Forest Lodge Integrated Seniors Living

I am formally objecting to the proposed development of a residential aged care facility in my neighbourhood. While I fully support the need for quality aged care services, I believe the scale and nature of this particular proposal are inappropriate for the area and will have significant negative impacts on both myself and the community.

The proposed facility is of a scale that is entirely out of character with the surrounding residential neighbourhood. Our area is predominantly made up of low-density, single-dwelling homes, and the introduction of a large, multi-storey institutional facility would dramatically alter the streetscape and undermine the existing residential amenity. Such a large-scale development is more suited to a commercial or mixed-use zone, not a quiet street.

Futhermore, the construction and ongoing operation of the facility will cause a significant increase in noise, dust and disruption. This includes construction noise over an extended period, which will significantly quality of life for all those around, to include those working from home on a regular basis and those who struggle with loud noises, such as myself.

There will be increased traffic and service vehicle movements, including deliveries, waste collection, and staff shift changes, which will lead to congestion and noise at all hours. Larkin Street is already incredibly busy during the day time with numerous trucks and vehicles coming up and down the road. It's not your average quiet cul-de-sac. Adding more traffic will cause so much congestion and air quality for local residents will significantly reduce as a result.

Emergency vehicle sirens and other operational noise associated with a 24/7 facility, will also not be compatible within a quiet residential setting.

The development will likely result in the loss of privacy for my property due to the height and overlooking windows. There will be reduced access to sunlight and increased overshadowing, not to mention pressure on local infrastructure, including parking, roads, and public utilities.

In summary, while aged care is an important community service, this proposal is not appropriate for the neighbourhood due to its excessive scale, the disruption it will cause, and the long-term impacts on residential amenity. I respectfully urge the planning team to reject this application or require significant modifications to ensure it aligns with the character and capacity of the local area.

Thank you for considering this submission.

Sincerely,
A concerned neighbour

Please see the attached Sydney Water response. If you require any further information, please do not hesitate to contact us at [email protected]

Dear planning committee,

My wife and I have lived in the inner west our entire adult lives. We didn’t grow up here, but we deliberately chose to live here because the community is where we belong, and we share important values. We both contribute heavily to the local community through volunteering and through our work at both university and the health district at RPA. The existing density around Larkin street today is the only reason living here and contributing to the community is possible as house prices are far out of reach.

Our family recently brought a new child into the world and I want her and others like her to have the same opportunity to live and work in the community that she feels most connected to. My wife and I own an apartment in a block that’s directly facing the proposed development so certainly be significantly affected during development and potentially after as well. However, I still strongly support the proposal to put the senior living facility in place because increasing density is the only way that people who really need and want to live in the inner west will be able to afford to. While access to affordable housing has been seen as an issue for young people, I think it’s just important that older people are able to choose to live in this community if it’s important to them, and that will only be possible if enough facilities are available in the area. I’ve encountered many older individuals in the community through volunteering who are concerned they will not be able to continue living in the area as they age, and this will hopefully relieve that to some extent.

Kind Regards,
Aydin Sareff-Hibbert

Please find attached my submission objecting to the proposed Forest Lodge Integrated Seniors Living development.

Please find attached my submission objecting to the proposed Forest Lodge Integrated Seniors Living development.

Dear Assessment Officer,
I am writing to lodge my formal objection to the proposed Forest Lodge Integrated Seniors Living Development at 2–32 Junction Street, Forest Lodge (SSD-75493483). I own Unit 211, 1-3 Larkin Street, and I have serious concerns about the scale, design, and overall impact this development will have on me personally and on our local community.
This proposal, which includes 71 apartments and a 12-bed care facility over six storeys, along with major site works and commercial facilities, is simply far too large and inappropriate for the site and context.
The development does not provide adequate parking. It is already short of at least six resident spaces and offers no visitor parking whatsoever. This is unacceptable, especially for a seniors living development, which will generate regular visits from family members, care workers, nurses, and other service providers.
Parking in Larkin Street is already extremely limited. During the day, all the spaces on the street are usually occupied and visitors to my unit often need to park several streets away.
The lack of visitor parking is not just an inconvenience—it’s a planning non-compliance under the Housing SEPP. The site is overdeveloped, and the number of units should be reduced to meet proper parking ratios and relieve pressure on local streets.
The proposed Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of 1.95:1 is significantly over the permitted maximum of 1.25:1, which means this building is 56% larger than what is allowed. That is an unacceptable breach of planning controls.
The height and size of the development are completely out of character with the surrounding area. Reducing the number of units would not only bring the FSR into compliance but would also reduce impacts on parking, traffic, privacy, and sunlight.
This development will result in significant loss of views from my apartment. From my balcony, I currently enjoy views of the Sydney CBD skyline. These views are a key feature of the property and were a significant factor in choosing to purchase the property in 2018. This view is also enhanced by the nearby trees and removing this greenery would remove the overall feeling of calm that is created by the view from the balcony.
The proposed development will significantly reduce the privacy of my apartment. Units in the new building will overlook balcony and living room, reducing the privacy and comfort of the apartment.
The developer did not contact me or seek access to assess my views before lodging the DA, so I do not believe their view impact report is accurate or reliable.
I have included photographs taken from my home, dated August 2024, these are attached to this submission. We can attach more recent photographs when we are back in the unit.
This loss of view is unreasonable, especially as it is caused by a building that breaches planning rules and is far larger than permitted.
The proposed six-storey building will cast significant shadows, especially during winter. My apartment currently receives morning sun in the kitchen and living room afternoon sun on the balcony. Losing this sunlight will impact quality of life, heating, and general wellbeing.
Larkin Street Reserve will also lose valuable winter sunlight. This park is used by families, children, and elderly residents, and losing sun during the middle of the day will make it less usable and enjoyable for everyone. This is another example of the overdevelopment and excessive bulk of the proposal.
Additionally, the proposal will bring more traffic, including service and garbage trucks, into Larkin Street, creating noise, congestion, and safety risks – especially near the park. Reducing the overall size of the development would reduce these amenity impacts.
At no point was I contacted by the developer to assess the impact of this development on my apartment. No one came to inspect my views, sunlight access, or privacy. I understand that they relied on drone photos and desktop studies instead of engaging with affected residents.
This approach makes me feel excluded from the process and undermines my trust in their reports. The lack of proper engagement is unacceptable for a project of this scale and impact.
I respectfully ask that the proposal in its current form be refused. It significantly exceeds planning controls, creates substantial amenity impacts, and has not been developed with proper community input.
At a minimum, the number of apartments should be reduced to:
• Comply with FSR and height controls,
• Provide sufficient parking for both residents and visitors,
• Minimise view and sunlight loss,
• Reduce privacy and noise impacts, and
• Protect public views and open space.
Thank you for considering my submission.

I am writing on behalf of my husband Robert Miles who owns Unit 17/5-13 Larkin St. Camperdown.
I opposed the proposal regarding the redevelopment of 2-32 Junction St because the following reasons:
1. Traffic impacts: Larkin St is a narrow street and would not withstands the increase flow of traffic and parking congestion.
2. 5-13 Larkin St is directly opposite to the development and the proposed height is out if keeping with existing buildings
3. Noise and disruptions it would cause to the residents who are majority of which are doctors, nurse and other health care workers who are shift workers.
4. Truck: Larkin St should not be used for truck access or vehicle access.
5. Environmental and tree protection: preservation of existing trees
6. Overshadowing: loss of sunlight, the proposed building height is higher than the existing buildings..
I am strongly opposing this redevelopment.
Regards
Robert Miles
Owner of 19/5-13 Larkin St Camperdown

I am writing to formally object to the proposed Forest Lodge Integrated Seniors Living Development (SSD-75493483) at 2-32 Junction Street, Forest Lodge. I am an owner at SP 74393.

My objections are based on the following key concerns:
- **Parking and Traffic:** The proposed development lacks sufficient parking, particularly for visitors. This will exacerbate existing parking pressures in Larkin Street, impacting residents, family, carers, and health workers. I am frequently unable to access the entrance to my garage due to existing parking and access pressures from the many existing high-density apartment buildings and the narrowness of Larkin Street. This is sometimes dangerous when attempting to turn into Larkin Street from Parramatta Road, waiting on Parramatta Road for vehicles to exit Larkin Street. The development proposal will further exacerbate these issues. The lack of dedicated visitor parking is also a clear breach of the Housing SEPP’s non-discretionary rate.
- **Bulk and Scale:** The proposal's Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of 1.95:1 significantly exceeds the permitted 1.25:1, making the building approximately 56% larger than allowed. This excessive size and height will negatively impact the visual character of our street.
- **Community Engagement Failures:** The developer never engaged properly with residents before lodging the Development Application, relying instead on drone photos and desktop studies. I feel excluded from the process and do not trust their reports to accurately represent the real impacts.

I urge the Council to consider these significant concerns and reject the proposed development or require a substantial reduction in its scale to ensure compliance with planning rules and protect the amenity of our community.

I live in a Terrace House that is part of 8 in 2A Short Street, Looking at the current plans I see that we will be greatly effected by our limited Sunshine being further reduced, this will also further impact on our plans for renewable energy (Solar on the Roof) & make it considerably less effective if worthwhile at all. Traffic is another significant issue and although it appears the entrance to Resident Parking is on lane way of Junction Street the Services & Delivery vehicle's will enter via Larkin Street which has huge traffic issues at peak hours for residents trying to get to Parramatta Road as there is only this exit. This is an extremely narrow road that already has a large number medium to high density living units & bringing with this parking/blocked road issues. More trucks on this will only exacerbate this. In an emergency this could be life threatening.

Thank you for your valuable consideration on this.

Traffic impacts: Increased traffic flow and parking congestion in Larkin Street and adjoining roads. There is currently no access to the site from Larkin Street and I see no good reason why this should change under the development especially given the large number of parking lots.

Building height and scale: The proposed height is out of keeping with existing buildings and will adversely dominate the neighbourhood character which is unfair to existing home owners and residents.

Overshadowing: Loss of sunlight, particularly during morning/evening and winter months, to nearby properties including mine.

Noise and disruption during construction: Prolonged construction periods will cause excessive and continuing noise, dust, and disturbance to residents.

Truck / vehicle access during construction: I request that Larkin Street not be used for construction trucks or vehicle access to minimise disturbance and risk to pedestrians, road traffic and parked cars.

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.

As the owner of 1 5-13 Larkin Street, I have serious concerns about how this development will
directly impact the amenity, safety, and character of our street and community. I strongly oppose or request modifications to the
proposal.
Key concerns include:
 Traffic impacts: Increased traffic flow and parking congestion in Larkin Street and
adjoining roads.
 Building height and scale: The proposed height appears out of keeping with existing
buildings and may dominate the neighbourhood character.
 Overshadowing: Loss of sunlight, particularly during morning/evening and winter
months, to nearby properties.
 Noise and disruption during construction: Prolonged construction periods will
cause noise, dust, and disturbance to residents.
 Truck / vehicle access during construction: I request that Larkin Street not be
used for construction trucks or vehicle access to minimise disturbance and safety
risks.
 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.

7th October 2025

To: The New South Wales Government, The Department of Planning, Industry and Environment.
Subject: Objection to Forest Lodge Integrated Seniors Living
Application Number SSD-75493483

Dear Sir or Madam,
I am writing regarding the proposed redevelopment at 2–32 Junction Street, Forest Lodge (Forest Lodge Integrated Seniors Living, Application Number SSD-75493483). My main concern is the impact this project will have on the lifestyle, character, and peaceful environment of our neighbourhood. While I am not opposed to redevelopment in principle, the scale, height, and design of this proposal require serious reconsideration.

Key concerns:
Building height and neighbourhood character: The proposed height is excessive and risks overwhelming the streetscape, blocking views, and disrupting the human scale that makes Forest Lodge a unique and valued community. New development should harmonise with the existing character and scale of the neighbourhood, rather than dominate it. This is a major concern for residents who value the calm, open feel of our streets and the preservation of sunlight and sightlines.

Neighbourhood lifestyle and streetscape: Forest Lodge and Camperdown are valued for its quiet streets and community feel. A building of this scale would impact the peaceful environment and sense of community that resident’s treasure.
Traffic and narrow streets: Junction Street and Larkin Street are already narrow and heavily used, with resident parking, car share zones, and local traffic. The addition of construction vehicles—especially trucks transporting debris—would create unsafe and disruptive conditions.

Noise, construction, and debris/waste management: Construction activity will generate significant noise, dust, and waste, negatively affecting the amenity of the community. Appropriate guidelines, policies, and monitoring measures must be in place, and suitable consultation with affected residents is essential to minimise these impacts.

Parking and congestion: The proposed 80 car spaces would significantly increase traffic, congestion, and noise in an already constrained area, negatively affecting neighbourhood liveability. Reducing the number of car parks is strongly recommended.

Commercial use impact: With commercial operations planned, air conditioning and exhaust systems must not be directed toward Larkin Street. Proper noise and air pollution controls are essential to ensure residents can maintain a safe and comfortable home environment.

Larkin Street Reserve: My residence faces directly onto Larkin Street Reserve, which is included in the redevelopment plan. While extending the reserve and creating a walkway to St John Road could benefit Camperdown residents, the community deserves to see detailed plans for this space. The reserve must not be diminished, overshadowed, or compromised. The scale and design of the new building should protect this vital green space.

In summary, the redevelopment as currently proposed threatens to disrupt the lifestyle, streetscape, and peaceful environment of Camperdown. I urge The Department of Planning, Industry and Environment and the developers to reconsider the building height, parking provision, management of construction impacts, and integration with the Larkin Street Reserve, so the project better aligns with community needs and protects the neighbourhood character that residents deeply value.

Thank you for considering my objection.

Kind regards,
Tak Kei Antonius Tam
Camperdown Resident
38/5-13 Larkin Street, Camperdown, NSW 2050

I object to the certain elements of this proposed project as they are currently drafted, as outlined below.

AIR CONDITIONING

This area is a built up area with profound noise issues due to the impact of air conditioners/exhaust fans from underground car parks operating throughout the day and overnight from various buildings in the area. Sound is magnified by it repeatedly bouncing off hard surfaces with poor acoustic protection to minimise the noise from such infrastructure.
Consequently, I object to the proposed location of the air conditioning plant on Building D.
I am concerned that the air conditioning plant will be operating 24/7 and that we - the residents of Strata Plan 21450 immediately to the south of this proposed development - will be severely impacted by this additional noise infrastructure. While the proposed plans may provide that the air conditioning will conform to the decibel level considered to be acceptable under legislation, that does not make it pleasantly "liveable" nor does it take into account the acoustic impact of sound bouncing between adjacent built up properties that magnifies the noise.

For this reason, I request that:

1) The proposed location of the air conditioning plant on Building D be relocated to be as far away from the fence line with SP21450 as possible - effectively, that the solar panels and the air conditioning plant proposed to be installed on the roof of Building D change locations - refer Figures 1 and 2 in the attached drawing in "Requested Relocation of Air Conditioning Plant - Building D".

2) That an acoustic wall be installed on the southern side of the proposed air conditioning plant on Building D to minimise noise pollution to SP 21450 - refer Figure 3 in "Requested Relocation of Air Conditioning Plant - Building D".

PARKING
I request that the proposed parking underneath Building D adjacent to SP 21450 be enclosed with a single wall to the perimeter on the southern side, as shown in Figure 4 of the attached "Requested Relocation of Air Conditioning Plant - Building D". This is to prevent noise affecting the residents of SP 21450, for the reasons outlined above.

RETENTION OF CANOPY
There are 2 trees on the property of SP 21450. They overhang 2-32 Junction Street. I note that on the plans it is proposed that these trees be retained, but I note also that the owner of the property at 2-32 Junction Street has in the past requested that we remove these trees, no doubt to facilitate the expansion of this proposed development.
We get tremendous quality of life from this vegetation and the bird life that it attracts. The proposed walkway between the property SP 21450 and the proposed new development is only exactly to the edge of the existing canopy, refer the attachment "Requested Relocation of Building Perimeter by One Meter Adjacent to SP 21450". This seems improbable. It is unlikely that the proposed building will be built effectively against/touching the existing canopy. It is more likely that in practice, it will be cut back by the builders of this building, to wherever they want it to be.

For this reason, I request that an additional meter of space (ie - additional meter of width) for the proposed walkway between the property SP 21450 and the new building be provided to accommodate the existing canopy and future growth of it, so that the building is not planned to be hard up against and touching the new building, per the arrow shown in the attached "Requested Relocation of Building Perimeter by One Meter ".

Many thanks for taking the above requests into consideration.

As per attached submission

Please refer to the attached for submission + supporting images.

246 St Johns Road
Forest Lodge 2037 NSW
6th October 2025
The Planning Secretary
Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure
NSW Government

Re: Objection to SSD-75493483 – Integrated Seniors Living Development, 2–32 Junction Street, Forest Lodge 2037 NSW.

Dear Sir/Madam,
We write in relation to the State Significant Development Application SSD-75493483 for an Integrated Seniors Living Development at 2–32 Junction Street, Forest Lodge, 2037 NSW.

Having reviewed the exhibition material, we wish to lodge a formal objection to the proposal. In its current form, the development does not align with key planning controls and would significantly and adversely affect the residential amenity and heritage character of Junction Street, St Johns Road and the surrounding conservation area.

1. Heritage and Urban Design Inconsistency
• Relevant controls: Sydney LEP 2012 cl. 5.10 (Heritage Conservation), Hereford & Forest Lodge Heritage Conservation Area objectives; Sydney DCP 2012 (Heritage/Conservation Area character, street wall, setbacks).
• Concern: The proposed mid-rise, institutional-style building—with minimal setbacks and a continuous street wall—conflicts with the fine-grain, one- to two-storey terrace pattern that defines the local streetscape.
• Evidence: Architectural Plans and Design Statement illustrate a 5–6 storey bulk fronting Junction Street with minimal transition; the Visual Impact Assessment acknowledges the new street wall condition.
• Impact: The enlarged, continuous frontage would dominate the narrow street, disrupt façade rhythm, and erode the conservation area’s visual coherence.
• Request: Reassess building height, setbacks and façade modulation to reinforce the established two-storey rhythm and ensure an appropriate transition in scale.

2. Bulk, Scale and Setbacks
• Controls: Sydney DCP 2012 – frontage, setback and human-scale interface principles.
• Concern: The near-zero primary setback and limited landscape buffer create an overbearing street presence.
• Impact: Loss of privacy and visual dominance within a narrow carriageway.
• Request: Increase the primary street setback, introduce landscaped curtilage, and break the frontage into smaller, articulated elements consistent with local character.

3. Overshadowing and Solar Access
• Control: Sydney DCP 2012 requires at least two hours of mid-winter sunlight (9am–3pm) to living rooms and private open space of adjoining dwellings.
• Concern: Building height and proximity will reduce winter solar access to both the Junction Street terrace row and the terrace row of 244-256 St Johns Road (inclusive).
• Evidence: Hourly mid-winter shadow diagrams are absent from the submission.
• Request: Full hourly mid-winter shadow analysis and design adjustments are required to meet DCP solar access objectives.

4. Traffic, Parking and Access Constraints
• Controls: Housing SEPP (with Clause 4.6 variations), AS/NZS 2890 standards, Austroads Part 6, and City of Sydney on-street parking policy.
• Context: Junction Street and St Johns Road are narrow, local access roads with limited turning space and extremely limited resident parking.
• Issues:
o On-street displacement of staff and visitor parking despite on-site provision.
o Servicing geometry unproven due to missing swept-path diagrams.
o Trip distribution and route splits not transparently modelled.
o Parking variations exacerbate kerbside pressure.
• Impact: Reduced resident parking availability; increased low-speed conflicts, waste-collection issues, and constrained emergency access.
• Requests:
o Publish complete swept-path analyses for all service vehicles.
o Provide transparent peak-hour traffic assignment with sensitivity testing.
o Prepare a Parking and Kerbside Management Plan ensuring all staff and visitor parking is contained on-site.

5. Amenity and Neighbourhood Impacts
5.1 Visual Privacy
• Concern: Upper-level balconies and windows directly overlook private open spaces on both Junction Street and St Johns Road.
• Request: Introduce privacy screens, higher sill levels or revised window orientation in accordance with DCP privacy objectives.
5.2 Pedestrian Wind Environment
• Concern: The Pedestrian Wind Environment Assessment relies on desktop data and omits wind-tunnel or CFD validation.
• Impact: Potential wind acceleration at corners and entries may affect pedestrian comfort, especially for seniors.
• Request: Require quantitative validation and commitment to mitigation (screens, canopies, landscaping) prior to determination.
5.3 Noise and Vibration
• Concern: Construction noise exceedances and deferred assessment of operational plant noise.
• Request:
o Condition a Construction Noise & Vibration Management Plan with real-time monitoring and a transparent complaints protocol.
o Require an Operational Noise Assessment at DA stage (not deferred) demonstrating compliance with NPI guidelines and isolation measures for gym, pool and cinema facilities.

6. Transparency and Procedural Adequacy
• Concern: Key impact assessments are qualitative, incomplete, or deferred (wind, overshadowing, operational noise, swept paths).
• Impact: The community cannot properly assess day-to-day implications.
• Request: Before determination, require submission and exhibition of:
o Hourly mid-winter overshadowing (9am–3pm) for adjacent properties.
o Full service-vehicle swept-path analysis.
o Quantified wind-tunnel or CFD validation and mitigation plans.
o DA-stage operational noise assessment and parking/kerbside management plan.
________________________________________
Conclusion
Based on the exhibited materials—including the Architectural Plans, Design Statement, and supporting assessments—the proposal fails to demonstrate consistency with key LEP/DCP objectives for the heritage conservation area or adequate protection of residential amenity.
Day-to-day effects such as overshadowing, privacy loss, kerbside congestion, unvalidated wind impacts, and construction/operational noise remain unresolved.
Accordingly, we respectfully request that the application be refused in its current form, or that determination be deferred pending submission of the additional analyses and design refinements outlined above, with conditions ensuring:
• Reduced apparent height and increased setback on Junction Street.
• Compliance with solar access requirements for neighbouring dwellings.
• On-site containment of all staff and visitor parking.
• Quantified wind-environment compliance with mitigation built into the design; and
• DA-stage operational noise compliance for all plant and communal facilities.

I object to the project based on scale, bulk, overshadowing, privacy and parking and traffic concerns. Please see attached submission.

To: NSW Planning Department
Re: Objection to Development Application – Forest Lodge Integrated Seniors Living Development (SSD-75493483)
Address of Affected Property: 1–3 Larkin Street, Forest Lodge
Dear Sir/Madam,
I am the owner of 1–3 Larkin Street, Forest Lodge and I wish to formally object to the proposed development at 2–32 Junction Street, Forest Lodge. I strongly oppose this proposal due to its excessive bulk, non-compliance with planning controls, and the significant negative impacts it will have on neighbouring residents, the Larkin Street Reserve, and the wider community.
1. Parking and Traffic
• The development does not provide adequate resident or visitor parking. It is already short by at least six resident spaces, and no dedicated visitor parking is proposed.
• Seniors housing will generate regular visits from carers, family, and health professionals, yet with no visitor parking provided, these vehicles will inevitably spill into Larkin Street, which is already under heavy parking pressure.
• This shortfall in parking directly breaches the Housing SEPP requirements.
Requested outcome: Reduce the number of apartments to comply with resident and visitor parking requirements.
2. Bulk and Scale
• The proposed floor space ratio (FSR) is 1.95:1, which is 56% larger than the 1.25:1 permitted by planning rules.
• This is a clear breach of controls and demonstrates that the building is too large for the site.
• Its excessive height and scale will dominate the local character of the area and appear out of context with neighbouring properties.
Requested outcome: Reduce the bulk and height of the building to comply with the FSR and ensure a design more sympathetic to the surrounding area.
3. View Loss
• The proposal will block existing views of the Sydney CBD and Barangaroo, enjoyed from my residence. (photos attached)
• The developer failed to consult with me or seek access to assess view impacts prior to lodging the DA.
• Applying the Tenacity principle, the loss of high-value views from living areas and balconies is unreasonable, particularly as the building already exceeds planning controls.
• Public viewpoints, such as Larkin Street Reserve, will also suffer a significant loss of skyline views.
Requested outcome: Revise the design to reduce scale and preserve important private and public views.
4. Sunlight and Overshadowing
• The building’s excessive size will overshadow both my residence and the Larkin Street Reserve during winter months.
• This will reduce residential amenity and diminish community enjoyment of the park.
Requested outcome: Reduce building massing to minimise overshadowing impacts.
5. Privacy, Noise, and Amenity
• The development will overlook nearby apartments, reducing privacy.
• Increased service and garbage truck movements in Larkin Street will bring noise, traffic, and safety risks directly outside our homes and the public reserve.
Requested outcome: Reduce the scale of the development to lessen privacy and amenity impacts.
6. Community Engagement Failures
• The developer did not conduct genuine consultation with affected residents.
• Reliance on drone imagery and desktop studies instead of on-site assessments has resulted in inaccurate and incomplete impact reporting.
• As a resident directly affected, I feel excluded from the process and cannot trust the validity of the supporting reports.
Requested outcome: Require the proponent to undertake proper community engagement and impact assessments before this proposal proceeds.
________________________________________
Conclusion
The proposed development is excessive, non-compliant, and harmful to residents and the broader community. It breaches FSR, fails to provide adequate parking, causes unacceptable view loss and overshadowing, reduces privacy and amenity, and lacks genuine community consultation.
I respectfully request that the NSW Government refuse this application in its current form and require a revised design that complies with planning controls and appropriately balances community needs.
Sincerely,
Jia Yu
Unit 419, 1–3 Larkin Street, Forest Lodge

Please see attached submission.

Dear Sir/Madam,
I am writing to formally object to the Development Application for the property located at 2–32 Junction Street, Forest Lodge.
As a long-term (16 years) resident of the local area at 1-3 Larkin St Camperdown, I have reviewed the proposed plans and strongly believe that the development will result in significant negative impacts that are detrimental to the amenity, character, and liveability of our neighbourhood.
My primary objections, which I request the Council considers in detail, are as follows:
1. Fundamental Breach of Planning Controls (Excessive Bulk and Scale)
This proposal is fundamentally unacceptable due to its breach of development standards. The proposed Floor Space Ratio (FSR) is 1.95:1, which is approximately 56% larger than the maximum permitted FSR of 1.25:1. This excessive bulk and height are completely inconsistent with the existing low-scale residential character of our street. The extra size and height will be visually overwhelming when viewed from my apartment and will permanently impact the established character of our street. The scale must be reduced to ensure compliance.
2. Unreasonable Loss of Views
This development will result in the unreasonable and unacceptable loss of my established views of the Sydney CBD skyline. The developer never contacted me or sought access to my apartment before lodging the DA, demonstrating a disregard for the impact on my home.
In applying the established four-step principle for assessing view loss (The Tenacity Principle):
• Existing Views: I currently enjoy views of the city skyline including the iconic Sydney Tower, which are considered highly valuable views.
• Viewing Locations: These views are seen from my primary living area and balcony, the most important locations for view retention.
• Extent of Loss: The proposed height will either completely or substantially block these views, which is an unreasonable impact.
• Reasonableness: The development is not reasonable because it significantly exceeds the permitted planning rules (FSR is 1.95:1). Therefore, the resulting view loss is unacceptable.
This argument is directly linked to the unreasonable bulk and scale of the proposal, which must be reduced.
3. Critical Parking Deficit and Increased Traffic Congestion
The building is too large for the site and provides an inadequate parking supply, already being short by at least 6 resident spaces. Crucially, as I understand it no dedicated visitor parking is provided. A seniors living development generates high demand from family, carers, and health workers, all of whom will require parking. My personal experience is that Larkin Street is already heavily pressured from current residents and commercial businesses as well as proximity to the university and RPA, and forcing all visitor parking onto our street will create unacceptable congestion and safety issues for residents. The assumption that visitor demand will be absorbed into an already deficient supply is flawed.
To ensure compliance with the SEPP's non-discretionary parking requirements and to mitigate traffic impacts, the number of apartments, and thus the overall bulk and scale, must be reduced.
4. Loss of Amenity (Sunlight, Privacy, and Noise)
The excessive scale of the building will cause significant loss of amenity:
• Overshadowing: The development will block essential winter sunlight to both my apartment (209/1-3 Larkin St Camperdown) and the Larkin Street Reserve, severely impacting my personal enjoyment and the community's use of the park during winter.
• Privacy and Noise: The new height will directly overlook my apartments, reducing privacy. Furthermore, the necessary increase in service and garbage truck movements will use Larkin Street, bringing more noise, heavy vehicles, and safety concerns directly in front of our homes and the park.
A reduction in the scale of this development is necessary to mitigate these adverse impacts on day-to-day living.
5. Failure of Community Engagement
I confirm that the developer never engaged properly with me before lodging the DA. I assume they must have relied solely on drone photographs and desktop studies instead of requesting access to my apartment to accurately test the true impacts on views and sunlight. This lack of genuine consultation makes me feel excluded from the process and has resulted in reports that I cannot trust to accurately reflect the real impacts on my property.
In conclusion, I urge the City of Sydney Council to refuse the Development Application. The development's FSR breach and resulting impacts on views, parking, and residential amenity are unreasonable and will permanently diminish the quality of life in our neighbourhood.
Thank you for considering my personal concerns and formal objection.
Yours sincerely,
Vanessa O’Brien
209/1-3 Larkin St, Camperdown NSW 2050
[email protected]