Comments made here were sent to Lane Cove Council. Add your own comment.
If you need to replace the demountable classrooms - or add a couple of extra rooms fine... but why the need for a goliath of a building with 8 classrooms and an additional 6 rooms?
Reduce the building size by half.
Remove the ridiculous "breakout spaces" and give the poor kids some playground back.
We have no opposition to an upgrade on the Infants site - however constructing an unsympathetic box larger than the original school building is ludicrous.
There is no issue with numbers at the current Infants site - Infact there was a classroom empty on site last year. The 8 classes onsite this year have an average of only 21 students per class (well below area average) so even if there was a sudden rush of students wanting to enrol (from where?) a small increase in class sizes could accomodate this.
I understand the need to plan for the future but wouldn't it be easier, and more cost effective to move the Year 1 students up to the 20,000sqm River Road campus if size constraints ever became a problem.
Jane asked where the sudden rush of students might come from. One suggestion would be from the St Leonard's South Precinct. The proposal is for 2,400 units if Lane Cove Council have it's way. Apart from the towers going up on Pacific Highway and Christie Street.
Thank you Susan.
Yes a shocking proposal from Lane Cove Council - especially given most residents rallied against it.
Council ignored schooling concerns when the development was originally proposed, suggesting there wouldn't be many kids living in the apartments. Obviously they have changed their tune.
The new development and school build will no doubt bring a tsunami of people, cars and traffic to Greenwich village shops...
I am concerned about the traffic flow around the Southern Site on Greenwich Road. The Traffic survey failed to observe that the shops are opposite the school and a lot of the parking is also used for this. It states there are 15 parking spaces on Greenwich Road which would have a conservative turnover of 2 mins. This is an outrageous claim compared to what actually happens here. Most cars would remain parked for approx 15-30 mins as there is a supermarket and coffee shops opposite. The traffic report also fails to consider the amount of commuter parking next to the school. This will continue to creep down Chisholm Street as population increases. As a split site school, staff often have to travel between sites (by car). I would think a couple of car spaces would be required on site to avoid teachers wasting time finding car spots. It will also impact local residents of which many around the school have no off street parking. Lastly, the narrow roads around the southern site often have small accidents (not shown on the report) as they are not wide enough for two way traffic, in particular the north end of Chisholm street. This road should be changed to one way between Wardrop and Greenwich road, heading north.
I’m not opposed to an upgrade on the Infants site, however the proposed extension is extraordinarily large for the site.
The proposed building has enough floorspace to house 15 standard classrooms. A smart redesign of the proposed build could reduce the building by half whilst still accomodating the necessary upgrade in classrooms.
Reduction in building size would also reclaim significant outdoor space - necessary if you are planning to double Student numbers.
In regards to the number of students, the infants site is currently at capacity. They are not allowed to put in another demountable classroom there and if anymore children turn up they will have to remove the library from that site.
I am writing to express my support for this development. The area is expected to have a large increase in population. Currently these services are difficult for parents to obtain. Going for larger buildings with the needed space is the only answer. This will help kids and parents. This will bring public benefit.
mmm, from what i have seen that is a huge building that will significantly change the school. It removes staff parking without consideration for where they will park and has potential to cause huge parking issues when more students arrive at the school. it is taking away much needed play area for the current kids - where will the new kids play?
Let me be clear parking is a BIG issue now as parents of Kindy and year 1 kids CAN NOT kiss and ride. they stay 12-30 mins. at 9am and 3pm parking is difficult already
I would think you need to consider
1. build underground parking for staff?
2. reduce the size and scale of the building
3. consider a remodel the current building to increase capacity
4. design the new building to be sympathetic to the old building (scale and design)
5. keep the outdoor space for kids to play
The additional facilities at the greenwich infants school are welcome but the impact on parking and safety {particularly children] is unacceptable . Street parking has to be found for the 15 sites taken from the school grounds as well as the inevitable increase required for the 70 odd additional pupils families . The area is already congested.
The other issue is the arrival/departure of infants .this is a kindergarten/infant school and infants are not "kiss and drop"- they are walked into school or at the very least watched from car to school grounds . This is already difficult and will be impossible and dangerous once this work is complete .
please survey the parents at school time - not a desk review!!
Consider angled parking on the school side of Wardrop st -this will create an extra 5/6 parking places .
Persuade the education dept to put build staff parking under the proposed building .
All of the above wont be enough but its a start !!
We have lived opposite the Greenwich Rd School site for 28 years.
For over 30 years Sue has taught at the school. Murray has been involved in school life on and off during this time mainly as our two children attended GPS.
Some things that have occurred-
• The proposed amalgamation of the school on the Kingslangley Site.
• The sale of the Greenwich road site possibly with enlargement as a private school.
These proposals were resisted by our community with a lot of work put in by various members of the Community.
The demise of the traditional Infants Department with K~2 classes has taken place. With growing numbers this could not be resisted.
We believe the current DA before Council represents a very positive move which will lessen comprehensively the above dangers.
As an architect I have some reservation about the building as designed but not its location or massing.
The original building, 1908, by Walter Liberty Vernon Architect if I remember correctly from my Uni. thesis was modern, exciting and significant in the Greenwich Rd neighbourhood.
Outwardly, though not entirely an exciting building, it will be for us, if approved, appropriately modern and more significantly will take the School towards exciting future learning possibilities.
Murray Holmes and Sue Holmes
83 Greenwich Rd Greenwich.
