Montefiore Seniors Housing, St Ives

We are residents of Newhaven Place running off Link Road and are directly affected by the above application that is scheduled to be across from us in Link Road.
We formally object to this development in its current form. The objection is largely to a development that is fundamentally out of scale with its setting in St Ives and seemly supported by inadequate technical studies.
See attachment for full submission.

I am writing as a local resident to respectfully object to this proposal.

I want to make it clear that I support the need for quality seniors' housing and aged care facilities. As our population ages, developments like this play an important role in our community. My objection is not to seniors' housing itself, but to the scale of this proposal and, more importantly, its location.

I do not believe this site can accommodate a development of this size without creating significant and lasting impacts on the surrounding community.

This location is already under considerable pressure
Anyone who lives in this part of St Ives knows how congested the surrounding road network has become.

During weekday mornings and afternoons, simply leaving our local streets can take a considerable amount of time. The queue approaching the Stanley Street–Link Road roundabout regularly extends back through Yarrabung Road - close/pass College Crescent - during peak periods.

This is not an occasional issue—it is part of everyday life for local residents.

Introducing 126 independent living units, 48 residential aged care beds, 260 basement parking spaces, together with staff, visitors, service vehicles and deliveries, will place additional demand on a road network that is already struggling to accommodate existing traffic.

The issue is not whether seniors' housing should be built. The issue is whether this particular location can realistically support a development of this scale.

The cumulative impact of surrounding developments and facilities
My greatest concern is that this proposal appears to assess this development largely in isolation rather than considering the cumulative impacts of the many existing developments and community facilities that already rely on the same road network.

Within approximately one to two kilometres of the proposed site are numerous major traffic generators, including:

St Ives Public School

St Ives High School

Masada College

Corpus Christi Catholic Primary School

A nearby childcare centre

Chabad North Shore

Estia Health

St Ives House

Numerous apartment developments along Killeaton Street

Each of these destinations generates regular vehicle movements throughout the day. School drop-off and pick-up periods create particularly heavy congestion, while residents, visitors, staff, deliveries and service vehicles associated with these facilities all use many of the same roads.

Several of these facilities are located on, or accessed directly via, College Crescent, meaning their traffic already feeds into the same road network that would also serve the proposed development.

Whether travelling to schools, apartment complexes, Chabad North Shore, existing seniors' living facilities or local businesses, many journeys converge onto Yarrabung Road, College Crescent, Stanley Street and Link Road before reaching the Stanley Street–Link Road roundabout.

When all of these existing developments are considered together, it becomes clear that this area is already under significant pressure. The cumulative impact should be a key consideration in assessing whether this location is suitable for another large-scale development.

Impact on families and quality of life
For local residents, this is much more than an inconvenience.

Every weekday, families are trying to get children to school, travel to work, attend appointments and return home safely. Additional congestion means longer travel times, increased stress, greater fuel consumption and less time spent with family.

Planning decisions should consider not only the needs of future residents, but also the wellbeing and quality of life of the people who already live in this community.

Safety for pedestrians and cyclists
This area is heavily used by school children, parents, pedestrians and cyclists.

With several schools and childcare facilities located nearby, many children walk or cycle through these streets every day. Increased traffic volumes will inevitably reduce safety for pedestrians and cyclists, particularly around school zones, crossings and busy intersections during peak periods.

Good planning should encourage safe, active transport. This proposal risks making walking and cycling less safe for residents of all ages.

Noise and environmental impacts
Additional vehicle movements will also increase traffic noise, vehicle emissions and air pollution.

Many nearby residents already experience significant traffic noise during peak periods. Increasing traffic further will reduce the amenity of surrounding homes and negatively affect the wellbeing of existing residents.

A more suitable location should be considered I support the development of seniors' housing.

However, developments of this scale should be located where surrounding infrastructure has the capacity to accommodate the additional demand they create.

In my view, this particular site has already reached the limits of what the surrounding road network can comfortably support.

Planning should not only consider whether a development is beneficial, but whether it is being built in the right location.

My request
I respectfully request that the Department refuse this proposal in its current form, or alternatively require a substantial reduction in its scale and density to better reflect the capacity of the surrounding road network and local infrastructure.

At a minimum, I request that an independent review of the Traffic Impact Assessment be undertaken, taking into account the cumulative impacts of:

St Ives Public School

St Ives High School

Masada College

Corpus Christi Catholic Primary School

nearby childcare facilities

Chabad North Shore

Estia Health

St Ives House

apartment developments along Killeaton Street

and other established traffic generators that already place significant demand on the local road network.

Assessing this proposal in isolation does not reflect the daily reality experienced by local residents.

Planning is about creating communities that function well for everyone. While I support the need for seniors' housing, I believe developments of this scale should be located where roads, intersections and local infrastructure have the capacity to support them without significantly reducing the quality of life of existing residents.

I respectfully ask the Department to carefully reconsider whether this location is appropriate for a development of this scale.

Thank you for considering my submission.

1. There are quite a few high-density apartments built nearby, which has already caused the shortage of public facilities. The adjacent streets are fully occupied by the overnight parking cars. This not only makes noise but also brings the security risk to the pedestrians, especially at night.
2. The proposed Montefiore project will definitely cause the heavy traffic in College Crescent, which is a very narrow street.
3. Four high-rise buildings will severely affect the privacy of residents who are living in the nearby houses / townhouses.

I wish to formally object to the proposed development.

My family and I have lived on College Crescent for the past five years. We chose this area because it offered a quiet, community-oriented environment with a strong connection to surrounding natural areas. However, over recent years the street has experienced significant increases in traffic, parking demand, and pedestrian activity from existing developments and community facilities. In my view, College Crescent has reached its practical capacity, and this proposal will place further strain on an already overburdened local road network.

As a resident of a townhouse complex comprising 27 townhouses, I experience these parking pressures daily. Most households within our strata have more vehicles than available on-site parking spaces and therefore rely on unrestricted street parking along College Crescent. I personally have only one garage parking space for two vehicles and must regularly park on the street.

In addition to residential demand, College Crescent already services several major facilities and community uses:

Estia Health Aged Care Facility, where staff, café patrons and visitors frequently utilise surrounding street parking despite the provision of visitor parking on site.
Masada College, where parking demand from students, staff, and school-related activities significantly impacts local streets. School drop-off and pick-up times regularly create congestion, unsafe parking practices and increased risks to pedestrians and motorists.
The local synagogue, which attracts substantial attendance on Fridays, Saturdays and Jewish holidays. During these periods, parking along College Crescent often becomes unavailable and pedestrian activity significantly increases.

A particular concern is pedestrian safety. It is common to see adults and children walking along the roadway itself due to parked vehicles and the lack of available space. During winter months and periods of reduced visibility, these conditions become increasingly hazardous. The combination of heavy vehicle movements, parked vehicles, school traffic, and large community gatherings creates an environment where pedestrian safety is already compromised.

I am also aware that Ku-ring-gai Council is proceeding with upgrades to the Bedes Forest area on College Crescent and Yarabung Road. The concept plan identifies only one accessible parking space and one maintenance vehicle space. While these improvements will undoubtedly encourage greater community use of the area, they will also generate additional parking demand within surrounding residential streets, including College Crescent.

The cumulative impact of existing residential development, aged care facilities, educational institutions, religious facilities, and planned recreational upgrades must be considered when assessing the suitability of any further development in this location. The street infrastructure, parking availability, and local amenity are already under significant pressure.

I respectfully request that Council carefully consider:

The existing and ongoing parking shortages along College Crescent.
The cumulative traffic impacts of current developments and community facilities.
Pedestrian safety concerns, particularly during school peak periods, religious gatherings and evening hours.
The impact of additional development on local amenity and neighbourhood character.
Whether there is a demonstrated need for an additional seniors housing facility in this locality, given the presence of multiple existing facilities in the surrounding area.
The cumulative impact of the proposed development together with the planned Bedes Forest upgrades and associated visitor parking demand.

I have discussed this proposal with other owners within my strata scheme, and there is a strong consensus that further development on College Crescent is not supported by residents due to the existing pressures on parking, traffic management, safety, and local amenity.

For these reasons, I respectfully request that Council refuse the development application.

I enjoy living in St Ives and particularly walking tracks around the college crescent stanley street and Yarrabung road areas because it is a quiet neighbourhood with a great community feel. There is ample sunshine for me as an elderly person to spend time there, and I value the peaceful residential character and amenity that the area provides.
However this development is grossly out of scale with the local area.
Key planning concerns
Directly affected by the proposed development – I am deeply concerned that the scale and operation of this proposal will significantly impact the quiet residential character and amenity of the neighbourhood that I enjoy visiting. Already Stanley street college crescent and Yarrabung road experience congestion during morning school and work peaks and there is large lines of traffic queued back from the stanley street round about making it dangerous for kids and adults to cross and manuveour the road.
Traffic and road safety – Significant increase in vehicle movements, including residents, staff, visitors, service vehicles and emergency vehicles, on a narrow local residential street not designed for this intensity of traffic. Specifically there is no report by the Montefore EIS or Traffic report to assess the increase in traffic use of the public utilising thd allied health services wanting to be constructed in this proposal.
I also have concerns regarding the fire evacuation plans for the proposal not being sufficient when a mass evacuation is required.
Ambulance operations – The proposed residential aged care facility will generate regular ambulance arrivals and departures. Ambulance movements, lights and sirens have the potential to directly impact safety, residential amenity and sleep. No line of sight reports have been done to assess the conflict of entering and exiting of driveways during peak periods and the impact of college crescent residents utilising there own driveways.
Driveway access and safety – Increased traffic volumes, turning movements and emergency vehicle activity may make it difficult and unsafe for residents to enter and exit driveways, particularly during peak periods.
School traffic – College Crescent already experiences significant congestion during school drop-off and pick-up periods. The proposal will compound existing traffic and create additional safety risks for pedestrians and motorists. The traffic report done by Montifore is misleading as it was done outside peak school pick up and drop off times and on the last 2 days of term when year 12 stuents who park on college crescent were absent misrepresenting the true nature of College Crescents traffic congestion.
Religious activity traffic – Friday evenings and Saturday mornings already experience increased traffic associated with nearby religious activities from the Chabad house and synagouge. This existing peak demand appears not to have been fully considered. The traffic report done by Montifore was not accurate and has errors as timings were done outside Chabad operating hours of Friday 630pm and the synagogues opening hours of 6pm on Fridays and saturdays from 830am to 1pm.
Lack of surrounding infrastructure – The surrounding road network and local infrastructure are not designed to accommodate a development of this scale this is especially the case on College crescent a narrow street that already is at capacity during peak school pick up and drop off times making it a dangerous endevour to enter and exit by vehicles and pedestrians as a two way street becomes a one way street.
Visual bulk and neighbourhood character – The size, height and institutional appearance of the proposed buildings are inconsistent with the existing residential character of College Crescent.
Social difference and 'otherness' – The architect's impressions depict buildings that create a sense of separation and institutional character rather than integrating with the cohesive College Crescent residential community. Most houses are 1 and 2 storey homes with large front yard areas regularly used by residdnts this personal environmental amenity will be lost to them.
Noise impacts – Increased noise from vehicles, deliveries, waste collection, loading activities, mechanical plant, outdoor areas and emergency services will adversely affect neighbouring residents.
Privacy impacts – The scale and positioning of the buildings may increase opportunities for overlooking into surrounding homes and adjoing houses on college crescent.
Overshadowing and loss of amenity – The development will reduce sunlight and diminish the residential amenity enjoyed by neighbouring properties on College crescent.
Construction impacts – A lengthy construction period will generate heavy vehicle movements, noise, dust and disruption to residents living immediately opposite the site. No mitigatikn has been provided except to say that construction trucks can park in the development this will be IMPOSSIBLE during the excavation stages of the development.
Cumulative impacts – The Environmental Impact Statement should properly assess the combined impacts of traffic, emergency services, school activity, religious peak periods, construction and the ongoing operation of the facility, rather than assessing each impact in isolation.
Planning merit – Given the site's location within an established residential street, the proposal represents an overdevelopment that is incompatible with the existing capacity of the surrounding road network and residential environment.
I believe a strong revision is required for setbacks no pubic access for the allied health facility as this goes against the state SEARS rules of a senior living facility making it a commercial area and shortening the height to a mamximum of 3 storey on College Crescent. please see attached link for the strong community opinions regarding this proposal and its impacts on the area. See below link

https://www.change.org/p/stop-overdevelopment-at-19-25-college-crescent-st-ives-9-storeys-is-not-st-ives

The attached Traffic and Parking Impact Review Assessment has been completed by McLaren Traffic Engineering on behalf of the College Crescent residents.

The report provides a review of the EIS documentation submitted as part of the proposal relevant to traffic and parking.

The following conclusions have been made within the report.

The key parking issues are as follows:
• The dates and time periods of the parking surveys were found to misalign with the existing peak parking periods caused by the adjacent school and places of worship.
• A total of 24 car parking spaces will be removed by the proposal. The UTIA fails to assess the impact of the removal of car parking spaces on the surrounding on-street parking network.
• The UTIA does not consider cumulative parking impacts with the Bedes Forest upgrade, failing to assess the increase in on-street parking demand along College Crescent.
• The allied health services are intended to operate as publicly accessible facilities, therefore are not ancillary to the RCF or ILUs. A standalone assessment of the parking demand generated by the allied health component is therefore required to demonstrate that sufficient parking has been provided.
• The proposal exceeds the minimum parking requirements of the Housing SEPP by 68 spaces. This represents approximately 8,000m3 of excess excavation, resulting in greater construction and traffic impacts.
The key traffic issues are as follows:
• The dates and time periods of the traffic surveys were found to misalign with the existing peak traffic periods caused by the adjacent school.
• The UTIA does not assess the impact of the proposal on the existing school pick-up and drop-off operations of Masada College or the existing place of worship operations that occur on College Crescent.
• The benchmarking traffic generation sites used in the UTIA do not provide a true comparison to the traffic generation of the proposed development due to the mismatch in scale and parking numbers between the proposed development and benchmarked sites.
• The UTIA does not provide any details of the calibration and validation of the SIDRA traffic modelling undertaken, reducing confidence in the reported operational performance of the surrounding intersections.
• Two (2) intersections were not assessed within the UTIA which are critical in accommodating the traffic generated by the proposed development and as such should be assessed to determine the traffic impact on the surrounding road network.
• The UTIA does not assess the traffic generation associated with the allied health facilities, hence underestimating the traffic generation by the site. An estimated 32 vehicle trips generated by the allied health facilities within the proposal during the site peak hour and 130 vehicle trips per day should be included in the traffic models.
• The UTIA considers the traffic impacts of the proposed development in isolation and does not assess cumulative impacts arising from the surrounding eight (8) developments, failing to meet the NSW Cumulative Impact Assessment Guidelines requirements.
• The UTIA does not assess the performance of the road network 10-years after opening as is suggested in Section 3.4.1 of the TfNSW GTIA for large developments.
The key access design issues are as follows:
• The UTIA does not provide swept paths to demonstrate two-way passing along the Link Road access driveway or at the College Crescent driveways when considering on-street parking,
• The southern driveway located on College Crescent is located at the end of a horizontal curve in the road, which has the potential to restrict available sight distance between exiting vehicles and approaching traffic. A detailed sight line assessment is therefore required to demonstrate a safe and compliant outcome.
• The proposed primary access driveway on Link Road is located within an existing bus zone, creating the potential for conflicts between buses entering or departing the stop and vehicles accessing the site.
• Servicing vehicle and fire truck swept paths provided within the UTIA are unsuccessful.
• The UTIA does not demonstrate that emergency vehicles can safely and efficiently access and egress the site under peak traffic and parking conditions.
• The UTIA does not explain how the development’s formal address, signage, visitor communications, wayfinding systems and navigation-platform information will direct visitors, service vehicles and deliveries to Link Road rather than College Crescent.
• Access to the surrounding bus stops as required to both depart and return to the site does not appear to be connected by suitable path facilities or exceeds the maximum 400m distance set out in the Housing SEPP and the site may be unsuitable for the proposed development.
• The introduction of regular construction haulage and other heavy vehicle movements onto College Crescent would be expected to increase congestion, impede the passage of opposing traffic and create additional safety risks. This has not been addressed in the UTIA.
• In the absence of adequate on-site worker parking, construction staff are likely to utilise on-street parking within the surrounding residential streets, particularly College Crescent, thereby increasing parking demand. This has not been addressed in the UTIA.
The key safety and general issues are as follows:
• College Crescent presents existing vehicle and pedestrian safety issues, particularly during school drop-off and pick-up periods. The introduction of additional traffic associated with the proposed development has the potential to exacerbate existing safety and operational issues.
• The UTIA has not addressed the impacts that removing the Masada College sporting field will have on school operations such as the use of buses will be needed to transport students to external sporting fields and their associated impacts.
The independent assessment of the likely impacts on College Crescent provides the following conclusions:
• College Crescent was constructed to serve a small number of single dwellings to the minimum road width permitted in the Ku-Ring-Gai Subdivision Code and has a limited capacity for daily vehicles approaching 300 vehicles per day.
• Based on an assessment of publicly available documents, College Crescent is likely to experience more than 806 trips per day considering existing and approved development, but not including traffic associated with year 12 students, services at the two synagogues or traffic associated with the Bedes Forest Park upgrade. Consequently, it is clear that the road is already at its practical and safe capacity.
• Reliance of the proposal on College Crescent will exacerbate the existing issues along the road and will lead to unsafe outcomes for both future residents of the site and for existing users.
• Consequently, all vehicle access to the site should be made from Link Road, subject to an appropriate assessment which demonstrates that that access can be made without affecting the safety and efficiency of that road.

I have personally experienced difficulties entering and exiting College Crescent due to existing congestion and extensive on-street parking. Getting in and out of the garage is already very dangerous when both side of the roads are parked with cars. I also regularly observe elderly residents walking in the area during the morning and afternoon from near by elderly home. In my view, increasing traffic volumes associated with a large 8-storey development would significantly worsen existing road safety and pedestrian safety issues.

Traffic and Congestion
•College Crescent already experiences significant traffic congestion, particularly during peak periods.
•Vehicles frequently park on both sides of the street, reducing the effective width of the roadway and making it difficult for vehicles to pass safely.
•Entering and exiting College Crescent is already challenging due to existing traffic volumes and parked vehicles.
•The proposed development will generate additional traffic from residents, visitors, staff, service vehicles, deliveries and contractors, placing further pressure on an already constrained local road network.
•I am concerned that the traffic impacts have been underestimated given existing conditions on local streets.

Road Safety
•The current level of on-street parking reduces visibility for drivers entering and leaving driveways and side streets.
•Additional traffic associated with the development is likely to increase the risk of vehicle conflicts and near misses.
•The proposal would introduce increased vehicle movements into a residential area that is not well suited to accommodating higher traffic volumes.
•Congestion may encourage unsafe manoeuvres such as U-turns, reversing, or vehicles attempting to pass parked cars in limited road space.

Pedestrian Safety
•College Crescent is regularly used by local residents for walking and recreation.
•I frequently observe elderly residents walking in the area during the morning and afternoon.
•Increased traffic volumes would create additional conflict points between vehicles and pedestrians.
•Because parked vehicles already limit sight lines, drivers may have difficulty seeing pedestrians crossing the road or emerging from between parked vehicles.
•The safety of elderly pedestrians should be carefully considered due to their potentially reduced mobility and reaction times.
Building Scale and Intensity
•An 8-storey building represents a substantial increase in development intensity compared with the surrounding residential character.
•The scale of the proposed development appears disproportionate to the capacity of local roads and supporting infrastructure.
•While additional seniors housing may be beneficial, the intensity of development on this site should be compatible with the surrounding neighbourhood and road network.

Cumulative Impacts
•The assessment should consider not only the impacts of this proposal in isolation but also the cumulative effect of increasing development within the area.
•Existing traffic, parking pressures and pedestrian safety concerns are already affecting local residents.
•Further intensification without corresponding infrastructure improvements is likely to worsen these existing problems.

Montefiore Seniors Housing, St Ives | SSD-98363228
1. Introduction and Standing
I am the owner and occupier of a lot within Strata Plan SP 81312 at 17–19 Newhaven Place, St Ives NSW 2075. I have been formally notified by the Department as a neighbouring landowner/occupier to the proposed development at 19–25 College Crescent and 9–15 Link Road, St Ives (Application No. SSD-98363228), submitted by Sir Moses Montefiore Jewish Home.

I write to formally OBJECT to this application in its current form. My objection is not to the principle of aged care, which plays an important role in any community. My objection is to the scale, height, and impact of the specific proposal as designed, which is grossly out of character with the surrounding neighbourhood and will cause serious, permanent harm to residents of Newhaven Place and surrounding streets.
2. Description of the Proposal
The application proposes the construction of four buildings ranging from 5 to 9 storeys in height on a site of approximately 1.7 hectares, comprising 48 residential aged care beds, 126 independent living units, ancillary amenities, and two levels of basement car parking providing 260 spaces. Vehicular access is proposed from both Link Road and College Crescent.
Because this application has been classified as a State Significant Development, it bypasses normal Ku-ring-gai Council planning controls and is determined directly by the Minister for Planning. This makes it all the more important that the Department carefully scrutinise whether the proposal is genuinely in the public interest and consistent with the existing character of the area.
3. Traffic Impact — Specific Harm to Newhaven Place Residents
This is my most pressing concern as a direct resident of Newhaven Place.
Newhaven Place is a dead-end residential street. Its sole vehicular access point is onto Link Road. Link Road is already one of the most congested local roads in this part of St Ives, particularly during weekday morning and afternoon peak periods when Masada College school drop-off and pick-up traffic regularly backs up through Stanley Street and the surrounding road network. Significant additional traffic is also generated on College Crescent and Link Road by Chabad North Shore during regular services and major religious holidays.
The proposed development will generate substantial additional vehicle movements on Link Road from its residents, staff, visitors, delivery vehicles, maintenance contractors, and emergency services attending a 48-bed aged care facility. With 260 basement car parking spaces, the volume of traffic generated will be significant and sustained throughout the day and night.
The direct consequence for Newhaven Place residents is severe: our only means of entering and leaving our street will become materially more difficult and, at peak times, potentially dangerous. During school hours, the combination of Masada College traffic, Chabad traffic, and the new development's traffic on Link Road could make it effectively impossible for residents to exit Newhaven Place in a reasonable time. This is not a theoretical concern — it is a predictable and inevitable consequence of placing a development of this scale at the head of a single-access residential street.
Furthermore, ambulances and other emergency vehicles attending the 48-bed residential aged care component will use sirens on Link Road and College Crescent at all hours, including overnight. The cumulative noise impact on residents of Newhaven Place has not been addressed in the application.
I submit that no independent traffic impact assessment has been commissioned or made available that adequately models the combined peak period traffic load from the development, Masada College, and Chabad North Shore simultaneously. This omission is a fundamental deficiency in the Environmental Impact Statement. Before any approval can be considered, an independent traffic study must be completed that specifically models the impact on Link Road, Newhaven Place, Stanley Street, and College Crescent under combined peak-period conditions.
4. Height, Scale, and the Precedent Risk
The proposed buildings reach up to 9 storeys in height. This is without precedent in St Ives. The existing built form in this part of the suburb — and across St Ives generally — comprises predominantly single and double-storey detached dwellings, with the tallest existing residential buildings in the broader area reaching 3 to 5 storeys, and only on larger, purpose-designed sites well removed from sensitive residential streets.
At my strata at 17–19 Newhaven Place, we are already familiar with the character of apartment living in this suburb — and the existing height controls reflect a considered balance between housing supply and neighbourhood amenity. The current applicable height limit for this area of approximately 4 storeys exists for good reason: it protects the low-rise, leafy character that defines St Ives as a place to live.
A development of 5 to 9 storeys in this location does not simply exceed the existing controls — it destroys them. Because this is a State Significant Development that bypasses Council controls, approval would set a highly visible precedent. Future developers will cite this approval to justify comparably outsized proposals elsewhere in St Ives and across Ku-ring-gai. That precedent, once established, cannot be undone. The decision made on this application will shape the character of St Ives for decades.
Residents directly opposite on College Crescent — many in single-storey homes — will face a wall of occupied windows up to nine storeys high overlooking their gardens and living spaces. The shadow impact from buildings of this height will deprive these households of sunlight for significant parts of the day. These are permanent, irreversible harms.
5. Visual Amenity and Neighbourhood Character
The Ku-ring-gai Local Strategic Planning Statement and Local Environmental Plan recognise the importance of maintaining the established residential character of suburbs like St Ives, including its tree canopy, low-rise scale, and visual amenity. Four large buildings crammed onto a 1.7-hectare site at 5 to 9 storeys directly adjoins and visually overwhelms a quiet residential precinct. This is incompatible with the strategic planning intent for the area.
The development also proposes significant tree removal and bulk excavation. The cumulative loss of tree canopy, combined with the visual mass of four large buildings on a constrained site, will fundamentally and permanently change the character of this part of St Ives.
6. Requests
I respectfully request that the Department:
(a) Refuse the application in its current form, or require a fundamental redesign genuinely compatible with the surrounding neighbourhood character;
(b) Require building heights to be reduced to a maximum consistent with the existing residential character of the area — no more than 4 storeys;
(c) Commission an independent traffic impact assessment that specifically models combined peak-period demand from the development, Masada College, and Chabad North Shore on Link Road, Newhaven Place, Stanley Street, and College Crescent, and that any necessary road upgrades be completed before any approval is granted;
(d) Remove any vehicular access from College Crescent, which is a narrow residential street ill-suited to additional traffic; and
(e) Ensure any noise impact from emergency vehicle access to the residential aged care component is fully assessed and mitigated, with particular regard to impacts on Newhaven Place residents overnight.

I respectfully urge the Department to give full weight to the concerns of neighbouring residents. The character of St Ives and the liveability of Newhaven Place are directly at stake in this decision. I am available to provide further information if required.
Regards
Karen Terranova

RE: SSD-98363228 – Montefiore Seniors Housing, St Ives

I am a neighbouring property owner and I object to this development application for the following reasons:

1. EXCESSIVE SCALE AND HEIGHT — INCONSISTENT WITH LOCAL CHARACTER

The proposed buildings of 5 to 8 storeys are grossly out of scale with the surrounding residential neighbourhood, which is predominantly characterised by single and two-storey detached dwellings. Even with the revised reduction from the original 9-storey proposal, 8 storeys remains completely inconsistent with the established suburban character of St Ives. Four large buildings on a site of less than 1.7 hectares represents an unacceptable level of overdevelopment. This proposal would set a dangerous precedent for high-density development across St Ives and the Ku-ring-gai LGA, and once established, this precedent cannot be undone.

2. TRAFFIC CONGESTION AND PEDESTRIAN SAFETY — CUMULATIVE IMPACT

College Crescent, Link Road, Yarrabung Road, and the Link Road/Stanley Street roundabout already experience significant congestion, particularly during Masada College school drop-off and pick-up times, with traffic regularly backing up along Stanley Street and surrounding roads. Critically, there are currently two additional townhouse developments already under construction in the immediate vicinity (Yarrabung Road area), which will independently add significant new vehicle movements to this same constrained road network. The Montefiore proposal — with approximately 260 basement parking spaces, plus hundreds of residents, staff, visitors, and service vehicles including ambulances — would compound this load on top of the already-approved developments that have not yet generated their full traffic impact.

The cumulative effect of these concurrent developments has not been adequately assessed. I request that an independent traffic impact assessment be conducted that accounts for all approved and under-construction developments in the catchment, not just existing baseline traffic, and that it specifically covers peak school periods and religious event times at the adjacent Chabad North Shore. The increased traffic poses serious safety risks to pedestrians, particularly school children attending Masada College.

3. OVERSHADOWING AND LOSS OF PRIVACY

Buildings of 5 to 8 storeys will cast significant shadows over neighbouring properties for substantial parts of the day, depriving residents of sunlight they currently enjoy. Additionally, occupied windows at these heights will directly overlook the private gardens, living areas, and outdoor spaces of homes on College Crescent, Stanley Street, Link Road, and Yarrabung Road. This represents an unacceptable and irreversible loss of residential amenity and privacy.

4. AMBULANCE AND EMERGENCY SERVICE NOISE

A facility with 48 aged care beds will generate frequent emergency vehicle activity. Ambulances using sirens on College Crescent and surrounding residential streets at all hours of the day and night will significantly impact the amenity of neighbouring residents and the adjacent school community. The Environmental Impact Statement has not adequately addressed this cumulative noise impact.

5. LOSS OF OPEN SPACE

The development site includes the former Masada College oval — a significant open green space in an established residential area. The loss of this open space diminishes the character and amenity of the neighbourhood. Furthermore, the access strategy relies on land within the Masada College campus, potentially reducing recreational and sporting facilities available to students.

6. NO DEMONSTRATED NEED AT THIS LOCATION

St Ives and surrounding suburbs are already well-served by aged care facilities including Bupa St Ives (98 residents), Estia Health St Ives (118 residents), St Ives House (124 high-care places), Uniting Kari Court, and St Ives Botanica Care Community. There is no demonstrated need for a facility of this scale and intensity at this sensitive location.

7. CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS

A $294 million development of this scale will involve years of heavy construction activity, generating sustained noise, dust, vibration, and heavy vehicle movements on residential streets adjacent to a school. The impact on residents and students during the construction period will be severe.

WHAT I REQUEST:

I urge the Department to either refuse the application in its current form or require a fundamental redesign that:
- Reduces building heights to a maximum of 3 storeys, consistent with the existing residential character
- Significantly reduces the overall density and number of units
- Removes vehicular access from College Crescent
- Requires independent traffic assessment during peak periods that accounts for all concurrent developments in the area
- Protects remaining open space

This proposal, even in its revised form, remains grossly incompatible with the low-rise residential character of St Ives and will cause lasting, irreversible harm to the neighbourhood.

I have lived at the Alcove Apartments, 132 Killeaton Street, for over 10 years. My building sits directly on the northern boundary of this site, and I am writing to object to a proposal that would place an eight-storey building directly opposite our homes, more than three times the height the state's own planning policy allows for seniors housing. I support seniors housing on this site in principle, but not at this scale.

No height or floor space ratio control applies under the Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2015, so this is being assessed purely on merit. State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing) 2021 sets its own benchmark regardless: 9.5m, or 11.5m with fully screened roof plant, and an FSR of 0.5:1 for independent living units or 1:1 for residential care. This proposal reaches 30.2m for Building A and 27.6m for Building D, over three times that benchmark, with an FSR of 1.74:1. The applicant's own compliance table acknowledges this and asks for it to be accepted on merit alone. A threefold breach of the state's own benchmark deserves real scrutiny, not routine approval.

It is also out of step with what is around it. The applicant's own EIS describes the area as three to six storey residential flat buildings, aged care facilities and schools. The Alcove Apartments are five to six storeys, and Chabad North Shore reaches five. An eight storey, 30.2m building bears no relationship to that context, however it is stepped or landscaped.

This isn't only a concern for my own unit. Alcove's Building E faces the site directly across the shared boundary, five storeys against Building D's eight directly opposite. Its whole south face is lined with bedrooms across nine ground floor units, two of which, one at each end of the building, have private courtyards opening directly onto the boundary, and the top floor's terraces wrap around to face north, south and east. A walking loop circling the entire Alcove complex, already marked on the applicant's own interface drawing, also runs along this boundary. In place of open land, residents and visitors of Building D would be looking directly into our bedrooms, terraces, courtyards and that walking loop, a complex wide impact, not just mine.

The assessment itself reflects this imbalance. The EIS names College Crescent, Chabad North Shore and Masada College as key sensitive receivers, but gives no equivalent treatment to the Alcove Apartments, despite it housing around 300 apartments on the boundary, more residents than the other three combined. It also omits a distinct impact: daylight loss. Our affected windows and terraces face south and rely on ambient sky light rather than direct sun, so a tall building close to this boundary reduces daylight regardless of the shadow question, an impact not assessed anywhere in the application. Section 97 of the Housing SEPP requires the consent authority to be satisfied the design considers the Schedule 8 design principles, including neighbourhood amenity and setbacks that reduce bulk and overshadowing, the same provision Council relied on to object to bulk and amenity impacts at 285-289 Mona Vale Road. That test cannot be satisfied for the Alcove Apartments when this interface has not been properly assessed.

At 285-289 Mona Vale Road, the Commission heard a neighbour's amenity concerns directly and required specific privacy treatments in response, including balcony and window positioning to reduce overlooking, vertical louvres facing neighbouring dwellings, and conditioned landscaping with mortality replacement for the life of the development. Nothing equivalent has been considered for the Alcove Apartments. The Department should require the same standard of privacy assessment and conditions for Alcove's Building E, including an accurate height comparison drawing and the effect on outlook and amenity for our windows, balconies, courtyards and the walking loop, before this application is determined.

The need case doesn't stack up at this scale either. The applicant's Social Impact Assessment cites an 89.1% aged care occupancy rate across the whole Northern Sydney region as evidence of demand, a large regional figure covering residential care beds only, not the 126 independent living units that make up most of this proposal. A 145-bed facility is already approved at 285-289 Mona Vale Road, with a further 62 beds under assessment, built within the Housing SEPP benchmark, 9.5m generally and 11.5m only for plant rooms, and with detailed privacy sections prepared for the specific neighbouring units it adjoins. That capacity was delivered without tripling the height benchmark, and with exactly the kind of neighbour-specific assessment this proposal has skipped for the Alcove Apartments.

This isn't just a case of the proposed height being dramatically taller than the existing aged care buildings nearby, it also breaches the height limits that legally apply to every comparable site. 101 Killeaton Street, a 125-place facility approved by the Land and Environment Court, sits on R2 land capped at 9.5m and 0.3:1 FSR, with no recorded height variation. 1 Yarrabung Road received only an 11 percent variation, and only for slope and lot size, via the Sydney North Planning Panel. Even 251-257 Mona Vale Road, zoned R4 for high density, the most permissive zoning in the area, is capped at 17.5m and 1.3:1. Size isn't the excuse either: the seniors living site spanning 2-8 Kitchener Street, 42 Roma Road and 385 Mona Vale Road covers almost 3.8 hectares, more than double this site, and is still capped at 9.5m. Nowhere nearby comes anywhere near 30.2m.

There is a broader concern too. This site avoids rezoning entirely because the Housing SEPP permits seniors housing on SP2 land as an exception to normal zoning, an exception that comes with its own height and FSR ceiling built in for this situation. A threefold breach of that ceiling removes the one safeguard attached to the mechanism that let this application exist without rezoning, setting a precedent for other unconstrained sites nearby.

I am asking the Department to require this proposal to comply with the Housing SEPP's benchmark, 9.5m, or 11.5m with fully screened roof plant, and an FSR of 0.5:1 for independent living units or 1:1 for residential care, rather than approving a threefold exceedance on merit. Any departure should be justified by a genuine site constraint, as at 1 Yarrabung Road, not by design or demand arguments that could apply to almost any site. I am also asking for a far more rigorous assessment of the proposal's impact on amenity, bulk and overlooking of the Alcove Apartments, with specific measures to minimise overlooking of our windows, balconies, courtyards and the walking loop, before any consent is granted. I am happy to provide further information if it would help.

Not a fan of this. There are so many better places to put this, why pick here?
The project:
1. is in a suburb with a maximum of 5 stories and is 8 stories.
2. will add extra traffic to the link road entry that already dangerously banks back down link road during school hours.
3. has entries via college crescent, a street not suited to the traffic.
4. no train station nearby.
5. bus and shops a long way away and up slopes not fit for elderly residents.
6. overlooks a school playground, security issues.
7. loss of open space for school children.
8. elderly have continual noise from the school below them.

Subject: Submission Regarding Montefiore Seniors Housing Development (SSD-98363228), St Ives

To Whom It May Concern,

I am writing to lodge an objection and express my concerns regarding the proposed Montefiore Seniors Housing development at 19-25 College Crescent and 9-15 Link Road, St Ives (SSD-98363228).

As a resident of Newhaven Place, directly opposite the existing development activity in the area, I am concerned about the cumulative impact this project will have on local residents and the surrounding community.

My primary concerns are:

Traffic Congestion and Road Safety

Link Road and the surrounding streets already experience significant traffic congestion, particularly during school drop-off and pick-up times associated with Masada College. In addition, there is a regular police and security presence on Link Road following security concerns arising from incidents that occurred in Sydney last year.

The proposed development will introduce substantial construction traffic during the building phase, followed by increased vehicle movements from residents, visitors, staff and service vehicles once operational. I am concerned that this additional traffic will further strain local roads, reduce safety for pedestrians and motorists, and increase delays in an area that is already heavily impacted.

Construction Noise

Residents in Newhaven Place are already experiencing disruption from the existing construction site opposite our homes. The addition of another major construction project nearby would result in prolonged periods of construction noise, significantly affecting residents' quality of life, including those working from home, families with young children, and elderly residents.

I am concerned that the cumulative noise impacts have not been adequately considered and that residents will be subjected to years of ongoing construction disturbance.

Dust and Air Quality

The demolition, excavation and bulk earthworks associated with the proposed development raise concerns regarding dust generation and air quality. Given our close proximity to the site, local residents may be exposed to increased dust levels for an extended period.

I request that strict dust suppression and monitoring measures be imposed to minimise impacts on neighbouring properties and to protect the health and wellbeing of residents.

Cumulative Impact on Local Residents

While I appreciate the need for additional seniors housing, I believe greater consideration should be given to the cumulative impact of overlapping developments occurring in the immediate area. Residents are already living alongside active construction works, and the addition of another large-scale project will place further pressure on local amenity, traffic conditions and environmental quality.

I respectfully request that the Department carefully consider these concerns and require comprehensive measures to minimise traffic, noise and dust impacts should the project proceed.

Thank you for considering my submission.

Summary
I object to this proposal. I support seniors’ housing, and I have nothing against the applicant. My objection is that this site, and the roads around it, cannot take a development this big.
My reasons, in short:
• Roads — the queue for the Stanley Street and Link Road roundabout already backs up along Stanley Street and north into Yarrabung Road on normal school days. My photos in Annexure A show this. College Crescent is a loop. It comes back out onto Yarrabung Road at two points and does not connect to any main road. So traffic from the two proposed College Crescent driveways has nowhere to go but into that queue.
• Everything else already on these streets — eleven major traffic generators sit within 1.4 km. Four schools, early learning and education centres, three aged care homes, a synagogue and community centre, and apartment blocks. A fourth aged care home, Opal St Ives Botanica, is already approved on Mona Vale Road and is being changed to more than 200 beds. Nobody has added all this up.
• Children’s safety — the Link Road entrance is understood to be shared with Masada College. That puts development traffic and school children at the same gate. Corpus Christi is on the same road. St Ives High School is on Yarrabung Road, where the queue reaches. Early learning centres open before school starts.
• Effect on people who live here, including health — longer and less predictable trips to school, work and appointments. More traffic noise on streets that are already loud. More strain on the twice-daily school run, already done in queued traffic with children crossing between parked cars. Exhaust fumes concentrated where cars sit idling rather than spread along the road. Night noise from ambulances, bin collection and rooftop machinery. Both air quality and noise are measured against health standards, not comfort standards. The people most affected are children at four schools and elderly residents at three nearby aged care homes.
• Height — five to eight storeys. Homes around the site are understood to have a 9.5 m height limit, about two storeys. The State planning rule for seniors’ housing also uses 9.5 m. Neither is a hard cap on this site, and that is the problem: nothing sets a height limit for this building at all.
• Building work — digging out two basement levels means years of trucks carting spoil past school gates.
• Trees and bushland — tree loss, no real deep soil above a basement that covers most of the site, effects on the Bedes Forest reserve next door, and overshadowing and privacy for neighbouring homes.
• Time to comment — fourteen days is not enough for a document this size.
I ask the Department to refuse this application as it stands, or to require a much smaller version and put it back on exhibition. At the very least, I ask for an independent review of the traffic study that adds up all the surrounding development, and for the exhibition period to be extended to twenty-eight days.

My full submission and dated traffic photos are attached.

Grounds for Objection:
1. Excessive Building Height and Unprecedented Bulk and Scale
Planning Precedent: The inclusion of two 9-storey towers represents an excessive departure from established local planning controls. Surrounding residential developments in St Ives (e.g., along Killeaton Street) strictly observe a maximum height limit of 4 to 5 storeys.

Character & Visual Impact: A 9-storey built form creates an intrusive visual element in a predominantly low-to-medium density residential envelope, setting a dangerous precedent for future spot-rezoning across the Ku-ring-gai LGA.

2. Loss of Public Open Space and Social Infrastructure
Loss of Green Space: The proposal redevelops a former school sports oval. In a suburb experiencing rapid residential growth, the permanent loss of open recreational space directly contradicts state and council policies aimed at maintaining urban canopy and accessible public amenities.

Overshadowing: The sheer bulk of the 9-storey structure poses significant overshadowing risks to adjacent recreational areas, including Bedes Forest park and surrounding residential allotments.

3. Traffic Congestion and Inadequate Transport Infrastructure
Traffic Network Capacity: Access via Link Road and College Crescent will heavily impact local traffic flow. Surrounding intersections (including Killeaton and Stanley Streets) already experience severe peak-hour bottlenecks.

Public Transport Access: The site is located outside the primary walking catchment of the St Ives Town Centre and heavy rail hubs, relying heavily on infrequent local bus services. This will inevitably increase private vehicle reliance for staff, visitors, and service contractors.

I support the addition of further seniors housing to this area and do not object broadly in principle to the proposal. But it needs to be improved:
1. It needs to show greater analysis of: * possible impact on existing turpentine trees in Bedes Forest - including from possible drainage changes; *possible effects of the project to potential users of proposed Bedes Forest park including its community garden. (Where will users park?); * possible impacts on traffic and parking in the very narrow College Crescent and its nearby intersections, especially if College Crescent continues to be used as pedestrian access for the school and for main pedestrian access to the new development; *potential impact on the privacy and outlook of inhabitants of apartments in the 6 storey apartment block immediately to the north of the site, all of whose apartments have habitable rooms facing the site.
2. Additionally, in proposing that the site no longer be an educational precinct, as has long been envisaged (from well before the formation of Masada College and going back to the time of NSW Dept Education ownership of the site), the proposal should demonstrate why the site is RESIDUAL to broader educational needs in the area. (There may example to be a shortage of early childhood education places in the area.)
3. Additionally, the proposal should provide for a wider open-space strip between its blocks C and D and the northern boundary of its site. The potential opportunity for Fire and Rescue Services to have vehicular access along that strip in an emergency should continue. It should be noted that double swing gates to the site exist at the north-east corner of the site allowing access from College Crescent. And that the fence between the Alcove complex and the Masada site is pierced by double gates. Historically the Alcove site, the Masada site and College Crescent and its housing sites were part of the Macquarie Farm site., having become separated by progressive subdivision. The SP87639 site to the north is very far distant from Killeaton St, and has no vehicular access to its southern boundary. It has always been a reasonable expectation of occupiers of its apartments, that in case of major fire emergency in the south of SP87639, it would be possible for Fire and Emergency Services to reach the southern extremity of the SP877639 site via College Crescent, along the historically-open area along the northern boundary of the existing Masada site. That potential access would be of benefit not only to buildings in the southern extremity of the SP87639 to Blocks C and D of the proposed Montefiore complex. The current Montefiore plans should be amended to allow for potential emergency vehicle access along the northern boundary of the site.
4. The proposal should provide for a greater number of parking spaces than is currently provided for. Many of the ILU resident can be presumed to be vehicle owners; and the visitor parking within the complex can be assumed to be in high demand. Therefore, the number of parking spaces provided should be considerably increased.

Dear Sir/Madam,
I am writing as a resident of Stanley Street, St Ives, to formally object to the proposed State Significant Development for seniors housing at 19–25 College Crescent, St Ives.
I support the provision of appropriate seniors housing within our community. However, the scale, height, density and location of this proposal are excessive and incompatible with the surrounding residential neighbourhood.
The proposal involves four buildings ranging from five to nine storeys, approximately 143 independent living units, 52 residential care beds and basement parking for approximately 251 vehicles. Vehicular and pedestrian access is proposed from both Link Road and College Crescent. The concept plans also show multiple buildings of up to eight and nine storeys across the site.
1. Excessive height, bulk and scale
Buildings of up to nine storeys would represent a significant overdevelopment of this site. The proposal would introduce a large institutional and apartment-style development immediately adjacent to an established area containing predominantly detached homes.
The applicant’s own report recognises that large detached houses are located along Stanley Street and Lancaster Avenue. Despite this context, the proposal seeks to rely on the absence of a mapped maximum height and floor-space-ratio control, with the development instead being assessed on merit. The absence of mapped controls should not be interpreted as permission for unrestricted height or density.
The proposed buildings should be substantially reduced in height, bulk and overall floor area, with a more appropriate transition toward the lower-density homes to the south and east.
2. Visual impact and loss of neighbourhood character
The proposed development would fundamentally change the visual character of this part of St Ives. Buildings of five to nine storeys would be highly visible from surrounding streets and residences, particularly given the elevated position and substantial building envelopes.
The applicant states that landscaping and existing topography would reduce the visibility of the taller buildings. However, landscaping cannot adequately screen buildings of this scale, particularly during the early years after construction or during winter months.
A comprehensive visual impact assessment should include verified photomontages from Stanley Street, Lancaster Avenue, College Crescent and nearby residential properties. The assessment should consider both short-term and long-term impacts rather than assuming that future landscaping will fully screen the development.
3. Traffic, parking and road safety
The development would generate substantial additional traffic from residents, staff, visitors, service vehicles, deliveries, waste collection and emergency vehicles. The proposed 251 parking spaces demonstrate the intensity of the development.
Stanley Street and the surrounding local road network already experience traffic associated with nearby schools, residential developments, community facilities and St Ives Shopping Village. The cumulative impact must be considered, particularly during morning and afternoon school periods.
The Traffic Impact Assessment should address:
traffic movements during school arrival and departure periods;
impacts on Stanley Street, College Crescent, Link Road and surrounding intersections;
pedestrian safety, particularly for school children and elderly residents;
queuing at basement entrances and drop-off areas;
ambulance, service, delivery and waste-collection movements;
cumulative traffic from other approved or proposed developments in St Ives; and
the risk of overflow parking in surrounding residential streets.
The applicant’s scoping report confirms that future traffic conditions, parking, road capacity and pedestrian and cycling routes still require detailed assessment. No approval should be granted until these impacts have been independently and transparently assessed.
4. Overshadowing, privacy and residential amenity
The height and proximity of the proposed buildings raise serious concerns regarding overshadowing, overlooking, loss of privacy, increased noise and loss of outlook for nearby residents.
The concept plans include numerous apartments, communal facilities, terraces, balconies, gardens, a swimming pool, gym, club lounge and other activity areas. These uses may generate noise and overlooking beyond normal residential expectations, particularly during evenings and weekends.
Detailed shadow diagrams must be provided for the winter solstice and other representative times of the year. They should clearly show impacts on surrounding homes, private open spaces, gardens and streets. Privacy assessments should also include direct sightline diagrams from apartments, balconies, communal areas and upper-level terraces toward nearby residences.
5. Construction impacts
A project of this size would involve extensive demolition, excavation, basement construction and heavy-vehicle movements over a prolonged period. The likely impacts include construction noise, vibration, dust, traffic congestion, road damage and safety risks.
The applicant proposes basement parking and substantial excavation, while acknowledging that noise, vibration, geotechnical conditions, waste and contamination require further assessment.
A detailed Construction Environmental Management Plan should be publicly exhibited before any approval is granted. Heavy construction vehicles should not be permitted to travel through Stanley Street or other narrow residential roads where safer alternatives are available.
6. Biodiversity, tree removal and landscaping
The site contains established vegetation, and parts of the site are identified as having biodiversity value. The applicant acknowledges that portions of the site are mapped as high biodiversity value and that a Biodiversity Development Assessment Report will be required.
The proposal should prioritise the retention of mature trees, genuine deep-soil planting and protection of local habitat. Landscaping should not be used merely as a visual justification for excessive building height. Any tree removal, excavation within root zones or impacts on biodiversity corridors should be independently reviewed.
7. Cumulative social and infrastructure impacts
A development of approximately 143 independent living units and 52 care beds would create a significant increase in population, staffing requirements and demand for local services. The assessment must consider cumulative impacts on health services, emergency response capacity, road infrastructure, public transport and community facilities.
The applicant has indicated that a Social Impact Assessment will be prepared. This assessment must include meaningful consultation with nearby residents and should not focus only on the benefits of additional seniors housing while minimising the adverse impacts on the existing community.
Requested outcome
I respectfully request that the consent authority:
refuse the development in its current form; or
require a substantially redesigned proposal with significantly reduced height, density and building bulk;
provide greater setbacks and landscaped separation from surrounding residential properties;
require independent traffic, visual, overshadowing, privacy, biodiversity and social-impact assessments;
ensure that all assessments consider cumulative impacts from existing and proposed developments in the St Ives area; and
undertake genuine consultation with Stanley Street residents and the wider local community before determining the application.
The community’s objection is not to seniors housing as a land use. The concern is that the proposed scale and intensity are inappropriate for this particular site and would impose unreasonable and permanent impacts on surrounding residents.
Please record this letter as a formal objection and keep me informed of all future exhibition periods, amendments, meetings and determinations relating to the proposal.

Submission - Proposed Senior Living Development – Masada College Oval
I am writing as a long-term resident of St Ives to submit a formal objection regarding the proposed
senior living development on the Masada College oval. I have lived here for 57 years and have
watched as the last three Aged Care Developments have happened within cooee of each other, BUT
no better infrastructure has been has been given to the area to make the traffic flow more smoothly.
The Developer’s Scoping Plan indicates that a Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA) has been deferred “to
a later stage.” Given the scale of this project, it is impossible to assess the merits of this application in
isolation from its transport impacts. A comprehensive TIA must be supplied and exhibited for public
comment before any determination is made.
The application presents several critical deficiencies that must be addressed:
1. Traffic, Access, and Transport Distribution
• Concentration of Residential Traffic: The Link Road entrance appears to facilitate access only
to the recreational building. Consequently, all vehicular traffic generated by the 126
Independent Living Units will be funnelled exclusively onto College Crescent, a minor
residential street ill-equipped for this volume.
• Network Congestion: The development will cause an unquantified increase in traffic volumes
and delays on surrounding feeder roads, specifically Stanley Street, Yarrabung Road, and
Killeaton Street, in addition to Link Road.
• Restricted Vehicular Access: Northbound vehicles cannot execute a direct turn into the
facility from Link Road. The application fails to address the impact of these vehicles obtaining
access to Link Road entrance via minor residential streets upon those residential streets.
• On-Site Parking Adequacy: The application lacks evidence to prove that the proposed
basement parking layout is sufficient to accommodate peak demand from residents, visitors,
staff, and health practitioners without overflowing onto local streets.
• Absence of Traffic Mitigation Infrastructure: The proposal fails to identify or fund necessary
intersection and pedestrian upgrades—such as traffic signals, roundabouts, or dedicated
pedestrian crossings—required to manage the altered traffic flow safely.
2. Displacement of School Infrastructure
• Loss of Student Set-Down Zone: College Crescent currently functions as a safe student dropoff
and pick-up zone for Masada College. The development completely displaces this
infrastructure without identifying an alternative, safe, and legally compliant set-down zone
for the school community.
3. Loss of Open Space and Environmental Amenity
• Deficit in Educational Recreational Space: The development is situated entirely over Masada
College’s active sports oval. The application remains silent on where students will be
relocated to carry out mandatory physical education curricula and recreational activities.
• Urban Heat Island Effect: The grassed oval serves as a vital suburban "green lung" for St Ives.
Replacing this extensive natural turf with non-porous concrete and asphalt structures will
permanently remove the site's natural cooling capacity, driving up ambient temperatures for
adjacent residential properties.

Please find below my comments on reduction of-the mass of the Masada development from the Alcove perspective.

I have also attached a few photos from our balcony.

I am writing as a resident and owner on the top floor (4th floor) of the Alcove apartments, 132 -138 Killeaton Street, St Ives which is directly adjacent to the proposed seniors living and residential development at the Masada College site.

While I recognize the general community need for aged care facilities, I strongly object to the current proposed scale, height, and density of this development. Constructing high-rise residential towers (up to 7 or 8 levels and 140+ units and aged care facilities) on a footprint of this size creates an unacceptable impact on neighbouring properties and the surrounding infrastructure.

Specifically, I raise formal objections on the following three grounds:

1. Severe Loss of Solar Access & Natural Light

Our residential unit is located on the top level 4 (5th floor), with our living areas and main windows directly facing south toward the proposed development site. The sheer vertical mass and height of the proposed multi-storey buildings will completely block our direct and indirect natural sunlight. South-facing light is critical to the liveability, thermal performance, and amenity of our home. Shadowing from towers of this height directly adjacent to our building will permanently cast our residence in shadow, drastically lowering our quality of living.

2. Unacceptable Loss of Privacy & Visual Dominance

The height and density of the proposed development create an extreme visual disparity when set alongside existing 4 or 5-storey residential structures and surrounding low-density properties. Because of the minimal setback and close physical proximity between our building and the proposed towers, our home will suffer from direct, elevated sightlines overlooking our private living spaces and balconies. This creates a severe loss of privacy and a sense of visual enclosure/overbearing bulk that is completely out of character with the St Ives area.

3. Traffic Density, Congestion, and Emergency Vehicle Movements

The local road network around College Crescent and Link Road is already constrained, particularly during school drop-off/pick-up hours and peak traffic periods. Adding over 140 residential units, a nursing facility, staff, visitors, and service delivery vehicles will severely exacerbate traffic congestion.
Please find attached the photos taken from our balcony for your consideration.
Thank you

Regards,

I have two concerns that don't appear to have been considered in the attachments available on the Major Projects Website:

1. The impact of traffic using College Crescent to access the site. This concern is based on my experience of the number of near misses seen, and personally experienced, at both access points to College Crescent. These do not seem to be reflected in the traffic study (understandably since there is unlikely to be a record of them). These near misses appear to be driven by the topography of Yarrabung Road at both of these intersection points, where visibility from College Cresent in both cases is limited by the crest of a hill. Traffic turning right out of College Crescent at both intersections has its visibility reduced due to these crests. Vehicles turning right from College Crescent opposite Carcoola Road have very limited visibility for traffic approaching from the right, and vehicles turning right from College Crescent opposite Catherine Street have no visibility of traffic at the bottom of the crest approaching from the right, and limited visibility of traffic approaching from the left. I have had to use evasive action to avoid accidents at both of these intersections a number of times. It is likely that as the traffic increases on these roads these near misses will turn into accidents, especially if the drivers do not have experience with these intersections and are therefore unaware of the need to take caution due to these crests.

2. The proximity of this traffic to the new public open space development of Bedes Forest, which is currently under construction on the site between College Crescent and Stanley Street, bordered by Yarrabung Road (https://www.krg.nsw.gov.au/files/assets/public/v/1/hptrim/information-management-publications-public-website-ku-ring-gai-council-website-planning-and-development/bedes-forest-expansion-final-concept-plan.pdf). I can find no reference to this new park in the documents that I viewed. It is likely that this park will increase the number of young children near College Crescent, increasing the risk of a pedestrian accident at the same time that the traffic flow will be increased. The park will also contribute to increased traffic in the area, which does not seem to have been incorporated into the traffic plan attached to this development.

I would like to see an update to the documentation taking into account these two factors. In my opinion this should include an analysis of the two intersections with College Crescent taking into account the topography of Yarrabung Road, and a revision of any access and traffic assumptions to include the impacts associated with the Bedes Forest development given its proximity to the site.

I object to the project