I am strongly opposed to the complete demolition of all the historic buildings.

While those `historic buildings' are 50's weatherboard and have not been heritage listed they are part of the history of North Curl Curl and many people are attached to their charm.

It's the loss of heritage and character that has many parents and teachers upset. The small row of old classrooms with their lovely verandas are currently the heart and soul of the school and surely could have a purpose.

My son in year 3 last term studied Curl Curl History. Being a suburb that is traditionally weatherboard and fibro cottages, there are not many buildings left that reflect that history.
If these weatherboard buildings go there will be virtually none.

Surely a good architect can deliver a school of the future while still retaining a piece of the school's old charm.

Submission of Objection: SSD8310 - Redevelopment of North Curl Curl Primary School

1. Failure of site analysis / architectural plans to incorporate up-to-date survey detail of adjoining development including 60 Abbott Road

The impacts to adjoining development, in particular to the directly adjoining residential property at 60 Abbott Road (south-east corner of the site) have not been satisfactorily considered. The site analysis/architectural plans fail to incorporate up-to-date survey detail of adjoining development, including boundary lines, current footprint of dwellings and associated private open space areas and location of existing trees/vegetation. Associated amenity impacts (direct and cumulative) have not been satisfactorily considered.

2. Excessive size, bulk and scale of buildings, associated overshadowing and privacy impacts in particular Building / Block C

The existing set of circumstances include single storey demount-able class buildings adjacent to the east side boundary, which do not result in any unreasonable overshadowing impacts to its residential neighbours. The proposed development introduces a series of new buildings in a U-Shape arrangement to the southern half / south-east corner of the site. The building are 2 storey+ in scale and exceed the maximum 8.5 metre height requirement (11.25m) which applies to the R2 low density residential zoning of the site and its surrounds. The shadow diagrams fail to incorporate up-to-date survey detail of adjoining development. The overshadowing impacts and associated visual bulk of Block C in particular, to the dwelling and rear private open space of 60 Abbott Road is unreasonable.

Having regard to the current set of circumstances, the size of the site (27,982sqm), the proposed height non-compliance and that the site does not possess any significant topographical constraints, it is considered that the cumulative amenity impacts associated with this aspect of the proposal to its residential neighbours, is unsatisfactory and not well founded.

Increased setbacks to Block C combined with an amended design of Block C eg single storey (rather than 2 storey) are possible solutions which would address/improve the response and transition of the development to adjoining low density residential land use.

The height and size of the building raises concerns regarding privacy, with students in block C being able to directly look into the garden and back living room of 60 Abbott Road.

3. Streetscape, setbacks and landscape setting to the south-east corner of the site

The proposed carpark to the south-east corner of the development results in the loss of a number of existing trees and vegetation which softens this respective corner of the site and offers a landscape transition between the school and adjoining residential development, in particular 60 Abbott Road. The south setback to the carpark is poor (and forward of Block B) and results in a poor landscape response to the streetscape of Abbott Road as well as a poor transition between an education and residential land use.

It is recommended that the landscape setbacks to the south-east corner of the site (east side and south front) be increased to improve the transition and amenity between land uses as well as improve the landscape setting to Abbott Road (noting the R2 Zoning of the site). It is also recommended the carpark be amended such that it is not forward of Block B to enhance the landscape/streetscape presentation to this aspect of the site and improve the development's response to its context, when viewed as a whole.

4. Asbestos

Page 17 of the SEE states 'Significant quantities of asbestos cement sheeting and compressed asbestos cement sheeting were identified at the site. What additional precautions/measures does the applicant propose to ensure its removal does not impact adjoining residential development, in particular 60 Abbott Road?

5. Out of school hours service

What are the traffic, access, parking impacts and proposed parking arrangements associated with this component of the application? having regard that a new carpark area has been introduced to the SE corner of the site, directly adjacent to 60 Abbott Road.

Can we see the complete DA application including floor plans with existing and proposed areas?
Can you explain the reason for the submitted design with all buildings closer to abbot street?
Is there a provision for solar power storage and any other sustainable measure?
Is there a construction program available?
Why many trees are being removed if there won't be new construction where they are located?

Thank you for the opportunity to submit my views on the alterations and redevelopment of our local school. I have one son still attending NCCPS and one that finished in the last few years. We have been parents of children at the school for almost 10 years.

The school has a distinct Australian and local appeal, feel and appearance, with open grassy areas, early 1900's wooden buildings and 1950s red brick structures. It boasts some beautiful and critical flora and forna including the plumber birds who nest each year. A large number of parents have given many weekends to the nature-based improvements at the school and the environmental improvements continue year-on-year. These, along with the animals and gardens at the school add to real-life education, one where children can get out of man-made structures and experience life, as is recommended in proven education systems like those in Finland.

I don't believe the proposed structures in themselves offer any benefits beyond what can already be achieved in the current more natural environment of the school, or what modifications that are sympathetic to the existing structures can offer.

The money spent could easily be used in enhancing the educational experience of the students in being connected to the existing and growing environment naturally present in the school. Removing students from a connection to naturally occurring environment of animals and plants and placing them in structures that completely devour this seems anti-educational in my view.

Surely in education we should take lessons from populations who's educational outcomes far exceed our slipping ones? Why continue to drive a system with 'deflating tires', when we can switch to a new one that will take our children forward!

I fully support the proposed plans for the redevelopment of Curl Curl Primary School. The existing site comprises very old buildings with many demountables having been placed around in various parts of the school to meet the ever increasing growth of the school. The current oval has a dangerous dry dirt surface and it makes sense to reposition the school over it (on the Abbott Rd side). The proposed plans allow for a much more coordinated school with better layout and updated facilities to meet 21st learning needs of our students and to accommodate for 1000 students. The plans suggest not excessive height in keeping with the feel of the current school and allow for a good amount of open space for play and learning.

I am objecting to any signage directly outside my front door on the verge,just having spend over a $1000 on tree removables and returf of that area to keep it neat and tidy for the community ,now find that because of this ,someone finds its a nice place for a sign.I dont want to feel part of the construction zone everytime I return home.
Also there are other numerious options for directing trucks,or informing traffic of truck movements into the drive way ,please note this is a 40 km zone and the proposed truck entrance has been in existence for 50 years servicing the school with no signs at all, suitable other locations would be road markings or corner locations or even on the other side of the road which would be more visable.
Also I am concerned about all the truck movments directed at this driveway(Playfair road ) used for construction ,when a better achievable outcome could see nearly all the construction trucks and the trucks used for the clearing of the grounds, use the schools Abbott Road existing driveway ,thus not impacting so much on the residents of playfair road,
I am sure this achievable with the right planning .
Regards Terry Gray

As a local expert in Biodiversity Planning matters, I object to this development on the grounds of failure to meet the minimum requirements of the SEARs particularly in relation to "Biodiversity Impacts".

The Threatened Species Assessment Guidelines (OEH 2007) (http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/threatenedspecies/tsaguide07393.pdf)
details the minimum requirements for development assessment to assess impacts upon threatened species, ecological communities and populations listed under the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 pursuant to s. 5a of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act). These guideines (OEH 2007) state:
"The assessment of significance is the first step in considering potential impacts. When a significant effect is likely, further consideration is required and is more appropriately carried out when preparing a species impact statement."

The guidelines further state:
"A species does not have to be considered as part of the assessment of significance if adequate surveys or studies have been carried out that clearly show that the species:
* does not occur in the study area, or
* will not use on-site habitats on occasion, or
* will not be influenced by off-site impacts of the proposal.
Otherwise all species likely to occur in the study area (based on general species distribution information), and known to use that type of habitat, should be considered in the rationale that determines the list of threatened species, populations and ecological communities for the assessment of significance"

The Ecologist Consultant (Stacy Wilson of Eco Logical Australia) states (on Page 4 of the Flora and Fauna Assessment):
"It is noted that some threatened fauna species that are highly mobile, wide ranging and vagrant may use portions of the subject site intermittently for foraging. For these fauna species, the habitat present and likely to be impacted is not considered to be important to the threatened species, particularly in relation to the amount of similar good quality habitat remaining in the surrounding landscape. As such, an assessment of significance in reference to State or Commonwealth legislation was not considered necessary."
This is an illegitimate rationale/reason to avoid preparing a formal "Assessment of significance" (AoS) ('7-part test) pursuant to the provisions of the EP&A Act and the Threatened Species Assessment Guidelines (OEH 2007) or the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 Protected Matters Impact Assessment Guidlines.

Stacy Wilson (Eco Logical 2017) stated that foraging habitat occurred on the subject site for the vulnerable Grey-headed Flying fox, Large-eared Pied Bat, Little Bentwing Bat, Eastern Freetailed Bat, Large-footed Myotis, and Eastern Bentwing Bat but arbitrarily chose not to prepare an 'Assessment of Significance' in accordance with the EP&A Act and Guidelines (OEH 2007). In 'Appendix A : Table 2' of the Flora and Fauna Assessment, under the column 'Impact Assessment Required' Stacy Wilson of Eco Logical Australia states "No. Impact to foraging habitat negligible in comparison to habitat within the locality".
One cannot simply reject the need to
prepare an Impact Assessment (AoS) pursuant to the EP&A Act. The guidelines (OEH 2007) clearly state that if a threatened species has potential occur on a site, the first step is to undertake an AoS (aka 7-part test) on that species pursuant to the provisions of the EP&A Act.
Without this having been undertaken for the threatened fauna listed as "potentially occurring" on site, the Flora and Fauna Assessment (Eco Logical Australia 2017) fails to meet the minimum requirements of the SEARs.

Further to this Eco Logical Australia (2017) rejects the potential for the vulnerable Powerful Owl to occur on the subject site, despite the presence of 80 records of this species in the surrounding area and the presence of large trees within the subject site (see Figure 1) that are likely to support the main prey of the Powerful Owl (possums. flying-foxes a large birds). It is our professional opinion and likely that of most, that the mobile, Powerful Owl is likely to utilise the subject site for
foraging purposes.

The highly mobile, vulnerable Little Lorikeet is also likely to occur on the subject site (owing to the presence of at least three known feed tree species, especially Eucalyptus tereticornis). Stacy Wilson (Eco Logical Australia 2017) assessment of the liklihood of this species occurring on the subject site is wrong, as like the Powerful Owl, it is likely the Little Lorikeet would occur at a point in its lifecycle. An adequate AoS of the proposed
works on both of these species is required but has not been done.

The level of ability held by the Ecologist who undertook the site assessment is questionable and quite likely inadequate to assess biodiversity impacts from
this type of development. 'Appendix B: Flora species recorded in site' contains an unusually low flora species richness (even for an urban school ground in Sydneys Northern Beaches).
The flora list lacks any ground cover species (including grasses
or weeds) typical of any garden/outdoor area in Sydney. This reflects insufficient survey effort and/or the authors lack ability to effectively assess the landscape of biodiversity values on a development site.

The Ecologist (Eco Logical Australia 2017) does not provide any reliable reason/explanation as to why "Estuarine Swamp Oak Forest (endangered under the TSC Act) previously mapped within the locality by SMCA 2016. " was confirmed to not occur on the subject site, when the site species list contained the two primary canopy species of this community (Casuarina glauca and Melaleuca quinquinervia). Adequate explanation
for the lack of an EEC (that has been previously mapped in the area) must be provided.

Overall the Flora and Fauna Assessment (Eco Logical 2017) that accompanies this SSD is poorly prepared and fails to
meet the fundamental requirements of a Flora and Fauna Assessment for this scale
of project.

For this reason the SSD should be rejected until an alternative Ecologist Consultant with local expertise is selected to prepare a revised Flora and Fauna Assessment that effectively addresses the true flora and fauna values of the subject site, to the level of detail required to meet the legislation and guidelines.

See comments attached

Please see attached.