Forest Lodge Integrated Seniors Living

Personal Submission – Opposition to SSD-75493483 (2–32 Junction Street, Forest Lodge)

I am writing as the owner and resident of Level 6, 1 Larkin Street, Camperdown, to strongly object to the proposed six-storey seniors housing development at 2–32 Junction Street, Forest Lodge.
This development, if approved, will have a major and irreversible negative impact on my daily life, my enjoyment of my home, and the financial value of my property.
Loss of the City Views
One of the greatest features of my apartment is the open view towards the City skyline. From my balcony and living room I can see Sydney’s CBD and even parts of Barangaroo. These views are part of my everyday quality of life. The proposed six-storey building will completely block this outlook. Losing the view is not just disappointing – it destroys one of the key reasons I chose to live here. It will make my apartment less attractive, significantly reduce its value, and greatly diminish my sense of space and connection to the City.
The developer never contacted me or sought access to accurately assess the visual impact from my apartment. Instead, they relied on desktop studies and drone imagery, which cannot capture the lived experience of residents like myself. I feel completely ignored in this process.
Loss of sunlight by shadow of the new building
The new structure will also block critical sunlight from entering my apartment, particularly in the morning and during winter months when sunlight is most valuable. At present, due to my age, I enjoy excellent sunlight which not only improves my health and wellbeing but reduces my energy costs. Overshadowing from this development will heavily compromise that.
Furthermore, Larkin Street Reserve will also lose significant sunlight. This small local green space is already limited in scope, and shading it further will reduce its amenity for everyone in the community, especially young families and elderly residents who use the park.
Parking and Traffic Chaos
Parking on Larkin Street today is already extremely difficult. As a resident, I often find it stressful and frustrating to deal with cars crowding the narrow cul-de-sac, especially when vehicles line both sides of the street. There are times when traffic can barely move in both directions.
The proposal includes no dedicated visitor parking, despite expecting many visitors such as families, carers, and service providers. These cars will have nowhere to go other than our already overstretched Larkin Street. Introducing a major development of this scale into a narrow dead-end street is simply unworkable and dangerous. It will worsen congestion, make access for emergency and service vehicles harder, and add to daily frustration for all local residents.
The proposed submission is simply too BIG
This proposal is dramatically oversized for the area. The planning rules set a ratio of 1.25:1, but this development proposes 1.95:1 – more than 50% larger than permitted. The excessive bulk and scale will completely change the existing character of our street and dominate the local environment.
For a quiet residential cul-de-sac like Larkin Street, this towering building will feel overwhelming, oppressive, and completely out of balance with the existing streetscape.
Loss of Privacy, More Noise, Reduced Amenity and Increased Risk
The height and orientation of the development will directly overlook residences in 1 Larkin Street, stripping away privacy. In addition, the increased use of service and garbage trucks will bring more noise and heavy vehicle disruption to our small street. This will lower amenity, add risks to pedestrian safety, and permanently change the quiet and residential atmosphere that drew us to this neighbourhood.
The Developer has completely failed in Community Engagement
At no stage did the developer meaningfully engage with residents like myself. I was not consulted, nor was access sought to evaluate the real-world impacts on my home. This lack of engagement makes it impossible to have confidence in their shadow diagrams, traffic assessments, or view impact studies.
Apology for this lengthy submission. To conclude, this proposed development will:

1. Completely remove my current views of the Sydney CBD, causing personal loss and significant financial harm.

2. Block sunlight to both my apartment which it is most needed by me and Larkin Street Reserve.

3. Exacerbate already impossible parking and dangerous traffic conditions in a narrow cul-de-sac. I have experienced this first hand.

4. Overwhelm the neighbourhood with excessive size and scale, totally out of character with the area.

5. Reduce my privacy, increase noise, and diminish everyday liveability.

6. Proceed without proper resident engagement, undermining trust in the assessment process.

For all these reasons, I strongly oppose this proposal and urge the Department not to approve it in its current form.

I have attached photos from my living room and balcony which show my current outlook towards the City. These viewpoints will be permanently lost that if this development is approved.

Sincerely,
Owner, Level 6
1 Larkin Street, Camperdown NSW

I am writing to protest against the proposed Forest Lodge Integrated Seniors Living Development in Junction St.
I live in 1-3 Larkin St, Camperdown on the second floor and right next to the proposed development.
To be clear, everything about the development is wrong. The scale of the building is extreme and does not mesh with the existing area.
We live on the second floor, with the views to Barangaroo and the city. If the proposal goes ahead, there will be four levels higher than our apartment towering above us. Obviously morning sun exposure will be non -existent, as well as our view.
There is a projected tree removal in the development and at present the trees outside our balcony offers privacy and a joy for us. As these are the only trees on the block, they are probably marked for removal.
Access to the building sites will be through Larkin St and this is a very narrow street and cannot tolerate multiples of traffic.
Hopefully the development can be scaled back.
Robert and Natty Miles
Owner and occupier
213/1-3 Larkin St Camperdown

I Simon Downie the resident owner of 256 St Johns Rd together with Robyn Hromek my wife are majorly affected by this project being adjacent to it, we are in the last house on St Johns Rd and the proposed dwelling is within 7 metres of our home. We have a much used front verandah, as well as living room and stoop facing the proposed lane and south-east edge of the project. Robyn has prepared another document which I will attach.
1) Noise and dust abatement is a major issue during the envisaged construction. Can adequate shielding be used to abate noise from heavy equipment, earth breaking equipment , jackhammers and the like. What type of sound barrier will the project have to reduce as much as possible dust and noise for myself as well as adjoining properties? What hours will be allowed for use of heavy noise and vibration equipment such as bulldozers, jackhammers?
2) Proposed 7 metre walkway will presumably necessitate the removal of a ficus tree which is a popular food source for flying foxes as well as numerous birds, sadly and privacy for our home. I would request that some form of shielding be utilised to preserve some semblance on privacy such as planting that encourages walkers away from our door, for example native food bearing trees or grasses to a moderate height to reduce the impact a bit on my space  as well as  more importantly providing a haven for small birds.
3) Both myself an Robyn have our own vehicles which together with other residents and visitors get parking on a by chance basis, we have both paid for the right to park long term in our particular zone it is anticipated that the ingress of vehicles to service this building project will adversley affect the availability of parking .
4) The recent architectural images of the project show it to be basically abutting Junction St surely a greater setback would add dignity to the project and would be less intrusive for my property, the residents of both the integrated living facilty as well residents of Junction St .
Please see attached document for Robyn's concerns and suggestions
Yours Sincerely
Simon Downie

Re App 17_Transport Assessment

The concern I have for this development is the impact of traffic on Junction St, which is already experiences congestion given its current state. Junction St goes from 2 way to one way near Bridge Rd (part of the road turns into a bike lane), with insufficient and unsuitable 'dead end' options to turn around (it essentially becomes a cul-de-sac). To add to this, the road has parking on both sides and is currently not wide enough for two cars to use it simultaneously, with one having to pull in to let the other pass. In addition, Junction St is also used as a popular bike corridor connecting St Johns Rd to Bridge Rd. As you could imagine, this creates vehicle, safety, and local amenity issues. I ask you to simply come to the street on any day and see how problematic this currently is for all who use the road.

I believe the proposed development will make this far worse, and I disagree with the assessment made that "The proposal is not expected to impact the operation of the local road network and is therefore not considered to be 'traffic generating development' as defined under the T&I SEPP" (page 4). I say this because:
- FDC goes from 5 days a week (no one there on weekends), where car movements are largely from 7-9am and 4-6pm with minimal visitors. (page 7 indicates their count of 55 vehicles AM peak and 51 afternoon peak)
- Proposed development is operational 7days a week, 24 hours a day potential car movement plus a number of assumed visitors associated with the 71 independent living units, plus staff

To me, stating that there will be no additional traffic is incorrect. I assume they came to this conclusion on best assumptions, guidelines etc. but in practice and from living on the street this simply does not stack up. By bringing more people onto this road, I believe the problem will become exponentially worse.

I hope you consider this comment and ensure future development appropriately addresses this issue.

All the best, Jess & Jonathan (23 Junction St Forest Lodge)

To the NSW Department of Planning and Environment
I write to formally object to the proposed development at 2–32 Junction Street, Forest Lodge NSW 2037. While I fully acknowledge the importance of aged care infrastructure and sustainable urban growth, the current proposal presents a range of unacceptable impacts that contravene established planning principles and threaten the wellbeing, safety, and amenity of the surrounding community.
1. Loss of Amenity and Visual Impact
The proposed development will severely obstruct existing city view that are an intrinsic feature of both my property and the broader neighbourhood character. Planning frameworks consistently uphold the preservation of reasonable residential amenity, including visual outlook. The excessive scale and bulk of the proposed structure will dominate the streetscape, creating a permanent and adverse visual intrusion for current residents.
The proposed height is unacceptable to the community, three floors at the maximum.
2. Overshadowing and Reduction in Residential Enjoyment
The height and massing of the building will result in significant overshadowing and a measurable reduction in natural light. This directly conflicts with planning objectives that require developments to minimise overshadowing and ensure equitable access to sunlight for neighbouring dwellings. The proposal fails to meet these standards.
3. Unreasonable Construction Impacts
The anticipated multi-year demolition and construction phases will subject residents to prolonged and disruptive environmental impacts, including:
• Airborne dust, debris, and waste pollution
• Noise levels exceeding acceptable residential threshold
• Increased traffic congestion and compromised pedestrian safety
Such extended disruption is inconsistent with planning principles that require developments to avoid unreasonable environmental nuisance to surrounding properties.
4. Health and Safety Risks – Asbestos and Hazardous Materials
Given the age of the existing structure, there is a high likelihood of asbestos and other hazardous materials being present. Without a rigorously enforced environmental management plan, the risk of airborne contamination poses a serious threat to public health. This issue demands explicit attention and must be addressed prior to any approval.
5. Inconsistency with Core Planning Objectives
The proposal is fundamentally misaligned with key planning objectives, including;
• Residential Amenity – safeguarding outlook, sunlight, and peaceful enjoyment of property
• Neighbourhood Character – ensuring new developments integrate respectfully with the existing built environment
• Environmental and Health Standards – protecting residents from construction-related harm and contamination
6. Traffic Management – Larkin Street Impact
The proposed traffic plan, which directs construction vehicles to exit via Larkin Street due to its proximity to Parramatta Road, is deeply flawed and demonstrates a disregard for local conditions.
Existing Congestion
Larkin Street is a cul-de-sac already burdened by intense traffic from multiple sources:
• Commercial activity including Stiletto and SAAP Auto
• High turnover of food delivery riders and supermarket trucks
• Visitors to UNSW, RPA, and Veriu Hotel
• Rideshare vehicles and non-permit holders seeking parking
This congestion is already intolerable. Adding B Double construction traffic would be reckless.
Infrastructure Deficiency
The street surface is in a constant state of disrepair, with extensive potholing causing damage to residents’ vehicles. Despite repeated requests, neither the City of Sydney nor Transport for NSW have addressed these issues. Increasing heavy vehicle movements on this degraded infrastructure is both unreasonable and unsafe.
Amenity and Safety Risks
Routing construction traffic through Larkin Street would severely impact residents, restricting access, increasing pedestrian hazards, and diminishing the liveability of the area. Larkin Street is regularly used by residents for walking, exercising, and taking their animals out, meaning heavy traffic would pose significant risks to everyday community activities. This proposal prioritises developer convenience over community wellbeing, a position that is unacceptable.
7. Lack of Worker Parking Provision
The proposal fails to allocate any parking for construction workers. This omission guarantees that workers will occupy already scarce residential parking in Larkin Street and surrounding areas. Residents will be forced to compete with trade vans, site deliveries, and staff vehicles, an outcome that is not only inconsiderate but entirely unworkable.

8. Comment
The Department of Planning and Environment Planning Services branch determination was made in 2016. Given the significant passage of time, changes to planning regulations, and the evolving nature of community needs and local conditions, reliance on a determination from seven years ago is questionable. A current assessment is necessary to ensure that any proposed development aligns with contemporary planning standards, traffic conditions, and community expectations. Without updated consideration, the proposal risks proceeding on outdated assumptions, which may undermine both community confidence and the integrity of the planning process.
9. Consultation
The community’s views have not been genuinely considered. The consultation process appears to have been treated as a procedural requirement rather than a meaningful opportunity to influence the outcome. We were not made area of the recent community consultation, however those that are not directly impacted by the development were advised.
True consultation requires more than recording objections; it requires actively listening, reflecting, and incorporating community input into planning decisions. The failure to properly weigh these perspectives undermines both the integrity of the process and public trust. Furthermore, the proposal’s reference to Junction Street being connected to Bridge Road is inaccurate and misleading, which calls into question the reliability of the information presented.
Conclusion
For the reasons outlined above, I strongly oppose the proposed development in its current form. I urge the Department to refuse the plication unless substantial amendments are made to address the loss of amenity, overshadowing, construction impacts, traffic mismanagement, and health risks. The community deserves a development that respects its character, safety, and quality of life.
Appreciate any opportunity to discuss as strangely the community consultation invitation wasn't received by those in my building but those in unaffected areas did receive the invitation.

Regards

Chris

As a resident of Larkin Street, I believe the proposed development will severely affect the quality of life for local residents. My concerns include:

Sunlight, privacy, and open space – The development would reduce sunlight to Larkin Street Reserve, as well as my home and neighbouring apartments. New balconies and windows overlooking existing dwellings will also compromise residents’ privacy. These concerns are not adequately addressed in the report.

Traffic and safety impacts – Junction Street and Larkin Street are both narrow. Concentrating significantly more people in this small area will increase congestion, reduce available parking, and raise safety risks, particularly with frequent delivery and service vehicles. These issues are not fully assessed in the proposal.

Loss of residential amenity – The project would introduce more than 200 new residents, in addition to staff for the cinema, cafe, hair salon, and other facilities. This will fundamentally change the area from a quiet residential neighbourhood into a noisy, commercial environment, which is not what current residents expect or value.

Excessive scale – The proposal is for a six-storey building of 4,824 square metres. Its height and bulk are out of character with the surrounding area and would overshadow nearby homes, parks, and communal spaces.

Impact on heritage and local character – While the heritage building is being adaptively reused, the scale of the new addition is likely to overwhelm it. The proposal risks diminishing both the local character and the historic atmosphere of the area.

I object to this development application based on the height of the proposed building. My concerns are that the building is 2 storeys too high and should be in line with the existing historic building and tree canopy. This planned building completely obliterates my views of the beautiful Forest Lodge terraced streets and the city skyline.
I support homes for integrated seniors living but strongly oppose this development based on scale and heights of the proposal.

I object to SSD-75493483 (Forest Lodge Integrated Seniors Living) on the grounds of overdevelopment, overshadowing, traffic and parking impacts, noise, contamination risks, heritage loss, and inadequate community consultation. The proposal breaches the Housing SEPP 2021, Sydney LEP 2012, and EP&A Act s.4.15, and should be refused or substantially redesigned. Please refer to my attached Objection for further information.

I have reviewed the application and strongly support the development. It is a well-considered scheme which provides a mix of highly needed seniors homes for Forest Lodge.
The land dedication and extension of Larkin Park will greatly improve the public outdoor space provision in the area and has been designed to a high standard.

The location of the loading dock on Larkin St is supported. Providing a loading dock on Junction St would not only detract from the heritage buildings surrounding it but would also provide very challenging traffic conditions given the very tight street and one way entry at Bridge Road. Trying to fit Council’s waste truck down this road would be very challenging.

We are a young family that wants to maintain the youthfulness in the local community

My God! This grotesque project, an architectural obscenity of unprecedented dimensions, looms over our humble quarter with all the subtlety of a medieval siege tower. Not content with adding immeasurable stress to our already chaotic parking arrangements, the so-called “developers” have brazenly ignored the venerable heritage of this neighborhood, choosing instead to erect a soulless edifice bereft of even a single tree — those noble, oxygen-granting sentinels without which humanity drifts further toward collapse.

The structure, with the grace of a concrete leviathan, will blot out the very sun, that life-giving orb upon which our modest household across the street depends for warmth and light. Heretofore, we poor inhabitants required but the faintest whirr of the air-conditioning unit in summer, and in winter the sun’s rays bestowed a small but merciful reprieve. Yet with this monstrous carbuncle in place, our dwelling will become nothing short of an icebox, forcing us to expend ever greater sums on infernal machines of artificial climate control — a expenditure dictated by architectural barbarism and poor control over the rich. Truly, this “development” heralds not progress, but the triumph of stupidity and avarice over common sense and civilization.

Formal Objection to Proposed Service Vehicle Access via Larkin Street
As a long-time resident of Larkin Street, I have witnessed firsthand the transformation of our quiet cul-de-sac into a congested and increasingly noisy thoroughfare. Over the years, the construction of new apartment buildings has brought a significant rise in population density, vehicle movements, and general disruption to the quality of life for existing residents. What was once a peaceful residential street is now frequently overwhelmed by delivery trucks, waste collection vehicles, and relocation vans. The increase in traffic has led to persistent noise, reduced pedestrian safety, and mounting issues with rubbish overflow and street cleanliness.
It is from this lived experience that I raise serious concerns regarding the proposed access arrangement for service vehicles and waste collection trucks via Larkin Street, as outlined in the Transport Impact Assessment for the redevelopment of 2–32 Junction Street, Forest Lodge.
While the proposal asserts that access via Larkin Street provides a “strong outcome” in terms of separating light and heavy vehicle movements, this conclusion fails to account for the existing constraints and residential sensitivities of Larkin Street. Specifically:
- Dead-End Cul-de-Sac Configuration: Larkin Street is a narrow, dead-end cul-de-sac with no through access. This inherently limits its capacity to accommodate frequent ingress and egress of large vehicles, including delivery trucks, waste collection vehicles, and service vans. The lack of alternative exit routes increases the likelihood of vehicle queuing, reversing maneuvers, and traffic bottlenecks. According to the Guide to Transport Impact Assessment by Transport for NSW, site access design must consider turning movements, queuing, and circulation constraints for service vehicles.
- Existing High Volume of Heavy Vehicle Traffic: The street already experiences a disproportionate volume of large vehicle movements due to ongoing residential deliveries, waste management operations, and relocation activities. Introducing a dedicated service entrance for a major development will compound this volume, exacerbating congestion and reducing overall traffic fluidity.
- On-Street Parking Constraints: Larkin Street features continuous on-street parking on both sides, effectively reducing the carriageway to a single lane. As a result, the street functions as a one-way passage, allowing only one vehicle to enter or exit at a time. This severely limits the ability of large service vehicles to maneuver safely and efficiently, particularly during peak residential hours. The Sydney Development Control Plan 2012 emphasizes the need for safe and efficient vehicle access that does not compromise residential amenity or traffic safety.
- Residential Amenity and Acoustic Impact: Larkin Street is lined with residential dwellings that are highly sensitive to noise and vibration. The introduction of frequent heavy vehicle movements—particularly waste collection trucks operating during early morning hours—will significantly increase ambient noise levels and disrupt the quiet residential character of the street. The NSW Planning Portal’s guidance on Built Form and Environmental Amenity highlights the importance of protecting acoustic comfort and minimizing disruption to residential areas.
- Safety and Accessibility Concerns: Increased heavy vehicle traffic in a confined cul-de-sac poses elevated risks to pedestrian safety, particularly for children, elderly residents, and individuals with mobility impairments. The constrained geometry of the street limits visibility and maneuverability, heightening the potential for conflict between vehicles and pedestrians.
- Contradiction with Planning Objectives: While the State Environmental Planning Policy (Transport and Infrastructure) 2021 (T&I SEPP) does not impose formal restrictions on vehicle access for local roads, it does require that infrastructure delivery be balanced with environmental and community impacts. The proposed access arrangement undermines these principles by concentrating traffic on a vulnerable residential street.
- Balanced Access Strategy: The proposed design should reflect a more equitable distribution of entry and exit points between Junction Street and Larkin Street. Concentrating service vehicle access solely on Larkin Street places disproportionate strain on an already constrained cul-de-sac, which is experiencing increased traffic volumes due to ongoing construction-related activity. A balanced approach would mitigate congestion, reduce noise impacts, and better align with principles of fair urban planning.
- Residential Impact and Design Sensitivity: The current residents of Larkin Street are already bearing the brunt of traffic disruptions, noise pollution, and reduced accessibility caused by construction vehicle movements. Any future design must take into account the cumulative impact on these residents and adopt a more considered, community-sensitive approach. This includes limiting heavy vehicle access, preserving residential amenity, and ensuring that infrastructure decisions do not further erode quality of life.
In light of the above, I urge the relevant planning authority to reconsider the use of Larkin Street for service vehicle access and explore alternative arrangements that mitigate traffic, noise, and safety impacts—such as consolidating access via Junction Street or utilizing internal circulation strategies that avoid reliance on constrained residential streets.

I support the Seniors living development with a residential aged care facility including 10 beds as well as 71 independent living units.

I would however, like to see additional units as part of the project.

This is a small residential area with not so many parking spaces and narrow streets, this project is too big for this small area, on top of that, 6 levels building will block sunlight for 1-3 Larkin St which is where I am living in, I won't be able to have sunlight on my balcony. This project has too many levels and too many intended rooms/cars, it will create enormous noise and safety concerns.