Forest Lodge Integrated Seniors Living

I have lived in Glebe for over forty years and remember when the suburb's unique character was saved by Tom Uren from destruction by two expressways. More recently some of Glebe's public housing stock was sold to private owners and the suburb has also gained new residents and new developments on its perimeter. These new developments should be carefully planned to enhance rather than detract from the suburb's character.

1. This proposed development is also on Glebe/Forest Lodge's perimeter, which is Orphan School Creek. The Orphan School Creek corridor which stretches from Sydney University to Rozelle Bay has long been valued by the Glebe community as a Biodiversity Corridor and has been enhanced where possible by native plantings along its length. The height, bulk, scale and overshadowing of these new buildings will impact the existing Larkin Street Park, which recognises the corridor with its plantings and signage. The new, small area of park that is proposed to be added to Larkin St Park will not receive enough sunlight to enable new plantings to flourish. The very narrow shady laneway that is proposed between St Johns Road and Larkin St Park as a 'through-site link' also won't provide any biodiversity benefit. St Johns Road will lose its view of Larkin St Park as you come down the hill from Ross St. All you will see in the future is a large multi-storey building at the end of the road. St Johns Road is a significant road in Glebe as it extends for the entire breadth of the suburb from Wentworth Park. The apartments in Larkin St Camperdown also value the existing sunny green space and biodiverse plantings in Larkin St Park and will be impacted by the height and scale of the proposed new buildings.
I would like the new buildings' height to be reduced and have more building set-back, to reduce the impact on Larkin St Park (Orphan School Creek), as well as St Johns Road, Junction St, David St and Larkin St residents. Rather than 'providing public art' of 'birds and nature' , the development should actively encourage real birds and nature by providing much larger additional public open sunny green space for an enlarged Larkin St Park, than that proposed in the current plans.

2. The beautiful 1880s McGovisk Terrace Houses in Junction Street will be seriously affected by the development as it will dwarf them. The new buildings' height should be reduced and further setback provided for these terraces on Junction Street, particularly as it is such a narrow street!

3. Flooding and potential flooding has always been an issue in this location. This is one of the lowest parts of Glebe and the flow path of stormwater down St Johns Road from Ross Street can be ferocious in high rain periods. Some of the terrace houses in St Johns Road used to flood and the reason the melaleuca street trees were planted in St Johns Road is because they like "Wet feet". It concerns me that the reason the proposed buildings are so high and that such extensive car parking is proposed so close to public transport routes, is because there is a recognition that flooding will impact the lower floors. Is building new high buildings for seniors in flood-prone areas, a sensible response to climate change when more intense weather events are expected?

4. Adding at least 70 car spaces in this area seems extraordinarily high. Traffic at the Ross Street/St Johns Road intersection is very congested at peak hours and the intersection has 2 different bus routes (469 and 470) , so cars and buses often have to queue for long periods.
Increased traffic may also impact the many children who use the popular May Pitt Playground in the lower part of St Johns Road.
Traffic in this area also has to compete with cyclists, many of whom use this stretch of St Johns Road and Junction St to avoid the traffic lights at the corner of Ross Street and Bridge Road.

5. Glebe/Forest Lodge has quite a young demographic, so it's difficult to understand that there is a great demand for this type of seniors' development in Glebe/Forest lodge or Camperdown. Many seniors prefer to "Age in Place" given all the current controversies surrounding aged care and its changing cost structures. I understood there was considerably more demand for affordable housing for young people, rather than for expensive apartments for downsizing seniors.

I have several large concerns that I believe will significantly reduce the quality of life for myself and my neighbours:
- Larkin St is effectively a single lane road with a single exit onto Parramatta Rd. Sparkes St and Sparkes Lane only feed into Larkin St. There appears to be >10 large buildings, and I'd estimate maybe 200 apartments whose driveways only feed into the currently inadequate Larkin St and Larkin St exit. I routinely see/experience cars stuck trying to enter / exit at various times of the day. Allowing the new 2-10 Junction St development to feed into Larkin St via the newly created Larkin St driveway (added 2025) will exacerbate the issues here -- particularly with the proposed larger trucks. Trucks/cars from the new development should not use the new driveway onto Larkin St -- it is not able to handle the current, let alone additional load. Junction St has far fewer (no?) large buildings and has nowhere near the number of people depending on it to enter/exit their home.
- The proposed height of the development will block the remaining source of sunlight in the afternoon. The building(s) to the south currently receives less sunlight due to the existing large tree canopy. Please avoid blocking more sunlight for the health of residents.

As a resident living in close proximity to the proposed development, I would like to formally raise several concerns regarding its potential impact on the local area. While I understand the need for growth and change, I believe this proposal raises serious issues that could negatively affect the quality of life for existing residents.

First, the increased traffic and demand for parking are likely to place additional strain on Larkin Street and surrounding roads. These streets are not designed to handle high volumes of vehicles, and further congestion could compromise both safety and accessibility.

Secondly, the height and overall scale of the proposed building appear excessive when compared to the existing streetscape. Such a structure risks overwhelming the local character and diminishing the visual harmony of the neighbourhood.

Overshadowing is another major concern, particularly during the winter months when sunlight is already limited. Reduced natural light can have both practical and well-being implications for nearby households.

In addition, the construction phase poses its own challenges. Extended building works are likely to result in significant noise, dust, and general disruption. I ask that every effort be made to minimise these impacts on surrounding residents.

Importantly, I request that construction-related vehicles not use Larkin Street for access. The street is narrow and primarily residential, and the presence of large trucks would raise serious safety issues and further reduce residential amenity.

Lastly, any works affecting the nearby Larkin Street Reserve must prioritise the protection of existing mature trees and the surrounding natural environment. These green spaces play a vital role in maintaining the ecological balance and livability of the area.

In light of the above, I ask that council carefully consider the broader implications of this development and explore opportunities to modify the proposal to better reflect the scale, character, and needs of the local community.

Subject: Objection to DA SSD-75493483 proposal for State Significant Development: Forest Lodge Integrated Seniors Living for 2-32 Junction Street, Forest Lodge

To the Assessment Team,

I am writing to formally object to the proposed development at 2-32 Junction Street, Forest Lodge. While I reside in Newtown, I am a frequent visitor to the Camperdown area and have a strong interest in ensuring developments are compliant and beneficial to the wider community.

My primary concerns regarding this proposal are as follows:

1. Non-Compliance with Planning Controls: The proposal, with an FSR of 1.95:1, is 56% larger than the permissible limit. Approving a development that so flagrantly breaches planning rules sets a dangerous precedent for our entire local government area and undermines the integrity of the planning system.
2. Inadequate Parking and Traffic Impact: The provision of zero dedicated visitor parking for a seniors living facility is unacceptable. This will inevitably displace a high volume of visitor and carer vehicles into the surrounding streets, including Larkin Street, which is already under parking pressure. This will negatively impact residents and visitors to the area.
3. Loss of Public Amenity: The excessive bulk and scale of the building will cause a loss of iconic city skyline views from public areas like Larkin Street Reserve. Furthermore, the significant overshadowing will reduce winter sunlight in this public park, degrading a valuable community asset for everyone.
4. I am also deeply concerned for my sister who lives directly opposite this site and will be severely impacted.

I support appropriate development, but it must be reasonable and compliant. This proposal is neither. I strongly urge the Council to reject the application in its current form and require the applicant to submit a revised proposal that complies with the prescribed FSR and properly provides for its parking needs.

Re: Forest Lodge Integrated Seniors Living - Objections to the Development Application Number SSD-75493483
I am a regular visitor and walker through this area and along Larkin Street Reserve. I object to the proposal in its current form as it overshadows and is incompatible with the surrounding apartments and terraces. The application if approved to its current height undermines the planning system and sets a dangerous precedent.

There is a need for low-income apartments in the inner city as well as senior living and aged care accommodation but fundamental planning rules that exist to protect the amenity for the existing residents should not be ignored.

A development of this scale will have an unreasonable negative impact on the neighbourhood. Planning should balance new developments with the preservation of community character and liveability, a vital part of living in the inner city. The current design of this proposal fails that balance.

The design should be reduced in height and scaled back to mitigate the loss of public views and winter sunlight to Larkin Street Reserve, making this public park less usable for families and residents.

The proposal needs to comply with the permissible Floor Space to Ratio of 1.25:1 plus provide adequate on-site parking for the residents and their visitors as per planning requirements. Current parking is already a significant problem for residents and their visitors.

The developer has clearly failed to properly and accurately assess the full impacts of the proposed development.

1 The proposed development is an over use of the site and does not take into account the current local amenities, narrow roads and access.
2 There is a much larger Development proposed for Cnr Bridge rd and Parramatta rd, with better facilities ,wider roads, access to buses and access to transport
3 The proposed development is not sympathetic to the older streetscape in Junction st and St Johns rd. As an example of a sympathetic development please look at Cnr Cowper st and Wentworth Park rd. That development reflects the terrace houses nearby and the warehouses in the adjoining streets.. The unusual brickwork is an addition to the area as with the wrought iron on the balcony areas.
4 There is no greenspace in the development at Junction st despite the drawing of some trees. The Council and residents support greenspaces and there should be a 4 - 5 meter setback from Junction st for gardens trees and a sympathetic streetscape. There is already a rear park so the streetscape at Junction street should be enhanced in a similar size. The illustrated streetscape for Junction st is misleading as to the width of the road. Both sides of Junction st and also st Johns rd, are used for parking so it is in fact a one lane road with only one exit at St Johns rd.
5 The streets in St Johns rd and Junction st and David Lane are already full of parked residents cars as the area has little garaging for residents cars and bikes. Further both streets are close to Sydney University and many students park in these streets.
6 The proposed garaging is too little to accommodate cars for residents, nursing staff, doctors, cleaners and visitors. At least another 18 spaces should be used to accommodate these people.
7 The increased traffic flow cannot be facilitated in the adjoining streets.
8 The local sewage, water and electricity and other technical services may not be able to be properly upgraded as they will all need to be upgraded and this will disrupt the amenity of the local residents.
9 There is a creek at the intersection, being part of the Johnston creek which is likely to be affected and leads to Sydney Harbour. The State government has finalized remediation of the Creek to prevent pollution into the Harbour.
9 The development will increase noise and dust and dirt in the area , including on weekends.
10 The development does not refer to the need for garbage trucks to access and enter the street and also commercial waste bins to be stored and collected,( not directly onto the street). Garbage will be substantially increased by the increased occupants and medical issues. Waste collection is already an issue in the narrow streets in the area. There needs to be full protection for disposal of medical waste.
11 Junction st prevents easy access to fire and ambulance vehicles . It is narrow with only a small entrance and parking on both sides. There is only one exit via St Johns rd for all of the adjoining and nearby streets.

This submission is prepared on behalf of the Owners Corporation at 1-3 Larkin Street Camperdown

OBJECTION TO DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: SSD-75493483
PROPOSAL: State Significant Development: Forest Lodge Integrated Seniors Living
ADDRESS: 2-32 Junction Street, Forest Lodge

1. Introduction

I am writing to formally object to the proposed development at 2-32 Junction Street, Forest Lodge. I am the owner and resident located directly opposite the proposed site. I purchased this apartment in March of last year as a first home buyer, using my entire life savings and an early inheritance from my parents to enter the housing market. My specific criteria for this, my home, were a pleasant view and a degree of privacy. This apartment fulfilled that dream.

The current proposal, due to its excessive scale and non-compliance with planning controls, will severely and negatively impact my amenity, the value of my home, create parking hazards and damage the character of our local area. My objection is not to development in principle, but to this specific, unreasonable proposal.

2. Loss of View, Privacy, and Sunlight

The view was the cornerstone of my decision to purchase this apartment. From every window in my apartment, i.e. my living room, kitchen, balcony, and bedroom, I enjoy a panoramic, iconic view towards the Sydney CBD skyline, including iconic landmarks like Centre Point Tower and Barangaroo. This view is integral to my daily life and well-being. Every morning, I drink my coffee watching the sun rise over the city; I work from home through the day with admiring the vista; In the evening, as I prepare dinner, I watch the sunset light up the buildings in a kaleidoscope of colours. At night, I watch the city lights burst through the sky from my couch. Every corner of my apartment has this view, every activity I do inside it involves enjoying it.

As per the "Tenacity" principle, this view is of the highest order (city skyline and landmarks) and is enjoyed from my primary living areas and balcony. The proposed building, at 56% larger than the permitted FSR, will completely and unreasonably obliterate this view, replacing a cherished cityscape with a wall of apartments.

Crucially, this also represents a catastrophic loss of privacy. As someone who runs a business from home, I am in my apartment 24 hours a day. The proposed six-storey building will directly overlook my living space, kitchen, home office, and bedroom. I will go from a private, north-facing aspect to being on constant display. This is the absolute opposite of the lifestyle I carefully purchased.

Furthermore, my apartment's windows all face the proposed development. The building's excessive bulk and height will rob me of valuable morning sunlight, casting my home into shadow and reducing its liveability. I have not seen any accurate shadow diagrams that demonstrate the full impact on my unit, and I question the validity of the developer’s assessment given their failure to properly engage with me.

3. Excessive Bulk, Scale, and Non-Compliance

The core of this problem is the building's unreasonable scale. The proposal has an FSR of 1.95:1, a 56% breach of the permitted 1.25:1. This overdevelopment is the direct cause of the view loss, privacy invasion, and overshadowing I will experience.

A compliant development, of a scale and height more in keeping with the existing streetscape (for example, one that respected the roofline of the existing heritage building on site), would likely mitigate these severe impacts. I am not opposed to an aged care facility, but I am vehemently opposed to one of such excessive bulk that it fundamentally degrades my home and our neighbourhood.

4. Inadequate Parking and Increased Traffic

Parking on Larkin Street is already at capacity. As a resident, I witness daily struggles for spaces, with tradespeople and delivery drivers often forced to park illegally on footpaths, sometimes three at a time on the turning circle, sometimes they park in the park itself (including City of Sydney employees servicing the park). The proposed development provides no dedicated visitor parking and is already deficient in resident parking by at least six spaces.

An aged care facility generates significant additional traffic from family visitors, carers, and health workers. To assume this demand will be absorbed into the already strained supply on Larkin Street is unrealistic and will place an intolerable burden on residents. Our own visitor parking is at 100% capacity every night. This proposal will exacerbate an already critical problem, leading to more congestion and safety issues, especially for children and families using the adjacent Larkin Street Reserve.

5. Failure in Community Consultation

I confirm that the developer never contacted me prior to lodging this DA. I received no notification, letter, or request for access to my apartment to assess view loss, privacy, or sunlight impacts. I only learned of the proposal through a neighbour.

I was not invited to the community consultation in April, despite being signed up for updates and living directly across the road. The developer’s reliance on drone footage and desktop studies, without any direct engagement with the most impacted residents, is a profound failure. Their view loss analysis features only one image from our building, taken from an angle that conveniently minimises the impact on the iconic Centre Point Tower view. My own basic mock-up, from my balcony, shows the view will be entirely lost. I do not trust their reports to accurately reflect the true impacts on my home.

Keep in mind, I am just a Graphic Designer, not an Architect, so this mock-up is inaccurate. I used the tree as a scale reference. I am left to do this myself because the developer has not made any assessment of this visual impact:

6. Personal and Financial Impact

This development poses a direct threat to my financial security. I accessed the housing market using First Home Buyer benefits, concessions I cannot access again. Having invested my entire inheritance and life savings into this property, I now face the prospect of my lifestyle and its value being significantly eroded by the loss of its key amenities: the view, privacy, and sunlight. I cannot simply "sell up and move"; I am trapped.

There is a profound irony that State significant development legislation, designed to help my generation access the housing market, is now being used to justify a proposal that will effectively push me out of mine. To be asked, as a millennial who has sacrificed so much to own a home, to sacrifice it again for an oversized development benefiting an older generation feels deeply unfair.

7. Conclusion and Request

I am not opposed to development. I am opposed to unfairness and an unreasonable proposal that sacrifices my home. I understand the value of a home and the importance of community. Over the Christmas of 2019-2020, I fought with the RFS to save homes in the Cumbo brigade of the Central West. I used my own bare hands to save the homes of strangers from some of the worst bush fires our country has ever seen. I am now asking for my community, through its planning system, to help save mine. I understand the need for aged care and housing supply in the city. However, it is profoundly disheartening to have to ask the planning system to protect me from a building that is, by the clear metrics of the planning rules itself, 56% too big.

This isn't just about a view; it's about fairness. It's about the principle that a person who has worked hard, sacrificed, and contributed to their community should not have their home's fundamental value and liveability destroyed by a development that refuses to play by the rules.

I respectfully request that the application be rejected in its current form. I urge the Council to require the applicant to:

1. Reduce the scale and bulk of the building to comply with the permissible FSR of 1.25:1.
2. Re-design the building to preserve the existing views and privacy for residents at 1-3 Larkin Street.
3. Provide adequate on-site parking for both residents and visitors, as required by planning controls.
4. Properly and meaningfully consult with directly affected residents.

My submission is not just an objection; it is a request for reason, for compliance, and for a fair go. Thank you for considering it.

See attached

Main objection document pdf attached
Reference photos zip attached

A six storey building is not in keeping with the area. The row of terraces opposite the proposed development is of great heritage value and only two storeys high. They will be dominated by and overshadowed by a six storey building. Also, there are massive traffic problems with the pyrmont bridge road end of junction street and I have personally observed a number of accidents. The introduction of over 70 new residences will greatly exacerbate these traffic issues along with access to parking at the rear of the terraces. Along with vastly increased traffic would be problems with additional noise and air pollution.

To Whom It May Concern:
Objection to proposed Forest Lodge Integrated Seniors Living Development (SSD-75493483)

I am writing to you in regards to the planning proposal at the above address. I am an owner of an apartment on the top floor in the premise next door at 1-3 Larkin St, Camperdown. I have resided there for close to ten years and it is currently tenanted for the last year. The development proposal at 2–32 Junction Street, Forest Lodge includes:
• A six-storey integrated seniors housing facility comprising 71 independent living units and a 12-bed residential care facility.
• Significant site works including tree removal, earthworks, and infrastructure augmentation.
• Ancillary uses such as a café, cinema, hair salon, and multipurpose space.
• Publicly accessible open space and pedestrian links adjoining Larkin Street Reserve.

I am strongly opposed to this development due to the following concerns:
a) Parking and Traffic
b) Bulk and Scale
c) View Loss
d) Sunlight and overshadowing
e) Privacy, noise and amenity
f) Community engagement failures
Firstly, Larkin St and the surrounds already experiences a high volume due to the proximity to USYD and RPA. The building is too big for the site (exceeds the recommended FSR) and does not provide enough parking. It only has 78 parking spaces which is already short by at least 6 resident spaces and there is no visitor parking at all. A seniors living development will bring a lot of visitors – family, carers, health workers – and all of those people will need to park somewhere. With no visitor parking provided, they will park in Larkin Street which is already under pressure. Housing SEPP’s non-discretionary rate clearly anticipates visitor parking, and the proponent is not meeting that requirement. There is only space for thoroughfare in both directions for one car at a time. During peak hours or during garbage collection times, there is significant congestion at best, or completely blocked at worst. The garbage collection for the Junction St premises is accessible via Larkin St, which increases the amount of times and volume per week there is garbage collection. Since the garbage will be collected more often, the premises outside our building ends up being an unofficial dumping spot which introduces rodents and litter throughout the street. Thoroughfare via Larkin St will also be impacted. The proposed introduction of Ancillary spaces is also unreasonable due to the above.
The bulk and scale of this project massively exceeds what is allowed. The planning rules allow a maximum size of 1.25:1. This proposal is 1.95:1 which is about 56% larger than what is supposed to be allowed. The building is far too big for the site and will look out of scale compared with the area. This will completely alter the character of the neighbood and will surround our property. Currently, the frontage and neighbourhood enjoys a nice balanced sunlight throughout the day and mature trees providing enjoyable greenage. However, the introduction of a premise this large and close to the boundary lines will change it to a concrete jungle.
In addition, our views of the city skyline will be massively impacted. The developer never contacted you or asked for access to your apartment before lodging the DA. What we can see from our living room and balcony are:
i) Full uninterrupted center view of Sydney Tower (standing/sitting)
ii) Full uninterrupted view of Barangaroo and Crown Sydney. (standing/sitting)
iii) Full uninterrupted view of Sydney Skyline towards Eastern suburbs. (standing/sitting)
From our Kitchen, we can see;
i) Full uninterrupted center view of Sydney Tower (standing/sitting)
ii) Full uninterrupted view of Barangaroo and Crown Sydney. (standing/sitting)



FIGURE 1 PHOTO TAKEN ON 7/10/25 (LIVING ROOM)

FIGURE 2 PHOTO TAKEN ON 7/10/25 (KITCHEN)

FIGURE 3 PHOTO TAKEN ON 7/10/25 - EASTERN SYDNEY PARKLANDS (BALCONY)

FIGURE 4 PHOTO TAKEN ON 7/10/25 - BALCONY
If the development will go ahead as proposed, we will have complete loss of views of items i) and iii) and potential partial loss of ii) in the balcony and living room, and complete loss of i) in the kitchen. I have attached photos to this submission to show the nature of these views. These views are integral to the value and enjoyment of my property. As the City skyline has floor to window ceilings, the views are actually viewable from hallway, kitchen, living room and balcony. Even walking through the house, the iconic Sydney Tower is viewable during the day and night. During special events such as New Year Eve, the New Year Eve fireworks are viewable across the skyline and every year we will hold a viewing party. As I have temporarily moved away, I still think and miss that view and only know that I have spent some time away, do I realise how often I would enjoy that view subconsciously.
Along with personal impact, the loss of a view will also have a impact financially on a) the value of my apartment and b) the rental income of my apartment. The view is a major character and asset of my apartment and it was a major reason I purchased the property as well as why my tenants pay above market rate for it. For clarification, my property is 1.4 million AUD which well exceeds the average price of a 1.2 million AUD for a comparable property. My property is also rented out above market rate at $1000 per week versus $928. Also, in total, my property has spent 0 amount of weeks untenanted during two rounds of leases whilst the same can not be said for other apartments in the area. This is unreasonable to me for the below reasons:
a) Developer never contacted or asked for access before lodging DA.
b) Proposed development is unreasonable in terms of FSR and Bulk and Space
c) Complete loss of iconic landmark views of Sydney Tower and enjoyment of events such as Fireworks.
d) Significant impact to the personal enjoyment of residents and tenants
e) Significant impact financially to property and rental price.
The proposed development also will affect the sunlight and overshadowing. Currently, in winter, the sunlight will hit the face of the building and then is nicely balanced by the shade of the mature trees. This is nicely balanced. However, if this property is developed, than the whole side of the building will lose this access to the sun. We feel left out of this process as we were not consulted. In fact, I only knew about this project from a catchup with a neighbour of the eve of the deadline. I am currently in hospital with my wife celebrating the brith of our second child and feel very taken aback. As there was no consultation from the developer nor did they contact any on site study, any reports submitted by the development by not reflect the true nature of the impact on the sun or the views. They relied on drone photos and desktop studies instead of visiting the affected premises which effects the validity of their report. This proposed project massively exceeds the floor to space ratio and the bulk of scale in comparision to infrastructure is extremely inadequate.

For the reasons outlined above, I strongly object to the proposed development at 2–32 Junction Street, Forest Lodge (SSD-75493483). The application is excessive in bulk and scale, fails to provide adequate parking, causes unacceptable loss of views and sunlight, and will significantly diminish the amenity and value of neighbouring properties. It is also non-compliant with relevant planning controls, and the lack of meaningful community consultation is highly concerning.
I respectfully request that the consent authority refuse the application in its current form. Should the proponent wish to proceed, the development must be substantially redesigned to comply with planning requirements and to minimise adverse impacts on surrounding residents and proper impact studies should be performed to truly understand the effect of this development.
Thank you for considering my submission. I am willing to provide further information or attend any meeting or hearing to elaborate on these concerns.

I am a resident of St Johns Road Forest Lodge - I object to the proposed over-development of the Junction Street site for the following reasons.
1. Scale, bulk and height:
The proposed 71 unit plus 10 bed aged care facility is grossly out of scale with its surroundings. The local context is a fine-grain pattern of predominately 1-2 storey dwellings. The proposed development is essentially 7-storeys, which is between 3-5 storey's taller than the surrounding development in Forest Lodge. The DCP plans show 3 and 4 storey setbacks on Junction street, however the elevations and sections show 5-7 storeys.
2. Loss of local character:
The proposed development will negatively impact the local character of the area by being out-of-scale with it's fine-grain 1-2 storey dwellings. The proposed over-development of the site is out of character for the area, and it engulfs the existing heritage building. The loss of mature trees, street trees, street parking and open space will have a major impact on the quality of the existing local character. A proposed development with GFA of over 9,400m2 on a site less than 4,900m2 is not appropriate in the context of the local area. Buildings B & D do not align within the streetscape at all, which is evident tin the elevations. If Building B & D were scaled down by 1-2 storeys, they would enable Building C (the heritage item) to take pride of place and dominate the streetscape. Building A facing Larkin Street can be considered somewhat differently, given the surrounding streetscape are composed of medium-height apartment buildings rather than 1-2 storey dwellings as is the case in Junction Street and St Johns Road.
3. Heritage Conservation area:
The Forest Lodge area surrounding the site is protected by way of being mapped as a Heritage Conservation Area. The proposed 7-storey development is not respectful, considerate or sympathetic to the local built or natural heritage in the area. By engulfing and building over the existing heritage item known as FDC House, the project swamps the existing heritage building, its character, the streetscape, by being out-of-scale, bulk and height with its surroundings. A number of elements add up to make the cumulative impact of the proposal unbearable for the local residents and local character of the heritage conservation area. The amount of demolition proposed to FDC house is inconsiderate and the removal of windows to the front of the building on Junction Street is equivalent to 'facadism'. The integrity of the existing heritage item ought to take precedence over the scale of the new development.
4. Traffic and Parking:
The existing Junction Street is a one-way street from Bridge Road, this makes turning around difficult for cars who enter the street as the streets are lined with on-street car parking which is already at capacity. Adding a 7-storey development with 71-units plus 10 beds aged care to this local street traffic will have a considerable negative impact on all of the surrounding residents who rely on on-street car parking.
5. Loss of trees and established greenery:
The loss of large mature trees and street trees, some of which are over 15m tall will have a negative impact on the local area, especially with the scale of the proposed development. The landscape plan suggests no deep soil planting zones anywhere along Juction Street to compensate for this loss? There are some street trees of an unspecified mature height, which are likely to take 5+ years to mature to create any significant buffer to screen the over-scaled development from surrounding residents.
6. Visual impacts:
The enormous scale of the proposed 7-storey development will have negative impact of the visual amenity of the surrounding area, its residents, the streetscapes, and 1-2 storey dwellings which it is made up of.
7. Social Impacts:
The proposed development will have a negative impact of the local residents in the area due to over-crowding of the site, traffic congestion, car parking and loss of open space, sunlight, views and mature greenery.

I support the project for me

Please find attached a copy of my submission strongly objecting to this project.

I am writing to formally object to the proposed Forest Lodge Seniors Living development at 2–32 Junction Street (SSD-75493483), currently under exhibition by Corio Projects.
As a directly adjoining resident—literally one wall away (with that wall currently collapsed) —I am extremely concerned about the detrimental impact this development will have on the value and rental viability of my property throughout the extended construction period. The proposed scale—five to six storeys, 71 independent living units, and a 12-bed aged care facility—will bring years of disruption, noise, dust, and visual obstruction. This will significantly reduce the appeal of my property to prospective tenants and buyers, directly affecting both rental income and resale prospects.
No one wants to live next to a construction site, especially one of this magnitude. The prolonged building phase will make it extremely difficult to lease or sell my property, and I anticipate a substantial drop in rental return and market value as a result.
Beyond the personal impact, I echo the broader community’s concerns regarding the development’s excessive bulk, lack of green setbacks, and its incompatibility with the surrounding heritage conservation area. The proposal disregards the fine-grained character of Forest Lodge’s historic two-storey terraces and fails to deliver meaningful public benefit or environmental sensitivity.
I urge the Department of Planning and Environment to reconsider this proposal and require a more appropriately scaled, community-sensitive design that respects the local context and mitigates disruption to existing residents.
Thank you for considering my submission.

I am writing as a co-owner of a neighbouring residence to the proposed development site. I have serious concerns about how this development will impact the amenity, safety and character of our street and community.
Here is a summary of my concerns:
• Traffic: Increased traffic flow and further parking congestion in Larkin Street and adjoining roads.
• Noise and disruption during construction: Prolonged construction periods will cause noise, dust, and disturbance to residents.
• Truck / vehicle access during construction: We request that Larkin Street not be used for construction trucks or vehicle access to minimise disturbance and safety risks and damage to green spaces.
• Environmental and tree protection: When extending the Larkin Street Reserve, it is crucial to preserve all existing mature trees and protect the surrounding environment. These green spaces are essential to maintaining the natural character, amenity, and ecological balance of our neighbourhood.
• Building height and scale: The proposed height appears completely out of keeping with existing buildings and may dominate the neighbourhood character. This will lead to loss of sunlight, particularly during morning/evening and winter months, to nearby properties. This overshadowing will completely change the outlook and feel of the current community.
Thank you for consideration of my concerns.

See attachment.

See attached objection to the size and scale, loss of view, traffic concerns, parking concerns, solar access. We are supportive of a more reasonably scaled development that does not require as much vehicular access.