‘We weren’t listened to’: Parents, experts challenge process behind Tacking Point preschool

CONCERNS over transparency, environmental risk and children’s wellbeing are intensifying around the NSW Government’s proposed $6.3 million preschool at Tacking Point Public School.

Parents and independent experts saying community consultation has fallen well short of what was promised.

Central to those concerns is Project Reference Group representative Penelope Little, who was the only community member on a committee otherwise made up of Department of Education staff and other project participants.

Little, a full-time emergency services worker and mother of four, two of whom attend the school, said the consultation process had lacked basic transparency.

“Often I’d get meeting requests with 24 or 48 hours’ notice – sometimes the same day – with no agenda,” she said. “I’d raise concerns afterwards and ask for minutes of the meeting, but they were never provided.”

She said she was excluded from some meetings entirely, with missed invitations attributed to “technical errors”, despite her being contactable via a NSW Government email address.

Little said the most frustrating aspect was being repeatedly told the process was consultative while also being informed the preschool’s proposed location was non-negotiable.

“I remember asking directly, ‘Are we actually in a consultation, or has this already been decided?’” she told News Of The Area.

“They told me it was consultation, but then said this was the only site they could use and they couldn’t deviate from it.”

At a meeting between concerned parents, residents, local experts and senior department officials at the school just before Christmas, Little said she asked whether the project would be paused to allow further review of the information presented.

“The response was that all due diligence had been done, the project had been signed off by the Minister, and they were delivering a preschool at Tacking Point,” she said.

“Even so, we have to keep fighting.”

Among those raising concerns is school parent and neuroscientist Emma Schofield, who attended the meeting and said expert concerns raised by parents and specialists were repeatedly dismissed.

“They showed sympathy about losing the playground, but it felt like lip service,” she said.

“At times I wondered if I was in a comedy skit.”

Schofield said she challenged officials on whether they would consider the possibility that community experts were correct and departmental assessments were flawed.

“The answer was that we had to trust the process; that they’d done all their due diligence,” she said.

She also raised concerns about a lack of clarity around construction timelines, noting sewerage and stormwater approvals were still outstanding while works were already underway.

“There’s real worry about what could be pushed through during the holiday break,” she said.

Beyond process issues, she expressed alarm about the condition of the lower playground and the potential health impacts for children, particularly heat, dust and air quality.

“If the preschool goes ahead, I will move my daughter from the school,” she said.

“I can’t live with the risk.”

Environmental concerns have also been raised by local conservation expert Dr Elise Furlan, who says the proposed development sits within actively used koala habitat.

“There are resident koalas on this site,” she said.

“This development risks displacing them and interrupting their movement, particularly with a driveway and hundreds of car movements a day.”

Dr Furlan said she had provided expert advice to the Department but received only a generic acknowledgement in response.

She said she doubted the project would meet federal Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act requirements, and said repeated requests to access the project’s ecological report had gone unanswered.

“What troubles me most is that this went through a complying development pathway,” she said.

“That avoids the environmental assessment processes that exist specifically to minimise harm to habitat.”

She also pointed to what she described as shifting claims about tree impacts, including recent assurances that some garden beds containing primary koala feed trees would no longer be affected.

“That directly contradicts what had been said earlier,” she said.

Another parent, who asked not to be named due to their government employment, said the issue had caused deep distress within the school community.

“This has emotionally rocked us,” they said.

“It goes against what’s right for the children, the koalas and the wider community.”

The parent noted the local petition opposing the development had now attracted about 1,200 signatures.

In a statement, a NSW Department of Education spokesperson said Tacking Point Public School was selected following a “rigorous” site selection process overseen by an independent expert reviewer and probity advisor.

The spokesperson said expert environmental consultants had confirmed the preschool design could accommodate existing trees, with three to be relocated and none cleared, and that mitigation measures would protect local flora and fauna.

The department said the school would retain 16 square metres of play space per student once construction was complete, exceeding minimum standards, and that consultation had occurred through a Project Reference Group and engagement with Aboriginal education bodies.

Despite those assurances, parents and experts maintain key reports have not been made publicly available, concerns are unresolved and trust has been eroded.

By Matt TAYLOR