Opal St Ives Care Community Mod 1 Section 4.55(2)

I object to this development due to its ongoing and unacceptable impacts on residential amenity, safety, privacy and neighbourhood character.

1.Access from Flinders Avenue
I strongly object to any door, gate or access being provided onto Flinders Avenue. Any such access will inevitably be used by staff, visitors or service vehicles, increasing traffic, parking and safety risks within the cul-de-sac.
If access is legally required, it must be strictly limited to emergency use only and expressly conditioned to prevent any day-to-day use.

2.Landscaping, Tree Retention and Setbacks
The reduced setback and loss of landscaping along Flinders Avenue are unacceptable. A number of mature trees located within the front yard of No. 1 Flinders Avenue (on-site) are currently proposed to be removed. These existing mature trees play a critical role in buffering the visual bulk and dominance of the approved three-storey building.
Removal of these trees would significantly worsen the visual impact of the development on surrounding residences. The proposed replacement planting primarily consists of small or immature trees and will not provide an equivalent level of visual screening, bulk mitigation or privacy protection for the foreseeable future. Replanting is therefore not an acceptable substitute for the loss of these established trees.
This modification must require retention of the existing mature trees within the front yard of No. 1 Flinders Avenue, together with increased setbacks and strengthened landscaping measures.

3.Height and Privacy
Given the site’s elevated position and the surrounding low-density residential context, the approved three-storey height is excessive. In the previously approved Development Application, visual privacy impacts on No. 2 Flinders Avenue were specifically assessed and addressed. However, No. 3 Flinders Avenue, which is equally or more directly affected, did not receive comparable assessment or protection.
Windows within the development are oriented towards the primary living spaces of No. 3 Flinders Avenue. When combined with the three-storey height, this results in direct overlooking and an ongoing loss of residential privacy. Applying inconsistent privacy assessment standards to adjacent dwellings is unreasonable and must be corrected through this modification.


These matters should have been raised during the previous exhibition. However, we were denied any meaningful opportunity to participate because our household received no notification at all—neither email nor hard-copy letter—during that public exhibition period. As materially affected residents, no officer took any steps to confirm whether we had been notified before the DA was approved.

Residents are not required to monitor the applicant’s or consent authority’s internal processes. The planning system has a duty to properly notify and consult affected neighbours. We understand other Flinders Avenue residents experienced the same failure.

This amounts to a material procedural failure that undermines the integrity of the assessment process. We have lodged complaints and request a clear written explanation of how this occurred, together with appropriate remedial action to address the consequences.

Objection to the Development and Submission on the Proposed Modification

I am a resident of Flinders Avenue and I wish to make it clear at the outset that I object to this development, as it has already caused, and will continue to cause, significant adverse impacts on our living environment, safety, amenity and neighbourhood character.

The scale, built form and interface of this project with Flinders Avenue are fundamentally incompatible with a quiet residential cul-de-sac. The impacts on traffic safety, privacy, landscaping and visual character are substantial and ongoing.

That said, if my objection to the development as a whole cannot be accepted at this stage, I respectfully request that this modification process be used to impose clear and enforceable changes and restrictions to mitigate the harm to existing residents.

1. Strong Objection to Any Access from Flinders Avenue

I strongly object to any door, gate or access point being opened onto Flinders Avenue.

If a door is opened, it will inevitably be used by staff, visitors and service providers, regardless of any stated intention. This will result in:

Vehicles parking along Flinders Avenue and within the cul-de-sac

Increased pedestrian movement through a street designed for residents only

Serious safety risks to children and elderly residents, who regularly use this street

A permanent increase in human activity and disturbance in what is currently a quiet residential environment

If planning or building regulations legally require a door to be provided, then it must be strictly limited to emergency use only, clearly signed and conditioned so that it cannot be used for daily entry or exit under any circumstances.

This restriction must be explicit and enforceable, not left to operational discretion.

2. Unacceptable Loss of Landscaping and Setback Along Flinders Avenue

The loss of landscaping along Flinders Avenue — particularly in front of No. 1 Flinders Avenue — is unacceptable.

Large areas of existing greenery have been or will be removed, despite this area previously functioning as a landscaped buffer. This is especially concerning given that:

The building setback from Flinders Avenue is now far too close to the street

The proximity of the built form is visually abrupt and out of character

Mature trees and front-yard landscaping that contribute to privacy and streetscape have been removed

The setback of the new development should at least reflect the setback of the existing dwelling at No. 1 Flinders Avenue, which establishes the prevailing and reasonable streetscape pattern. Anything closer is visually intrusive and undermines the residential character of the cul-de-sac.

I request that the modification require substantially increased landscaping and setbacks along the Flinders Avenue boundary, with meaningful tree planting and no further encroachment.

3. Objection to the Approved Three-Storey Height and Visual Bulk

I do not understand why a three-storey building has been permitted at this location.

The site already sits on elevated land, and the addition of three storeys results in an excessive visual bulk that dominates surrounding homes and significantly alters the local skyline. This has a pronounced impact on:

Neighbourhood character

Visual amenity

Privacy for surrounding properties

Such height and bulk would not be permitted under normal Council planning controls for this area. It is deeply concerning that increased floor space and yield appear to have been prioritised at the expense of the surrounding community’s environment and reasonable expectations.

Development intensity should not be justified solely by maximising capacity while disregarding local character, privacy and amenity.

4. Requested Outcome

If this modification proceeds, I respectfully request that the Department:

Prohibit any non-emergency access from Flinders Avenue, with emergency-only use clearly conditioned

Reinforce landscaping and setbacks along the Flinders Avenue boundary, particularly adjacent to No. 1 Flinders Avenue

Re-examine the height, bulk and visual impact of the development in light of the site’s elevated topography and surrounding low-density residential context

My position is clear: this project has already placed an unreasonable burden on existing residents. At the very least, this modification process must be used to reduce further harm and protect the safety, amenity and character of Flinders Avenue.

Thank you for considering this submission.

Submission in Relation to SSD 48028209
Specific Comments on Tree Retention and Removal
To: NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure
Re: SSD 48028209
Submission by: Adjoining landowner (direct neighbour)
________________________________________
1. Boundary Trees – Request for Priority Retention
I note that a number of trees located along the boundary between the subject site and my property are identified in the documentation as “consider for retention” or “consider for removal”.
These trees are identified as numbers:
115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 149 and 150
Given their location directly on the shared boundary, these trees provide:
• Essential privacy screening between the proposed development and my two-storey dwelling
• Significant visual buffering from the scale and bulk of the proposed buildings
• Established landscape character that cannot be quickly replicated
Due to their direct amenity function for an adjoining residential property, I strongly submit that these trees should be treated as priority for retention, not discretionary removal.
I request that:
• These trees be retained wherever structurally and arboriculturally feasible
• Any proposed removal be subject to clear justification
• Tree protection zones be strictly enforced during construction
The removal of these boundary trees would materially worsen overlooking, visual dominance and loss of privacy.
________________________________________
2. Corner Trees – Chinese Nettle Trees at Douglas Street / Mona Vale Road
I also wish to comment on trees identified as priority for removal, being:
Trees 159, 158, F2, F1, G2 and G1
These Chinese Nettle Trees are located at the corner of 45 Douglas Street and 293–285 Mona Vale Road.
They are approximately 12 metres in height and currently provide a substantial landscape and privacy buffer.
These trees are:
• Highly visually attractive and well-established
• A major contributor to privacy screening
• Important in softening views of built form from neighbouring properties
Without these trees, neighbouring dwellings — including mine — will have direct views toward buildings, significantly reducing residential amenity.
While these trees are identified as priority for removal, I submit that:
• Their removal should not occur without appropriate replacement
• Any replacement planting should be of similar height, density and screening capability
• Replacement should occur prior to or concurrent with construction, not at project completion
I would only consider removal acceptable if it is accompanied by meaningful, like-for-like landscape replacement, capable of restoring the existing level of privacy and visual screening.
________________________________________
3. Conclusion
The trees identified above play a critical role in protecting the amenity of adjoining properties, particularly in the context of a development of this scale.
I respectfully request that the Department:
• Require priority retention of boundary trees 115–123, 149 and 150
• Reconsider the blanket removal of trees 159, 158, F2, F1, G2 and G1
• Impose clear, enforceable conditions relating to tree retention, protection and replacement
These measures are essential to ensuring that the development does not result in unacceptable privacy loss or visual impacts for neighbouring residents.

I support the project

Please find attached my letter of objection to the development modification and my disappointment with the SSD process.
Regards
Belinda Hennessey

See attachment