17 May 2022

Councillors refuse to support Bungendore High School site, agree to 'ongoing consultation'

| Claire Fenwicke
Join the conversation
12
Artist's impression of the proposed Bungendore High School

Artist’s impression of the proposed Bungendore High School, looking across the school to Gibraltar Street. Photo: Department of Education.

Dissent still lingered over the location of Bungendore’s yet-to-be-built high school at the Queanbeyan-Palerang Regional Council’s (QPRC) recent meeting.

Council’s been divided over the proposed Majara-Gibraltar precinct site, which the NSW Government has now acquired.

The council backflipped on its support of the proposed site in January 2022, and Councillor Mareeta Grundy’s motion at the 11 May meeting to signify council’s “in-principle support” also failed.

“Some would say this council has put up a good fight against the proposed high school; others would say this council has been obstructive and counter-productive in withdrawing its in-principle support of [the Department of Education’s] proposal in January,” she said.

“I have had a number of families contact me seeking clarification about the status of the Bungendore High School project. One mother and her 10-year-old son approached me at the Sutton Bakery, distraught at the thought this project might fall over.”

READ ALSO Queanbeyan council flags cat containment policy for all new developments

Cr Grundy argued her motion was not about “taking sides”, but rather it was about acknowledging the current position and an attempt to repair council’s relationship with the Department of Education (DoE).

“One of the pillars of good leadership is knowing when to take stock and adapt to changed or changing circumstances,” she said.

“Good outcomes come from good relationships, and currently our relationship with the DoE is on life support.”

Artist's impression of the proposed Bungendore High School. Photo: Department of Education.

Artist’s impression of the proposed Bungendore High School in the Majara/Gibraltar streets precinct. Photo: Department of Education.

However, Councillor John Preston disagreed and proposed an amendment to the motion to remove council’s in-principle agreement.

“Given the recent passage of the compulsory acquisition of associated lands by the DoE,” he proposed the council “note the resolution of item 16.1 [relating to the school development] indicating council’s ongoing engagement with this situation”.

Item 16.1 in the meeting’s agenda was discussed in closed council.

Cr Preston argued a “raft of issues” were yet to be solved over the site and that he felt not all site options had been investigated by the DoE.

“Bungendore is surrounded by greenfield sites that offer far better long-term solutions to this important social and community issue,” he said.

“The arrival of the DoE at the site has far more to do with expediency than good planning.

“What I can’t applaud or endorse is the DoE’s process that has brought us to this site selection.”

READ ALSO E-scooters could motor into Googong as part of state-first trial

Cr Grundy said she was not surprised with an amendment to her motion, however, she was “puzzled”.

“How can council agree with the need to work with the DoE and proceed with certain declarations and agreements from here and not offer a statement of support for the project?” she asked.

“I can’t believe we’re having this almost petty discussion where we’re not able to make a public statement that we now find ourselves in a position where we are supporting this proposal.”

Councillor Katrina Willis countered she felt the DoE’s entire process had been “extremely poor” and she did not endorse the “poorly conceived plan”.

“The community of Bungendore shouldn’t be forced to choose between essential facilities, such as a high school, and their own town park,” she said.

“I remain hopeful common sense will prevail and a more appropriate site will be found, one that actually meets the government’s own criteria for a public high school.

“If this falls over, it will entirely be the fault of the DoE and not this council.”

Cr Preston’s amendment was passed seven to three.

Artist's impression of the proposed Bungendore High School

Artist’s impression of the proposed Bungendore High School – looking across Mick Sherd Oval to the school. Photo: Department of Education.

In closing the debate, Cr Grundy said she felt the new motion painted council as “hypocritical”.

“It would cost us nothing to make a public statement that we are working with the DoE and therefore we support the project,” she said.

“We’re not losing a park. The park is staying right where it is.

“The writing is on the wall. We need to be grown-up. We need to show some leadership. We need to get on with this project so that our community has some clarity and has some certainty for their children, for businesses, for the community as a whole.”

The amended motion was passed seven to three.

READ ALSO Queanbeyan locals awarded for backbreaking efforts to preserve heritage homes

The Bungendore High School Action Group welcomed the news QPRC’s CEO could now negotiate with the DoE on council’s behalf but said there was “disappointment” the project still did not have in-principle support.

“Many ratepayers are upset that Councillors have decided to continue to withhold support for one of the most significant investments into our community’s infrastructure, without first seeking and ensuring they are representing the views of the majority of the wider Bungendore community,” it said in a statement on Facebook.

Council authorised its CEO to progress with the delivery of a new office building, pool and community facility, along with provisional land for the Abbeyfield housing proposal.

“Council is now in a position to negotiate with the Department of Education about items which were not included in the current compensation process, which includes the Majara Road Reserve and Library,” a statement said.

QPRC will prepare a development application for the construction of a proposed new administration building on Gibraltar Street, along with design and approvals for the construction of the new pool at Bungendore Sports Hub.

Council will also negotiate for shared use of Mick Sherd Oval by the high school.

The Bungendore high school proposal can be viewed on the NSW Major Projects website.

Join the conversation

12
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
Latest
Greg Cameron2:59 pm 17 Jun 22

QPRC still declines to give a reason for opposing the site chosen for a high school at Bungendore by the Department of Education.

Council will only say that “a more suitable site would be available in Bungendore”.

Council voted to oppose the chosen site in January.

The conclusion that must be drawn is that the reason for opposing the chosen site is invalid.

However, Council considers itself to be above public scrutiny.

At the March 2019 state election, Labor made a commitment to a high school at Bungendore for the start of the 2023 school year.

Labor asked the Minister for Education on June 7: “Is it the Government’s policy that 2019 election commitments to school projects need to be completed by the end of the current term of parliament (March 2023)?”

The Shadow Minister for Education, Ms Prue Car, declines to disclose whether it is now Labor policy to oppose the chosen site for Bungendore high school because “a more suitable site would be available”.

Ms Car is prevented from revealing Labor policy because Council declines to provide a reason for opposing the chosen site.

Council provided 58 “Recommended Conditions of Consent” to the State Government on October 29 2021, when lodging its objection to the chosen site.

Council resolved at its meeting on October 27 2021 that “subject to satisfactory resolution of these [“Recommended Conditions of Consent”] items Council may withdraw its objection to the proposal”.

Council declines to disclose whether these 58 recommended conditions have been satisfactorily resolved.

Presumably, these conditions are being met or exceeded.

This would explain Council’s non-disclosure of its reason for opposing the chosen site.

Greg Cameron11:14 am 19 May 22

Council’s refusal to disclose its reasons for opposing the site suggests there are none.

Riotact would be doing the community a service if you were to ask Council for a formal statement disclosing reasons for objecting.

If you do not receive a formal statement, this would be further evidence that there is no basis for Council opposing the site.

Not sure why you wouldn’t go in principle support and then try and work out the details.
If you can all good, if not withdraw after you have figured out you couldn’t make it work.

The Principal is still out there visiting feeder primary schools advising that it will definitely be systems go for day one term one 2023. Which is beyond laughable.

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.