Pathways Cremorne Seniors Housing

I object strongly to this project as proposed initially and amended.
- The primary basis of this objection is the height, bulk and scale are not in accordance with the Local Environment Plan (LEP). Nor is it sympathetic to the current community character.
- The Heritage Cottages are barely being retained, only the front of the building facing Parraween Street are being maintained. there will be a total loss of character.
- With traffic increasing on Military Road, Parraween Street is becoming the heart of Cremorne. It is the main access to the Heritage Listed Cremorne Orpheum (Cinema). This development will add significant traffic and congestion. There is already much congestion at the corners of Parraween Street and Winnie and Military Road and Winnie. Winnie is often gridlocked from Military to Gerard especially in the mornings and evenings. This congestion will increase. It will also increase risk to many students of SCEGGS Redlands.
- Parking is already an issue even for local residents. The addition of visitors, medical specialists and perhaps the overflow of staff, maintenance and additional resident or carer parking will cause even more congestion. 88 carparking spaces is insufficient.
- The additional traffic and parking on Parraween Street will increase the risk to pedestrians especially those with disabilities living in the Independent Care Units. To access the Supermarket on the south side of Military Road, residents often disabled or using walkers or wheelchairs to will need to pass through narrow Cremorne Plaza or Langley Plaza or a private arcade if open.

In summary, please reject this proposal until such time as the scale is reduced and it complies with the LEP and DCP.

I write in addition to the objections I raised for the original Pathways Cremorne Proposal (SUB 62138985). The original proposal has changed very little. I object very strongly to Pathways' new proposal.
1. The proposal is not well suited for the site. The new proposal has increased height, bulk and scale which has highly negative impacts on traffic, parking, and overshadowing of existing buildings. The height of the proposed buildings exceeds North Sydney Council's LEP control for height by between 125% and 195%. It is an intensive and inappropriate use of the site.
2. There is insufficient setback of the buildings from narrow Parraween Street. This will affect privacy as some of the proposed buildings have balconies on their north side which will look straight into existing properties on the south side of Parraween Street.
3. Traffic is a major concern. Parraween St is a very narrow street. Permission was not given for the Pathways carpark to open from Gerard Street. alternative as proposed, if the 88 cars were to access the underground carpark from Parraween Street, then this would have a major traffic impact in an already very busy street. Since the time when the Pathways traffic study was carried out in 2022, two new apartment buildings have been completed in Parraween Street. This study was also carried out shortly after a Covid lockdown period when traffic was relatively quiet. We need a more recent study which reflects the true state of traffic in this narrow and busy street.
4. Parking is already at a premium in Parraween Street. We have the Cremorne Orpheum, a gym and several very popular restaruants which require parking spaces. There is insufficient parking as things stand. With a huge development added to the street, parking would become impossible. Commuters park regularly in neighbouring streets, so parking there is not usually an option.
5. In this new proposal there is no timeline for demolition/construction work. We need to have this assessment.
6. This new Pathways proposal fails the State Government's Seniors Housing Design Guide. There is little regard for Heritage significance. The new buildings do not complement the existing character of the area. They are massive in bulk and scale.
7. The proposal does not preserve the integrity, character and the fine detail of the heritage listed buildings.
Partly demolishing these heritage listed cottages is not respectful of their heritage.
8. Pathways residents would need to cross Military Rd for health, groceries, pharmacies and to access public transport. Military Rd is the 6th busiest street in NSW. Currently the pedestrian crossing to access these services allows 15 seconds for pedestrians to cross 6 lanes of traffic. There is a further 15 seconds for a red blinking crossing. Pedestrians are ill advised to cross when that red light is blinking. Elderly residents certainly would place their lives at risk in doing so.
9. The proposed walkway (open space) in the Pathways proposal is well east of the pedestrian crossing on Parraween St which safely leads pedestrians through Cremorne Plaza to Military Rd. There is no guarantee that pedestrians would cross at the pedestrian crossing. They may well cross Parraween Street where the proposed walkway reaches Parraween Street (well east of Cremorne Plaza). With increased pedestrians in the locality and increased traffic, pedestrian safetly is jeoparised - for all pedestrians.
10. In summary, the inappropriate proposed development of the Parraween St site which shows a lack of respect for the character of the area, the hugely increased bulk and height of the proposed development, increased traffic, the increased demand for parking which the development would cause, the lack of respect for the integrity of the heritage cottages, as well as dangers for an increased number of pedestrians lead me to vigorously oppose the Pathways proposal.

I still strongly object to this project (SDD-49472213) for reasons summarised below:

1) This amended proposal for the Pathways Cremorne Senior Housing development has no significant changes compared to the original and none of the issues raised in my initial submission have been addressed, even though there were over 100 objections where many shared similar concerns.

2) The development is still excessive in height, bulk and scale. This area is zoned as R4, with a maximum height of 12 metres. Claims that the proposed height is similar to adjoining buildings on Gerard St are not valid, as they were constructed prior to implementation of current planning controls. All buildings exceed the maximum allowed height, with one almost double (B4, 23.45m). It also appears that the amended proposal increases the bulk of the development relative to the original. This is an unnecessary overdevelopment and overly intensive use of this site.

3) There still does not appear to be a proper cumulative traffic impact assessment, as this development both during and after construction would significantly increase traffic and congestion on Parraween St. This will pose a real threat to pedestrian safety, particularly as there are childcare centres on the street and the proposed main single drive access road is still poorly placed. There will be an almost 500% increase in cars accessing the onsite parking, relative to those that currently park in the 18 driveway spaces for the cottages that they intend to demolish.

4) The development will demolish heritage listed cottages. 78-88 Parraween St have been listed as local heritage items. The intended plan to demolish the majority of the cottages leaving only a façade is a direct contradiction to the intent of heritage listings, which is to preserve these structures. This also contravenes the state government seniors housing design guide, which states that the integrity, character and fine detail of heritage significant buildings should be preserved.

5) This development will still damage the local streetscape of what has been dubbed as the ‘heart’ of Cremorne village. Many of the mature trees visible to residents and pedestrians will be killed during construction. In addition, this overdevelopment of Parraween St will irreversibly change the atmosphere of the area and greatly impact the now state heritage listed Hayden Orpheum Theatre.

6) This amended proposal has not taken into consideration previous submissions regarding visual impact from the unit blocks directly next to the site, 75 Parraween St, 92 Parraween St and 81 Gerard St.

7) Throughout the entire lifetime of the various proposals for this development, there have been contradictory, insincere communications from the developers and their agents, and their attempts at consultation have not appeared genuine, often happening after setbacks in their plans that have occurred either at the council level or in court. This supposed amendment that has wilfully ignored consistent feedback from the submissions of the original proposal is yet another example. Pathways also has a concerning history of poor patient care that has resulted in a cease of operation at another facility in Roseville.

I refer to the amendment to the proposed development.

I continue to oppose the development. The amendments are only minor and do not go far enough to addressing the concerns of the community. It is a complete over development of the site and inappropriate for a small suburban street. It fails on all counts of size, bulk and height!!!

The height levels of all the three buildings are still in contravention of the existing zoning. The two four level buildings are not stepped back and indeed have only minimal set back from the street. This will make the street like a wind tunnel.

Traffic will be a nightmare, both during building and after. This small suburban street would not cope.

I request that this development, as now proposed, not be approved. It would be a disaster for our suburban street ad indeed our local community.

Kind regards,
Chris Phillips

REASON FOR THIS OBJECTION -------- There has been no consideration given to the ramifications of traffic flow into and out of the very large Pathways development in Parraween Street.

1. Parraween Street Cremorne is a narrow, short street, one block long , with limited parking, intersecting with Winnie Street on the western end and McPherson Street on the eastern end. Winnie Street is a single block link between Gerard Street and Military Road . Crowds to the Cremorne Orpheum Theatre have difficulty moving through and accessing parking in Parraween St and a small council car park. In addition to the theatre demand there is additional demand from numerous restaurants located on Paraween St and Military Road.

2. Traffic out of Paraween into Winnie street is regularly grid locked particularly in peak hour traffic.

3. There is very limited access to McPherson Street on the eastern end.

4. When a large development like the Pathways Development with anything from 50 to 100 vehicles per day, residents, staff, garbage collection, tradesmen and visitors etc. are added to the traffic numbers this narrow, short street will be a traffic nightmare.

ACTION TO BE TAKEN.

Pathways must be tasked with developing a workable traffic plan and meeting the cost of making changes to the Macpherson Street (eastern End of Parraween Street) to enable a redirection of the vehicle flow.

To date I have not seen any viable traffic plan.

See attached objection

I was opposed to the development in my submission back in September 2023

I have looked at the amendment documents as proposed and there appears to be only minor changes. I am of the opinion it doesn't go to the prime problem of Height Bulk and Scale for a small suburban street.

The buildings contravene height zoning requirements. The ILU 2 & 3 are now a full four stories with no stepping and having little setback from the street. They will overpower our small suburban street and indeed make it a wind tunnel. It would be extremely disappointing.

It would seem a large part of the Heritage cottages will be demolished, thus sadly losing the integrity of these lovely little houses.

I commented previously on the traffic situation both during and after the building which will be a disaster. However something else has come to mind and that is the safety of elderly people crossing to shops/doctors/newsagent etc. Trying to cross the six lanes of Military Road at the lights would be a nightmare for them. (That being the only way they could get there) The green ‘Walk’ lights allow fifteen seconds to cross the six lanes of traffic. Crossing against ‘red’ blinking walk sign, although not recommended , adds another fifteen seconds.

To conclude, I once again strongly object to any approval of this major development. It would be a disaster for our suburban street and it would be an absolute blight on the local community.

Kind regards,
Pauline Phillips

Thank you for notifying Sydney Water of the amended SSDA. Please see the attached response.

See attached submission.

I object to the Pathways Cremorne Seniors Housing amended SSD Application as the main points of objection in my previous submission - Excessive Height, Bulk and Scale, have not been satisfactorily addressed in the amended proposal.
The project still exceeds the current planning height limits (16 metres) for the site.
The proposed Independent Living Unit building 1 butts up against the retained heritage cottage and there is insufficient separation to highlight the heritage value of the old cottages.
The Independent Living Units building 4 which is proposed as seven storeys in height occupies a large portion of the site of the existing apartment building proposed to be demolished however the proposed setback and footprint is out of character with the adjacent buildings along Gerard Street.
My objection to the proposal still stands.

I object to the amended proposal for the Pathways Cremorne Senior Housing development for a number of reasons:
1. This will have a significant impact on the traffic on Parraween Street. I drive along this road every day and is it already a challenge with other construction projects and people slowing to find parking. I see many near misses, particularly at the pedestrian crossing, and adding more traffic to this road on a permanent basis (let alone when construction of this magnitude is occurring) is dangerous. Parraween Street is not built to deal with the current level of traffic let alone extra traffic that would come with both the residents and the deliveries to a property of this size, especially as all access to this property will be via the one street.
2. While the amended plan saves the heritage buildings on their street, I don’t believe that the rest of the project will work in with the surrounding environment. The proposed height will dwarf the heritage buildings and will remove from their character, which defeats the purpose of keeping them. It will remove the charm from this street which has a beautiful community who enjoy the local amenities and I believe this structure will change that significantly due to it height (which will cast significant shadows) and scale.
3. Parking on both streets is already at a premium, even more so when there is special events on at the Orpheum cinema. While this proposal will provide parking for the residents and staff, it will still have an onflow effect on the availability of street parking. I am sure family visiting the residents may well choose to park in the street rather than deal with the hassle of entering a secure car park. This will add to the already challenging parking situation.
4. Pedestrian safety on Parraween Street will be further compromised. I and my neighbours have all had near misses on the pedestrian crossings as vehicles drive through them way too quickly and fail to stop for the pedestrians. Add in more traffic and a population who may have some mobility challenges, and it is an accident waiting to happen. If these residents choose to head to the supermarket across Military Road, it will provide even more challenges for them. I recently assisted a local elderly resident to cross at the lights on Military Road. She was waiting for someone to assist her as she knows she will not get across in the time allocated to the pedestrian lights and wanted someone to assist her so the cars did not go while she was still crossing. A facility such as this will create similar situations many times over, which is not safe for the people who will be living there. I don’t believe that this project takes their safety into account.

In summary, this project will not only create significant traffic, parking and safety issues but it will dramatically change the ambience of this community due to its size, height and bulk and this is why I am opposed to it.

I object to to the Pathways Cremorne Seniors Housing development application. Please see submission attached.
Thank you.

I write as a permanent resident of Parraween street, Cremorne and to express my concerns and opposition to the proposed Pathways development. While I recognise the importance of providing quality healthcare services, it is my view that this development is not suitable for our community for several reasons.
1. IMPACT ON RESIDENTIAL CHARACTER: Our suburb and especially the around along Parraween street around the Cremorne Plaza is essentially a family oriented residential area. The introduction of a multi-storey nursing facility will alter the character of our neighbourhood ,leading to increased traffic,reduced parking, noise and a general shift in the ambience of the community. This could potentially diminish the quality of life for current residents who value the nature of our suburb.
2. TRAFFIC & PARKING ISSUES: Nursing facilities typically generate a significant amount of traffic, including staff, visitors and
delivery services. This increase in traffic could lead to congestion on our already busy Parraween street and exacerbate existing parking problems. This could inconvenience local residents and impact the safety of pedestrians,paticularly children and the elderly.
3. STRAIN ON LOCAL RESOURCES: The influx of visitors and staff to the proposed nursing facility could please extra strain on local resources, such as emergency services and public transportation. Given our suburb's current infrastructure accommodating these needs could be challenging and divert resources away from other essential community services.
4. Parraween street has already become a "peak hour rat run" and traffic flow will surely get worse if the proposed facility is approved. The street already provides access for over 500 on-site resident cars, including 18 of the 20 Parraween street cottages.
The street is often parked-out by patrons of the Orpheum Theatre,cafes,gym/s etc.
5. I am also very concerned about the future of the 6 locally listed heritage cottages and do not trust the developer to preserve the total integrity of the cottages.
6. Finally,I would like to know whether Pathways or any of its principles has donated money to the NSW Labor Party.

I object to the amended proposal for the Pathways Cremorne Senior Housing development.
The Key Proposal Amendments
• Partly demolish/adaptive reuse 6 heritage cottages and build RAC at the back
• Reduce height of ILU building on Gerard St from 8 to 7 storeys
• Remove rooftop communal areas
• Improve accessibility for people with disability
• No timeline provided for demolition/construction works
There have no realistic changes to the issues raised by the community, which were:
Lack of merit
– excessive height, bulk and scale
– subsequent effects on traffic, parking and overshadowing.
North Sydney Council’s Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2013 states the maximum height in an R4 zone is 12 metres. The proposed development exceeds the LEP control for height.
Existing buildings in the vicinity, which are higher, were constructed during 1960-70s using planning controls rescinded in 1989. It is worth adding that those controls enforced a set back and buffer gardens of 3-4m.
The Pathways development will extend right to street boundary with no set back at all. This results in a significant increase in bulk /scale vs the original plan.
Traffic and resident safety
The size of the development will require heavy burden on local roads by construction traffic.
The subsequent vehicle activity for the surrounding roads will be increased excessively, not just by the cars represented in the residential quota but by visitors vehicles and service vehicles. Waste collection for aged care is much higher than the average apartment block and the need for frequent large waste removal vehicles will increase traffic chaos.
Loss of Heritage and Local character
The proposed development does not conform to Seniors Housing Design Guide in the category of Heritage. It seriously undermines heritage status of the six locally listed cottages and the State heritage listing of the Orpheum Theatre
Demolition of the rear and internal structure of the Heritage listed houses contravenes the spirit of the Heritage listing and renders the historical integrity of the buildings, and therefore its listing, null and void.
Department of Planning raised the following concerns
Impact on Heritage
Excessive Height
Overshadowing and Amenity
Landscaping needs for disability
Traffic Impact
Flooding and Groundwater Intake
Setbacks of buildings to Street front (or lack therof)

I object to the proposal for application number SSD-49472213 Pathways Cremorne Seniors Housing:
• Developer has a history of poor community consultation and unsafe worksites including major injuries to construction staff at its Longueville site and at least 22 DA breaches.
• Developer has not taken into consideration previous submissions regarding visual impact from the unit blocks directly next to the proposed development: 92 Parraween Street, the new unit block at 75 Parraween Street and from 81 Gerard street.
• The development is out of character for the street and is much higher than what North Sydney Council allows (15.274m versus 12m height limit). It will significantly overshadow 92 Parraween Street that stands at 9m. There will be a lack of privacy and sunlight. This amended application still has excessive bulk and scale.
• Impacts on local traffic risk of aged care residents being hit by cars due to no new pedestrian crossing. Would provide 105 public and private parking spaces versus 22 cars currently garaged off street at 50-88 Parraween Street.
• Pathways has a history of poor patient care, including use of chemical restraint/psychotropic medication without consent with a now closed operation at Roseville.

I will expand on these points in the attached document.

I am writing to formally oppose the proposed Pathways Cremorne Seniors Housing Development on Parraween Street. While I acknowledge the need for senior living facilities, this particular development is unsuitable for the site for the following reasons:

Heritage Impact: The properties at 50-56, 70-72, and 78-88 Parraween Street have been identified for heritage listing. Independent expert reports from Lucas Stapleton Johnson and the State Government's gateway approval process (31 July 2023) confirm the heritage significance of these cottages. Dismantling and reconstructing these cottages will destroy their original integrity and meaning. Heritage cannot be recreated once lost, and this proposal undermines the historical character of the area.

Height, Bulk, and Scale: The proposed eight-storey building on Gerard Street exceeds the height limit by 139% over the North Sydney LEP 2013’s maximum height limit of 12 metres. This scale is incompatible with current planning controls and is out of context with the Parraween streetscape, known for its village atmosphere and heritage significance. The bulk and scale of the proposed development will overwhelm the surrounding area and distort its cultural significance.

Traffic, Parking, and Pedestrian Safety: The proposed development will significantly increase traffic congestion in Parraween Street. The addition of 134 onsite parking spaces, combined with the already-approved redevelopment of the Parraween Street Council car park, will overload the local roads. This area is a designated High Pedestrian Activity Area, and the rise in traffic will increase the risk of pedestrian accidents. The lack of adequate pedestrian crossings between Parraween and Gerard Streets further heightens this risk.

For these reasons, I strongly oppose the Pathways Cremorne Seniors Housing Development and request that the Department of Planning and Environment reject this proposal. The development is inconsistent with the area's heritage significance, height controls, and will severely impact local traffic and pedestrian safety.

Thank you for considering my submission.

I object to the amended proposal for the Pathways Cremorne Senior Housing development for below reasons:
1. It lacks site-specific merit:
1.1 excessive height which is contra to the local character and current planning controls maximum height of 12 meters. All proposed buildings exceed the current limit which indicates this is an over-development of the area.
1.2 bulk and scale :
There has been a significant increase in bulk /scale vs the original plan;
The amended proposal shows Buildings 2 and 3 rise to 4 storeys with minimum street setback and a total of 115 bedrooms and 115 bathrooms which undermines the area’s desired existing / future local character, and is an unreasonable and intensive use of the site. This will have a series follow-on negative impact such as explained below.
1.3 Traffic and parking:
- Transport for NSW refused Gerard St access to/from the facility because of predicted traffic congestion, which resulted in Parraween Street being the access point for all Pathways vehicles.
- Pathways traffic survey conducted in July 2022 within months of the last Covid lockdown,ie when traffic was at a minimum and is not a true reflection of the reality.
- Parraween Street currently:
• provides access for over 500 on-site resident cars, including 18 of the 20 Parraween Street cottages
• is a narrow street that acts as a very busy service road for multiple retail and service outlets
• often parked out by patrons of the Orpheum Theatre, cafes, gym etc. Surrounding streets are often parked out all day by commuters.
• is a state-designated high pedestrian activity area with a 40km/h speed limit due to the amount of foot traffic.
- Increase in onsite parking will have a significant impact on an already busy street
• 88 cars – is almost 500% increase over current 18 driveway spaces for the cottages
- Parraween Street is a narrow suburban road with 90 degree rear-to-curb parking opposite the proposed development’s on-street parallel parking spaces. This is a potential traffic hazard as accidents are narrowly avoided - CCTV footage recently captured a car backing into a motorcycle parked in one of those spaces.
1.4 Excessive overshadowing:
There is significant overshadowing of the entire area between Gerard Street and Parraween Street especially during the colder months of autumn and winter.
• A large section of the walkway is in shadow for the majority of daylight hours
• Long hours of shadowing during the colder months will limit ‘moments to pause and play under the canopy’
• The area outlined for ‘play’ is insufficient for any meaningful activity
2. It lacks strategic merit:
2.1 Pathways proposal will demolish heritage cottages which are listed in the state's heritage register.
According to the proposal, there will be demolition of the structures at the back of the heritage listed cottages and all inside fabric of the remaining front structures which fails to comply with the State's Design Guide for Senior Housing.
2.2 Major issues with pedestrian safety
- Pathways residents’ pedestrian safety will be at high risk as they will need to cross Military Road (which is the single busiest road in the whole of lower north shore) for services and facilities including food, medical appointments, pharmacy goods, as well as accessing public transport. The current green ‘Walk’ lights allow 15 seconds to cross 6 lanes of traffic. (Crossing against ‘red’
blinking walk sign - not recommended - adds another 15 seconds).
- Increased risk for all pedestrians:
The through site walkway between Gerard Street and Parraween Street has been provided as a ‘requirement’ for people with a disability in Building 4 to access retail shops and services on a day-to-day basis. However, there is no guarantee that pedestrians will take the detour to cross at the Cremorne Plaza pedestrian crossing on Parraween Street. This further increases the risk of vehicle collisions with pedestrians, both for Pathways residents and local residents, including children from the nearby school.
In summary, this proposal will significantly deteriorate local residence's safety, health and life style, as well as creating high risk and hazards to the seniors who will be living in the building in future. As a local resident in the area, I strongly object to this development proposal.

I am writing to strongly oppose the development proposal submitted to the State Government Department of Planning and Environment (DPE) for the following reasons:

- The proposal significantly exceeds the zoning and planning regulations for the site, as well as the guidelines for seniors housing.
- The height, scale, and bulk of the development—particularly the 8-storey building on Gerard Street and the access on Parraween Street—represent an overdevelopment that is completely out of character with the area. The proposal far exceeds what can be considered reasonable development for this location.
- The proposed changes will result in the loss of heritage, including the subdivision and partial construction affecting the heritage-listed cottages.
- The proposal lacks a thorough assessment of cumulative traffic impacts, which will severely disrupt local traffic flow, affecting both small businesses and residents along Parraween Street.
- The plan for a single access point on Parraween Street, accommodating 134 vehicles for both ingress and egress, will dramatically worsen traffic congestion and eliminate street parking. The original plan had access via Gerard Street, which was rightly rejected.
- The scale of the construction will have a serious negative impact on nearby residents and businesses, with significant disruptions expected.
- The developer's conduct towards the local community, particularly the treatment of residents in the heritage cottages, has been publicly criticised and raises serious concerns about their approach.

We would refer to the submission we made last year when we objected to the subject development proposal.
We feel strongly that if such a development were to take place, it should be for housing such as affordable townhouses for people who work in the CBD or nearby. The transport and proximity available is perfect for such a development. Aged Care centres can be located anywhere and there are already several good Aged Care Centres nearby.
To allow Pathways Cremorne to go ahead will be a lost opportunity and against both State and Federal government future housing strategies to provide affordable housing near city centres.
On looking at the re-exhibition documentation, there does not seem to be any real material change to the original proposal.
Therefore our original concerns over the height, bulk and scale of the development remain as do the issues with traffic and parking in Parraween Street.
Anthony and Diana Curtis

I have previously made a submission. I, again, strongly object to the amended Pathways Cremorne Senior Housing development on the grounds that there are no material changes to the issues I have raised in my previous objection. These objections were in relation to the Excessive height, Excessive bulk and scale, Issues with traffic and parking, Excessive overshadowing, Demolition of heritage houses which have been listed as heritage, Issues with pedestrian safety. In addition, the traffic flow in Gerard Street has worsened since my original submission due to construction of Warringah Expressway. Gerard Street is even more congested. Once again, I wish to make note that Parraween Street is in no way designed for the size and configuration of the Pathways Development. In addition there are also new unit complexes which have been built between Parraween Street and Military Road which add to the traffic flow in Parraween Street as the garage exits will be located in Parraween Street. Also, I make note, with the current housing shortage, the demolition of nominated houses in Parraween Street will cause numerous families to be without a home. Most of the dwellings are rented by families. I also cannot understand how Pathways can utilise the Heritage listed houses in their proposal. These houses have been listed for a reason. They should, under no circumstances be "touched". Again, I am committed to my objection to the Pathways Development. Thank you.