Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
MARDI
,
New South Wales
Message
As residents of the area, we formally object to the proposed development of the Eileen O’Connor Catholic School. While we support the principle of inclusive education, this project is fundamentally inappropriate for the chosen site.
The scale and placement of the development will cause unacceptable impacts on the immediate community. Our concerns include:
Loss of privacy, amenity, and neighbourhood character due to a large institutional building located within metres of family homes.
Severe traffic and parking issues, compounded by the existing congestion from St Peter’s Catholic College, with council itself having raised concerns about the proposed access route.
Years of disruptive and unsafe construction activity directly beside residential properties, posing health, safety, and wellbeing risks for families and children.
Misrepresentation of the need for this facility, given that specialist schools and programs already exist across the Central Coast.
Long-term financial harm, including diminished property values, for residents most affected.
Misleading documentation, with the school described as fronting Gavenlock Road, when in fact all access is via the narrow residential street of Keefers Glen.
This proposal represents an institutional-scale development being forced into a quiet suburban cul-de-sac. The Environmental Impact Statement fails to adequately mitigate or justify the impacts, leaving local families to shoulder the costs of noise, traffic, pollution, and loss of livability.
For these reasons, we strongly urge that the application be rejected, or at the very least, relocated to a more suitable site where the educational benefits can be delivered without sacrificing the health, wellbeing, and amenity of neighbouring residents.
This site is not appropriate, and this development should not proceed here. the attached document goes into detail on our objection of the proposed school
The scale and placement of the development will cause unacceptable impacts on the immediate community. Our concerns include:
Loss of privacy, amenity, and neighbourhood character due to a large institutional building located within metres of family homes.
Severe traffic and parking issues, compounded by the existing congestion from St Peter’s Catholic College, with council itself having raised concerns about the proposed access route.
Years of disruptive and unsafe construction activity directly beside residential properties, posing health, safety, and wellbeing risks for families and children.
Misrepresentation of the need for this facility, given that specialist schools and programs already exist across the Central Coast.
Long-term financial harm, including diminished property values, for residents most affected.
Misleading documentation, with the school described as fronting Gavenlock Road, when in fact all access is via the narrow residential street of Keefers Glen.
This proposal represents an institutional-scale development being forced into a quiet suburban cul-de-sac. The Environmental Impact Statement fails to adequately mitigate or justify the impacts, leaving local families to shoulder the costs of noise, traffic, pollution, and loss of livability.
For these reasons, we strongly urge that the application be rejected, or at the very least, relocated to a more suitable site where the educational benefits can be delivered without sacrificing the health, wellbeing, and amenity of neighbouring residents.
This site is not appropriate, and this development should not proceed here. the attached document goes into detail on our objection of the proposed school
Attachments
Marshall Phillips
Object
Marshall Phillips
Object
MARDI
,
New South Wales
Message
Gavenlock Rd for entry & exit point!
I am in support of the school, but against the entrance through Keefers Glen & surrounding streets.
This street is full of small children playing. There is no safety measures in this plan. No zebra crossing. No 40km school zone. No footpath or cyclist area.
No slow down with flashing lights for the support children or residents to feel safe.
In fact there is no consideration for the residents AT ALL.
My grandchild attends a primary school support class, and would feel horrible being made to come through the small back streets, like he is hidden and different.
I own a house on keefers Glen where my grandchild lives with his disabilities.
The 7 day per week traffic noise is the worst thing for an autistic child with disabilities. You are taking away his peace & tranquil neighbourhood: the very reason why we bought the house in this street. You are taking away his safe place.
My neighbour has 3 children on the spectrum & this will also affect their living conditions dramatically.
It is cruel.
Where is the compensation for the disruption you are putting on these children & families?
Where is the compensation for taking away our peaceful weekends which will now be replaced by a community hall with 7 day per week traffic & noise?
The plan provides no protection, it takes away ALL street parking, it is NOT supported by council, there are no environmental considerations, there is no consideration to the already full storm water on Keefers Glen, the extremely tight bends of Keefers, Deloraine & Brickedon are not suitable for this traffic AT ALL. Small cars already find it difficult to navigate these streets, so buses & high traffic will cause accidents, road deterioration, congestion and massive noise & health implications for all residents.
The impact on safety includes high fire danger risk to residents and supper children & staff. This includes structure fires & bush fires.
keefers Glen can not take the traffic during an emergency.
The perfect solution (supported by council) is an entrance/exit via Gavenlock Road.
This is what the community wants & see’s as needed for the school & makes no sense to put anywhere else.
The value of my house will now drop due to no privacy, high traffic, high noise & safety concerns.
Where is the compensation for a massive decrease in my house value?
The council and traffic engineers DO NOT support the use of Keefers Glen as the entry & exit to the school.
That is crucial information that is being ignored!
Keefers Glen was NOT built to withstand heavy traffic such as the proposed. It is a narrow lane & can not take ongoing traffic.
We do not need another street constantly filled with pot holes.
In conclusion,
Council, as do Mardi residents, support the entry & exit via Gavenlock road only. This is the easiest & most sensible solution.
The DA is flawed with many inconsistencies, underestimating the massive impact to residents, which include young children (both neurodivergent & neurotypical) and the elderly.
To ignore the advice of the council would be a disgrace.
Council support the entry/exit via Gavenlock Rd, as do the people who actually live in this very tiny & quiet street, which was built for low impact residential traffic only.
Consider the children with disabilities & families who look after them who already live in this tiny street.
It would be cruel to disrupt their lives even further.
I am in support of the school, but against the entrance through Keefers Glen & surrounding streets.
This street is full of small children playing. There is no safety measures in this plan. No zebra crossing. No 40km school zone. No footpath or cyclist area.
No slow down with flashing lights for the support children or residents to feel safe.
In fact there is no consideration for the residents AT ALL.
My grandchild attends a primary school support class, and would feel horrible being made to come through the small back streets, like he is hidden and different.
I own a house on keefers Glen where my grandchild lives with his disabilities.
The 7 day per week traffic noise is the worst thing for an autistic child with disabilities. You are taking away his peace & tranquil neighbourhood: the very reason why we bought the house in this street. You are taking away his safe place.
My neighbour has 3 children on the spectrum & this will also affect their living conditions dramatically.
It is cruel.
Where is the compensation for the disruption you are putting on these children & families?
Where is the compensation for taking away our peaceful weekends which will now be replaced by a community hall with 7 day per week traffic & noise?
The plan provides no protection, it takes away ALL street parking, it is NOT supported by council, there are no environmental considerations, there is no consideration to the already full storm water on Keefers Glen, the extremely tight bends of Keefers, Deloraine & Brickedon are not suitable for this traffic AT ALL. Small cars already find it difficult to navigate these streets, so buses & high traffic will cause accidents, road deterioration, congestion and massive noise & health implications for all residents.
The impact on safety includes high fire danger risk to residents and supper children & staff. This includes structure fires & bush fires.
keefers Glen can not take the traffic during an emergency.
The perfect solution (supported by council) is an entrance/exit via Gavenlock Road.
This is what the community wants & see’s as needed for the school & makes no sense to put anywhere else.
The value of my house will now drop due to no privacy, high traffic, high noise & safety concerns.
Where is the compensation for a massive decrease in my house value?
The council and traffic engineers DO NOT support the use of Keefers Glen as the entry & exit to the school.
That is crucial information that is being ignored!
Keefers Glen was NOT built to withstand heavy traffic such as the proposed. It is a narrow lane & can not take ongoing traffic.
We do not need another street constantly filled with pot holes.
In conclusion,
Council, as do Mardi residents, support the entry & exit via Gavenlock road only. This is the easiest & most sensible solution.
The DA is flawed with many inconsistencies, underestimating the massive impact to residents, which include young children (both neurodivergent & neurotypical) and the elderly.
To ignore the advice of the council would be a disgrace.
Council support the entry/exit via Gavenlock Rd, as do the people who actually live in this very tiny & quiet street, which was built for low impact residential traffic only.
Consider the children with disabilities & families who look after them who already live in this tiny street.
It would be cruel to disrupt their lives even further.
Peter Benham
Support
Peter Benham
Support
Mardi
,
New South Wales
Message
I am writing to express my strong support for the proposed development of the Eileen O’Connor Catholic School in Mardi—a state-of-the-art educational facility designed to meet the needs of children with disabilities and additional learning requirements.
The community of Mardi is incredibly fortunate to have such a specialised school located so close. This development will provide a vital service to families across the Central Coast who are seeking high-quality, tailored educational support for their children. At present, there are very limited options for students with additional needs, and many families are desperate for an alternative to mainstream public schools that cannot fully meet their child’s individual learning and behavioural needs.
The Eileen O’Connor Catholic School will not only provide much-needed choice in education but will also contribute to a stronger, more inclusive community. It will bring local employment opportunities and attract dedicated professionals—teachers, therapists, and support staff—who are passionate about helping every child thrive.
I believe this school will be a tremendous asset to our region and a source of hope for many families. I fully support the proposal and encourage the Council to approve the development.
The community of Mardi is incredibly fortunate to have such a specialised school located so close. This development will provide a vital service to families across the Central Coast who are seeking high-quality, tailored educational support for their children. At present, there are very limited options for students with additional needs, and many families are desperate for an alternative to mainstream public schools that cannot fully meet their child’s individual learning and behavioural needs.
The Eileen O’Connor Catholic School will not only provide much-needed choice in education but will also contribute to a stronger, more inclusive community. It will bring local employment opportunities and attract dedicated professionals—teachers, therapists, and support staff—who are passionate about helping every child thrive.
I believe this school will be a tremendous asset to our region and a source of hope for many families. I fully support the proposal and encourage the Council to approve the development.
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
MARDI
,
New South Wales
Message
Dear Sir/Madam,
I am writing to object to the proposed development of a three-storey school at 84 Gavenlock Road, Mardi. Having reviewed the Environmental Impact Statement and its technical appendices, I submit that the development is fundamentally flawed, legally non-compliant, and unsafe, and should be refused in its current form.
1. Traffic and Road Safety Impacts
Underestimated Traffic Generation: The Transport & Accessibility Impact Assessment (Appendix R, pp. 31–42) fails to model school peak periods. Queuing and congestion on Keefers Glen and Gavenlock Road are ignored, contrary to SEPP (Transport & Infrastructure) 2021 cl. 2.111, which requires safe and efficient transport outcomes for educational facilities.
Inadequate Road Capacity Assessment: Keefers Glen is a narrow residential road with single vehicle access and minimal off street parking. Benchmarking against regional arterial roads is misleading and breaches DCP 2022 Ch. 3.1 (Car Parking & Access), which requires context-based assessment.
Pedestrian & Cyclist Safety Ignored: No safe crossing points or separated foot/cycle paths are proposed, breaching the Austroads Guide to Road Design (Part 6A) and exposing children to risk. Keefers Glen has no footpaths and due to the narrow street (and surrounding streets Deloraine Glen) pedestrians are required to walk on the road as there is no safe footpaths and cars are parked on kerbs to allow single vehicle access through the roads
Parking Deficiency: On-site parking falls short of DCP 2022 minimum ratios, ensuring overspill into Keefers Glen.
Construction Traffic Deferred: The Preliminary CTPMP (Appendix T, p. 6) defers construction traffic planning until a builder is appointed, breaching EP&A Regulation 2021 Sch 2, cl. 6.
Cumulative Impacts Ignored: The report does not assess traffic interaction with St Peter’s Catholic College, in breach of EP&A Act s.4.15(1)(b).
Ground for refusal: Unsafe and inadequate traffic planning, inconsistent with statutory and local planning controls.
2. Noise and Acoustic Amenity
Baseline Monitoring Deficient: The Noise & Vibration Assessment (Appendix U, pp. 17–18) is based on short-term monitoring, not the 7-day standard required by the EPA Noise Policy for Industry 2017 (NPfI).
Outdoor Noise Underestimated: Intermittent, high-level playground and PA system noise was ignored, contrary to EPA guidance.
After-Hours Use Excluded: The report concedes that evening/weekend use of facilities (sports, assemblies, community hire) has not been assessed (Appendix U, p. 26), breaching EP&A Act s.4.15(1)(b).
Vague Mitigation Measures: Generic references to barriers provide no enforceable design, breaching DCP Ch. 3.3 Noise & Vibration.
Construction Noise Ignored: No modelling against the Interim Construction Noise Guideline (DECC 2009), contrary to regulatory standards.
Cumulative Noise Ignored: Noise from St Peter’s College has not been combined with the proposal.
Ground for refusal: Non-compliance with NPfI 2017 and ICNG 2009, leading to unacceptable amenity loss.
3. Flood Risk and Emergency Access
The Flood Impact Assessment (Appendix EE, p. 21) and Flood Emergency Response Plan (Appendix FF, p. 14) admit that evacuation routes will be cut during 1% AEP and PMF events, isolating the site.
The NSW Floodplain Development Manual (2023) requires not only raised floor levels but also safe evacuation routes. These have not been demonstrated.
The school is designed for children with disabilities, who may require assisted evacuation. Approval without proven evacuation safety risks breach of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) and the EP&A Act s.4.15(1)(b).
Ground for refusal: Unsafe flood evacuation and non-compliance with statutory floodplain management guidelines.
4. Bushfire Emergency Management
The Bushfire Emergency Management Plan (Appendix RR) confirms reliance on Keefers Glen as the sole access route. Planning for Bushfire Protection 2019 (PBP) requires dual safe evacuation routes for vulnerable uses.
The interaction of flood and bushfire risks has not been assessed, contrary to NSW RFS guidelines.
Details of hydrant access, defendable space, and APZs are incomplete.
Ground for refusal: Non-compliance with PBP 2019 and failure to ensure life safety in concurrent hazard scenarios.
5. Architectural Design, Height, and Privacy Impacts
The Architectural Design Report (Appendix I) describes the school as “predominantly two-storey” but in reality introduces three-storey built form at the northern ends of the wings. These sections will appear as full three-storey blocks when viewed from Keefers Glen and Brickendon Avenue, creating an imposing institutional bulk inconsistent with the surrounding one- to two-storey residential neighbourhood.
This bulk and scale directly conflicts with the planning intent of the Central Coast Local Environmental Plan 2022 and Development Control Plan 2022, which require new development to respect and integrate with the prevailing low-density residential character of Mardi.
Furthermore, the upper-level verandahs and learning spaces will enable direct overlooking into neighbouring backyards and homes, resulting in a significant loss of residential privacy. This impact breaches both the residential amenity provisions of the DCP and the broader objectives of the EP&A Act requiring protection of neighbourhood character and amenity.
Ground for refusal: Excessive building height, visual bulk, and overlooking, contrary to the LEP and DCP provisions for residential interface areas.
6. Social Impact
The Social Impact Assessment (Appendix KK, p. 12) is biased towards benefits and fails to assess negative impacts, including:
Loss of residential amenity and neighbourhood character,
Increased noise and traffic danger,
Reduced property values,
Cumulative stress on local infrastructure.
This omission breaches EP&A Act s.4.15(1)(b) and (d), which require full consideration of social and economic impacts.
Ground for refusal: Incomplete and unreliable assessment of social impacts.
7. Legal and Policy Non-Compliance Summary
The proposed development fails to comply with:
EP&A Act 1979 s.4.15(1)(b) – inadequate consideration of environmental, traffic, safety, and social impacts.
Central Coast LEP 2022 – inconsistent with local character and amenity objectives.
Central Coast DCP 2022 – breaches in traffic (Ch. 3.1), noise (Ch. 3.3), privacy, and rural-residential character (Ch. 5.51).
SEPP (Transport & Infrastructure) 2021 cl. 2.111 – inadequate traffic and safety outcomes.
EPA NPfI 2017 & ICNG 2009 – flawed acoustic assessment.
NSW Floodplain Development Manual 2023 – unsafe evacuation provisions.
Planning for Bushfire Protection 2019 – inadequate bushfire evacuation and APZ design.
Requested Outcome
I respectfully request that Council refuse the DA in its current form on the grounds of serious non-compliance and unacceptable risk.
Should approval be contemplated, Council must at minimum require:
Independent peer review of traffic, noise, flood, and bushfire reports;
Strict conditions limiting building height to two storeys along Keefers Glen;
Enforceable acoustic barriers and restrictions on PA/bell usage;
A prohibition on after-hours/weekend use unless subject to a separate DA;
Proof of dual safe evacuation routes for flood and bushfire;
Full compliance with DCP car parking ratios and additional on-site parking.
Conclusion
This proposal represents a serious threat to safety, amenity, and local character. It fails multiple statutory tests under the EP&A Act and associated instruments. I therefore urge that the proposal in its current form is not supported
Yours sincerely,
I am writing to object to the proposed development of a three-storey school at 84 Gavenlock Road, Mardi. Having reviewed the Environmental Impact Statement and its technical appendices, I submit that the development is fundamentally flawed, legally non-compliant, and unsafe, and should be refused in its current form.
1. Traffic and Road Safety Impacts
Underestimated Traffic Generation: The Transport & Accessibility Impact Assessment (Appendix R, pp. 31–42) fails to model school peak periods. Queuing and congestion on Keefers Glen and Gavenlock Road are ignored, contrary to SEPP (Transport & Infrastructure) 2021 cl. 2.111, which requires safe and efficient transport outcomes for educational facilities.
Inadequate Road Capacity Assessment: Keefers Glen is a narrow residential road with single vehicle access and minimal off street parking. Benchmarking against regional arterial roads is misleading and breaches DCP 2022 Ch. 3.1 (Car Parking & Access), which requires context-based assessment.
Pedestrian & Cyclist Safety Ignored: No safe crossing points or separated foot/cycle paths are proposed, breaching the Austroads Guide to Road Design (Part 6A) and exposing children to risk. Keefers Glen has no footpaths and due to the narrow street (and surrounding streets Deloraine Glen) pedestrians are required to walk on the road as there is no safe footpaths and cars are parked on kerbs to allow single vehicle access through the roads
Parking Deficiency: On-site parking falls short of DCP 2022 minimum ratios, ensuring overspill into Keefers Glen.
Construction Traffic Deferred: The Preliminary CTPMP (Appendix T, p. 6) defers construction traffic planning until a builder is appointed, breaching EP&A Regulation 2021 Sch 2, cl. 6.
Cumulative Impacts Ignored: The report does not assess traffic interaction with St Peter’s Catholic College, in breach of EP&A Act s.4.15(1)(b).
Ground for refusal: Unsafe and inadequate traffic planning, inconsistent with statutory and local planning controls.
2. Noise and Acoustic Amenity
Baseline Monitoring Deficient: The Noise & Vibration Assessment (Appendix U, pp. 17–18) is based on short-term monitoring, not the 7-day standard required by the EPA Noise Policy for Industry 2017 (NPfI).
Outdoor Noise Underestimated: Intermittent, high-level playground and PA system noise was ignored, contrary to EPA guidance.
After-Hours Use Excluded: The report concedes that evening/weekend use of facilities (sports, assemblies, community hire) has not been assessed (Appendix U, p. 26), breaching EP&A Act s.4.15(1)(b).
Vague Mitigation Measures: Generic references to barriers provide no enforceable design, breaching DCP Ch. 3.3 Noise & Vibration.
Construction Noise Ignored: No modelling against the Interim Construction Noise Guideline (DECC 2009), contrary to regulatory standards.
Cumulative Noise Ignored: Noise from St Peter’s College has not been combined with the proposal.
Ground for refusal: Non-compliance with NPfI 2017 and ICNG 2009, leading to unacceptable amenity loss.
3. Flood Risk and Emergency Access
The Flood Impact Assessment (Appendix EE, p. 21) and Flood Emergency Response Plan (Appendix FF, p. 14) admit that evacuation routes will be cut during 1% AEP and PMF events, isolating the site.
The NSW Floodplain Development Manual (2023) requires not only raised floor levels but also safe evacuation routes. These have not been demonstrated.
The school is designed for children with disabilities, who may require assisted evacuation. Approval without proven evacuation safety risks breach of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) and the EP&A Act s.4.15(1)(b).
Ground for refusal: Unsafe flood evacuation and non-compliance with statutory floodplain management guidelines.
4. Bushfire Emergency Management
The Bushfire Emergency Management Plan (Appendix RR) confirms reliance on Keefers Glen as the sole access route. Planning for Bushfire Protection 2019 (PBP) requires dual safe evacuation routes for vulnerable uses.
The interaction of flood and bushfire risks has not been assessed, contrary to NSW RFS guidelines.
Details of hydrant access, defendable space, and APZs are incomplete.
Ground for refusal: Non-compliance with PBP 2019 and failure to ensure life safety in concurrent hazard scenarios.
5. Architectural Design, Height, and Privacy Impacts
The Architectural Design Report (Appendix I) describes the school as “predominantly two-storey” but in reality introduces three-storey built form at the northern ends of the wings. These sections will appear as full three-storey blocks when viewed from Keefers Glen and Brickendon Avenue, creating an imposing institutional bulk inconsistent with the surrounding one- to two-storey residential neighbourhood.
This bulk and scale directly conflicts with the planning intent of the Central Coast Local Environmental Plan 2022 and Development Control Plan 2022, which require new development to respect and integrate with the prevailing low-density residential character of Mardi.
Furthermore, the upper-level verandahs and learning spaces will enable direct overlooking into neighbouring backyards and homes, resulting in a significant loss of residential privacy. This impact breaches both the residential amenity provisions of the DCP and the broader objectives of the EP&A Act requiring protection of neighbourhood character and amenity.
Ground for refusal: Excessive building height, visual bulk, and overlooking, contrary to the LEP and DCP provisions for residential interface areas.
6. Social Impact
The Social Impact Assessment (Appendix KK, p. 12) is biased towards benefits and fails to assess negative impacts, including:
Loss of residential amenity and neighbourhood character,
Increased noise and traffic danger,
Reduced property values,
Cumulative stress on local infrastructure.
This omission breaches EP&A Act s.4.15(1)(b) and (d), which require full consideration of social and economic impacts.
Ground for refusal: Incomplete and unreliable assessment of social impacts.
7. Legal and Policy Non-Compliance Summary
The proposed development fails to comply with:
EP&A Act 1979 s.4.15(1)(b) – inadequate consideration of environmental, traffic, safety, and social impacts.
Central Coast LEP 2022 – inconsistent with local character and amenity objectives.
Central Coast DCP 2022 – breaches in traffic (Ch. 3.1), noise (Ch. 3.3), privacy, and rural-residential character (Ch. 5.51).
SEPP (Transport & Infrastructure) 2021 cl. 2.111 – inadequate traffic and safety outcomes.
EPA NPfI 2017 & ICNG 2009 – flawed acoustic assessment.
NSW Floodplain Development Manual 2023 – unsafe evacuation provisions.
Planning for Bushfire Protection 2019 – inadequate bushfire evacuation and APZ design.
Requested Outcome
I respectfully request that Council refuse the DA in its current form on the grounds of serious non-compliance and unacceptable risk.
Should approval be contemplated, Council must at minimum require:
Independent peer review of traffic, noise, flood, and bushfire reports;
Strict conditions limiting building height to two storeys along Keefers Glen;
Enforceable acoustic barriers and restrictions on PA/bell usage;
A prohibition on after-hours/weekend use unless subject to a separate DA;
Proof of dual safe evacuation routes for flood and bushfire;
Full compliance with DCP car parking ratios and additional on-site parking.
Conclusion
This proposal represents a serious threat to safety, amenity, and local character. It fails multiple statutory tests under the EP&A Act and associated instruments. I therefore urge that the proposal in its current form is not supported
Yours sincerely,
Vicky Orr
Support
Vicky Orr
Support
Mardi
,
New South Wales
Message
I am writing to express my strong support for the proposed development of the Eileen O’Connor Catholic School in Mardi—a specialised school dedicated to supporting children with disabilities and additional learning needs.
This school would mark a significant and much-needed advancement for our community. Currently, the Central Coast has limited educational options for students with diverse learning needs. The introduction of this facility would give families greater choice and ensure more children can access individualised, inclusive education in a setting that truly supports their potential.
Beyond the educational benefits, this development would bring lasting value to the suburb of Mardi—creating employment opportunities and drawing skilled professionals such as teachers, therapists, and support staff to the area. This would not only strengthen our local economy but also foster a more inclusive and supportive community.
Most importantly, a school like this sends a clear message: that our community values dignity, equity, and opportunity for all learners. It would be an honour and privilege for Mardi to host a school with such a strong mission and vision for inclusion.
I fully support this proposal and respectfully urge the Council to approve the development. The Eileen O’Connor Catholic School would be a positive and welcome presence in our suburb, and I would be proud to see it become part of Mardi’s future.
This school would mark a significant and much-needed advancement for our community. Currently, the Central Coast has limited educational options for students with diverse learning needs. The introduction of this facility would give families greater choice and ensure more children can access individualised, inclusive education in a setting that truly supports their potential.
Beyond the educational benefits, this development would bring lasting value to the suburb of Mardi—creating employment opportunities and drawing skilled professionals such as teachers, therapists, and support staff to the area. This would not only strengthen our local economy but also foster a more inclusive and supportive community.
Most importantly, a school like this sends a clear message: that our community values dignity, equity, and opportunity for all learners. It would be an honour and privilege for Mardi to host a school with such a strong mission and vision for inclusion.
I fully support this proposal and respectfully urge the Council to approve the development. The Eileen O’Connor Catholic School would be a positive and welcome presence in our suburb, and I would be proud to see it become part of Mardi’s future.
Name Withheld
Comment
Name Withheld
Comment
MARDI
,
New South Wales
Message
“Re: Objection to the Proposed Development – Eileen O’Connor Catholic School, 84 Gavenlock Road, Mardi (SSD 67173718)
Dear Sir/Madam,
I am writing to object to the proposed development of a three-storey school at 84 Gavenlock Road, Mardi. Having reviewed the Environmental Impact Statement and its technical appendices, I submit that the development is fundamentally flawed, legally non-compliant, and unsafe, and should be refused in its current form.
1. Traffic and Road Safety Impacts
Underestimated Traffic Generation: The Transport & Accessibility Impact Assessment (Appendix R, pp. 31–42) fails to model school peak periods. Queuing and congestion on Keefers Glen and Gavenlock Road are ignored, contrary to SEPP (Transport & Infrastructure) 2021 cl. 2.111, which requires safe and efficient transport outcomes for educational facilities.
Inadequate Road Capacity Assessment: Keefers Glen is a narrow residential cul-de-sac. Benchmarking against regional arterial roads is misleading and breaches DCP 2022 Ch. 3.1 (Car Parking & Access), which requires context-based assessment.
Pedestrian & Cyclist Safety Ignored: No safe crossing points or separated foot/cycle paths are proposed, breaching the Austroads Guide to Road Design (Part 6A) and exposing children to risk.
Parking Deficiency: On-site parking falls short of DCP 2022 minimum ratios, ensuring overspill into Keefers Glen.
Construction Traffic Deferred: The Preliminary CTPMP (Appendix T, p. 6) defers construction traffic planning until a builder is appointed, breaching EP&A Regulation 2021 Sch 2, cl. 6.
Cumulative Impacts Ignored: The report does not assess traffic interaction with St Peter’s Catholic College, in breach of EP&A Act s.4.15(1)(b).
Ground for refusal: Unsafe and inadequate traffic planning, inconsistent with statutory and local planning controls.
2. Noise and Acoustic Amenity
Baseline Monitoring Deficient: The Noise & Vibration Assessment (Appendix U, pp. 17–18) is based on short-term monitoring, not the 7-day standard required by the EPA Noise Policy for Industry 2017 (NPfI).
Outdoor Noise Underestimated: Intermittent, high-level playground and PA system noise was ignored, contrary to EPA guidance.
After-Hours Use Excluded: The report concedes that evening/weekend use of facilities (sports, assemblies, community hire) has not been assessed (Appendix U, p. 26), breaching EP&A Act s.4.15(1)(b).
Vague Mitigation Measures: Generic references to barriers provide no enforceable design, breaching DCP Ch. 3.3 Noise & Vibration.
Construction Noise Ignored: No modelling against the Interim Construction Noise Guideline (DECC 2009), contrary to regulatory standards.
Cumulative Noise Ignored: Noise from St Peter’s College has not been combined with the proposal.
Ground for refusal: Non-compliance with NPfI 2017 and ICNG 2009, leading to unacceptable amenity loss.
3. Flood Risk and Emergency Access
The Flood Impact Assessment (Appendix EE, p. 21) and Flood Emergency Response Plan (Appendix FF, p. 14) admit that evacuation routes will be cut during 1% AEP and PMF events, isolating the site.
The NSW Floodplain Development Manual (2023) requires not only raised floor levels but also safe evacuation routes. These have not been demonstrated.
The school is designed for children with disabilities, who may require assisted evacuation. Approval without proven evacuation safety risks breach of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) and the EP&A Act s.4.15(1)(b).
Ground for refusal: Unsafe flood evacuation and non-compliance with statutory floodplain management guidelines.
4. Bushfire Emergency Management
The Bushfire Emergency Management Plan (Appendix RR) confirms reliance on Keefers Glen as the sole access route. Planning for Bushfire Protection 2019 (PBP) requires dual safe evacuation routes for vulnerable uses.
The interaction of flood and bushfire risks has not been assessed, contrary to NSW RFS guidelines.
Details of hydrant access, defendable space, and APZs are incomplete.
Ground for refusal: Non-compliance with PBP 2019 and failure to ensure life safety in concurrent hazard scenarios.
5. Architectural Design, Height, and Privacy Impacts
The Architectural Design Report (Appendix I) describes the school as “predominantly two-storey” but in reality introduces three-storey built form at the northern ends of the wings. These sections will appear as full three-storey blocks when viewed from Keefers Glen and Brickendon Avenue, creating an imposing institutional bulk inconsistent with the surrounding one- to two-storey residential neighbourhood.
This bulk and scale directly conflicts with the planning intent of the Central Coast Local Environmental Plan 2022 and Development Control Plan 2022, which require new development to respect and integrate with the prevailing low-density residential character of Mardi.
Furthermore, the upper-level verandahs and learning spaces will enable direct overlooking into neighbouring backyards and homes, resulting in a significant loss of residential privacy. This impact breaches both the residential amenity provisions of the DCP and the broader objectives of the EP&A Act requiring protection of neighbourhood character and amenity.
Ground for refusal: Excessive building height, visual bulk, and overlooking, contrary to the LEP and DCP provisions for residential interface areas.
6. Social Impact
The Social Impact Assessment (Appendix KK, p. 12) is biased towards benefits and fails to assess negative impacts, including:
Loss of residential amenity and neighbourhood character,
Increased noise and traffic danger,
Reduced property values,
Cumulative stress on local infrastructure.
This omission breaches EP&A Act s.4.15(1)(b) and (d), which require full consideration of social and economic impacts.
Ground for refusal: Incomplete and unreliable assessment of social impacts.
7. Legal and Policy Non-Compliance Summary
The proposed development fails to comply with:
EP&A Act 1979 s.4.15(1)(b) – inadequate consideration of environmental, traffic, safety, and social impacts.
Central Coast LEP 2022 – inconsistent with local character and amenity objectives.
Central Coast DCP 2022 – breaches in traffic (Ch. 3.1), noise (Ch. 3.3), privacy, and rural-residential character (Ch. 5.51).
SEPP (Transport & Infrastructure) 2021 cl. 2.111 – inadequate traffic and safety outcomes.
EPA NPfI 2017 & ICNG 2009 – flawed acoustic assessment.
NSW Floodplain Development Manual 2023 – unsafe evacuation provisions.
Planning for Bushfire Protection 2019 – inadequate bushfire evacuation and APZ design.
Requested Outcome
I respectfully request that Council refuse the DA in its current form on the grounds of serious non-compliance and unacceptable risk.
Should approval be contemplated, Council must at minimum require:
Independent peer review of traffic, noise, flood, and bushfire reports;
Strict conditions limiting building height to two storeys along Keefers Glen;
Enforceable acoustic barriers and restrictions on PA/bell usage;
A prohibition on after-hours/weekend use unless subject to a separate DA;
Proof of dual safe evacuation routes for flood and bushfire;
Full compliance with DCP car parking ratios and additional on-site parking.
Conclusion
This proposal represents a serious threat to safety, amenity, and local character. It fails multiple statutory tests under the EP&A Act and associated instruments. I therefore urge Council to refuse the DA in its current form.
Yours sincerely
Dear Sir/Madam,
I am writing to object to the proposed development of a three-storey school at 84 Gavenlock Road, Mardi. Having reviewed the Environmental Impact Statement and its technical appendices, I submit that the development is fundamentally flawed, legally non-compliant, and unsafe, and should be refused in its current form.
1. Traffic and Road Safety Impacts
Underestimated Traffic Generation: The Transport & Accessibility Impact Assessment (Appendix R, pp. 31–42) fails to model school peak periods. Queuing and congestion on Keefers Glen and Gavenlock Road are ignored, contrary to SEPP (Transport & Infrastructure) 2021 cl. 2.111, which requires safe and efficient transport outcomes for educational facilities.
Inadequate Road Capacity Assessment: Keefers Glen is a narrow residential cul-de-sac. Benchmarking against regional arterial roads is misleading and breaches DCP 2022 Ch. 3.1 (Car Parking & Access), which requires context-based assessment.
Pedestrian & Cyclist Safety Ignored: No safe crossing points or separated foot/cycle paths are proposed, breaching the Austroads Guide to Road Design (Part 6A) and exposing children to risk.
Parking Deficiency: On-site parking falls short of DCP 2022 minimum ratios, ensuring overspill into Keefers Glen.
Construction Traffic Deferred: The Preliminary CTPMP (Appendix T, p. 6) defers construction traffic planning until a builder is appointed, breaching EP&A Regulation 2021 Sch 2, cl. 6.
Cumulative Impacts Ignored: The report does not assess traffic interaction with St Peter’s Catholic College, in breach of EP&A Act s.4.15(1)(b).
Ground for refusal: Unsafe and inadequate traffic planning, inconsistent with statutory and local planning controls.
2. Noise and Acoustic Amenity
Baseline Monitoring Deficient: The Noise & Vibration Assessment (Appendix U, pp. 17–18) is based on short-term monitoring, not the 7-day standard required by the EPA Noise Policy for Industry 2017 (NPfI).
Outdoor Noise Underestimated: Intermittent, high-level playground and PA system noise was ignored, contrary to EPA guidance.
After-Hours Use Excluded: The report concedes that evening/weekend use of facilities (sports, assemblies, community hire) has not been assessed (Appendix U, p. 26), breaching EP&A Act s.4.15(1)(b).
Vague Mitigation Measures: Generic references to barriers provide no enforceable design, breaching DCP Ch. 3.3 Noise & Vibration.
Construction Noise Ignored: No modelling against the Interim Construction Noise Guideline (DECC 2009), contrary to regulatory standards.
Cumulative Noise Ignored: Noise from St Peter’s College has not been combined with the proposal.
Ground for refusal: Non-compliance with NPfI 2017 and ICNG 2009, leading to unacceptable amenity loss.
3. Flood Risk and Emergency Access
The Flood Impact Assessment (Appendix EE, p. 21) and Flood Emergency Response Plan (Appendix FF, p. 14) admit that evacuation routes will be cut during 1% AEP and PMF events, isolating the site.
The NSW Floodplain Development Manual (2023) requires not only raised floor levels but also safe evacuation routes. These have not been demonstrated.
The school is designed for children with disabilities, who may require assisted evacuation. Approval without proven evacuation safety risks breach of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) and the EP&A Act s.4.15(1)(b).
Ground for refusal: Unsafe flood evacuation and non-compliance with statutory floodplain management guidelines.
4. Bushfire Emergency Management
The Bushfire Emergency Management Plan (Appendix RR) confirms reliance on Keefers Glen as the sole access route. Planning for Bushfire Protection 2019 (PBP) requires dual safe evacuation routes for vulnerable uses.
The interaction of flood and bushfire risks has not been assessed, contrary to NSW RFS guidelines.
Details of hydrant access, defendable space, and APZs are incomplete.
Ground for refusal: Non-compliance with PBP 2019 and failure to ensure life safety in concurrent hazard scenarios.
5. Architectural Design, Height, and Privacy Impacts
The Architectural Design Report (Appendix I) describes the school as “predominantly two-storey” but in reality introduces three-storey built form at the northern ends of the wings. These sections will appear as full three-storey blocks when viewed from Keefers Glen and Brickendon Avenue, creating an imposing institutional bulk inconsistent with the surrounding one- to two-storey residential neighbourhood.
This bulk and scale directly conflicts with the planning intent of the Central Coast Local Environmental Plan 2022 and Development Control Plan 2022, which require new development to respect and integrate with the prevailing low-density residential character of Mardi.
Furthermore, the upper-level verandahs and learning spaces will enable direct overlooking into neighbouring backyards and homes, resulting in a significant loss of residential privacy. This impact breaches both the residential amenity provisions of the DCP and the broader objectives of the EP&A Act requiring protection of neighbourhood character and amenity.
Ground for refusal: Excessive building height, visual bulk, and overlooking, contrary to the LEP and DCP provisions for residential interface areas.
6. Social Impact
The Social Impact Assessment (Appendix KK, p. 12) is biased towards benefits and fails to assess negative impacts, including:
Loss of residential amenity and neighbourhood character,
Increased noise and traffic danger,
Reduced property values,
Cumulative stress on local infrastructure.
This omission breaches EP&A Act s.4.15(1)(b) and (d), which require full consideration of social and economic impacts.
Ground for refusal: Incomplete and unreliable assessment of social impacts.
7. Legal and Policy Non-Compliance Summary
The proposed development fails to comply with:
EP&A Act 1979 s.4.15(1)(b) – inadequate consideration of environmental, traffic, safety, and social impacts.
Central Coast LEP 2022 – inconsistent with local character and amenity objectives.
Central Coast DCP 2022 – breaches in traffic (Ch. 3.1), noise (Ch. 3.3), privacy, and rural-residential character (Ch. 5.51).
SEPP (Transport & Infrastructure) 2021 cl. 2.111 – inadequate traffic and safety outcomes.
EPA NPfI 2017 & ICNG 2009 – flawed acoustic assessment.
NSW Floodplain Development Manual 2023 – unsafe evacuation provisions.
Planning for Bushfire Protection 2019 – inadequate bushfire evacuation and APZ design.
Requested Outcome
I respectfully request that Council refuse the DA in its current form on the grounds of serious non-compliance and unacceptable risk.
Should approval be contemplated, Council must at minimum require:
Independent peer review of traffic, noise, flood, and bushfire reports;
Strict conditions limiting building height to two storeys along Keefers Glen;
Enforceable acoustic barriers and restrictions on PA/bell usage;
A prohibition on after-hours/weekend use unless subject to a separate DA;
Proof of dual safe evacuation routes for flood and bushfire;
Full compliance with DCP car parking ratios and additional on-site parking.
Conclusion
This proposal represents a serious threat to safety, amenity, and local character. It fails multiple statutory tests under the EP&A Act and associated instruments. I therefore urge Council to refuse the DA in its current form.
Yours sincerely
Jessica Ferraro
Comment
Jessica Ferraro
Comment
MARDI
,
New South Wales
Message
SUMMARY
I strongly support this essential special education facility but have serious concerns about the proposed Keefer's Glen vehicle access. I advocate for access via Gavenlock Road as recommended by Central Coast Council.
SUPPORT FOR THE SCHOOL
This facility addresses a critical need for specialised education on the Central Coast, serving 200 students with disabilities and reducing families' need to travel to Sydney/Newcastle. The project aligns with NSW priorities for inclusive education and breaking disadvantage cycles.
TRAFFIC CONCERNS - KEEFER'S GLEN ACCESS
Volume Analysis
The Transport Assessment shows extraordinary traffic loads:
213 vehicle trips/hour (morning peak 8-9am)
156 vehicle trips/hour (afternoon peak 2:30-3:30pm)
100% vehicle dependency (85% ASTP transport, 15% private vehicles)
71 staff all driving to work
This represents a massive increase for a narrow lane serving only 16 dwellings.
Impact on Brickendon Avenue
Current traffic surveys show Brickendon Avenue handles 96 vehicles/hour (AM) and 93 vehicles/hour (PM). As the direct route from Woodbury Park Drive to Keefer's Glen, our street would experience potential doubling or tripling of traffic during school peaks.
Central Coast Council's Opposition
Council has unequivocally rejected Keefer's Glen access, stating:
"Council will not support this proposal"
"The proposed special needs school will generate considerably higher passenger vehicular movements than other schools"
"Residents amenity will be severely affected"
"Keefers Glen was not constructed to facilitate traffic loading"
"All access to the new school is to be provided via the existing driveway on Gavenlock Road"
This represents expert local assessment that Keefer's Glen access is inappropriate and dangerous.
Technical Deficiencies
Narrow carriageway: Never designed for this traffic volume
Intersection capacity: Cannot support bus swept paths
No formal footpaths: Pedestrian safety compromised
Parking displacement: Eliminates resident parking
SUPERIOR GAVENLOCK ROAD ALTERNATIVE
Gavenlock Road offers:
Higher road classification with appropriate infrastructure
Existing school zone (40km/h restrictions)
Better intersection capacity connecting to Woodbury Park Drive
Direct access to Wyong Road (State Road) and Pacific Highway
Established traffic management serving St Peter's College
CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS
18-month construction via Keefer's Glen would create:
Daily heavy vehicle movements through residential area
Noise exceeding 75dB(A) "Highly Noise Affected" levels
Disruption before permanent traffic increases commence
Potential property value impacts from increased traffic and construction
PROPERTY VALUE CONCERNS
The combination of construction disruption and permanent traffic increases through our quiet residential area poses real risks to property values. The noise assessment acknowledges noise levels will exceed management standards, and the traffic volumes represent a fundamental change to neighbourhood character.
COMMUNITY RESPONSE
Residents across Mardi have rallied around this cause, recognising the need for the school whilst opposing inappropriate access arrangements. Community consultation identified "desire for wider Keefer's Glen" - but widening to 6m cannot address fundamental infrastructure mismatch.
FLOOD SAFETY CONSIDERATION
While applicants cite flood concerns about Gavenlock Road, this can be managed through emergency planning rather than shifting inappropriate traffic to residential streets unsuited for high volumes.
PRECEDENT CONCERNS
Approving access explicitly rejected by the traffic authority sets concerning precedent for prioritising applicant preferences over technical safety assessments.
RECOMMENDED SOLUTION
Approve the school development - essential community facility
Require primary access via Gavenlock Road per Council recommendation
Emergency access only via Keefer's Glen if required
Comprehensive traffic monitoring post-opening
This delivers educational benefits whilst protecting residential amenity and safety.
CONCLUSION
This important school deserves support, but not at residential safety expense. Central Coast Council's technical assessment demonstrates Keefer's Glen cannot safely accommodate proposed traffic volumes.
The documented concerns about road infrastructure, intersection capacity, residential amenity, and property values are well-founded and evidence-based.
I urge NSW Planning to approve this valuable school whilst requiring appropriate access via Gavenlock Road. This balanced approach advances educational objectives whilst protecting community safety and amenity.
Technical references: SSD-67173718 EIS, Transport & Accessibility Impact Assessment (Traffix), Preliminary CTMP, Central Coast Council Pre-DA advice September 2023 & July 2024.
I strongly support this essential special education facility but have serious concerns about the proposed Keefer's Glen vehicle access. I advocate for access via Gavenlock Road as recommended by Central Coast Council.
SUPPORT FOR THE SCHOOL
This facility addresses a critical need for specialised education on the Central Coast, serving 200 students with disabilities and reducing families' need to travel to Sydney/Newcastle. The project aligns with NSW priorities for inclusive education and breaking disadvantage cycles.
TRAFFIC CONCERNS - KEEFER'S GLEN ACCESS
Volume Analysis
The Transport Assessment shows extraordinary traffic loads:
213 vehicle trips/hour (morning peak 8-9am)
156 vehicle trips/hour (afternoon peak 2:30-3:30pm)
100% vehicle dependency (85% ASTP transport, 15% private vehicles)
71 staff all driving to work
This represents a massive increase for a narrow lane serving only 16 dwellings.
Impact on Brickendon Avenue
Current traffic surveys show Brickendon Avenue handles 96 vehicles/hour (AM) and 93 vehicles/hour (PM). As the direct route from Woodbury Park Drive to Keefer's Glen, our street would experience potential doubling or tripling of traffic during school peaks.
Central Coast Council's Opposition
Council has unequivocally rejected Keefer's Glen access, stating:
"Council will not support this proposal"
"The proposed special needs school will generate considerably higher passenger vehicular movements than other schools"
"Residents amenity will be severely affected"
"Keefers Glen was not constructed to facilitate traffic loading"
"All access to the new school is to be provided via the existing driveway on Gavenlock Road"
This represents expert local assessment that Keefer's Glen access is inappropriate and dangerous.
Technical Deficiencies
Narrow carriageway: Never designed for this traffic volume
Intersection capacity: Cannot support bus swept paths
No formal footpaths: Pedestrian safety compromised
Parking displacement: Eliminates resident parking
SUPERIOR GAVENLOCK ROAD ALTERNATIVE
Gavenlock Road offers:
Higher road classification with appropriate infrastructure
Existing school zone (40km/h restrictions)
Better intersection capacity connecting to Woodbury Park Drive
Direct access to Wyong Road (State Road) and Pacific Highway
Established traffic management serving St Peter's College
CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS
18-month construction via Keefer's Glen would create:
Daily heavy vehicle movements through residential area
Noise exceeding 75dB(A) "Highly Noise Affected" levels
Disruption before permanent traffic increases commence
Potential property value impacts from increased traffic and construction
PROPERTY VALUE CONCERNS
The combination of construction disruption and permanent traffic increases through our quiet residential area poses real risks to property values. The noise assessment acknowledges noise levels will exceed management standards, and the traffic volumes represent a fundamental change to neighbourhood character.
COMMUNITY RESPONSE
Residents across Mardi have rallied around this cause, recognising the need for the school whilst opposing inappropriate access arrangements. Community consultation identified "desire for wider Keefer's Glen" - but widening to 6m cannot address fundamental infrastructure mismatch.
FLOOD SAFETY CONSIDERATION
While applicants cite flood concerns about Gavenlock Road, this can be managed through emergency planning rather than shifting inappropriate traffic to residential streets unsuited for high volumes.
PRECEDENT CONCERNS
Approving access explicitly rejected by the traffic authority sets concerning precedent for prioritising applicant preferences over technical safety assessments.
RECOMMENDED SOLUTION
Approve the school development - essential community facility
Require primary access via Gavenlock Road per Council recommendation
Emergency access only via Keefer's Glen if required
Comprehensive traffic monitoring post-opening
This delivers educational benefits whilst protecting residential amenity and safety.
CONCLUSION
This important school deserves support, but not at residential safety expense. Central Coast Council's technical assessment demonstrates Keefer's Glen cannot safely accommodate proposed traffic volumes.
The documented concerns about road infrastructure, intersection capacity, residential amenity, and property values are well-founded and evidence-based.
I urge NSW Planning to approve this valuable school whilst requiring appropriate access via Gavenlock Road. This balanced approach advances educational objectives whilst protecting community safety and amenity.
Technical references: SSD-67173718 EIS, Transport & Accessibility Impact Assessment (Traffix), Preliminary CTMP, Central Coast Council Pre-DA advice September 2023 & July 2024.
Jacqueline Cubis
Object
Jacqueline Cubis
Object