Population growth has been cited as the sole rationale for the school's proposed location.  I have provided clear evidence that the population densities remain consistent from 2009 to 2022 at 2.7 per dwelling (see Appendix) and the forecast dwellings for the neighboring development of >12,000 (see Appendix) has also not changed, both facts well-documented. If the neighbouring development dwelling numbers have not altered, the guidelines and desired standards of service have not altered, and the population density has not altered (July 2022 IPBR) how can the Department of Education genuinely suggest that PS004 is required on our land? We, as private property owners of this freehold land for 130 years, should not bear the burden of incompetent planning and changes to the ultimate forecast population for the entire Ripley Valley Development.

If "it is the government's responsibility to ensure that the new Ripley Valley community and the necessary services to support it are well planned and delivered when needed," (EDQ:OUT24/1406, 22/03/24) then why weren't the developers required to make provisions for schools within their own development on greenfield land, as outlined in Guideline 11? This is a master-planned development on the outskirts of Ipswich, with plenty of available land within Ripley Valley for school allocation from existing developments. The schooling requirements for the immediate demographic is already satisfied with a Primary School 1km from PS004.

References to “detailed planning” and “ultimate population” figures via a media release by Kim at Media@dsdilgp.qld.gov.au 25/03/24, appears nothing but bureaucratic spin.  EDQ’s endeavour to mislead the public via the same media release suggesting that “fewer than 1,500 dwellings” have been built by Sekisui House, which may currently be accurate, does not diminish the fact that approvals have been granted for >12,000 homes with zero provision for zero schools. As EDQ has stated this development has been "long planned," yet it has failed to adhere to Guideline 11 or Desired Standards of Service for school planning.

If the Education Department has indeed undertaken such "detailed planning," (Media@dsdilgp.qld.gov.au 25/03/24) why has no representative made direct contact with us? Why has no representative physically inspected the property? Furthermore, why was the proposed site relocated to a flood zone, adjacent to a sewer pump, and situated on a slope exceeding 15%? We received an initial notification letter along with a photocopied map indicating the school's location. This level of detail doesn’t appear particularly comprehensive, your own representative said it was high level, now it’s classed as comprehensive? If this is considered detailed planning, then it undoubtedly raises questions about professional competencies.  If it's not incompetence, then Government dealings with developers need to be open and transparent as to why schools are not provided for within planned developments.