Opal St Ives Care Community

Good afternoon Stephen,

Please find attached Council's objection to Opal St Ives Care Community (SSD-48028209).

Kind Regards

Luke Donovan
Executive assessment Officer
Ku-ring-gai Council

To whom it may concern,

I object to the proposed Opal St Ives Care Community on the following basis:
1. Mona Vale Road, St Ives currently already has a very high level of noise pollution being a major road connecting the northern beaches. The construction of the proposed project will make the noise level even worse to a point that severely impacts residents quality of living.
2. The commercial operation of the proposed project will change the character of the community, which is supposed to be residential.
3. The establishment of an aged care facility will negatively impact on property value. Given the high interest rate environment, the proposed project will erode home owners' equity in their homes, which could put people under severe financial duress.

Noting the above, I would appreciate if you could seriously consider the refusal of the proposed project.

Thanks and Regards,
Bella

Please find attached my letter of objections to SSD-48028209

The northern edge of my property where my patio, dining, bathroom, living and bedroom is directly impacted by Opal. The setback is at the minimum 3m on my rear boundary. Within 10m of my living areas there will be a major driveway, turntable, steep ramp with 24hr traffic, 3 sets of fire exits (and what appears a gathering area), a staff outdoor walkway and garbage facilities. On my rear fence there are commercial kitchens, dining facilities, sculleries and an open recreational deck facing towards me. The lift lobby with floor to ceiling windows is 3m from my deck and will look directly onto me as though I am entertainment. This is exceptionally poor planning.
I feel that the proponent has deliberately removed any reference to visual impacts to or from my property at the rear corner of 283 because it is so terribly planned. The solar access study shows my whole outdoor area in deep shadow in Winter. As a keen all year gardener I find this egregious, particularly knowing that everybody will also be able to look down into my yard from the lobby (and possibly from balconies and corridors overlooking my property). The proponent has not made this clear, but all readings of the plans indisputably demonstrate a significant impact. Yet the report says there are no significant impacts, but does not consider the entirety of 283 in these studies. That cannot be an error. I bought this property 20 years ago because of the sunlight and privacy. I should by rights be given full information on how I will be affected by oversighting and loss of light and have the opportunity to respond to that, and no decision should be made until I am afforded that opportunity. The proponent declined to provide such information when requested. I can provide emails on request.
Noise impacts are similarly avoided. My property will not only have the lift lobby with glass separating all the commercial activity from my residence by a measly 3m, it also has a large mechanical services structure immediately behind the lift shaft (which exceeds the height limits) which is likely to shed noise directly to me, as well as casting shadow. I should clearly know how much commercial noise, and at what times, I will be subject specifically to my dwelling. The use of averages is misleading.
Having full storey windows directly onto my property on both sides, corridors, lobbies, driveways, 24hr access pathways, emergency exits, kitchens preparing breakfast, through to supper, I believe there will be light spill into my property, possibly for all dark hours all year. This is insufferable, and the proponent must be caused to mitigate against this. It is unclear from the many pages of designs whether any thought has been given to protecting me from this light. In 20 years I have not required blinds for my living areas. Why should the proponent have the right to significantly change how I live?
My property is a simple slab construction, on relatively unstable earth from the what the original builder said. There will be major excavations on both sides of my property. I request that a full dilapidation study be undertaken as proposed by our Body Corporate, by an independent and fully insured provider and that periodic inspections occur during excavation, construction and for a minimum of 6 months post completion. I also request that a condition that there is a clear path for remediation, given the project manager insinuated that such issues would be for his sub-contractors. I am an elderly person and I should not be required to chase multiple sub-contractors, who I will not know or have any information about.
The planting that is proposed on the common area boundary on the Opal side is shown as a low hedge. I currently cannot see the two storey house next door in my private paradise. Now I expect I will be in an overlooked prison. Part of this could be off-set my requiring the proponent to put in mature (min 2.5m) planting along the northern boundary. The plants currently there do a good job, they could even save money by retaining the planting.
In conclusion I am distraught that such an enormous impact will be inflicted upon me. The development is more than 20 per cent oversized for the plot according to the proponent. If it scaled it back such that the lobby and lift well could be set back to the 10 m mark, as it has with other buildings on the rear boundary, a large part of the loss of light, loss of privacy, light spill and noise would be resolved to a tolerable level.
Despite the "consultation", the proponent made many promises but did not follow through (including providing drawings showing what we would see from our living and outdoor areas). Unless the Commissioner either rejects the proposal for being too big, or conditions changes to make it less diabolical, I have zero trust that Opal can be held to account.
I implore you to make decisions in existing resident interest, not just in favour of more development. The proposal is overeach, exceeds controls and demonstrably significantly impacts on my quality of life, amenity and access to natural light.

Summary: The Body Corporate of 283 Mona Vale Rd objects to the proposal due to the impacts on liveability, solar access, noise, that the project is 23 per cent more dense than the DCP allows, creates significant traffic including heavy service vehicles, contains additional businesses that are not related to housing as per the planning approval and that elements of the submission are deliberately misleading.
 
The Body Corporate represents six separate dwellings on a previous single dwelling block.
When completed 20 years ago this density was considered medium, and was of concern to
neighbouring residents, but proved attractive to down-sizer over-55 households. Similar
developments have followed, including medium sized unit developments on the other side of
Mona Vale Rd which are considered high density in the local planning controls. 
 
In comparison the proposed Opal development could not be considered a medium-density
development and would likely exceed requirements for approval as a high-density
development.
In fact, it is hard to understand how it can be seen as a housing development.
Opal boasts it will contain both a coffee shop and large scale, public therapy businesses open to the public, which are
businesses not typically approved to operate from a home. There is a very large reception and administration
wing, again atypical of a housing development. It is so large it requires its own power
substation, not typical for a medium density development.
The Development is by Opal’s own admission is nearly 25 per cent denser than the threshold
for the site and as a result pushes right to our boundary and completely overshadows some
residences.
There are hundreds of square metres of corridors across, multiple commercial kitchens (not in
a dwelling, but serving like a restaurant) and cleaning facilities. There are multiple fire exits,
far more than those typically required in a medium density development. It is a blight on the
environment we enjoy.
St Ives does have many care facilities dotted around. They are typically smaller. But more
importantly, they are typically located on corners or with better setbacks to enable light
penetration and minimise noise. They do not typically get placed between existing residential
housing so close to the fence line.
The positioning of the proposed Opal development is detrimental to the local environment, is
ridiculously over-sized, exceeds allowable local Council guidelines and thus be disallowed.
With the proposed 2 commercial outlets as well as the increased number of vehicles
associated with the development, it will compromise the confluence of traffic onto Mona Vale
Road and endanger pedestrian and traffic flow. The traffic management plan lays out in detail a significant increase in traffic, but having observed similar operations locally, we are very concerned that the numbers are understated and do not align with the new traffic generation guidelines released by Transport for NSW.
 If the proposal proceeds it should be significantly conditioned to protect the amenity and
enjoyment of life of existing residents. We note that the proponent spent significant time
advising residents of how well they were going to look after their aged care clients by
creating outdoor spaces, giving them solar access and making sure they had a quiet and
peaceful environment. That is to be achieved by removing those things from 283 Mona Vale
Road.

We highlight that the Visual Impact Assessment is deliberately misleading. It makes no assessment from our property of the visual impacts at all, but rather from the elevated balcony of the property next door, which is not affected at all. However, looking from the living, garden and shared areas of our property we will have significant visual impact, overnighting and overshadowing. There is more attention paid to the effect on the church across the six lane highway at the front than from our immediate bordering property.
 
 Units 1-4 and Unit 6 will have a loss of amenity created by
o Significant intrusive noise from the operation of this commercial
business. Deliveries, 24 hour staffing rosters with three daily shifts
seven days per week, daily commercial waste removal and linen
services, daily food deliveries, daily visitors - all via a large, wide,
significantly graded driveway to an underground car park
immediately behind these houses. The proponent believes this is
mitigated by a vertical noise wall (of unspecified material or acoustic
performance) to the top of our property fence line. The development
should be conditioned such that the driveway is covered right to the entrance to reduce
noise intrusion, or the design revert to the original where the
driveway was not aligned with our property boundary. While we
acknowledge the design now includes a turntable to eliminate
reversing trucks, the noise of waste and delivery trucks navigating
the steep ramp (and the exhaust smell) will be horrific. 
o Solar access will be lost or affected significantly between mid-May and
end August. Any approval should be conditional on Winter months solar access being loss in particular being limited. The loss of
natural light for both the outdoor areas and dwellings is significant in the most lived in and used areas of the dwellings. The proponent should be required to set the development
further back, and lower the roof height (including mechanical
services) such that solar access is maintained, particularly for
residences 4 and 6.
o Privacy is impacted by a variety of outdoor recreation areas for Opal
clients, glass walled corridors, sitting rooms and even glass walled lift lobbies
overlooking properties. These will greatly reduce enjoyment of the
garden areas, and for Unit 4 will remove privacy for most of the
property. The proponent should be required to significantly reduce
overlooking opportunities.
o Commercial businesses should be disallowed and removed from the
proposal, even if the residential components are allowed.
o The proposal is both close to the fence line, but also has pedestrian
and vehicle access (and both in some cases) adjacent to the fence contained in the setback.
As this is a 24 hr facility and also houses at risk individuals with high
dementia needs who seek to escape all of the outdoor areas will
have to be lit. There is potential for light spill into all adjacent
dwellings on our property and this should be conditioned to be
prohibited.
 Construction risk:
o Our property is a combination of slab on top of garage and slab on
ground. The foundations are less than 6 metres from the deep driveway excavation and piling on
one side and less than 3 metres from deep retaining walls on the
other side. A much smaller excavation for a commercial development
a few doors down has recently collapsed due to the abnormal
weather conditions. The risk to our property is significant. Prior to
lodgement during consultation the project manager agreed verbally
to a full, independent dilapidation report. Approval conditions, should
approval be granted include:
 An independent and qualified expert to undertake a full visual
media dilapidation report at least one month prior to any
excavation on site; post excavation within 100m of all property
boundaries; post any piling or retaining within 100m of our
property; post any positioning of a crane within 100m of the
property; and post the completion of all pouring of slabs,
retaining walls and structures. 
 The visual reports be completed within 7 days of each activity.
With one exception, after completion of all pouring of slabs,
retaining walls and structures, the inspection should occur
after 90 days and 180 days, to allow for settlement.
 All such reports should be provided via Email to the body corporate within these
timeframes.
 A nominated person(s) with telephone and email contacts be
provided by the proponent with whom to raise any concerns of
damage and to negotiate mitigation.

o Fences
 The fences of our property back onto a proposed narrow strip of
planting that is to be provided following construction, or onto
new retaining structures, but which are adjacent to the major
excavation. If the application is granted approval, it should be
conditional on the proponent replacing any damaged fencing,
including sagging, bowing or failure, at its own cost within 21
days of such damage being sustained.

Any fences which pose a security risk because they are easily scaled by dementia residents should be replaced.
o Planting
 The proponent has a somewhat haphazard approach to planting
and understanding effects of planting. For example, between the
dwellings 1-4 an 4/6 on the fence line there is no indication of
the maturity or type of plants that will be used to replace the
significant, up to 6 metre trees, with a couple of exceptions. This
mature planting is a significant noise and visual intrusion
mitigation. On the other hand, where totally inappropriate with
services in the ground and right on property boundaries, fast
growing gum trees with a propensity for dropping limbs are
proposed to replace mature, safe trees. The proponent should
be conditioned to plant mature shrubs along the entire border
and not plant trees that are likely to cause damage to services
and joint property.

 Wildlife protection:
o There is bandicoot and possum scat and digging evidence throughout
the gardens of 283 Mona Vale Rd. Given the small property garden
size it is highly likely that the native wildlife has a refuge on the long
adjoining driveway of the development site, which is currently very
well planted and protected. Any development approval should be
conditional on a full inspection and appropriate protection,
particularly for the bandicoot population.
o There are a wide variety of plantings that include native species. An
independent horticultural certification should be undertaken to
identify what can and should be conserved, rather than the ad hoc
approach that the proponent seems to have adopted.

On behalf of the Owners corporation SP85525 we are writing to formally object to the proposed development plan for a residential care facility at 285, 287, 287A, 289 Mona Vale Road & 1 Flinders Avenue, St Ives. As concerned residents of the community, we believe this development would have significant adverse effects on the surrounding area and its residents.
Below are the reasons for objecting to this proposal:
1. Traffic and Parking Concerns: The current infrastructure in our neighbourhood is not equipped to handle the increased traffic that would be generated by another residential care facility. This could lead to congestion, safety hazards, and inconvenience for local residents, noting Mona Vale Rd is already busy enough as it currently is.
2. Noise and Disruption: A residential care facility typically operates around the clock, potentially introducing constant noise and disturbance to Mona Vale Rd, the traffic of which has already created a high level of noise pollution impacting the neighbourhood. Some residents have measured the noise level from the Mona Vale Rd which has well exceeded 70 decibels. This is not considered safe for prolonged human exposure. The planned construction of this facility is estimated to take 24-36 months to complete which would be a massive disruption to surrounding residents. With excavation works, construction works, heavy vehicle transport and heavy machinery this would significantly increase noise levels, creating an unacceptable noise environment for current residents.
3. Impact on Property Values: There is concern among residents that the presence of a care facility could negatively impact property values in the area. This is a significant concern for homeowners and should be carefully considered.
4. Community Character: Our neighbourhood is predominantly residential, and the introduction of a commercial-style facility could alter the character and ambiance that drew residents to this area in the first place.
5. Insufficient Community Consultation: Many residents, feel that there has been insufficient consultation and communication regarding this development proposal. The letter dated the 24th of May is the first correspondence we have received. Important decisions that affect the community should involve transparent and inclusive consultation processes.
6. Alternative Locations: It is worth exploring alternative locations that may be more suitable for a residential care facility, such as areas with existing commercial zoning or better infrastructure to support such facilities. i.e. Non-Residential.
7. Fence Line Buffer: The plans indicated the development to be dominating with only a 3-metre buffer to the fence line in many areas which will impact significantly on current homes
8. Land Zoning: A commercial operation in a residential zone will generate a lot of extra driveway traffic on a road that is marked a clearway for most of the day.
9. Development Objectives: The state government has an ambitious plan to create more affordable housing in the short term. This development does not fall into that category and should it be approved would be a drain on valuable and necessary resources in the current climate with shortage of labour and materials.
The letter attached outlines detailed reasons for objecting to this proposal.

We are the owners of 6 Flinders Ave St Ives and outline our objections, request for corrections and revisions as well as more information in the submitted pdf file: SSD-48028209-Objections-6 Flinders Ave

object to the proposal because:

Unit 3 will have a loss of amenity created by
Significant intrusive noise from the operation of a 145 bed commercial business, requiring deliveries, staff change-over, visitor access, waste removal and linen services all via a large, uncovered driveway behind my property boundary. The proposed mitigation of a vertical noise wall to the top of my fence line is insufficient to stop this noise impact. The driveway should be covered.
Solar access will be inhibited, especially in Winter months. The Commission should require a full solar access impact statement for Winter months and ensure my right to sufficient light to maintain my outdoor area and quality of life created by accessing that outdoor area are maintained. It should then determine if the proposal can proceed, and if it does, condition such that solar access is maintained.
Privacy is impacted by a sitting room with windows over-looking my property. This should be conditioned to have external louvres such that residents cannot look into my back yard, or be disallowed.
Construction risk:
My property is a double brick construction on a concrete slab and foundation. The foundation is less than 6 metres from the significant excavation and piling required to create the subterranean delivery and service dock and carpark entrance. A much smaller excavation for a commercial development a few doors down has recently collapsed due to the abnormal weather conditions. The risk to my property is significant. During discussions with the proponent prior to lodgement the project manager agreed verbally to a full, independent dilapidation report prior and during construction. I request as a condition of approval, should approval be granted that:
A full visual dilapidation report be carried out by an independent and qualified expert at least one month prior to any excavation on site; post excavation within 100m of my boundary; post any piling or retaining within 100m of my property; post any positioning of a crane within 100m of my property; post the completion of all pouring of slabs, retaining walls and structures.
The visual reports be completed within 7 days of each activity other than completion of all pouring of slabs, retaining walls and structures, which should occur 90 days after such completion to allow for settlement.
All such reports should be provided via Email to me within these timeframes.
A nominated person(s) with telephone and email contacts be provided by the proponent with whom to raise any concerns of damage and to negotiate mitigation.
Fence
The fence of my property backs onto a narrow strip of planting that is to provided following construction, but which is adjacent to the major excavation. If the application is granted approval it should be conditional on the proponent replacing any damaged fencing, including sagging, bowing or failure, at its own cost within 21 days of such damage being sustained.
Wildlife protection:
There is scat and digging evidence on and near my property of both bandicoots and possums. Given the very restricted size of my property and my fellow 283 neighbours it is highly likely that the native wildlife has a refuge on the long adjoining driveway which is currently very well planted and protected. Any development approval should be conditional on a full inspection and appropriate protection, particularly for the bandicoot population.

In conclusion I note that my property is one of six on a previous single dwelling block. At the time of its construction this density was considered medium, and was of concern to neighbouring residents. Similar developments have followed down the road and this has provided much needed housing and downsizing opportunities for the area. The proposed development could not in any normal meaning of the word be considered a medium density development. In the space we have for six dwellings there will be more than 80 residents. Nor could it reasonably be considered a housing development. It has a coffee shop, a large reception and administration wing, an ambulance bay, its own power substation, hundreds of square metres of blank walls and corridors across three levels, multiple commercial kitchens and cleaning facilities and multiple fire exits. It is significantly over scale for the environment. Other aged care facilities in the area are either on corners or on islands, not sandwiched between residential housing. It is totally inappropriate for the environment and should be disallowed.

First of all, after it is built, it will block part of our garden view and darken our kitchen, dmged our view.
The level of our backyard is quite low, if there exists a 3 levels building, we can barely see the sky above the trees. After that, in our garden, there will be mainly a 3 levels building appeared in our sight which is not acceptable for us.
Secondly, it will also lower the price of our house. which buyer will purchase a house with ugly blocked backyard view?
Also, we have increasing retire village nearby these years. Too many irrelevant people come near our home. Originally we have a quiet, peaceful and almost no-crime community. Now I heard heaps of breaking-in and robbing and stealing appeared near our home lately.
Last but not least, after building the retire apt, there will be many cars parking and coming and going around it. The noise and the gas pollution will be quite heavy. It apparently will make our life worse, not mentioning affect our family members, especially health of our children and elders'.
For the sake of our peaceful community and our safety, we firmly object the planning of building retire apartment near our home so close. For it will damage the quality of our current life heavily.

Thanks for checking our opinion. Really appreciate it.

This development is far more intensive than comparable or expected residential facilities, comprising major loading docks, commercial kitchen facilities, 24hr operation with 3 staff shifts and is of a scale that does not fit with the character of the area, including the numerous nearby aged care facilities.
It adjoins my property requiring a retaining wall for subterranean construction.
It has 3 fire stair exits directly onto my property boundary.
It will block almost all morning sun during winter rendering our outdoors area uninhabitable - but which is a currently a highlight of living here. I have just installed solar and the contractor determined from the applicant drawing that 50 per cent of our available solar access will be removed, so we had to go with a much smaller system to mitigate against wasted investment.
There are kitchen and scullery vents in the direction of our house from which there is potential harsh noise and unpleasant odours. These should be conditioned to vent only to the roof.
We will be overshadowed and overlooked:
There is an outdoor recreation deck for multiple residences that is opposite our dining area which will potentially create extensive noise. We were assured by the developer in discussion that there would only be internal courtyards and communal areas.
The corridors adjacent to our property and that of Number 4 include windows that will overlook our property, and particularly our outdoor area and living room (from corridor and lift well).
The three storey structure along the majority of our boundary is solid and flat masonry. This will create an acoustically harsh space. There are no soft elements proposed to soften this noise, even though it is a walkway and appears to be a service access as well as a fire exit. We were told by the proponent that this area is for high needs dementia patients, so if they are exiting the fire stairs it is assumed that this will also be the secure gathering point. This requires conditioning at a minimum to include sufficient planting to soften the noise impacts and that no fire drills occur before 8am and after 6pm (although double glazing on the five effected glazing would be more appropriate).
Given that there will be deep excavation along the entire boundary within 1m of the boundary and less than 3m from our foundations t is requested that if the project proceeds a full and independent dilapidation report (including photos) of our property be undertaken prior to commencement and then regular monitoring be undertaken (particularly at excavation, piling and retaining phases). This was agreed verbally by the Project Manager during consultation. It is requested that this be a consent condition.
It is noted that the mechanical services structures are above the maximum allowable height limit and will contribute significantly to the loss of solar access. These should be on the other side of the property so that they do not cast shadows at the least, although it would be better if the entire development was within the approved height limit.
Finally, it is noted that the proponent only contacted us after we chased them. They were not proactive in contacting us at all. If it hadn't been for our neighbours alerting us we would have been unaware until the Department letter arrived.

The Visual Impact Assessment does not include any point of view from 287 Mona Vale Road, which is the neighbour which will be most overlooked and overshadowed. Nor does it include any view impact to the rear of 287, even though that is the most significant impact of the development.

This is misleading at the least. To say all impacts are low or negligible from a property behind the neighbouring property is almost pointless. From our rear deck we will see nothing but 2.5 storeys of Opal, and my neighbour unit (4), will get no sunlight until nearly midday in Winter.

The VIA should be commissioned to look at the effects on the most affected immediate neighbours before any decision is made, with the ability of affected residents to review the updated report.

I wish to submit the following concerns based on my study of the provided plans as well as on limited discussions with Opal representatives.
I have voiced strong objections for this development. as the parcel of land is too small and congested for the Magnitude of dwellings, residents and traffic it proposes
I am aware and conscious of the need for Aged Care housing in Ku-ring-gai, and the current concentration in St Ives in particular, altering the character of the suburb from a typical 'mixed suburban community' into an 'Aged Care Hub'! Further, THIS development (a commercial undertaking) squeezed in between residential homes.
The Shadow Diagrams cause me great concern! The dwellings, 2 and 3 storey buildings, severely overshadow my living spaces, removing all existing planting which screens me at present , but DOES NOT limit winter sun access all day. RETENTION OF EXISTING PLANTING WAS PROMISED!
TRAFFIC Inspection of the proposed traffic pattern shows that Maximum noise will be generated adjacent to the mutual boundary, including the turning area of large vehicles noting the traffic volume and noise will be maximal at this point. The projection of cars, motorbikes, minibus, staff enterin and exiting 3x shifts, ALL on a driveway once used by family cars only! No consideration for existing residents' concerns.
The proposal to erect acoustic fencing is not fully documented re materials used for maximum efficiency in noise control, materials used and aesthetics
The proposal promised an Independent Dilapidation Report by an expert, that would include Visual Records for all residents of 283 Mona Vale Rd.

In Conclusion, I chose 283 Mona Vale Rd to be my current and future, comfortable home, carefully designed for 'Over 55' year old residents. The tress, plantings provide screens for privacy from immediate neighbours, protected all year solar access to all my indoor and outdoor spaces, with no overlooking nor overshadowing.
THIS Developmnent will have only NEGATIVE impacts on my current much valued home and life style!

St Ives already has 4 huge aged care centres.and so many over 55 residential projects. and I dont think the neighbourhood benefits another one.

Dainton Avenue is the main feeding road into the Flinders Avenue Cul de Sac.
It is extremely narrow with no paved sidewalks. Prior experience with the construction sites at Killeton St/Yarrabung Road was that construction worker cars were parked on both sides of Dainton Avenue causing dangerous situations for women pushing prams, people walking dogs, cyclists and general traffic where one car only could pass at a time in either direction.
With the construction of the Opal Health Care development, construction truck traffic, and workers parking in Dainton Avenue will most certainly create extremely dangerous conditions for residents exiting driveways, mothers frequently pushing prams and general domestic vehicle traffic. See attached image
I therefore request that parking is restricted by implementing "No Parking" on Dainton Avenue during Monday to Saturday working hours. (If not on both sides of the road then at a minimum on one side of Dainton Avenue). There is adequate parking on Flinders Avenue which is a far wider road and construction traffic along Dainton Avenue will most certainly result in an accident occuring