A Wollongong City Council planner has dismissed concerns of Berkeley residents who said a school for troubled youth planned in their suburb would lead to students roaming the streets, engaging anti-social behaviour and forming gangs.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
However, the council has also recommended the school – which was to be run by Edmund Rice Education – be knocked back, as it was “not satisfactory”.
The school for up to 100 students who were “out of ordinary school, usually from dysfunctional families, always from poor circumstances” was proposed to be built on an L-shaped block between Middlesex and Southampton streets.
When the plans surfaced in late 2015, residents launched a protest against the school saying it would “look like a jail”.
According to a report to the Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel – which is due to consider the plans on Wednesday afternoon – a “large number” of submissions also raised concerns about the detrimental social effects of the building.
But the council’s social planner dismissed these concerns, saying the school’s focus on respect, honesty and encouraging “safe and legal” behaviour helped students develop self-confidence, promoted an optimistic view of their future and helped them to re-engage with mainstream society.
“Community fears of ‘young kids roaming the streets’ or ‘increase in anti-social behaviour’ are considered subjective and not based on any qualified objective evidence,” the planner said. “[The social planner] supports the proposal in regards to the centre not having social impacts but rather, potentially having a number of potential social and societal benefits to the immediate neighbours, Berkeley residents and the Wollongong community.”
However, council staff said there was a “car parking shortfall” because spaces for two minibuses were too small and “insufficient empirical evidence has been provided to demonstrate that there is no requirement for onsite car parking for students, service vehicles or additional visitors”. The report to IHAP also noted there was no provision for waste collection and deliveries and no disabled persons’ access to recreation areas.
“Having regard to the shortcomings of the proposal and the inability to resolve these matters in a satisfactory manner leads to the conclusion that the site is not suitable for the proposed developments,” the refusal statement reads.