New High School in Bungendore

The latest submission proposes a smaller high school lacking dedicated playing fields and still sited adjacent to a lead-contaminated railway corridor.
Its student capacity is severely limited and there is absolutely no room for any expansion to cope with future needs.
It is disappointing that the Dept. of Education continues to waste public funds trying to build a high school that is not fit for purpose on a site that is clearly not big enough.

I am objecting to where this HS is being proposed to be located. This is the centre of town, the public park in a heritage area. The proposal is just wrong and no matter what you do to change the design of it - it is in the wrong place. Please put it in another location where there is room for it and for it to expand.

Most other HS, see the one at Jindabyne are huge and need more room for growth. The town is growing please make sensible decisions for the good of this town.

I must object to the modified proposal to build the Bungendore High School at the proposed location for the following reasons.

1. The site is too small it does not meet the requirements of the Education Departments own guidelines.
2. The school is being built for 450 students this will be in adequate in 5 to 7 years and the school will have to expand onto the areas of sporting and leisure activities used by the Bungendore community.
3. The future growth of the town is to the North and West in the new estates, this is where a new high school should be located in the new estates.
4. The cost of the current location is too excessive. How does a small country high school for 450 justify the costing of $70M plus.

The building of the Bungendore High School at the proposed location is the equivalent of building a high school next and on the Sydney Cricket Ground or the Botanical Gardens it is an important green space at the center of our community and should not be given over to a new high school.

The Bungendore area needs a high school but not at the proposed location.

I object. It is in the wrong location. Location too small for a High School. In heritage area. Not enough area for parking and traffic congestion is now with only the Primary School, but will be a nightmare.
This was a corrupt deal done without community consultation in the first place.
Needs to be put somewhere else.

Dear Director
OBJECTION TO LOCATION OF NEW HIGH SCHOOL IN BUNGENDORE: AMENDED Proposal
I refer to the above amended development application.
I object to the proposal overwhelmingly because of the proposed un-safe LOCATION of the school on the following grounds.
I have looked at the amended application and it does not address my concerns at all. Did it address any?
The location is madness. Drop off and pick up at the Primary School is already a nightmare and cars are parked there for the whole day. Has anyone even visited the site during drop off and pick up?
Whose idea is this disaster as they should be held responsible for the un-safe position you are now placing our children in.
There are other better safer sites that do not compromise the amenities and the social centre of the village.
My initial Objection is below stands, and it remains along with the added un-safe disgraceful location this development puts the children in.
Yours sincerely
Thelma Oberdorf
109 Newington Road
BYWONG NSW 2621
Telephone 0401782379
[email protected]
-------------------------------------------------
Dear Director
OBJECTION TO LOCATION OF NEW HIGH SCHOOL IN BUNGENDORE: AMENDED APPLICATION
I refer to the above development application.
I object to the proposal overwhelmingly because of the proposed LOCATION of the school on the following grounds.
1. The location is the only public amenity for the village and surrounds.
The pool
With no public transport, and nothing for the young and old to do in Bungendore, I spent countless Friday nights at the end of the ‘70’s and ’80 baking cakes for countless street stalls to feed ACT travellers going through the town. How many Sydney municipal pools have life members rewarded for leading fundraising and government complimentary funding for them with their own sweat? We do. Appendix A has an excerpt from a community page from Jill Fox, one of our 3 life members.
The pool is a life-blood for families in summer with the added social aspect of night time sausage sizzles and picnics.
Very importantly, it is also a facility that allows the learn-to-swim programme to function. For surrounding families with dams on their properties, this is a godsend. Rhonda Jane Foulds must have taught a few thousand kids to swim by now.
Sure, you can build another pool elsewhere, but not in such a great site, and with a gap of how long before it is built?
The Community Centre
To demolish this important facility is just a disgrace, especially with no replacement. People in Sydney and other towns may have access to support, but we don’t. We worked so hard for this.
Appendix B has an excerpt from a community page about our Community Centre.
Other amenities
The footy teams and even the informal games will have to arrange for access to the High School grounds.
People also use the oval for walks and meet ups because it is at the heart of the village.
The oval is also used for fairs, especially in pre-Covid times when the steam train came from Canberra.
The Anzac ceremonies will be profoundly changed, especially for families with children who stay on the park socialising after the ceremony.
How can you cut down 73 trees in this wind-swept cold climate where growing anything is hard except for absolutely dedicated gardeners, let alone trees that have taken decades to grow?
Where was the place to picnic when we were allowed to meet up with 5 other people during this pandemic? Obviously, the heart of the village and its heritage centre!!!
2. Unsuitable location
The site is too small for a high school.
Why choose a location for a high school that is so small and doesn’t allow for expansion of the school? Covid with working from home and spiralling house prices mean that regional areas like Bungendore can only grow.
I understand that the site is 1.2 hectares smaller than the Education Departments standards for new high schools.
You couldn’t even have a basketball court or some green space for the students without encroaching on the tennis courts or the toilet block, so much also used by travellers and caravanner’s and people from the surrounds.
It will be a traffic nightmare. It is already difficult to find a car park near the Primary School and those to the east of it a full during the day, so obviously with teacher and support staff cars. How many extra cars will there be for teachers and support staff, and more mature students who will drive their own cars.
This is critical, given that 342 students are zoned to start Year 7 at BHS next year, in school which can accommodate a maximum of 450! How long before it’s too small.
The new plan considers a school hall, canteen, gym and amenities blocks as "not essential to the function" of the planned Bungendore High School!! How dare you!
Lead contamination
What about the lead contamination in the railway corridor? The plan shows absolutely no concern for our children
3. There are other locations
Why would you demolish the heart of a village for a major infrastructure project like a high school that cannot expand as the population expands and in such an unsafe location?
There are other sites like at Ashby and other new housing development areas which would satisfy the needs of a school and leave the heart of the village alone. We all know that the previous MP asked for reasons to rule out Trucking Yard Lane. This is clear political interference in a public funded project with set rules for size of schools etc.
Conclusion
Please stop wasting time and money and leave the heart of the village alone and pick another safe location for the school for our children. They are available and suitable.

I have lived in this community for a very long time and have witnessed many changes but none so damaging, not only to the character of the village but, to the harmony and community spirit.
This site has caused much angst and division which has been instigated by the disregard for the community by the Department of Education. The Department further encourages this division by manipulating data and printing untruths in their glossy pamphlets.
The judgement of the Land and Environment Court was purely dismissed by DoE as an admin error. If this was the case, why did the Department choose to go to court instead of simply fixing this error.
The local member Steve Whan has further encouraged the divide by stating in a letter to constituents that the school build is being delayed by opponents to the high school. This could not be further from the truth. We are opposing the site!
As an elderly resident, I have been made to feel that my opinion doesn’t matter as the only consideration in this saga is the high school students. Well, they will be school leavers one day and will need the facilities that were demolished because of the high school. Short term solutions don’t work.
The Park and the common have long been important places in the community’s day to day life and this cannot possibly be known or acknowledged by bureaucrats sitting in a Sydney office using google to do desktop assessments.
The fact that DoE consider the grave in the park as allegedly there, dismisses the community members whose knowledge is, that it is there and have witnessed it personally.
I have grand children attending Bungendore Primary School and some of them might consider enrolling in Bungendore High School if a suitable site is chosen where a school can be built to enable great facilities and an amazing curriculum.

Bungendore Common is a heritage item and a reserve for the purpose of public recreation, and it is much loved and well used.
The site taken for an Ag Plot was the community’s off leash dog area.
The lack of due diligence by the Department of Education in selecting the site for a high school has impacted disastrously on the local community with long term effect.

The Abbeyfield Senior’s Housing proposal is another example of the high negative social impact on our community.
This much needed community facility is now struggling for a permanent site.
Abbeyfield has been ignored. Plans had been finalised and a DA was in council at the time that DoE stole their land.

I object to a high school being built on this site until all lead and asbestos contamination on both the site and the railway corridor has been remediated.
It is likely to be some time before TfNSW remediates the rail corridor and our students should not be put in a situation where they will be attending school during this remediation.
All remediation of the rail corridor and school site should be conducted concurrently to safeguard the health and wellbeing of all our children.
The DoE has insisted that the level of contamination on the school site will not prevent them from continuing with this project but at the time of lodging the amended DA had not include the requested ‘Audit Report’.
The EPA explicitly warned that use of the site for a school may increase the risk of harm arising from this contamination.

I object to the Department of Education building such a dominant building structure in the vicinity of some of Bungendore’s most significant heritage items.
The Cenotaph was designed to overlook the green field and be prominent in that area and because of this Memorial, all of Bungendore Park is heritage listed under the Palerang Local Environmental Plan. It will be overshadowed, and its prominence diminished.
The railway station and the two cottages are state heritage listed and according to the DA will be surrounded by out of character buildings and car parks.
This DA shows no respect for Bungendore’s history or its community.

I object to the site selected for the proposed Bungendore high School.
There was no due diligence in selecting this site and the issues arising because of that are unlikely to be easily resolved, if at all.
‘Property’ had conducted an EOI and concluded through that process that ‘Ashby’ met most of the criteria for a high school site in Bungendore whilst declaring that the Bungendore Park site was unsuitable.
The interference of politicians and QPRC staff persuaded DoE to reject the ‘Ashby’ site and proceed with the Gibraltar/Majara Street Precinct. This decision was not made with the best interests of the Bungendore community and its High School students as a priority.

My objection to the site for the Bungendore High School is based on my personal experience as a high school student.
I would have loved to continue my education in Bungendore with my friends, but my family and I had to decide on what the Bungendore High School could offer me compared to a private school in Canberra.
The size of Bungendore High School will limit my subject choices and opportunities for my career prospects. This situation will cause many students to consider other options in Canberra.
The limited play space would not allow me the freedom to participate in lunchtime sport nor the opportunity to avoid unsettling situations.
I wish that DoE would decide to create a wonderful high school on an appropriate site and then my choice might be to stay in Bungendore with my friends.

I object to the fact that the students of Bungendore are being offered an inferior site and an inferior sized school as compared to Jindabyne, Jerrabomberra and Googong but, at a much greater cost to the taxpayer.
The site for a regional high school is 4ha.
Jerrabomberra, Jindabyne and Googong High Schools are classified as regional whilst Bungendore, which has a much smaller population than any of these centres, is classified as Suburban low-medium area density! Why? There can only be one reason, this site does not have the required 4ha for a Regional High School.
The amended DA has removed the gym, hall and canteen from the high school plans along with all the promised community facilities. The school will have a much smaller gross floor area and open space, but the DA claims it will still be sufficient to cater for 450 students and 41 staff.

I object to the Department of Education using traffic studies in their amended DA which are four years old and using data collected before the closure of Majara Street and the opening of the temporary high school. Why is it that DoE can lodge an amended DA without undertaking current traffic studies?
Traffic is a huge issue around the Gibraltar/ Majara Street precinct and this situation will only deteriorate further as the BHS build progresses. The closure of Majara Street has pushed through-traffic from Elmslie onto nearby residential streets. This closure has also caused a parking issue around the railway forecourt and the Primary School. How is this allowed to happen?
DoE are pushing through to build on this restricted site without any consideration for the residents, train users or people needing parking at other venues. DoE are trying to commandeer all available spaces to construct a picture of their being compliant with parking criteria but at the expense of all others.
The Preschool is set to expand and has limited parking now, but with the Amended DA claiming all available parking places on Turallo Terrace for the high school, the Preschool will have extremely limited access to parking places. This arrangement is highly likely to put young preschoolers and young inexperienced drivers in dangerous situations.

I object to the removal of Bush Balladeers Place
The Department of Education was instructed by Planning to talk to the committee of the Bungendore Country Music Muster to resolve the issue of relocation.
There has been no resolution and in the amended DA, the Department of Education states that the ‘Bush Balladeers Place and Maureen Gordon Wall of Recognition’ will be relocated to Frogs Hollow. Again, DoE has ignored the community.
Frogs Hollow is a water retention area for floods and is infested with snakes. This is not a respectful place for such a significant construction.

In objecting to this site, I would like to note the total disregard and disrespect that the Department of Education has shown to our community.
• DoE claim to have consulted with the community but these sessions were simply aimed at showcasing DoE plans to the community. No notes were taken and no feedback given.
• DoE only amended plans when they had no other option eg having to comply with Crown Land legislation.
• DoE reported that they consulted with users of Bungendore Park but recorded no minutes.
• There was no due diligence before this site was selected.
• DoE had attempted to thwart every attempt on GiPa requests.
• Close to 400 objections to this DA
• New Council withdrawing support for the site
• Petitions to Parliament dismissed by DoE
• DoE lodged a DA knowing that the community facilities promised would be removed later
• Hundreds of letters written to Ministers and DoE. Replies were simple form letters and often not referencing the letters content matter
• Releasing manipulated data to show community support for the project
• Claiming to not demolish the pool because of the community’s wishes but not telling the community that CLMA prohibits them from demolishing the pool. Treating the community as some sort of country hicks to be manipulated by big government.
• Engaging an ‘Independent Assessor’ to review the site selection process. The assessor was given a very limited terms of reference and was supplied information for the report by the very people who were actively involved in this site selection.

I object to the name ‘Mick Sherd Oval’ being used in EIS documents when it should be referring to ‘Bungendore Park’.
I object to the compulsory acquisition of Crown Land by the Department of Education (DoE).
• Mick Sherd Oval is purely a marked football field which is used sporadically over the years for that purpose. On every other day of the week, it is ‘Bungendore Park’
• ‘Bungendore Park’ is Crown Land dedicated for the purpose of public recreation.
• The DoE should never have been allowed to compulsorily acquire part of this ‘Park’ and part of the ‘heritage common’ for educational purposes. The legislation protecting these assets has been ignored by the DoE and their intentional disrespect for the CLMA puts the state’s assets of Crown Land under threat by other government departments in similar circumstances.
• Mick Sherd Oval is situated on Crown Land and therefore can’t be used by DoE for educational purposes. The DoE has taken ‘Mick Sherd Oval’ out of the amended DA yet, the author of the Social Impact Assessment (SIA) writes:

‘Once operational, consider restricting school use of Mick Sherd Oval to certain days or time periods within the school week. While Council apply a flat rate hire, this would provide more certainty to the local community around times/days during the week that the oval won’t be used by the school and could be assessed by the public’

1. The DoE has excluded Mick Sherd Oval from the amended DA.
2. Is it DoE’s intention to operate a school without an oval?
3. The SIA contradicts point 1.
4. Is it the intention of DoE to try to circumvent the CLMA once again if the amended DA is approved?
5. Council, as Crown Land managers, can’t grant DoE a lease on the Mick Sherd Oval.
6. The local community has the right by legislation to always use the grounds for a public purpose and should not be shut out by illegal events.
7. Education is not a ‘Public Purpose’

I object to the intended misuse of Crown Land
Crown land is owned by the State and dedicated Crown Land is especially protected by legislation to stop the illegal use of that land.
Why than can a state government department such as the Department of Education, ignore legislation and compulsorily acquire part of a park which is ‘dedicated for the use of public recreation’ and part of a heritage common, now a reserve for public recreation?
Why is the Department of Education, after it lost in the Land and Environment court because it ignored the CLMA, allowed to lodge an amended DA with the express intention of circumventing the CLMA by only lodging a ‘part’ DA and intending to deal with Crown Land at a later date?
Surely this indicates to the assessors that DoE are again trying to dodge the legislation put in place to protect community assets.

SCOPE OF PROPOSAL

The current proposal contains no gym, no hall, no canteen, no buildings to service the ag plot, no vehicle access to the ag plot, and no provision for students to access an oval. It is not satisfactory to have a high school without these facilities. Student outcomes will suffer.

The documents suggest that these facilities will be provided in the future but there is no space on current site for them. The documents talk about an unexplained "separate planning pathway" for getting approval for these things. While it is not specified, the plans for these facilities must involve the use of what is currently crown land since that is the only vacant land in the vicinity of the proposed high school. With no description of this "separate planning pathway" it can only be assumed that this is an attempt to circumvent crown land law that overturned the approval of the previous proposal.

The mitigation suggestions in the event that these extra facilities can't be provided are unrealistic and inadequate and will still not result in a viable high school.

Any proposal presented for a high school in Bungendore should be for a complete school, not for only part of a high school as in the current proposal. This application for approval for a partial high school should be rejected.

LOSS OF COMMUNITY FACILITIES

Despite the fact that the Department of Education has already compulsorily acquired the land for the proposed high school, no work has been done to demolish or alter existing conditions on this land. Therefore, if the high school does not go ahead on this site then the land could be returned to its previous ownership and use. So it is reasonable to consider the impact of this proposal based on the land use before the compulsory acquisition.

This proposal takes 15% of Bungendore park and removes this open space from the use of the community.

This proposal closes a section of Majara St, disrupting traffic and affecting the heritage of the original grid street layout.

This proposal demolishes the community centre, with no absolute guarantee that it will be rebuilt within Bungendore within a short timeframe.

This proposal results in the loss of the council chambers with no absolute guarantee that they will be rebuilt within Bungendore within a short timeframe.

This proposal results in the loss of bush balladeers place. Although there is a stated intention to relocate it, there is no agreed plan or timeframe for this.

This proposal places the future of the swimming pool in doubt. While the documents state that there is an agreement in principle with QPRC to keep the pool operating until a replacement pool is built, this is not an iron clad, legally binding guarantee. There is not currently funding for the complete new pool and it appears that compensation money from the compulsory acquisition of the current pool can't be used on the new pool because it is not on crown land.

SUITABILITY OF THE SITE

The site for the proposed school is too small at only 2.5ha. This is smaller than the original proposal but supposedly can still cater for the same number of students. It is smaller than the departmental minimum standard of 4ha and much smaller than the 9ha provided for Googong high school.

The current design has very limited play space available, especially considering that the proposal does not include access to the oval.

The initial design is to cater for 450 students the documents say it is projected to have up to 566 students in 2036. The documents say that the site has been master planned to cater for 600 students contain no evidence of what this master plan is and how the increased capacity will be provided. This information should be provided so that a full assessment of the suitability of the site can be made before approval to build is given.

The transport assessment says that there are currently 342 year 6 students in catchment attending public schools. This means that there could be 2,052 students across years 7-12 wanting to attend Bungendore High School. This places severe doubt on the accuracy of the assessment that the new school need only cater for 450 students. How was the total school capacity of only 450 calculated?

Projections are given for population growth in Bungendore in the future. However, the reports do not examine future growth in the rest of the catchment area, particularly Sutton and Gundaroo. This means that the future number of students from these areas is probably greatly underestimated.

Since it appears that the proposed school will be bursting at its seams by 2036 (or well before), it is likely that the school will be totally unsuitable only 10 years after it opens and a new school, on a different site, would then be needed. Planning for major state infrastructure such as a high school should look more than 10 years into the future.

As shown in drawing AR DA HS -0500, much of the ag plot is in a flood zone. Recent experience has been that this area is flooding frequently. Flooding will make it difficult, if not impossible to run a reliable ag science program on this land.

SCHOOL DESIGN

Block A presents a very ugly facade to Bungendore park. This view is conveniently hidden behind trees at the War Memorial in the rendering titled "Western elevation from Mick Sherd oval" (drawing AR DA HS -9100). This rendering is a very dishonest attempt to hide the full visual impact of the school from the Bungendore community.

There is no room for a run-up area for bowlers in cricket nets thus rendering them less than useful.

TRANSPORT ASSESSMENT

Section 2.3 (school project context) only talks about Bungendore. It does not consider the rest of the large catchment area for the school. It also doesn't consider access to school from houses in Bungendore to the south of Malbon St.

The transport assessment makes unrealistic assumptions about the mode of travel for students outside Bungendore based on examples of much more densely populated school catchment areas. It is likely that much more traffic will be generated by students being driven to school.

The traffic counts that form the basis of the assessment were done during the Covid 19 epidemic when many parents would have been working from home and traffic patterns were highly likely not to be usual. In addition, they were done before Majara St was closed. New traffic counts that include the impact of more normal employment patterns and the actual impact of the Majara St closure should have been done before this proposal was released.

Page 76 of the transport assessment describes traffic continuing EAST along Turallo Tce, but to make sense it must mean WEST. Is this type of error an indicator of poor rigor in the transport assessment?

When the transport assessment mentions flood events, it only considers evacuation. It does not consider the much greater impact of lack of access to Turallo Tce via the low level crossing from Elmslea which will increase the amount of traffic approaching the school from other directions.

The transport assessment doesn't consider traffic to the preschool or the planned major expansion of the preschool and the increased congestion this will bring to the eastern end of Turallo Tce. There are already anecdotal reports of congestion and increased danger from preschool traffic doing U turns on Turallo Tce following the closure of Majara St. This will only get worse when the preschool expands.

There is no assessment on the effect of the school on parking at the railway station. Parking congestion there from the temporary high school can already be seen and is likely to get worse with the proposed school.

SUMMARY

This is an inadequate proposal for an incomplete, small school that will not be able to cater for the number of students in the catchment. It is not a future-proof proposal and will need to be re-done in 10 years. It would result in the loss of much needed community assets and open space with no guarantee of replacement. Traffic around the high school, primary school, and preschool at drop off and pick up times will be a nightmare.

A much better, bigger school should be built on a larger, more suitable site in Bungendore.

I object to the building of Bungendore's permanent high school in the proposed location because it does not represent the best option that Bungendore could accept.
I am currently in year 11 so will miss out on attending a local highschool in my hometown, however I can't help but feel that the proposed plan for this school is pretty sad. No oval, no canteen, no hall, among other things. What kind of school misses all of those functions?! It doesn't seem real.
Also, what kind of classes will be offered in such a tiny school with the bare minimum available amenities? How are you going to attract the best teachers if the school doesn't have the best facilities? Why would anyone want to go to a school if it's not the best it could be? This school sounds lame.
The students in and around Bungendore deserve a great school - we have been waiting my whole life for one and it's not fair to offer a lame, half-arsed option just because some politician made a promise to god-knows-who four years ago. We want better.