We have received the following comments rom a resident.
SSD 9483 Chatswood High school redevelopment
These proposals are a substantial improvement on those first presented. When
finished, the new infrastructure will be an impressive addition to our education
capacity.
It is best I don’t comment on the overall calibre of the consultants reports (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!)
There are several questions (in red) that I would appreciate answers to in good time
for me to submit a response to DPIE within the stipulated timeframe.
Traffic reports
These reports are a clear validation that desktop theory fails miserably to
comprehend reality. Further, it is readily apparent that the authors are responding to
a particular commission.
As example, to suggest that the average delay driving from Centennial Ave to Albert
Ave. at peak AM and PM times is 28 seconds is an irrelevant nonsense. The traffic
at these times backs up into Centennial Ave. as far as Dardanelles Rd. I know from
multiple experiences that it can take in the order of 15 minutes from my home on the
Western boundary of the High School to exit to Pacific Highway and thence to Albert
Ave. – a short 400m trip.
The photographs appear to have been selected to present a situation that is far from
the norm.
The report fails to recognise the breaches of law, congestion and frustration that
takes place daily right now, let alone when this road system will need to
accommodate more than double the current student numbers.
The report’s analysis of parking is unbelievable – literally. Figure 2.5 in the Traffic
Impact Statement that purports to show the existing vehicle and pedestrian access to
the High School is wrong.
The document fails to report on, much less provide remedies for, the extreme
difficulty ratepaying residents of Centennial Ave. and other adjacent streets have in
finding parking adjacent their own homes. Indeed, it appears to propose that the very
few existing unrestricted parking places will be changed to short-term parking.
Nor does it refer to the multiple occasions when residents find cars parked, locked,
and empty in their private driveways for long periods of time. This happens because
parents are already unable to find parking to drop off and pick up their children. And
that is now, before the student numbers more than double.
The report fails to recognise the very large number of buses involved in sporting and
other interschool events that need to park and navigate these narrow roads. I have
previously sent you a photograph of one such occasion where 6 buses were parked in Centennial Ave. – three of them illegally double parked. That was not an isolated
incident.
When will we see a realistic traffic impact statement and realistic remedies? Are the
recommendations contained in the traffic reports to become a requirement, or will
they remain some nebulous recommendation that may, or may not, be
implemented?
Building T
Whilst other buildings are detailed in the design analysis report (and artists
impressions are provided), that is not the case for building T. Beyond simplistic
outline drawings there is nothing that would inform the reader as to the visual
perspective of building T. We are simply told it will be brick, concrete and glass.
During the last briefing I was assured building T would be constructed of sound
absorbing concrete panels specifically designed for these situations. What will
Building T be constructed of? What external design principals and features will be
used? What will building T actually look like?
The western wall of building T is approx. 50 metres long, two stories high and with
the roofline above that, and broadside on. It sits high on elevated land and presents
massive bulk to those properties located on Dardanelles Rd. Yes, there are trees to
break the visual impact, however from the drawings it appears that this wall will be a
flat, uninterrupted panel devoid of any architectural features or visual relief. What
architectural features will be incorporated on the Western wall of Building T?
Please confirm your earlier advice that this building will not be airconditioned. If it is
to be airconditioned, where will the A/C plant be located, and how will it not affect
neighbours in respect to noise?
The plans show a series of horizontal lines at the top of the Western walls. Are
these solid glass panels or ventilators? If ventilators how has that been
accommodated in the acoustic report?
What machinery will go into the ‘Plant room’ and how is that acoustically shielded?
There are two sets of doors shown on the lower ground floor of the West elevation.
Either side of the doors is what appears to be some form of ventilation. What is the
detail of how the ground floor doors are constructed, what potential exists for noise
transmission, and how that will be mitigated?
The report speaks of a lift in Building T yet none is shown in the plans. Is there a lift
in building T, and if so where is the machinery located, and what neighbourhood
acoustic impact will it have?
Building S
Building S in part replaces existing building C. As I have already discussed with you
there is a security light on Building C that shines directly into our kitchen and living
room. The report speaks only in generic platitudes about security lighting. It states
that there will be an increase in security lighting, but nowhere does it say where this
will be sited. I was assured that the SEARS report would be specific on this subject – it is not. What, specifically, is planned in respect to security lighting to prevent our
home (and our neighbours) from being flooded with high density light at night?
Acoustic report
‘Logger Location ‘B’, Logger Location ‘D’ and Logger Location ‘E’ were located on
residential presmies (sic) in close proximityto (sic)the School sites. Logger Location
‘E’ was only able to be located on residential premises across from the hall at the
Centennial Avenue Site’. The chosen acoustic logger site E is considerably further
down the road than the proposed site of Hall T. It is also well to the West of those
properties on the Eastern side of Dardanelles Rd. that are adjacent Hall T. The
topography at this point is a very steep downwards incline to the West. The site
chosen is low even relative to Dardanelles road and very substantially below the
level of the proposed hall. In fact, it is the very lowest point in Dardanelles rd. One
must wonder why that site was chosen. It is the site least affected by noise from the
school. No request was made to have the logger located in my property, nor, as far
as I am aware that of my neighbours. Why was the logger E sited at that place?
‘A typical use of the Hall outside of School hours is assumed to be as follows:•Disco;
1 to 2 a year from 3pm to 7pm•Band 1 to 2 times a week 8am-9am in hall•Year 6 /
Year 12 farewell –1 x per year•presentation nights –2x per year•OOSH; Monday –
Friday; 30-50 kids –3pm to 6:30pm.’ This bears little relationship to the current use of
the existing facility, let alone once the new hall T is operational. Amongst other
outside uses there is regular band practice after hours and on weekends (note: the
report states the band will be 8am – 9am which is a nonsense), and religious
services. There are also music festivals and other community events that are not
identified in the report. There is no reference to the hall T being used for sporting
events (albeit it is designed to do so) and no reference to noise from cheering
supporters. This will occur both during and after hours and on weekends. What will
be done to ensure the acoustic report properly reflects the reality? What assurances
do the neighbours have that noise emanating from this building T will be, and will
remain, within accepted limits?
‘We recommend that use of the halls be restricted to daytime and evening period of
7 am to 10pm only’. Are these recommendations to be made a requirement of
approval, or are they a platitude of the possible?
‘R8 –7 DardanellesRoad, Chatswood4240No (+ 2 dB) The majority of the air
conditioning condenser units are able to meet the acceptable noise level, with the
exception of Residential Receptor R8. The slight exceedance based on typical
condenser units would be able to be designed to reduce the level of noise emission
at this location.’ This is R8 is adjacent my property. Specifically, where will this
referred AC unit be located. Will it, or will it not, be a requirement that it be
acoustically shielded.
‘Once the mechanical plant selection has been finalised, a final assessment should
be made of the mechanical plant noise emission, prior to the issue of a Construction
Certificate.’ Will this be a requirement of the approval, or is it just another nebulous
suggestion?
Rainwater drainage
The proposed drainage plan calls for gutter/downpipe runoff from buildings Q,S,J
and T to be decanted into a pit near the Northwest corner of the site (near the North
end of Building T). The report uses theoretical desktop calculations in respect to the
capacity of the system. As I have already advised, even in moderate rain this pit is
inadequate. We experience water bubbling up either side of the pedestrian footpath,
from under our drive, and between drive and roadside kerb. What will be done to
ensure adequate rainwater drainage exists?
Sewerage
As advised previously, we have had problems with the school’s sewer line running
adjacent our Southern boundary. By way of theoretical calculation, the report states
categorically that the existing system is satisfactory for the proposed future use. And
yet their own Site survey High School Part 1 page 8 states that they were unable to
access the sewer pit on the NW corner and that further down the line they were
unable to use the ’flexi rod’ due to obstruction. Clearly there is a problem. What will
be done to ensure we do not have high school sewerage flooding our property as
has happened in the past?
Fencing
The report states that North of building T there will be a ‘New 2.1m high security
fence to driveway and along northern side of carpark. New vehicular access gate
and pedestrian (sic) will be required.’ Fair enough, but that fence for some reason is
shown running approx. 2m inside the actual boundary leaving a narrow path
between boundary and the fence. What is the reason for the fence on the NW corner
of the site not following the boundary?
Question summary
• When will we see a realistic traffic impact statement and realistic remedies?
Are the recommendations contained in the traffic reports to become a
requirement or will they remain some nebulous recommendation that may, or
may not, be implemented?
• What will Building T be constructed of?
• What will building T actually look like? What external design principals and
features will be used?
• What architectural features will be incorporated on the Western wall of
Building T?
• Is there a lift in building T, and if so where is the machinery located, and what
neighbourhood acoustic impact will it have?
• Are the panels at the top of Building T walls solid glass or ventilators? If
ventilators how has that been accommodated in the acoustic report?
• What machinery will go into the ‘Plant room’ and how is that acoustically
shielded?
• What is the detail of how the ground floor doors (building T western side) are
constructed, what potential exists for noise transmission and how that will be
mitigated?
• Is there a lift in building T, and if so where is it located, and in what way will it
not affect the neighbours with noise?
• What, specifically, is planned in respect to security lighting to prevent our
home (and our neighbours) from being flooded with high density light at night?
• Why was the logger E sited at that place?
• What will be done to ensure the acoustic report properly reflects the reality in
respect to building T?
• What assurances do the neighbours have that noise emanating from this
building will be, and remain, within accepted limits?
• ‘We recommend that use of the halls be restricted to daytime and evening
period of 7 am to 10pm only’. Are these recommendations to be made a
requirement, or are they a platitude of the possible?
• The slight exceedance based on typical condenser units would be able to be
designed to reduce the level of noise emission at this location.’ Will it, or will
this not, be a requirement of the approval. Specifically, where will this
referenced AC unit be located
• ‘Once the mechanical plant selection has been finalised, a final assessment
should be made of the mechanical plant noise emission, prior to the issue of a
Construction Certificate.’ Will this be done or is it just another nebulous
suggestion?
• What will be done to ensure adequate rainwater drainage exists?
• What will be done to ensure we do not have high school sewerage flooding
our property as has happened in the past?
• What is the reason for the fence on the NW corner of the site not following the
boundary?
The Officer’s report goes to Council on the 20 April. The Citizen’s Panel report is attached. The reports are available on Council’s website. You can make a written submission via 
Plea for help by Mayor: The Mayor has called on Federal and State governments to implement a range of economic measures to address the financial impacts of COVID-19 on Council. This includes the:
The Department of Education has released the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the redevelopment of Chatswood Primary and High Schools.
Chatswood West Ward History 