Report comment

In Kyeemagh NSW on “Kyeemagh Infants School -...” at 30A Jacobson Avenue, Kyeemagh,:

Dean Katsikaros commented

As a resident of Kyeemagh, I object to this development proposal for the following key reasons:

- The suburb of Kyeemagh only has 919 residents, of which only 107 are aged between 5-14 years old (based on ABS 2016 Census Data, vhttp://quickstats.censusdata.abs.gov.au/census_services/getproduct/census/2016/quickstat/SSC12226?opendocument).
- Based on this census information and assuming every local primary school aged child were to attend the school, the development stands to cater to a population that simply does not exist in the area.
- In catering to 500 pupils, it is clear that residents from other areas will be commuting to Kyeemagh. The area's roads currently face congestion at peak traffic times given its proximity to main roads and limited access from either Bestic Street or General Holmes Drive.
- The introduction of additional cars and school busses catering to the drop off/pick up of students will create a traffic nightmare that the current roads are not equipped for. Note, access onto General Holmes Drive from Beehag Street is not permitted on weekdays until 10:00am, half an hour after school zone road restrictions end.
- In addition to traffic congestion, there will undoubtedly be a range of subsequent safety hazards. The risk of traffic incidents in the area will increase. I note that in the last 12 months, approximately 100 traffic incidents have been recorded in Kyeemagh, of which the majority are within a 1km radius of the school (http://www.snarl.com.au/incidents/suburb/nsw/kyeemagh).
- The additional noise, potential for vandalism, loitering, littering etc. is simply not acceptable to impose on local residents. The suburb does not have adequate facilities to cater to a 50% population increase.

These issues only address concerns pertaining to the operational use of the proposed development upon completion. Throughout construction there are countless possible hazards which will be imposed that no amount of modelling or statistical analysis will ever truly capture.

The attachments to the development proposal offer a biased take on the reality of what living in this suburb is actually like. Frankly, it is in the interest of the various consultants engaged to undertake the attached reports to skew their findings and recommendations in favour of the development. As someone who works in the construction industry and who has managed construction at a public school myself, I know all too well the real implications associated with a project of this nature.

In summary, increased traffic, increased noise, increased public safety risks, increased waste generation and littering, increased likelihood of vandalism will result from the development and on this basis, the development should not move forward. I am sure that with some creative thinking and resourcefulness, SINSW can find a better solution to cater for forecasted population growth in this general region. Any additional costs associated with going down a different path than that proposed would be nothing more than a drop in the $6B ocean of funding allocated to the state wide schools upgrades.

delivered to the planning authority

This form is for reporting comments that should be removed. Reasons can include that the comment is spam, abusive, unlawful or harassing — in other words, where people are going out of their way to cause harm. Please explain clearly why you think the comment should be removed.

This week

Find PlanningAlerts useful?

This independent project is run by a local charity, the OpenAustralia Foundation. PlanningAlerts is powered by small, tax-deductible donations from the people who use it to stay informed about changes to their local area. If you find it useful, chip in to support PlanningAlerts.

Back PlanningAlerts