George Chen
Object
George Chen
Object
Chatswood
,
New South Wales
Message
Mr George Chen (OWNER)
1 James Street
CHATSWOOD NSW 2067
27 April 2020
CHATSWOOD EDUCATION PRECINCT
Application no.: SSD-9483
Political donations in previous two years: nil
Re: Objection to the Proposed Development of Chatswood Public School (CPS)
The current proposal for the development plays down the huge adverse impact on the existing neighbouring residents living on the western side of Pacific Highway. As I understand, the proposed development is a temporary solution to cope with the 1600 students planned for CPS. Why must the 1600 students be allocated to CPS, which has such a small footprint in ground area, and not elsewhere? The problem is that once the development goes ahead, the buildings will become permanent. No one will remember that it was meant to be temporary. The adverse impact to neighbouring residents will therefore also be permanent.
My objections and the adverse impacts are as below:
1. The proposed Building G (3) with its north facing wall would be right against the neighbour’s boundary instead of being a metre away from its neighbour.
2. There is an existing two storey high, long retaining wall of brick construction that runs along the full length of our property at 1 and 1A James Street. Construction of Building G (3) must not compromise the structural strength of this existing retaining wall.
3. The proposed seven story Building 2 occupying the air space above the existing playground will take away the openness and distant outlook towards the South West vistas from the standpoint of residents in properties of 1 / 1A and 3 / 3A James Street. The oppressive seven storey high Building 2 “The Lowers” is bearing down on the existing adjoining low level houses.
4. In the impact submission by the developer, elevation views from Jenkins Street and James Street have been omitted, which would have highlighted the adverse effects caused by the proposed seven storey Building 2, and it being the tallest in the West Ward of Chatswood. This tallest building, ironically named “The Lowers”, towers above the existing low line houses. It is completely out of character with the surrounds of West Ward. This can simply put down as a lack of transparency by the developer by omitting these facts in its impact assessments.
5. The students from the upper floors of Building 2, The Lowers could overlook clearly the activities happening at our front yard. We strongly object and are very concerned to the loss of our privacy.
6. By increasing students at CPS, the numbers of cars using James Street will inevitably be increased. Accidents endangering students, parents and the public will be increased when they negotiate the junction of Fullers Road and the sharp turn into and out of James Street. Numerous accidents in the past had occurred, resulting in the forming of a filter lane to mitigate this issue. Who would be held accountable if more accidents happened because of the proposed development?
7. Before Covid-19 parents dropping and picking up students often illegally park their cars in “No Parking” zones and block private garage access along James Street. With more parents using James Street, possible “road rage” and related incidents will be inevitable.
8. In this challenging time of COVID-19 self-isolation, group consultation is not possible. Therefore, now is not the appropriate time for requesting submission to the CPS development. The process does not provide a fair or equitable opportunity for the public to review or discuss the proposed development.
1 James Street
CHATSWOOD NSW 2067
27 April 2020
CHATSWOOD EDUCATION PRECINCT
Application no.: SSD-9483
Political donations in previous two years: nil
Re: Objection to the Proposed Development of Chatswood Public School (CPS)
The current proposal for the development plays down the huge adverse impact on the existing neighbouring residents living on the western side of Pacific Highway. As I understand, the proposed development is a temporary solution to cope with the 1600 students planned for CPS. Why must the 1600 students be allocated to CPS, which has such a small footprint in ground area, and not elsewhere? The problem is that once the development goes ahead, the buildings will become permanent. No one will remember that it was meant to be temporary. The adverse impact to neighbouring residents will therefore also be permanent.
My objections and the adverse impacts are as below:
1. The proposed Building G (3) with its north facing wall would be right against the neighbour’s boundary instead of being a metre away from its neighbour.
2. There is an existing two storey high, long retaining wall of brick construction that runs along the full length of our property at 1 and 1A James Street. Construction of Building G (3) must not compromise the structural strength of this existing retaining wall.
3. The proposed seven story Building 2 occupying the air space above the existing playground will take away the openness and distant outlook towards the South West vistas from the standpoint of residents in properties of 1 / 1A and 3 / 3A James Street. The oppressive seven storey high Building 2 “The Lowers” is bearing down on the existing adjoining low level houses.
4. In the impact submission by the developer, elevation views from Jenkins Street and James Street have been omitted, which would have highlighted the adverse effects caused by the proposed seven storey Building 2, and it being the tallest in the West Ward of Chatswood. This tallest building, ironically named “The Lowers”, towers above the existing low line houses. It is completely out of character with the surrounds of West Ward. This can simply put down as a lack of transparency by the developer by omitting these facts in its impact assessments.
5. The students from the upper floors of Building 2, The Lowers could overlook clearly the activities happening at our front yard. We strongly object and are very concerned to the loss of our privacy.
6. By increasing students at CPS, the numbers of cars using James Street will inevitably be increased. Accidents endangering students, parents and the public will be increased when they negotiate the junction of Fullers Road and the sharp turn into and out of James Street. Numerous accidents in the past had occurred, resulting in the forming of a filter lane to mitigate this issue. Who would be held accountable if more accidents happened because of the proposed development?
7. Before Covid-19 parents dropping and picking up students often illegally park their cars in “No Parking” zones and block private garage access along James Street. With more parents using James Street, possible “road rage” and related incidents will be inevitable.
8. In this challenging time of COVID-19 self-isolation, group consultation is not possible. Therefore, now is not the appropriate time for requesting submission to the CPS development. The process does not provide a fair or equitable opportunity for the public to review or discuss the proposed development.
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
Chatswood
,
New South Wales
Message
CHATSWOOD EDUCATION PRECINCT
Application no.: SSD-9483
Political donations in previous two years: nil
Re: Objection to the Proposed Development of Chatswood Public School (CPS)
My main objections to proposed development are as follows:
1) The increase in students is directly proportion to the increase of noise generated by the students.
2) The additional air conditioning plant, specification of which is not yet available for comment, further increase the background noise. No water cooled air conditioning plant shall be permitted, in fear of poor maintenance or lacking of it, which could be a source of Legionnaire Disease.
3) Lost of privacy to the students from the upper floors of the seven storey proposed Building 2, named The Lowers.
4) Lost of tranquil distant outlook to the south west would be totally blocked by the massive concrete block of Building 2.
Application no.: SSD-9483
Political donations in previous two years: nil
Re: Objection to the Proposed Development of Chatswood Public School (CPS)
My main objections to proposed development are as follows:
1) The increase in students is directly proportion to the increase of noise generated by the students.
2) The additional air conditioning plant, specification of which is not yet available for comment, further increase the background noise. No water cooled air conditioning plant shall be permitted, in fear of poor maintenance or lacking of it, which could be a source of Legionnaire Disease.
3) Lost of privacy to the students from the upper floors of the seven storey proposed Building 2, named The Lowers.
4) Lost of tranquil distant outlook to the south west would be totally blocked by the massive concrete block of Building 2.
Name Withheld
Comment
Name Withheld
Comment
CHATSWOOD
,
New South Wales
Message
We live in 9 Dardanelles Road, Chatswood, and the proposed Hall (Block T) of Chatswood High School (CHS) is positioned behind our house. We are very concerned that our privacy and quiet enjoyment of our house and land will be jeopardised as a result of the following:
1. Two doors are opened on the west side of the Hall T overlooking the backyard and bedrooms of our house. The 2 doors are circled in blue on the plan below for your easy reference. (see p.1 of Attachment)
The Hall is a venue for school and community events such as sports, concerts, presentation nights and events opened to public. The two doors will allow access to the west side of the Hall T that overlooks our backyard and the bedrooms of our house. This will also increase noise. This will jeopardise our privacy and quiet enjoyment of our house.
• We request that the design to be revised so that there will be no doors opened on the west side of the hall Block T, and the 2 doors proposed (as highlighted on the map per p.1 of the Attachment) to be removed. Alternatively, the doors to be opened on the other sides of the hall.
2. We noted on the Plan “Asphalt maintenance path to side of building to be retained” on the west side of the Hall T (see p.2 of Attachment). As the path to be retained on the west side of the Hall, the users of the Hall will be able to access and gather on the west side of the Hall that overlooks our backyard and bedrooms. Our privacy and quiet enjoyment of our house will be adversely affected.
• We request that the design to be revised to include appropriate screening along the path facing the west of the Hall T. The screening is to prevent negative impact on our privacy and quiet enjoyment of our property. The position of the screening suggested by us are drawn in yellow on the plan below for your easy reference (see p.2 of Attachment).
3. The Accoustic Assessment Report (section 5.5.2 of EIS Appendix 25) notes that the predicted noise levels from the rooftop condenser units at Residential Receptor No. 8 located at my next door neighbour’s address of 7 Dardanelles Road will exceed the noise criteria. We are concerned that the noise issue, if not addressed, will adversely impact on the quiet enjoyment of our property.
We noted that section 5.5.2 also suggests measures to address the predicted noise and privacy issues:
“…The AC plant areas can be either positioned or acoustically treated to further reduce the level of noise emission. We have assumed that there may be up to 10 condenser units located on the rooftop of each building, surrounded by privacy ventilation louvres….”
• We request that appropriate control measures that address noise and privacy, as included in section 5.5.2 of the Accoustic Assessment Report to be implemented so that privacy and quiet enjoyment of our property will be maintained. These measures include eg AC plant being appropriately positioned and acoustically treated; and the condenser units surrounded by privacy ventilation louvres.
4. We noted from the Preliminary Construction Management Plan (PCMP) that measures will be taken to reduce impact of noise and vibration, dust and sediment erosion that may impact on the residents during construction. As we live in 9 Dardanelles Road where Hall T is positioned on the top of the slope connecting our backyard and Hall T, we are concerned about erosion of soil, and noise and vibration during construction.
We further noted predicted noise issue highlighted in Table 31 of section 10.2 of the Accoustic Assessment Report that the calculated noise levels for R8 exceeds the Noise Management Level. R8 is located at our neighbour’s address of 7 Dardanelles Road.
Section 11 of Accoustic Assessment Report suggests Construction Noise and Vibration Mitigation Recommendations eg
“…erecting temporary sound barrier screens along the boundaries of the site near adjacent residential buildings to remain throughout all construction phases, as far as reasonably practicable. This includes the western boundary of the Centennial Avenue Site, and the northern boundary of the Pacific Highway site. Temporary sound barrier screens should be erected up to a height of 2.4 m, and constructed from, for example 19 mm plywood on steel posts or attached to temporary construction fencing. All sound barriers should be designed by a structural engineer to resist wind loads…”
As our house is just next to where R8 is located, we are concerned that our quiet enjoyment of our property will be jeopardised during construction, in particular, during the construction of Hall T and Block S.
• We request that control measures such as sound barriers and screening to be implemented during the construction of Hall T and Block S. These measures are noted in section 11 of the Accoustic Assessment Report and section 3.2 of PCMP. In addition, it is important to have appropriate Sediment, Erosion and Dust controls implemented (as suggesteg in section 3.5 of PCMP). This will prevent adverse consequences eg sendiment flow that may cause damage to our property and jeopardise our safety.
1. Two doors are opened on the west side of the Hall T overlooking the backyard and bedrooms of our house. The 2 doors are circled in blue on the plan below for your easy reference. (see p.1 of Attachment)
The Hall is a venue for school and community events such as sports, concerts, presentation nights and events opened to public. The two doors will allow access to the west side of the Hall T that overlooks our backyard and the bedrooms of our house. This will also increase noise. This will jeopardise our privacy and quiet enjoyment of our house.
• We request that the design to be revised so that there will be no doors opened on the west side of the hall Block T, and the 2 doors proposed (as highlighted on the map per p.1 of the Attachment) to be removed. Alternatively, the doors to be opened on the other sides of the hall.
2. We noted on the Plan “Asphalt maintenance path to side of building to be retained” on the west side of the Hall T (see p.2 of Attachment). As the path to be retained on the west side of the Hall, the users of the Hall will be able to access and gather on the west side of the Hall that overlooks our backyard and bedrooms. Our privacy and quiet enjoyment of our house will be adversely affected.
• We request that the design to be revised to include appropriate screening along the path facing the west of the Hall T. The screening is to prevent negative impact on our privacy and quiet enjoyment of our property. The position of the screening suggested by us are drawn in yellow on the plan below for your easy reference (see p.2 of Attachment).
3. The Accoustic Assessment Report (section 5.5.2 of EIS Appendix 25) notes that the predicted noise levels from the rooftop condenser units at Residential Receptor No. 8 located at my next door neighbour’s address of 7 Dardanelles Road will exceed the noise criteria. We are concerned that the noise issue, if not addressed, will adversely impact on the quiet enjoyment of our property.
We noted that section 5.5.2 also suggests measures to address the predicted noise and privacy issues:
“…The AC plant areas can be either positioned or acoustically treated to further reduce the level of noise emission. We have assumed that there may be up to 10 condenser units located on the rooftop of each building, surrounded by privacy ventilation louvres….”
• We request that appropriate control measures that address noise and privacy, as included in section 5.5.2 of the Accoustic Assessment Report to be implemented so that privacy and quiet enjoyment of our property will be maintained. These measures include eg AC plant being appropriately positioned and acoustically treated; and the condenser units surrounded by privacy ventilation louvres.
4. We noted from the Preliminary Construction Management Plan (PCMP) that measures will be taken to reduce impact of noise and vibration, dust and sediment erosion that may impact on the residents during construction. As we live in 9 Dardanelles Road where Hall T is positioned on the top of the slope connecting our backyard and Hall T, we are concerned about erosion of soil, and noise and vibration during construction.
We further noted predicted noise issue highlighted in Table 31 of section 10.2 of the Accoustic Assessment Report that the calculated noise levels for R8 exceeds the Noise Management Level. R8 is located at our neighbour’s address of 7 Dardanelles Road.
Section 11 of Accoustic Assessment Report suggests Construction Noise and Vibration Mitigation Recommendations eg
“…erecting temporary sound barrier screens along the boundaries of the site near adjacent residential buildings to remain throughout all construction phases, as far as reasonably practicable. This includes the western boundary of the Centennial Avenue Site, and the northern boundary of the Pacific Highway site. Temporary sound barrier screens should be erected up to a height of 2.4 m, and constructed from, for example 19 mm plywood on steel posts or attached to temporary construction fencing. All sound barriers should be designed by a structural engineer to resist wind loads…”
As our house is just next to where R8 is located, we are concerned that our quiet enjoyment of our property will be jeopardised during construction, in particular, during the construction of Hall T and Block S.
• We request that control measures such as sound barriers and screening to be implemented during the construction of Hall T and Block S. These measures are noted in section 11 of the Accoustic Assessment Report and section 3.2 of PCMP. In addition, it is important to have appropriate Sediment, Erosion and Dust controls implemented (as suggesteg in section 3.5 of PCMP). This will prevent adverse consequences eg sendiment flow that may cause damage to our property and jeopardise our safety.
Attachments
Maurice Whelan
Object
Maurice Whelan
Object
CHATSWOOD
,
New South Wales
Message
1. Traffic: This area, and specifically Centennial Avenue currently cannot cope well with existing traffic at peak hours around school drop off and pick up. This is a well known problem that has existed for years. Therefore increasing school numbers at Chatswood Public School will exacerbate the issue. It is specifically and self evidently false to claim that delay time driving from Centennial Ave to Albert Ave at peak times is 28 seconds. This regularly takes 15 mins to travel 2 short blocks to the highway. At end of school hours, the mass exodus from Chatswood High School eg can delay traffic at the pedestrian crossing for several minutes alone. It is a no go zone, in other words, for residents and others trying to transverse the highway at peak times. The difficulty parents of the primary school have for years have struggled with to find parking in adjacent streets makes this proposal to increase numbers of children, and associated traffic numbers, unworkable. Therefore a realistic traffic impact statement has not been satisfactorily provided to address traffic congestion and parking limitations. I write as a resident of Centennial Ave for 26 years and our children attended both schools over a 16 year period.
It seems the increase in student numbers is responsible for planning new buildings at Chatswood public school that will set a precedent for changing zoning regulations, potentially bringing medium and high density development to the western side of the highway, which has so far resisted the pressures to change the unique character of the landscape providing a buffer against high rise on the eastern side of the highway.
As a resident I can attest that not infrequently there are increasingly numbers of buses associated with school activities clogging up road space in the narrow roads, often illegally parked around the pedestrian crossings.
The current site of CPS and it's location is not appropriate for up to 1600 children.
2. There need to be an extension of time so that affected residents could meet and discuss their joint concerns. The current social restrictions must be a factor in providing fair opportunity to consider in detail, together, the proposal details that are inadequate for the community.
It seems the increase in student numbers is responsible for planning new buildings at Chatswood public school that will set a precedent for changing zoning regulations, potentially bringing medium and high density development to the western side of the highway, which has so far resisted the pressures to change the unique character of the landscape providing a buffer against high rise on the eastern side of the highway.
As a resident I can attest that not infrequently there are increasingly numbers of buses associated with school activities clogging up road space in the narrow roads, often illegally parked around the pedestrian crossings.
The current site of CPS and it's location is not appropriate for up to 1600 children.
2. There need to be an extension of time so that affected residents could meet and discuss their joint concerns. The current social restrictions must be a factor in providing fair opportunity to consider in detail, together, the proposal details that are inadequate for the community.
andrew drysdale
Comment
andrew drysdale
Comment
CHATSWOOD
,
New South Wales
Message
60 Centennial Ave.
Chatswood
NSW 2067
26/4/20
Director – Social and Infrastructure Assessments, Planning and Assessment,
Department of Planning, Industry and Environment,
Locked Bag 5022, PARRAMATTA NSW 2124.
Chatswood Education Precinct Application number: SSD-9483
24 Centennial Avenue, Chatswood
Dear sir/madam,
Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the submission. I am the owner of the heritage home at 60 Centennial Ave. My Eastern boundary adjoins the Northwest corner of the High School. My home lies within metres of the proposed new hall, building ‘T’.
My comments are confined to the High school precinct only. I leave it to others in my neighbourhood community to reference the Primary school. Suffice to say I agree entirely with the submission made by Carolyn and John Burgess.
Once complete this new High school will be a significant improvement to the State educational capacity. There are however a number of important matters that must be addressed prior to approval being granted.
The various consultant reports reflect the interests and perspectives of those paying for their commission and as such they are neither arm’s length, neutral, nor independent. This particularly so in the Traffic and Acoustic Assessment reports.
There are errors throughout. As example there is reference in one report to manually operated windows ‘in bedrooms and living rooms’; and in the social impact assessment doc. there is reference to 4 and 8 story residences to the West of the High School – yes, if you go out as far as Ryde!
The Community Engagement Report speaks at length about consultation with nearby residents. The fact is that Dept of Education held only two information sessions for the residents. The first, held very early in the planning process, resulted in strong negative reaction. The second in October last year saw several improvements to the planning concepts, but many serious concerns remained. I provided the Dept Edu. with a written list of these issues and they were good enough to meet with me. Several matters were clarified but many key issues were left unresolved.
The point must be made that at no time did the Dept of Education provide me, or my neighbours, opportunity to review or comment on the current plans prior to their submission to you. Recently they notified the residents that these reports were available on your website for comment. As a result, I reviewed the reports in detail and again sent a written list of questions and comments to the Dept’s. Community Engagement team. They were good enough to discuss these during a Zoom meeting. A number of questions were answered, but many important issues remain unresolved. These are set out in the attached document Appendix 1.
I have confined this submission to just the critical issues. I would ask that these be resolved to prior to any approval of the Dept. Edu. submission.
Yours faithfully,
Andrew Drysdale
Chatswood
NSW 2067
26/4/20
Director – Social and Infrastructure Assessments, Planning and Assessment,
Department of Planning, Industry and Environment,
Locked Bag 5022, PARRAMATTA NSW 2124.
Chatswood Education Precinct Application number: SSD-9483
24 Centennial Avenue, Chatswood
Dear sir/madam,
Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the submission. I am the owner of the heritage home at 60 Centennial Ave. My Eastern boundary adjoins the Northwest corner of the High School. My home lies within metres of the proposed new hall, building ‘T’.
My comments are confined to the High school precinct only. I leave it to others in my neighbourhood community to reference the Primary school. Suffice to say I agree entirely with the submission made by Carolyn and John Burgess.
Once complete this new High school will be a significant improvement to the State educational capacity. There are however a number of important matters that must be addressed prior to approval being granted.
The various consultant reports reflect the interests and perspectives of those paying for their commission and as such they are neither arm’s length, neutral, nor independent. This particularly so in the Traffic and Acoustic Assessment reports.
There are errors throughout. As example there is reference in one report to manually operated windows ‘in bedrooms and living rooms’; and in the social impact assessment doc. there is reference to 4 and 8 story residences to the West of the High School – yes, if you go out as far as Ryde!
The Community Engagement Report speaks at length about consultation with nearby residents. The fact is that Dept of Education held only two information sessions for the residents. The first, held very early in the planning process, resulted in strong negative reaction. The second in October last year saw several improvements to the planning concepts, but many serious concerns remained. I provided the Dept Edu. with a written list of these issues and they were good enough to meet with me. Several matters were clarified but many key issues were left unresolved.
The point must be made that at no time did the Dept of Education provide me, or my neighbours, opportunity to review or comment on the current plans prior to their submission to you. Recently they notified the residents that these reports were available on your website for comment. As a result, I reviewed the reports in detail and again sent a written list of questions and comments to the Dept’s. Community Engagement team. They were good enough to discuss these during a Zoom meeting. A number of questions were answered, but many important issues remain unresolved. These are set out in the attached document Appendix 1.
I have confined this submission to just the critical issues. I would ask that these be resolved to prior to any approval of the Dept. Edu. submission.
Yours faithfully,
Andrew Drysdale
Attachments
Donna Jiang
Object
Donna Jiang
Object
CHATSWOOD
,
New South Wales
Message
We have a few major concerns with the current development plan for Chatswood Public School:
1. The location of the building P1 is too close to James Street (only 2.1 meters set back) from 2 James Street
2. The height of P1 is effectively 9 stories from James Street level, as the ground level of P1 is already 2 stories above James St level
3. Privacy assessment did not consider James Street neighbors, e.g. our backyard and balcony (6 James St) will be under direct sight of P1 building as all windows for P1 are on the north side; This would also have significant privacy impact for 2 and 4 James St as well as they are closer to the proposed building.
We strongly recommend the current development plan to be revised to minimize the impacts to the neighbours.
1. The location of the building P1 is too close to James Street (only 2.1 meters set back) from 2 James Street
2. The height of P1 is effectively 9 stories from James Street level, as the ground level of P1 is already 2 stories above James St level
3. Privacy assessment did not consider James Street neighbors, e.g. our backyard and balcony (6 James St) will be under direct sight of P1 building as all windows for P1 are on the north side; This would also have significant privacy impact for 2 and 4 James St as well as they are closer to the proposed building.
We strongly recommend the current development plan to be revised to minimize the impacts to the neighbours.