REASONS FOR NOT SUPPORTING DEVELOPMENT
1. IN SUMMARY
• Excessive student numbers. Student numbers should not exceed 500 for such a small site and location.
• With the proposed student numbers even with 500 students, there will be significant traffic congestion and noise impact on quiet residential streets during the construction phase and when the school is in operation within at least 1km radius, particularly to the north & east.
• The site is sensitive to species of trees and fauna. There will be a significantly increased thoroughfare through the adjoining reserve which is high in biodiversity. The development will require a significant portion of the trees to be removed from the site.
• Due to small area of site, the building envelope has been condensed and resulted in 3 storeys building heights with estimated heights of above 13-14metres. The placement of these buildings are against single or double storey residential housing to the north (Grimes Lane) and the east (Chelmsford Avenue). The placement of the building envelope needs to be set to the back of the site close the tall residential apartments.
• There is a lack of playing fields and play areas relative to the high numbers of students.
• Site cannot support the required parking to accommodate the teaching & support staff, administration staff, visitor/parental parking, particularly considering hall events being held.
• Inadequate consultation with the local residents, noting submissions were only given 1 month to respond from the release of Concept and Stage 1.
2. NO TRAFFIC PLAN
• There is no traffic management plans with the proposal.
• Narrow street access to site, particularly in First and Second Avenue and Chelmsford Avenue will require careful consideration of traffic movement and planning around surrounding streets.
• Given the narrow streets there is an increased of vehicle and pedestrian accidents occurring as residential parking is required on both sides of the streets.
• There has been no planning of bus access to site particularly given the narrow street access via Grimes Lane, First Avenue, Second Avenue & Chelmsford Avenue.
• Significant traffic movement through First Avenue, Second Avenue and Chelmsford Avenue will require roundabouts at intersection of Dunlop Street & First & Second Avenue and Chelmsford & Edenlee Street.
• Access to site should be considered from the south west via Epping Park Drive or Ferntree Place to ease the pressure from the north of the site.
• No planning for residential parking. Residential permit parking will be required combined with limited hour parking during school hours for Chelmsford Avenue.
3. BUILDING BULK & HEIGHT
• Three storey high buildings with heights estimated above 13-14m, have been concentrated against the north-east corner of the site against single/double storey residential housing.
• Setback from Grimes Lane is only 4m whereas setback from 84B Chelmsford Avenue is only estimated at 4-5m (undisclosed on drawings).
• Such high building heights should be moved to the back of the site against the residential apartment blocks to be more consistent with height scaling across the site. The front of the site along Grimes Lanes and to the side adjoining 84B Chelmsford should be built with equivalent height to single storey residential.
• The building envelope across the site should be more evenly distributed across the full site and utilise the current tree canopy for shading in order to reduce the site’s increased radiant heat transfer from the new buildings.
4. LACK OF ON-SITE PARKING
• The development has not allowed enough parking.
• Assuming 500 students, an estimated teaching staff of between 50-60 plus admin staff (assuming no high dependency learning is offered at the school (if so, high student numbers again).
• For stage 1 only 32 parking spots have been proposed (50% of minimum required for the teaching staff & no visitor/parental parking).
• A school of only 500 students would require 100-120 parking spots (4 times the proposal).
• Due to the lack of on-site parking in the development, there would be an increased pressure on parking in surrounded narrow streets which has been allocated for residential parking.

I support all of the submissions made with the petition that has already been submitted.
I oppose the application
a I have lived in this culdesac for 13 years It is quiet and traffic free .The proposal would make this street a car park and a rat race each morning and afternoon and when special events are held.At the moment it is a reasonably save area for children . This will change dramatically for the worse .
b In my opinion the area is too steep and not big enough for 1000 students.
c Lack of public transport and very little scope for buses in narrow streets.
d Lacks common sense to abandon a perfectly good site at the existing school.
e Most of the existing school is temporary buildings . these can be readily moved to either the oval or to the new proposed site whilst construction takes place.
f parking restrictions outside the adjacent properties will adversely affect their house values and amenities.
g the existing proposed buildings and area should be reserved for early child care and other educational activities.

Attn. Ms. K Harragon Director Social and Infrastructure Assessments

9 First Avenue, Epping
My Wife and I have been residents of First Avenue for over 40 years. Our children and granddaughter were educated at local primary and secondary public schools and are a credit to the public school system.
During the early 90's I was employed as the National Projects Manager for an Australian top 40 company. At that time I was responsible for bringing projects to the Board of Directors costing tens of millions of dollars to rationalize and renew the Company.
Every project should have a business case to justify it yet I see none offered. Yes Epping West public and Carlingford Public in Rickard Street have a number of demountable classrooms, but where are the plans for additional buildings on those sites where there are already sports and considerable open spaces and other amenities already available.
I see no forecast in Demographics for Epping and Carlingford, yet the latest A.B.S figures (June 1/4 2020) show that immigration has tanked.The high density apartment building projects in West Epping and Carlingford have been halted, so one must ask where in light of the continuing covid problem is growth in school age population going to occur locally? It would certainly be questionable that a new school build spend in a relatively wealthy and stable area as this could be justifiable to the detriment of Western Sydney in newly developing areas such as Gregory Hills where infrastructure like schools is lacking.

General Comments: The Horticultural Annex was occupied by Ryde Hort. School up to about a decade ago and prior to that there was a good relationship between them and the local community .The students went on street excursions and local trees and shrubs were examined as part of the course. Meanwhile the site has become a native wildlife hub with a breeding family of brush turkeys, owls. bats, butcher birds, ravens and other protected species. In essence this is not just about removing a few trees, it is about habitat destruction. There must be a bona fide wild life survey of the site by an accredited agency before a spade is turned. Damage to the green corridor that runs from the Mobb's Lane reserve along Grimes and Chelmsford must be prevented .The Grimes Lane
Nature strip will become an unofficial car park and the delicate balance of the soil structure lost.
The installation of a tannoy system at the school is something to dread. Epping West has one and caused considerable annoyance to surrounding residents. It is surprising that the E.P.A. has not legislated to curtail these 19th century methods that were used in large factory complexes. My wife has leukemia and external disturbances to the peace are not welcome.
The lack of space on the site for sports and recreation is a big negative and will mean a trek for the kids of several hundred metres to the Fred Holloway reserve and involve crossing the busy Mobbs Lane.
I concur with comments made by Mr. Weir in his submission to you.

sincerely

HNSW ACH advice attached.

Please find attached EES response