 0417 414 999
[email protected]

Date – 22 July 2024

Director - Social and Infrastructure Assessments
Planning and Assessment
Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure
Locked Bag 5022Parramatta NSW 2124

Att: Mr Navdeep Singh Shergill - 02 8289 6777
Part 1

SSD-14394209 – Original Application & Amendment
New High School in Bungendore - OBJECTION

This Objection starts with the original SSDA as publicly exhibited in 2021. When lodged with the Dept of Planning (formerly DPIE, now DPHI) on 9 Sept in that year the Dept of Education (DoE) proposal for a new Bungendore High School (BHS) was radically different from what I now see on the Planning Portal– not only in spatial aspects, but even moreso in its SOCIAL factors., and thus impact on the whole Bungendore community. We also know more about causes and ramifications. My grounds for Objection in Sept 2024 have multiplied exponentially
Back then, the take-over of certain public spaces, roadway, Common, and demolition of community facilities to provide clear space as the site for the new BHS was justified on the grounds that new, improved facilities would not only be provided, but that these replacements would be WITHIN the school site, and be an integral element within the overall development.
This ‘fair exchange’ is what was more than merely proposed, it was promised. This is what featured so emphatically in the Social Impact Assessment. This is what was exhibited until mid-Oct 2021. And, being the ORIGINAL APPLICATION, this is the legal basis against which the EP&A Act stipulates that any Amendment must be assessed.
The Act makes no provision for time elapsed. Nor does it have any alternative arrangements about re-submission of SSD-14394209 after the Land & Environment Court ruled it lacked statutory consent from the Minister for Crown Land (CL), and therefore could not proceed until such requirement was fulfilled. With this ruling, the LEC also effectively negated a prior Amendment of 2022 which purported to eliminate all community requirements and CL areas within the site by the simple expedient of compulsory acquisition.
However, there is now clear evidence in CEO letters, and Ministerial directive, these respectively dated 27 and 29 Aug 2021 and thus weeks prior to 9 Sept. Copies have already been provided to the Planning Ethics committee, and are an integral part of this Objection.
 


This means that the 2021 lodgement with DPIE was not only invalid in regard to the Crown Land Management Act, it was false and misleading by material omission. Given this,
I object to the fact that DPHI has even agreed to re-accept, let alone exhibit, an
SSDA with such a fraudulent original, let alone this questionable 2024 Amendment.
In 2023, Planning was a joint defendant in the LEC over the CL consent issue. Planning lost as well as DoE. SSDA-14394209 was “set aside” – this being the wording used by Urbis on p.9 of Appendix 10, in its clumsy Social Impact Assessment . Indeed its comments on the page re the Leeson Review are so wrong as to be laughable - See attached Analysis.
Point to note here is that the whole prior process re this SSDA was set aside. This means the “amendment” of Sept 2022 no longer exists, and thus any deletion of community facilities as proposed in this new 2024 Amendment must be considered as a new issue in relation to the original SSDA of Sept 2021. Urbis recognized the situation (p.27) – but failed to see the ramifications.
While the current proposal excludes elements of the original SSD Application, the intent of the current proposal remains the same as originally assessed (see Section 1), namely to build a new high school for 450 students on the current site.
As an Amendment to the original application, this SSD-Amend must be assessed as an AMENDMENT., and to the scale of change it proposes relative to status. What we have here is a MULTIPLE of major changes –
• major revision of the proposed site in shape and function
• major deletion in open space provisions, both within the school site and as external access
• major deletion of a whole new Council-controlled “Health Hub” to act as replacement, thus allowing for buildings/services to be demolished , thus enabling that land to become part of the BHS site
• total deletion of the new community facilities as promised - remember that without this, there
• major downgrade in access and the educational functionality of the Ag-Plot
• major interaction/referral (or whatever the legal word is) in regard to externals - non-SSD-14394209 factors such as access to the Ag-Plot; nil buildings or student facilities for the Ag-Plot; nil provision for usable (ie curriculum-feasible) open space for 450 students let alone and expansion to 600
• major uncertainties that arise from the curiously convoluted, conditional “future” non Crown-land arrangements that are advised re the Ag-Plot, not to mention those re HALF the Bungendore Pool
• major fail in Transport projections – developed on URBAN parameters, using URBAN-style public transport – none of which apply to a rural township of 4750 people,, and where we now know 60% of current/potential students will be coming from a REGIONAL catchment area.
• major omission in this SSD-Amend continues what was major cause for Objection re SSD-14394209, namely the complete LACK any information re adverse impacts caused by the closure of Majara St. This scenario has never been included in any Report, let alone assessed. Dire traffic impacts were predicted by the 2021 Objectors, myself included. These are now happening in real life. It should also be noted that the closure of Majara St has NEVER been included in any traffic study, or assessment.
major vehicle intensification in Turallo Tce is set to get way worse than anything envisaged in 2021. The Pre-School is approved to double in size. The carpark alongside the Scout Hall; is about to be obliterated to build Abbeyfield – and which in itself will add even more pressure to carparking.  


• And, having now realised that closing Majora St has left Primary teachers with NO nearby carpark area, in this SSD-Amend DoE is seeking to squeeze more 900 angle spaces along the north side. In the Turallo Tce context, this parking scenario is truly another major change - and cause for Objection.

As the attached “Tipping Point” summary from Holding Redlich indicates – caselaw suggests that when a change (or litany of cumulative changes) becomes major, it requires a NEW DA. Instead, in the new SIA, Urbis seems to believe that so long as this SSD-Amend is still about a High School, then it is effectively the same project. It isn’t. The 2024 plan under assessment is radically altered from that proposed in 2021 – and if there is any attempt to ignore this basic fact, I strenuously object.
To be a valid “amendment”. the overall degree of difference from DA-start to end-result must remain minor. If it’s major change, it needs a major re-think – a new Development Application.
In 2024, the problem is not an external like ‘consent’. The grounds for Objection are embedded in the Application itself – a SSDA based on a convoluted site that had Crown Land complications, and ONLY becomes possible if DoE could take over various land-lots currently occupied by active, much loved community services, with immediate replacements not only promised as such, but these to be an integral part of the school development itself.
That public exhibition of 20 Sept to 18 Oct 2021 was nothing less than a fraud on the entire Bungendore community. The so-called ‘Amendment’ of Sept 2022 is irrelevant. None of its details apply, as it was all negated in Jan 2023when the LEC rejected that determination as invalid.
So, the current Amendment is somehow supposed to be based on what was applied for in 2021, but with so many site-changes, size-changes, space-unknowns, that it’s difficult to know where the original SSDA stands, or how to address the multitude of changes now apparent and needing resolution after three years of DoE dither and delay. I certainly object to the unconscionable complexity of this SSD-Amend scenario, which has nothing to do with Crown Land law..
Three years later, there are now so many problems arising in, and from, SSD 14394209 that if DPHI somehow ignores a clear conflict of EP&A rules (for instance re the recent Declaration of Contamination) and proceeds to a determination in favour of this 2024 current Amendment, then I predict a swift challenge in LEC, with repeat result- Planning to lose again.
Time does not diminish the duplicity of SSD-14394209 on 9 Sept – the bad-faith complicity and collusion is not overcome by this 2024 version. The changes proposed are MAJOR - not only way beyond any acceptable scale as “amendments” of the original SSD-14394209, but so many now in place to prove just how ADVERSE that original proposal was.
For me, this cumulative effect is, in and of itself, yet another reason for major Objection – be-cause while it may be true that an Amendment can correct initial errors and omissions – such changes cannot be so great as to radically alter the original Application – and this exclusion ap-plies for both “amendment creep” and/or “cumulative changes” over time.

PART 1 ends. – 9273 characters 
PART 2.

To me, it defies logic that Planning has allowed DoE to get away with this swizz. What’s on exhibition right now is way worse than 2021 – smaller land site, less access, constrained school facilities etc. Yet we now have far more information re catchment zones and student numbers, plus

PART 3.

In fact, if the shops wanted to stay in business, generator back-up was essential until last year, when all-new cabling from that central area to the substation to was installed. It took two years to design, plan, engineer and do – and cost about $1million just for those few streets.
Given his experience re the demountables, that exec was well-aware of the same issues affecting the Majara/Gibraltar area, which is east of that hotel, and even closer to the BHS site. He warned that the ONLY solution would be for complete re-cabling back to the sub-station – which would take at least another two years, and given the further distances (and cost-inflation ) involved would now cost something like $2 --2.5million..
The “diesel room” currently installed at the temporary BHS and visible from Malbon St is a large structure at least 8m long by about 5m wide. Something at least equivalent would be required to ensure back-up power for the proposed new school – yet , search as I have, cannot find a single space for any such provision. And given how space-constrained this whole site is (especially with the half Swim-Pool corner now “quarantined” for public access) I cannot see a single area where a diesel-power installation would be possible, much less appropriate. And it certainly won’t be happening on the Ag-Plot where there’s space, but NO buildings are proposed.
In short – so far as I can find, this BHS proposal not only totally ignores the facts re obsolescence of the electricity network, but also its own experience with the temporary school. This SSD-Amend shows neither plan, nor place, to provide a safe, consistent power supply for a school with 450 students – much less 600 later.
As a regional total, that 450 cohort is so under-size. It’s even contradicted by the new Transport study, which tallies total intake potential of current Year 6’s in the BHS catchment right now at 362. I understand there are about 120 students already – so even if the new input is just 60%, that’s 340 total, and Yrs 11 and 12 haven’t even started. I’m sure many others will comment on catchment information, school capacity VS under-size site, parking and various details in the current SSD-Amend – I totally agree and support them in this. But let me return to basics.
Today, education operates in a digital era – and a RELIABLE power supply must rank as a key fundamental for students, teachers, and admin – and for Planning when assessing any proposal.
Failure to consider such a core factor as power joins that re lead contamination as yet more reason for Objection to this SSD-Amend. Safety and certainty are essential.
It’s not just the history of the SSDA-14394209 which dooms this Amendment – it’s the history of the site itself – DoE cannot change the years it was a railway offload depot for mine-ore in open wagons behind steam engines. DoE can’t reverse 70 years of old cabling overnight, which means its BHS site remains power deficient for use as a secondary school.
In terms of assessment, this redefines the core problem – this isn’t just the “wrong” site – it’s a location that’s inherently UNFIT FOR PURPOSE – because unless, or until, the power supply issue is resolved a new BHS can only function as it should with the assistance of diesel-powered back-up – and that is not only not-good for kids, but it’s goodbye to any claim re being fossil-free.
To me, this in itself is reason enough to reject this SSD-Amend. It may also be reason-enough for further LEC appeal. Which just means more delay, more time gone.  


Instead of this mish-mash attempt to revive the original SSDA, it would have been so much smarter for DoE to start again. Look at the benefits –
• lodge a new proposal (even use existing building plans within the new site)
• avoid all the current issues re traffic, parking, catchment, capacity, contamination etc)
• get total community support (because EVERYONE wants a new BHS, including me)
• achieve a streamlined approval at a new ready-to-build greenfield site (and there are at least two, maybe more still available
• save so much money – no $2mill re-cabling for electricity supply, no civic street works for parking, roundabouts, wombat crossings to Ag-Plot, and de-acquisitioning the current site/s back to QPRC and Crown Land would mean DoE gets back the $10mill already paid.
I realise that Planning can only assess what is provided in the EIS (noting that this also applies for the “to-be-continued:” aspects SINSW have put into this SSD-Amend) re both site and proposal.
But if DoE want the fastest build for a new BHS that works – then you could tell them this plan is so fundamentally flawed by site, by convolutions, by community concerns that have only intensified in the last three years, that they’d be smart to start again.
As said earlier- I have not gone into practical aspects like parking, heritage failures inc arbitrary
re-location for Bush Balladeers (this despite total lack of agreement on Frogs Hollow), unforgivable social impacts, the lies and misrepresentations about community consultation, etc, etc, etc. I am well aware of such issues, and am in total support of all community objections.
Enough from me for now – I realise this is a long Objection, but much is new VIP information.
I trust you’ll be giving it all the attention it calls for.
Thanks EMMA

Emma Brooks Maher
64 Stornaway Rd
Queanbeyan NSW 2620
m: 0417 414 999
[email protected]




Attachments to assist this Objection:
1. Leeson site-search Process Review Dec2023
2. The Tipping Point- Holding Redlich 2024
3. A.Ziller - Social Impact analysis Sept2022
4. Parsons & Mithieux – for Planning re SIA Nov 2022

PART 3 ends. – 5658 characters

PART 2.

To me, it defies logic that Planning has allowed DoE to get away with this swizz. What’s on exhibition right now is way worse than 2021 – smaller land site, less access, constrained school facilities etc. Yet we now have far more information re catchment zones and student numbers, plus facts re a doubling of parking problems, traffic conflicts now known to be twice as bad as predicted, and above all, EPA’s recent Declaration of Significant Contamination - ie FUNDAMENTAL LOCATION ISSUES re serious lead and asbestos on or adjoining the proposed BHS.
I believe that the tipping point for SSDA-14394209 was reached years ago – first in that Ministerial directive dated 29 Aug, and then in the faux-amendment of 2022. An all-new Application was needed the minute DoE decided to delete those community facilities, and just do a compulsory land-grab. But even after the defeat in Court, DoE decided to continue with the old SSDA.
Why ? Easy answer – because at SINSW they didn’t want to risk a new SEARS process, not with so many flaws (and frauds) in the original plan now plain to see. For instance – when the EPA declared the Bungendore Rail Station/corridor as presented a significant contamination area, it excluded the adjoining school land – but the sole reason that makes any sense is political - the site had JUST BEEN APPROVED for development as a new BHS. Maybe they thought it was “too late” or they “didn’t want to upset things”.
Note how EPA designated ALL the surrounding area for further detailed investigation. What follow-up might that body have required if they’d known about the farrago of misrepresentation and outright false information lies in the geotechnical reports by Douglas Partners, and now in the new version by Lanterra – s beat-up which doesn’t come close to being the independent “Site Auditors Report” that Planning asked for in Jan 2024.
I know DPIE Assessors had grave doubts about the contamination info – I’ve seen the EIS and its 38 new Attachments – especially Appendix 20-1, 20-2, 20-3 and that final Attachment (letter by Madeline Thomas) asking DoE to provide a professional Site Auditors Report . What Lanterra provides is a poor pretence at faux-impartiality which blindly accepts the 2021 DP data (including for over 60 boreholes which were NEVER drilled) and then declines to take responsibility for its own third-party response.
In short, it totally fails to fulfil the requirements for a “Site Auditors Report” as per request. If DPHI come within a half-nod of giving credence to this sleight of hand, then it really will be a case of “see you in court”. But my fundamental objection here is the clear risk of serious contamination, this based on the in-depth analysis of the above documents, and the indisputable decades of both lead and asbestos usage, not just in the Bungendore Rail corridor, but even moreso in the Station area which immediately adjoins a site proposed for school use.
Lanterra also ignores one point in the 2021 geotechnical Report that I object to in neon-red letters – the SINSW instruction that DP should ignore the Station forecourt because ‘we won’t be doing any work there”. Yet this open area is directly alongside the Majara-Malbon corner which has al-ready been fenced off as a MAJOR contamination zone. To me, the lack of further follow through on this is indefensible, and I deeply object. It isn’t just an admin discrepancy, it’s an egregious failure in professional responsibility to the children of Bungendore – including the primary kids, plus the BHS students in demountables just 10m across the road.



Then there’s the problem of ASBESTOS. This dust is an insidious long-term evil, and easily occurs where there’s been ongoing use in brake pads in old trains. The danger at Bungendore is only just being realised, and until this is clarified, the community analysis gives yet more reason to object. The EPA will also have even more to examine re the contaminants around BHS.
Horrible as it is, the damage and disease caused by asbestos dust usually takes decades to show. The effects of lead are much faster – even relatively small exposures can start early to affect a child’s health and stunt development - as Bungendore has very sharp reason to know from bitter example just 30 kms north– along the same rail line, the same lead wagons – and currently undergoing major remediation.
If lead is a known disaster at Tarago where those open wagons just rolled on through, then the risk of contamination must be so much more critical at Bungendore. This is change-over depot for the mine, where the wagons swapped loads, a clunky start through railway gates, and past the platform, then a sudden stop for steam-engine refill from water tanks with those wagons jolt-stopping behind, ie directly alongside the BHS site, with clumps of ore open to the elements for as long as it takes. Then there’s another jolt-start, this time right around a curve over Turallo Creek, all the mercy of load-shift, gravity and the fierce Bungendore winds.
This is not fantasy – as a school-kid in Wagga in the 50’s, waiting on my bike while the rail gates are closed, I’ve seen, and heard, exactly what happens with steam trains as they approach a road crossing, clunking and clanking towards the roadway and then along a railway station. And those trains were for wheat – not newly-mined ore. None of this has been factored into the EIS Response.
CONCLUSION.
There’s another very important reason why I object to this SSDA-Amend – the diesel-powered demountables that now dominate the primary play-space for Years 7/8/9. It’s not because they are demountables (deplorable though that surely is right now) but because I know WHY they have to be diesel-powered. It’s not good – and it’s not going to go away anytime soon.
Yet there’s not a word about this majopr issue in the 76pp Amendment Report pages by Mecone – the section 6.11 on p.64 re “Sustainability” even goes so far as to report --
“… the proposal has been designed to be Net-Zero Ready, meaning the building is
designed to operate fully on fossil fuel-free systems immediately upon occupation and use.”
The BHS buildings might be all that – but it doesn’t mean a thing if the whole electricity grid in that area of Bungendore is over 70yo, and so deficient that in Feb 2023, Essential Energy (the power authority involved) wouldn’t let it open for a cohort of just Yrs 7 and 8, ie less than 90 students, without the “short-term” installation of a large diesel generator – and a SINSW update advised that this would be in operation from 7am to 6pm every school day since.
What do I now know ? An exec from the generator company that did the installation told me – and how that power-supply deficiency isn’t going to go away anytime soon. It seems that several years ago an old pub in Gibraltar St, the Royal George, was being refurbished, and the use of pow-er tools on that renovation was dangerously disruptive to electricity supply for Bungendore village a few blocks to the south and west.
PART 2 ends. – 7081 characters ---------------------------------------------------- 
PART 3.

In fact, if the shops wanted to stay in business, generator back-up was essential until last year, when all-new cabling from that central area to the substation to was installed. It took two years to design, plan, engineer and do – and cost about $1million just for those few streets.

I am a medical professional working in Bungendore. I wish to lodge an objection to the Bungendore High School State Significant Development SSD-14394209 based on my professional concerns for the health and wider wellbeing risks to the Bungendore community that I serve.

I do not object to the proposal to build a high school for Bungendore in general, I am objecting the site of the high school as proposed. A fit for purpose high school in an alternative location is a project that I would support. I ask that you consider my views seriously, as the health our community is a priority, not politics.

I am opposed to the current proposal which takes away the community’s green space for exercise and leisure, reduces the size of the highschools playground and overall footprint to be so small as to mean that students will be at high risk of being sedentary and not engaged in physical movement for a healthy mind a body. I object on the grounds of health concerns of the contaminated soil in Bungendore, that the current high school site (which can be located in a number of other viable sites around Bungendore) means that a critical community project for our elderly residents, Abbeyfield house will be squeezed out of its intended location, and have no room for expansion, when, as a community, we will certainly need Abbeyfield to expand. I also object on the grounds of concerns of risk of accident and injury due to an unmanageable traffic situation, and the overall risk to our community’s physical and mental wellbeing. I am calling for a school to be built on a new site, such as the Ashby greenfield site that is large enough to grow and enjoy future state and federal government investment in education facilities that overtime will help us to reverse the entrenched educational disadvantage faced by many Bungendore families, and provide a school which is equitable to those of other regional schools so that the Bungendore community can flourish.
Please read my objection in the attached.