New High School in Bungendore

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.
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

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, such as the Ashby Greenfield site is a project that I would support. I ask that you consider my views seriously, I am a resident of Bungendore, mother of children attending the local school, and public servant with experience in both capital works projects and the Education portfolio. Please see the attached objection.

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 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

I believe Bungendore must have a high school, I want the high school to be the best it can be. This DA is again in the same location as the previous DA and, if possible, it is even more flawed!

I am writing to object to the new amended SSDA 14394209, Bungendore High School.
The BHS site on Majara Street is all wrong.
It is too small, and in time the school will inevitably encroach onto Bungendore Park, a beautiful and precious place in a Heritage Precinct.
In addition, the closing of Majara Street between Gibraltar Street and Turallo Terrace has already caused traffic to increase on previously quiet streets such as Butmaroo Street and made bicycle and pedestrian travel less safe.
The opening of a high school on the Majara Street site will only increase traffic and exacerbate those problems.
SINSW needs to withdraw from its plans to build on the current site and instead look again for a much more suitable, spacious block of undeveloped land. A greenfields site will solve all the problems that the Department of Education's foolish plans have caused for our town.
David Watson
Millpost Farm
Millpost Lane
Bungendore NSW 2621

Significant concerns have emerged regarding the suitability of the proposed site. This submission highlights the major issues related to facilities, size, safety, and future expansion potential, raising questions about whether the current plan truly serves the best interests of our students and community. This submission also nominates an alternate more suitable site.

Inadequate Facilities:

The proposed high school lacks essential minimum facilities such as a school hall, canteen, gymnasium, and oval, which are basic requirements for students and should be included in a rural high school that lacks access to alternative amenities.
The 2.08 hectare Majura Street site does not meet the NSW architect's guidelines for physical activity space, essential for student learning.
Potential compulsory acquisition of the remainder of Bungendore Park, including Mick Sherd Oval (Crown land), should be disclosed to residents if planned.

Minimum Site Recommendation:

NSW Education Facilities Standards & Guidelines recommend a minimum site area of 4 hectares for rural and regional schools with a capacity of up to 2000 students.
The proposed site area of 2.08 hectares is even below the minimum recommendation of 2.5 hectares for schools in medium and high-density city areas.
NSW Education Facilities Standards & Guidelines emphasize the need to future-proof school sites to cater for future expansion.
(Ref: NSW Education Facilities Standards & Guidelines: Design Framework: Site selection and development A guideline for determining appropriate school sites.)

Safety Concerns:

Lead Contamination:

The NSW Environment Protection Authority (EPA) declared the Bungendore Rail Corridor and Station significantly contaminated land on 4 April 2023 under the Contaminated Lands Management Act 1997.
The contaminated area includes the rail corridor between Majara Street and Powell Street, with elevated levels of lead likely from historical transportation of lead ore from the Captain’s Flat mines.
The declaration did not include the land acquired for the new Bungendore High School, despite its proximity to the contaminated corridor on the east and south sides.
The close proximity of the new school site to the significantly contaminated Bungendore Rail Corridor raises serious concerns about the safety and suitability of the site for a school environment.
Given the significant contamination of the adjacent rail corridor, it is highly likely that the acquired school site has been impacted by elevated lead levels.
The potential health risks to students and staff from lead contamination are significant and need to be thoroughly investigated and addressed before proceeding with the development.
In Tarago, NSW, lead contamination in the soil has been a significant concern due to historical activities related to the Woodlawn Mine. The lead contamination spread from the rail yard into the surrounding community. Soil samples showed elevated lead levels within the rail corridor and extended to nearby residential areas. The lead was found in varying concentrations, decreasing as the distance from the rail tracks increased. This contamination impacted local land use and necessitated remediation efforts to protect community health and safety (Transport NSW).

Traffic Risks:

Majara Street, a busy street used daily for access to Queanbeyan, Sydney highway, and the coast, poses significant traffic risks during morning drop-offs and afternoon pick-ups.
The decision to build a new high school on this street is dangerous, with students, bikes, and cars at school drop off and pick up and community members accessing the oval.

Lack of Futureproofing:

The Majura Street site does not allow for adequate future expansion, which is a key consideration in The NSW Education Facilities Standards & Guidelines which states. "It is important to understand the need to future-proof our school sites to cater for future expansion, should this be required."
Our region is one of the fastest-growing areas in NSW. The QPRC population is expected to increase to 76,000 by 2031. Bungendore has been experiencing rates of population growth higher than Queanbeyan. (Ref: https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.qprc.nsw.gov.au%2Ffiles%2Fassets%2Fpublic%2Fresources-amp-documents%2Fplans-and-strategies%2Fqprc_strategic_directions.pdf&psig=AOvVaw0yU59A3IQNMEIUPxXGND1p&ust=1721704014297000&source=images&cd=vfe&opi=89978449&ved=0CAYQrpoMahcKEwi40Oqy1bmHAxUAAAAAHQAAAAAQBA)
A recent community survey by QPRC found that most people want to maintain the rural atmosphere of the town. The community of Bungendore risks being left with a white elephant on the end of the oval which will make the town look more suburban.

Loss of existing important community building facilities:

The Mick Sherd oval and surrounding areas provide Bungendore's most important community facilities. Construction of a high school within this zone will dramatically detract from Bungendore's ability to build community spirit.

Preferred Site:

The site behind Cleanseeds at 45 Molonglo St, Bungendore, close to newly built sports facilities, provides access to sporting facilities, a swimming pool, and space for an agricultural learning area.
This site offers ample room for parking and can address flood considerations through engineering solutions.
It would keep the school connected to the town centre and mitigate issues regarding space, growth, and access to sports facilities.

The children of Bungendore and surrounding areas deserve so much better.
The current plan for the school has no room for expansion, and does not offer adequate facilities for the children that will attend.
The location would have a major impact on the community - I took my children to the oval this morning to play soccer. This would no longer be an option during the week for so many of families throughout the community.

I (continue to) object to the proposed site for Bungendore High School.

The site was always poorly thought out, and ongoing DoE resistance and obfuscation is ludicrous.
They continue to drag out this woeful process, to the ongoing detriment of students and their parents trying to plan their future

When the Minister for Crown Lands refused to grant consent for the DA, a common sense approach and a new site seemed inevitable.
This would mean an end to all the revealed issues with Barilaro’s rushed 2019 proposal:

traffic congestion,
parking horrors
safety issues,
lead and asbestos concerns
messy divisions of the oval
swimming pool removal
removal of school gym, the hall, canteen
limitations of a 2.5ha site (when minimum standards require 4ha and Googong gets 9ha)
growing catchment numbers (still not submitted by DoE)

But no, the DoE’s response has been to submit a split DA with a ‘separate planning pathway’!

Absurd.

We can only assume that works will align with the State Strategic Plan for Crown Land, and the works process will be straight forward because understanding the copious material posted on the Major Projects website is impossible?

The DoE must be accountable

The site is too small for a high school.
There will be too much traffic congestion at the proposed site.
There are potential lead contamination issues at the site.
I have two children who will go to school in Bungendore. A high school at the proposed site will be a bad outcome for both their primary and secondary education. There are multiple potential sites that would be better than the proposal. I went to primary school in Bungendore, most of that time was in demountable classrooms. I don't want that for my children, but it seems very likely with the current proposal.
The current proposal also takes away the community centre, where we took our babies for health checks, massively disrupts the pre-school, and forces primary school kids out of their playground. It is a bad plan and the amendments have not addressed the main issue, which is the site is unsuitable.

See attached

I OBJECT to the amended SSDA for Bungendore High School.
My children could benefit from having a High School in Bungendore, but the proposed site is not appropriate. The EPA has declared the Railway Corridor significantly contaminated with Lead. The proposed development is adjacent to the Railway Corridor. I will not risk exposing my children to Lead contamination. I would discourage other parents from enrolling their children at the High School, having seen the harm done to children at Captains Flat from lead exposure.

There is no room for more car parking on Gibraltar street, especially since the closure of Majara street. The cars picking up and dropping off at the Primary School already spill over onto the railway car park and other blocks. The idea of adding another school to the mess with more cars and busses is bad planning.

There are plenty of alternative sites, all of which are better. If a the school is built on a different site everyone will be happy.

I do not ojbect to a high school in Bungendore, I object to the proposed site and the resultant very small size of the school and its grounds.

OBJECTION TO PLANNED PLACEMENT
OF BUNGENDORE HIGH SCHOOL

I am a relatively new resident of Bungendore having moved here after a long period in the UK when COVID drove me home in 2020.

I love this town and would hope that it will be my ‘forever’ home. Having been raised near Coffs Harbour in the fifties (which was once a country town) , Bungendore ticks all of my ‘home boxes’. I firmly believe the mooted plan to locate the high school (compromising both Majara St and the Park ) is a disaster.

My daily cycle takes me past the ugly scaffolding beside the railway ( either blown down or flapping in the wind) and down Majara Street past the lovely homes and historic buildings , where ( I am sure ) live happy contented families who take pride in their peaceful location and homes.

I cannot understand how such poor planning could possibly allow placement of a high school in that space. I am sure that student numbers will increase rapidly in the next decade, and space will be required for sympathetic expansion of the new school. This cannot happen in that location.

I was fortunate to be a part of the planning department in the Hawkesbury some two decades past . Today I can witness how sympathetic intelligent planning has enabled the historic towns of Richmond and Windsor to retain a sense of history and grace.

The option of a high school within cooee of the town is possible - Trucking Yard Lane is just one example. If this disastrous plan is allowed to proceed , this will not be my forever home, and I believe the town and its occupants will be the worse for this poor planning.

Polly Wheen
23 Molonglo St
Bungendore 2621

URGENT NOTE -- After phoning Navdeep Singh Shergill to ascertain correct way to send my Objection, I have just spent TWO hours trying to get tis website to accept it as agreed, ie in three parts. I will continue trying, but forward this text below as a place-holder to show that any delay is an internet problem, ie NOT MY FAULT.

The attachments below are my DETAILED OBJECTION to SSD-143942109 of Sept 2021 and its Amendment in July 2024.
Please note that this has been prepared as a continuous 7-page document, but to comply with character-limits in the 'attachment' section below, is presented in THREE parts, with file names clearly identified as Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3.
The final page has a list of associated information which may explain or otherwise clarify my reasons for Objection - these 4 files are all longer than 10,000 characters and will be provided separately, by direct email. If this is not acceptable, tough luck.
Finally for here - let me re-state my absolute support for a new Bungendore High School, and that my aim in lodging this unremitting OBJECTION is to put an end to any further consideration of a constrained, convoluted site, now revealed as not only a dire social impact disaster - but even moreso, a site which is inherently doomed to fail on not one, but TWO fundamental school issues - contamination, and basic power supply. And that's apart from the problems facing the Ag-Plot as an "island" of acquired land surrounded by Crown land and with no vehicle access other than an unlawful (ie legally non-existent) McCusker Drive.
Factor in other considerations - the under-size relative to catchment data, the lack of current open space let alone any realistic provision re future growth, the externals of carpark chaos (and huge extra costs involved), the severe downgrade in ag-plot functions and facilities (as well as access), the utter uncertainty re how to handle half a Swimming Pool VS the other half, and the overall non-relationship with Crown Land -as claimed in the SSD-Amend.
For instanmce - it's confusing, if not a contradiction in law, for DoE to talk about some form of agreed use re Mick Sherd Oval in Bungendore Park when curriculum use in this Crown reserve is prohibited by the Crown Land Management Act, and QPRC Council has no power to allow it.
DoE ha ve now spent three years, and according to Budget figures, almost $19mill on this "WRONG" SITE. The sooner they abandon it, the faster they can start on a large, single, self-contained, greenfleld site free of all the issues and problems that bedevilled them in the original SSDA - and now in the Amendment.
Ignore that pseudo-fairytale in the Leeson so-called "independent" Site-search Process Review - the name's as empty as the info it purports to tell re 2020. As at July 2024, the basic homework for alternative sites has been long-since doine - and professionally so by Property NSW. Large land IS available, and with willing sellers.
A fresh start could be put on fast-track, and in the next, NEW SSDA there'd be overwhelming if not TOTAL community support. The school could be approved within 9 months, built in about the same time-frame, and not only ready to open for first term 2026 - the size, space, facilities, community interface and educational options these allow could then make BHS a landmark of regional excellence as an Agricultural High School. M
No wonder that I object to the current lead-risky, diesel-powered jam-cram plan and its across-a-busy-road island of veggie patch masquerading as an Ag-Plot.
Remember the key rule when it comes to kids - when in doubt, DON'T.

See attached.

I object because the site has no potential for expansion and has negative community and heritage social impact.

The lead contamination from Tarago to Captains Flat is significant and, particularly with the soil movement required to build the proposed school it would be unwise to allow development, particularly for children in the environment.
Bungendore is a rural village with a wide catchment group from outlying rural villages. The school site is not consistent with the requirements for a rural school ie 4ha. The nearest suburban town is Queanbeyan - 22 kms away!
It should not be possible to take away Crown Land, given to the people in 1884. Additionally, the swimming pool (which has had a temporary reprieve) was funded by the community. There is nothing in writing to given explicit details of how and when it will be replaced and, who will pay.
There was a site at Ashby which had received initial approval - this should be reconsidered along with any other sites with adequate green space for further development as our rural community expands.

This project will not deliver the high school Bungendore and surrounds requires - the site is entirely too small and a school can only be be built there by destroying existing infrastructure and recreational space, and compromising the facilities and transport system in an already busy part of the village. No amount of modifying the original DA for this "off-the-cuff", unplanned, un-consulted, essentially doomed project will change these facts. Any new school needs room to grow, and this site cannot even provide sufficient room for the number of students already enrolled, inevitably the whole process will have to be repeated in a few years time when the site proves what is already known - it is too small. The Department of Education should acknowledge the inherent problems with the current site and stop wasting time, money and effort by exploring other sites in Bungendore that can deliver the space and access a high school requires. There has been continued criticism of the choice of site for the new school since it was sprung on the community by John Barilaro in a moment of pure political grandstanding - without thinking of the reality of the proposal. There is absolutely no reason to adhere to that ad hoc suggestion for the site - but every reason to support the proposal for a high school in Bungendore. Let sense prevail and develop a new high school on an appropriate site and not destroy a significant part of Bungendore to no avail.