Around 150 parents, neighbours and children have rallied against an Early Learning Centre proposed for Merewether Heights.
They say that while it has been approved by the council, today was a turning point in their fight to stop the centre being built at the back of the primary school.
text will be replaced
Down with this sort of thing!
The news item misses a main point – the MHPS P&C have NEVER OBEJECTED to having a long day care centre on school grounds, but think it is unconscionable to build one that poses significant safety risks to children. The driveway the Early Learning Centre (ELC) proposes to use has been closed to parents’ cars for years to prevent car accidents. So why is it suddenly ok to let the parents and workers of the ELC use that same driveway?? That is the question to ask of Sharon Grierson – who authorized using the school’s driveway when the original tender document stated it was to have its own carpark and access? Her statement in the news item is non-responsive to the issue. No one is arguing whether or not there’s a need for more long day care places.
Merewether Heights Public School P&C staged a Safety First rally at the school on Tuesday 8 June 2010, in opposition to the proposed development of an Early Learning Centre on the school grounds.
The development of the centre is being pushed through by Sharon Grierson, Federal Member for Newcastle, as part of a Federal funding promise to develop more childcare/early learning centres in the area. The MHPS P&C supports having an ELC on our school grounds, but the community will not accept a design that puts our children at increased risk of traffic accidents. Ms Grierson seems to believe that the spending of Federal money for this project is paramount. The dangers that will be created to school children by the location of this centre and the worries of parents and residents seems not to matter to her.
I personally believe no matter how you feel about this enormous development going on the school grounds and losing such valuable play space for the children of the school, (one of this schools amazing features was it’s amazing play area.) It is time to make the people who made these government descisions PAY!
Elections are coming soon and people need to vote with their ballots.
These people need to be help accountable to their descisions, and why not force their hand with their own fate in the ballot box. Then and only then may they finally listen to their communities they claim to represent!
The fact that the residents and parents are trying to protect their children is respected, but in the end we do need more places like this (the PC supports this). The overall challenge and goal is to ensure the safety of the children. This can be achieved in two ways:
1. The children are educated regarding the dangers. The fact that they no not to run on to the road is evident, so educating them so they know not to run onto the driveway would seem achievable
2. There is obviously a logical way to ensure the safety of children when they accidently run out on to the road, a fence to guard the driveway? It seems to work for pools and the general perimeter of the school, so also the driveway.
If the goal of the P&C is the safety of the children, then these two somewhat easily achievable means would surely be a way to ensure safety and also allow for the ELC (which the P&C supports) at the school.
Repetition is the game of Politicians-AGAIN we the community & past school parents & students, state-DO Not put this ELCC on this inapprorpriate site.
We are supportive of the need for an ELCC but NOT on this site as proposed. This is a small residential street (Cedar Cres.) where children cross & play and to inflict 150-200 extra car movements per day for 51 weeks of the year is ludicrous, this is what will be necessary for the people using the ELCC as there is no nearby public transport. This is also a” for profit” private enterprise supported by tax payers money & subsidised by govt. The people who can afford this child care will be the recipients . WHY has no traffic study been done.
We ratepayers have been ignored with No consultation re this development.
J. Jaworowski – Federal Members don’t design or approve plans you moron. How about all you Merewether snobs just pay for your kids to go to Grammar and leave the rest of us alone. It’s public land, not your private enclave.
aslkdj- excuse me? The parents at that school are not snobs, thank you very much. I should know, I attended that school. The person you are insulting is talking about a risk to child safety, and there really is. even when a few parents were using the staff car park, there was a hit and run accident against a student, and there was barely any traffic then. and by “us”, what do you mean? as in, those who have no idea about the running of the school, and it’s students and teachers? You, sir, are the moron, as all you are doing is making a fool out of yourself, by, whell, pistol whipping a blind kid (metaphorically, of course) with that rather nasty comment.
Would the Larissa Street above be the same Larissa street who was in yesterday’s (15.08.10) Sunday Telegraph whinging about having to pay a modest rent for the business she runs on the school property (OOSH)? It seems according to what she told the Tele’ – she has been occupying the building for 17 years for only $1000 per year! That wouldn’t even cover the outgoings (electricity, gas, insurance, maintenance) the DET are paying! And she has the audacity to complain that she’ll now have to pay a modest rent of $14,000 per year to run her business! Seems like she’s been making money for jam for years. And how did this cosy deal come about? Was there a tendering process? Was there even a lease? I suspect not.
It seems like there’s a double standard at work here. Larissa’s business operates from 6.30am to 6.00pm, 50 weeks per year. It caters for 60 children – just a few less than the proposed child care. It is accessed off Scenic Drive – which is a very busy and dangerous road – with OOSH vehicles dropping kids off and picking them up – all being tangled up in an unmade car park, in the middle of normal school drop off and collection process. And what scrutiny did this ever receive? Was there a traffic study? Was there even a Development Application for this business? Did the arrangements ever come under any proper scrutiny at all? I think you can answer ‘no’ to all – anyone have any evidence to the contrary?
Larissa’s spray above purports to represent the community’s attitude. It does not. What it does display is an extraordinary hypocrisy from someone too blinkered to realise she’s been on an outrageously good wicket for a very long time -courtesy of the Government she’s bagging!