Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
Crows Nest
,
New South Wales
Message
I am an owner and resident of West Street, Crows Nest, and I make this submission to object to the proposed Seniors Living development at 19–23 Rosalind Street (SSD 96505456) for the reasons outlined below.
As a direct neighbour to the proposed development, my property would be immediately affected. I am concerned about the development’s scale and its short- and long-term impacts on solar access, residential amenity, traffic and pedestrian safety, construction-related risks, and the established low-scale residential character of this part of Crows Nest and Cammeray.
The intersection of West Street and Rosalind Street already operates as a constrained location and services multiple nearby schools. The introduction of a higher-density development (including construction and servicing activity) is likely to increase vehicle movements and congestion.
The proposal includes deep basement excavation of approximately 10 metres, including the location of care beds below ground level. This raises concerns regarding prolonged construction noise and vibration, potential impacts on neighbouring older buildings, and loss of amenity over the stated construction period of approximately two years.
The proposal exceeds applicable local planning controls by more than 50%, representing a substantial height exceedance that, in my view, is not adequately justified. The tallest building is proposed to reach approximately 18.4 metres, compared with the existing 8-metre buildings on the site. This increase in height is inconsistent with the surrounding low-scale residential context and would result in significant visual bulk, reduced amenity, and increased overshadowing.
The proposal introduces two towers of up to eight storeys within a low-scale residential area. The bulk and scale are excessive and are compounded by non-compliant setbacks, which would increase impacts on neighbouring properties through additional overshadowing, reduced privacy, and visual intrusion. The proposed built form is not compatible with the established character of Cammeray, which is predominantly low-rise; no building in the immediate area exceeds four storeys. The bulk and height of the proposed buildings would reduce daylight and winter sunlight to neighbouring homes and yards, diminishing residential amenity and the usability of outdoor areas.
Proposed setbacks to existing buildings are as narrow as 3 metres, which is not appropriate for development of this scale. The proposal also indicates elements (including awnings) encroaching into setback areas.
The removal of up to 24 existing mature trees and the reduction in green space would reduce local canopy cover, contribute to heat-island effects, and remove visual screening and habitat for native birdlife and fauna. These values have already been adversely affected in recent years due to the expansion of the Warringah Freeway and associated removal of mature trees.
Finally, I query whether the proposal is appropriately assessed through the SSD pathway, given the limited provision of genuine aged-care or assisted-living accommodation; instead it is clearly a luxury development. The proposal indicates two care beds located below ground level, alongside a range of premium facilities (including a wine cellar, private dining room, gym, sauna, steam room, swimming pool, and cinema). In addition, the existing buildings on the site comprise one- and two-bedroom apartments, whereas the proposed development predominantly comprises three- and four-bedroom apartments. In my view, this dwelling mix is likely to limit affordability and does not respond to local housing needs.
Thank you for your consideration.
As a direct neighbour to the proposed development, my property would be immediately affected. I am concerned about the development’s scale and its short- and long-term impacts on solar access, residential amenity, traffic and pedestrian safety, construction-related risks, and the established low-scale residential character of this part of Crows Nest and Cammeray.
The intersection of West Street and Rosalind Street already operates as a constrained location and services multiple nearby schools. The introduction of a higher-density development (including construction and servicing activity) is likely to increase vehicle movements and congestion.
The proposal includes deep basement excavation of approximately 10 metres, including the location of care beds below ground level. This raises concerns regarding prolonged construction noise and vibration, potential impacts on neighbouring older buildings, and loss of amenity over the stated construction period of approximately two years.
The proposal exceeds applicable local planning controls by more than 50%, representing a substantial height exceedance that, in my view, is not adequately justified. The tallest building is proposed to reach approximately 18.4 metres, compared with the existing 8-metre buildings on the site. This increase in height is inconsistent with the surrounding low-scale residential context and would result in significant visual bulk, reduced amenity, and increased overshadowing.
The proposal introduces two towers of up to eight storeys within a low-scale residential area. The bulk and scale are excessive and are compounded by non-compliant setbacks, which would increase impacts on neighbouring properties through additional overshadowing, reduced privacy, and visual intrusion. The proposed built form is not compatible with the established character of Cammeray, which is predominantly low-rise; no building in the immediate area exceeds four storeys. The bulk and height of the proposed buildings would reduce daylight and winter sunlight to neighbouring homes and yards, diminishing residential amenity and the usability of outdoor areas.
Proposed setbacks to existing buildings are as narrow as 3 metres, which is not appropriate for development of this scale. The proposal also indicates elements (including awnings) encroaching into setback areas.
The removal of up to 24 existing mature trees and the reduction in green space would reduce local canopy cover, contribute to heat-island effects, and remove visual screening and habitat for native birdlife and fauna. These values have already been adversely affected in recent years due to the expansion of the Warringah Freeway and associated removal of mature trees.
Finally, I query whether the proposal is appropriately assessed through the SSD pathway, given the limited provision of genuine aged-care or assisted-living accommodation; instead it is clearly a luxury development. The proposal indicates two care beds located below ground level, alongside a range of premium facilities (including a wine cellar, private dining room, gym, sauna, steam room, swimming pool, and cinema). In addition, the existing buildings on the site comprise one- and two-bedroom apartments, whereas the proposed development predominantly comprises three- and four-bedroom apartments. In my view, this dwelling mix is likely to limit affordability and does not respond to local housing needs.
Thank you for your consideration.
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
CROWS NEST
,
New South Wales
Message
1. Traffic Modelling Flawed
The traffic modelling is fundamentally flawed and cannot be relied upon as it understates the level of traffic in West St and to a lesser extent Miller St. The Data used the modelling was taken on the 11 November 2025 ( Section 8.3) after the completion of the HSC exams
The traffic in West Street in the mornings is mainly due to school traffic in the mornings. In Particular the following High Schools : Cammeragal High School Senior Campus, North Sydney Boys, North Sydney Girls, Wenona, Monte and Shore )
The Traffic Count was completed after HSC had been completed and hence underestimation as all these schools will not have year 12's attending school.
2. Signalised intersections
On page 12 of the Traffic Impact Assessment, states that both Rosalind and West Street and Rosalind and Miller Street are signalised. This is incorrect as there are NO Traffic lights at this intersection.
If such simple things are incorrect, then what faith have you in the rest of the document
3. CTMP
a. Pedestrian Management for school children
Rosalind Street is a regular walking path for the primary school children who attend Anzac School. Given the number of heavy truck movements as outlined below, this represents a major safety risk for these Primary School children.
Based on my experience at least 2 traffic controllers plus a 1 Traffic Controller for breaks will be required before and after school. This should be reviewed with Safework NSW, if the developer thinks these are not required
b. Parking for Workers
The proposal the workers will catch public transport is optimistic at best and unrealistic. It is a statement in the report which sounds good, but they know will not occur
The Developer should provide off street parking nearby as there are very limited all day parking spots in the vicinity
If nothing is provided workers will park in the street in an area which already has very limited parking. Or North Sydney Council will make money via fines
c. Heavy Vehicle Movements
The CTMP should be prepared at this stage due to the 24000, m3 of Cut that will need to be removed with high level of heavy vehicle truck movements as outlined in my table below
Volume of Cut = 24,000 m3 to be removed from site
Boggy ( per venicle movement) = 12 Tonnes or 6 m3 which will result in 4000 Truck movements
Truck & Dog ( per venicle movement) = 32 Tonnes or 15.5 m3 which will result in 1550 Truck movements
Based on the above I object to the development
The traffic modelling is fundamentally flawed and cannot be relied upon as it understates the level of traffic in West St and to a lesser extent Miller St. The Data used the modelling was taken on the 11 November 2025 ( Section 8.3) after the completion of the HSC exams
The traffic in West Street in the mornings is mainly due to school traffic in the mornings. In Particular the following High Schools : Cammeragal High School Senior Campus, North Sydney Boys, North Sydney Girls, Wenona, Monte and Shore )
The Traffic Count was completed after HSC had been completed and hence underestimation as all these schools will not have year 12's attending school.
2. Signalised intersections
On page 12 of the Traffic Impact Assessment, states that both Rosalind and West Street and Rosalind and Miller Street are signalised. This is incorrect as there are NO Traffic lights at this intersection.
If such simple things are incorrect, then what faith have you in the rest of the document
3. CTMP
a. Pedestrian Management for school children
Rosalind Street is a regular walking path for the primary school children who attend Anzac School. Given the number of heavy truck movements as outlined below, this represents a major safety risk for these Primary School children.
Based on my experience at least 2 traffic controllers plus a 1 Traffic Controller for breaks will be required before and after school. This should be reviewed with Safework NSW, if the developer thinks these are not required
b. Parking for Workers
The proposal the workers will catch public transport is optimistic at best and unrealistic. It is a statement in the report which sounds good, but they know will not occur
The Developer should provide off street parking nearby as there are very limited all day parking spots in the vicinity
If nothing is provided workers will park in the street in an area which already has very limited parking. Or North Sydney Council will make money via fines
c. Heavy Vehicle Movements
The CTMP should be prepared at this stage due to the 24000, m3 of Cut that will need to be removed with high level of heavy vehicle truck movements as outlined in my table below
Volume of Cut = 24,000 m3 to be removed from site
Boggy ( per venicle movement) = 12 Tonnes or 6 m3 which will result in 4000 Truck movements
Truck & Dog ( per venicle movement) = 32 Tonnes or 15.5 m3 which will result in 1550 Truck movements
Based on the above I object to the development
Kirstin Shirling
Object
Kirstin Shirling
Object
MOSMAN
,
New South Wales
Message
RE: OBJECTION to Seniors Housing Development – 19–23 Rosalind Street, Cammeray
I am writing as the owner of Unit 9, 29A Rosalind Street, which directly adjoins the proposed development site.
Given the immediate boundary interface between my property and the proposed development, I have significant concerns regarding the impact this proposal will have on the value, condition, and long-term amenity of my property.
While I support appropriate development and recognise the need for additional housing, this proposal in its current form represents a level of intensity that does not appear compatible with adjoining properties.
Direct boundary impact
My property shares a direct boundary with the proposed development site. As a result, the impacts of the proposal will be immediate and substantial.
Due to the scale and positioning of the buildings, the development will:
Result in a greater loss of sunlight, given the proximity to the building footprint
Introduce direct overlooking both from the rear and along the side boundary of the property
Create a strong sense of visual enclosure along the boundary interface
The side-on relationship between the proposed building and my property significantly increases the loss of privacy across multiple areas of the home.
Privacy and setback concerns
A key concern is the proximity of the proposed building to the boundary.
Based on the available plans, parts of the development appear to be located at very limited setback distances relative to their height.
For a building of approximately five to six storeys, the Apartment Design Guide (ADG) typically expects separation distances of around 9 metres as a minimum, with 12 metres preferred between habitable spaces, to support adequate privacy, outlook and solar access.
The proposed development does not appear to achieve separation distances of this order along the shared boundary. This level of separation is typically intended to mitigate exactly the types of privacy, overshadowing and amenity impacts that are expected to arise in this instance.
As a result:
There will be direct lines of sight into private areas of the property
The usability of outdoor and internal spaces will be reduced
The overall level of privacy currently experienced will be significantly diminished
Design treatments such as screening or fins do not adequately address the fundamental issue of building proximity.
Scale and positioning of the development
The proposal introduces multiple storeys of development immediately adjacent to the boundary.
Given the site’s topography and the positioning of the buildings, this will present as a large and dominant structure when viewed from my property.
The concentration of height and bulk along the boundary does not appear to adequately respond to the presence of adjoining low-scale residential properties.
Construction impacts and structural considerations
The scale of excavation required is a major concern given the immediate proximity to my property.
In particular:
Vibration associated with excavation may impact surrounding structures
There is a risk of movement or stress to adjoining foundations
Prolonged construction activity will significantly affect the usability of the property
Given the direct adjacency, these impacts and risks will be experienced at their highest level.
Drainage and runoff considerations
Excavation and changes to site levels may alter existing drainage patterns.
Given the direct boundary interface, there is a risk that:
Surface water flow may be redirected toward adjoining properties
Runoff may increase during rainfall events
Long-term drainage conditions could be affected
Overall concern
Taken together, the impacts of:
Increased building bulk at the boundary
Significant loss of sunlight
Loss of privacy along both rear and side interfaces
Reduced setbacks relative to building scale
Construction and structural risks
indicate that the proposal is too intensive for a site that directly interfaces with existing residential properties.
Conclusion
As an adjoining owner, I am particularly concerned about the direct and lasting impacts this development will have on my property.
I respectfully request that the application be reconsidered and redesigned to incorporate appropriate setbacks, reduced scale, and stronger protections for neighbouring properties.
I am writing as the owner of Unit 9, 29A Rosalind Street, which directly adjoins the proposed development site.
Given the immediate boundary interface between my property and the proposed development, I have significant concerns regarding the impact this proposal will have on the value, condition, and long-term amenity of my property.
While I support appropriate development and recognise the need for additional housing, this proposal in its current form represents a level of intensity that does not appear compatible with adjoining properties.
Direct boundary impact
My property shares a direct boundary with the proposed development site. As a result, the impacts of the proposal will be immediate and substantial.
Due to the scale and positioning of the buildings, the development will:
Result in a greater loss of sunlight, given the proximity to the building footprint
Introduce direct overlooking both from the rear and along the side boundary of the property
Create a strong sense of visual enclosure along the boundary interface
The side-on relationship between the proposed building and my property significantly increases the loss of privacy across multiple areas of the home.
Privacy and setback concerns
A key concern is the proximity of the proposed building to the boundary.
Based on the available plans, parts of the development appear to be located at very limited setback distances relative to their height.
For a building of approximately five to six storeys, the Apartment Design Guide (ADG) typically expects separation distances of around 9 metres as a minimum, with 12 metres preferred between habitable spaces, to support adequate privacy, outlook and solar access.
The proposed development does not appear to achieve separation distances of this order along the shared boundary. This level of separation is typically intended to mitigate exactly the types of privacy, overshadowing and amenity impacts that are expected to arise in this instance.
As a result:
There will be direct lines of sight into private areas of the property
The usability of outdoor and internal spaces will be reduced
The overall level of privacy currently experienced will be significantly diminished
Design treatments such as screening or fins do not adequately address the fundamental issue of building proximity.
Scale and positioning of the development
The proposal introduces multiple storeys of development immediately adjacent to the boundary.
Given the site’s topography and the positioning of the buildings, this will present as a large and dominant structure when viewed from my property.
The concentration of height and bulk along the boundary does not appear to adequately respond to the presence of adjoining low-scale residential properties.
Construction impacts and structural considerations
The scale of excavation required is a major concern given the immediate proximity to my property.
In particular:
Vibration associated with excavation may impact surrounding structures
There is a risk of movement or stress to adjoining foundations
Prolonged construction activity will significantly affect the usability of the property
Given the direct adjacency, these impacts and risks will be experienced at their highest level.
Drainage and runoff considerations
Excavation and changes to site levels may alter existing drainage patterns.
Given the direct boundary interface, there is a risk that:
Surface water flow may be redirected toward adjoining properties
Runoff may increase during rainfall events
Long-term drainage conditions could be affected
Overall concern
Taken together, the impacts of:
Increased building bulk at the boundary
Significant loss of sunlight
Loss of privacy along both rear and side interfaces
Reduced setbacks relative to building scale
Construction and structural risks
indicate that the proposal is too intensive for a site that directly interfaces with existing residential properties.
Conclusion
As an adjoining owner, I am particularly concerned about the direct and lasting impacts this development will have on my property.
I respectfully request that the application be reconsidered and redesigned to incorporate appropriate setbacks, reduced scale, and stronger protections for neighbouring properties.
June Wang
Object
June Wang
Object
Waitara
,
New South Wales
Message
I am the grandparent of a family living directly opposite the proposed development site. With young grandchildren in the household, I am gravely troubled by the severe consequences this project would bring to our neighbourhood’s quality of life, safety, and natural surroundings. Here are my concerns:
Children’s Health & Safety Under Threat:
- Toxic Exposure: Years of construction dust and noise will poison the air our children breathe, risking long-term respiratory harm.
- Dangerous Streets: A flood of new traffic will turn the quiet street into a hazard zone, putting kids at risk of accidents.
- No Safe Play Spaces: With parking chaos and constant vehicles, children will lose their right to safe outdoor play.
Sacred Grounds Violated:
- Cultural Insensitivity: Building senior apartments directly beside a resting place for the departed shows blatant disregard for spiritual and mourning traditions.
- Chinese Community Disrespected: In our culture, proximity to gravesites especially for senior living is deeply taboo—this location insults our values and will deter families from living here.
- No Peace for the Departed: Years of construction noise, vibrations, and dust will shatter the solemn dignity of the cemetery.
Families Forced into Impossible Choices - "Move or Suffer" Ultimatum:
My daughter and her family must either:
- Relocate or Move from their homes (at massive financial cost), or
- Subject my young grandchildren to unsafe, unhealthy conditions.
Exploitation of Care Provisions
- Only two care beds are proposed and both of them tucked away in a dark, basement-level space adjacent to noisy service areas. As a member of the senior living community, it is obvious to me that this project has no gneue intension to provide a comfortable senior living environment for the seniors. As a conclusion, this project prioritises profits over creating liveable spaces for our elderly.
This Is Not Just Poor Planning—It’s Heartless.
I demand rejection of this culturally offensive, family-hostile development and request this submission given full consideration during the assessment process.
Children’s Health & Safety Under Threat:
- Toxic Exposure: Years of construction dust and noise will poison the air our children breathe, risking long-term respiratory harm.
- Dangerous Streets: A flood of new traffic will turn the quiet street into a hazard zone, putting kids at risk of accidents.
- No Safe Play Spaces: With parking chaos and constant vehicles, children will lose their right to safe outdoor play.
Sacred Grounds Violated:
- Cultural Insensitivity: Building senior apartments directly beside a resting place for the departed shows blatant disregard for spiritual and mourning traditions.
- Chinese Community Disrespected: In our culture, proximity to gravesites especially for senior living is deeply taboo—this location insults our values and will deter families from living here.
- No Peace for the Departed: Years of construction noise, vibrations, and dust will shatter the solemn dignity of the cemetery.
Families Forced into Impossible Choices - "Move or Suffer" Ultimatum:
My daughter and her family must either:
- Relocate or Move from their homes (at massive financial cost), or
- Subject my young grandchildren to unsafe, unhealthy conditions.
Exploitation of Care Provisions
- Only two care beds are proposed and both of them tucked away in a dark, basement-level space adjacent to noisy service areas. As a member of the senior living community, it is obvious to me that this project has no gneue intension to provide a comfortable senior living environment for the seniors. As a conclusion, this project prioritises profits over creating liveable spaces for our elderly.
This Is Not Just Poor Planning—It’s Heartless.
I demand rejection of this culturally offensive, family-hostile development and request this submission given full consideration during the assessment process.
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
CAMMERAY
,
New South Wales
Message
Opposition Letter to Seniors Living Development, 19-23 Rosalind St, Cammeray
Objection to SSD-96505456- Cammeray Seniors Living
I object to the proposed demolition and re-development of 19-23 Rosalind St Cammeray.
I live at 378 Miller St, which is on the same street block as the proposed development. I walk down Rosalind St, past the site in question on most days of the week, to find some peace and quiet in St Thomas Rest Park. I appreciate the quiet nature of Rosalind street as I walk to the park to unwind and de-stress after I finish work.
The recent works on the Warringah Freeway, including the closure of the Falcon St north-bound exit and subsequent diversion of traffic to the Miller St exit have significantly increased the traffic, noise and pollution level on Miller St. I am already suffering from higher stress levels due to these detrimental changes and I am concerned that the proposed development is only going to exacerbate these problems, making living in my apartment almost unbearable.
My key concerns:
1. Extra noise from the additional traffic to, from and around the site and area
2. Resulting traffic congestion on Miller, Rosalind and West St
3. Significant tree loss on the site. Our area is already depleted of green space and has suffered extensive tree felling to accommodate for the widening of the Warringah freeway
4. Building height is too tall and is out of place for the area; most buildings are only 3 stories, and some have a 4th level, set back from the street
5. Shaddowing onto neighbours, especially the owners of 27 Rosalind St, who I know are very upset about the impacts the proposed development will have on their sunlight and privacy
6. The effect of digging down ~10 m into the ground in order to make the underground levels on the adjacent properties and buildings, possibly causing significant instability and costly damage to neighbouring properties
7. The demolition of relatively affordable (for the area) accommodation in order to build spacious, luxury apartments for retirees, housing less people, when the state government is supposedly trying to increase supply of affordable housing for young people and families. I work at a local state school, and none of the younger teachers are able to afford to live near where they work because there is no genuinely affordable housing in this area.
What I want to happen:
1. Leave the site alone
2. If it must be redeveloped, the buildings should not exceed 4 stories, must be further set back from the road and must not cause shadowing of neighbouring properties
3. Maximum 1 level underground for parking, preferably no underground works.
4. Design of the building must be in keeping with the local aesthetic
5. This site is better suited to and should be used for affordable housing, to house young workers and families, due to its close proximity to public transport, schools and essential services.
Please reject this development proposal as it does not serve the interests of current residents / neighbours, nor does it address the key housing priorities of the NSW State Government.
Please allow this site to continue to be used as an affordable housing site for young workers and families, especially for those who work for essential services in the local area, including schools and community services. There is currently a severe lack of affordable housing in this area that already has its fair share of luxury dwellings.
Thank you for your thoughtful consideration.
Objection to SSD-96505456- Cammeray Seniors Living
I object to the proposed demolition and re-development of 19-23 Rosalind St Cammeray.
I live at 378 Miller St, which is on the same street block as the proposed development. I walk down Rosalind St, past the site in question on most days of the week, to find some peace and quiet in St Thomas Rest Park. I appreciate the quiet nature of Rosalind street as I walk to the park to unwind and de-stress after I finish work.
The recent works on the Warringah Freeway, including the closure of the Falcon St north-bound exit and subsequent diversion of traffic to the Miller St exit have significantly increased the traffic, noise and pollution level on Miller St. I am already suffering from higher stress levels due to these detrimental changes and I am concerned that the proposed development is only going to exacerbate these problems, making living in my apartment almost unbearable.
My key concerns:
1. Extra noise from the additional traffic to, from and around the site and area
2. Resulting traffic congestion on Miller, Rosalind and West St
3. Significant tree loss on the site. Our area is already depleted of green space and has suffered extensive tree felling to accommodate for the widening of the Warringah freeway
4. Building height is too tall and is out of place for the area; most buildings are only 3 stories, and some have a 4th level, set back from the street
5. Shaddowing onto neighbours, especially the owners of 27 Rosalind St, who I know are very upset about the impacts the proposed development will have on their sunlight and privacy
6. The effect of digging down ~10 m into the ground in order to make the underground levels on the adjacent properties and buildings, possibly causing significant instability and costly damage to neighbouring properties
7. The demolition of relatively affordable (for the area) accommodation in order to build spacious, luxury apartments for retirees, housing less people, when the state government is supposedly trying to increase supply of affordable housing for young people and families. I work at a local state school, and none of the younger teachers are able to afford to live near where they work because there is no genuinely affordable housing in this area.
What I want to happen:
1. Leave the site alone
2. If it must be redeveloped, the buildings should not exceed 4 stories, must be further set back from the road and must not cause shadowing of neighbouring properties
3. Maximum 1 level underground for parking, preferably no underground works.
4. Design of the building must be in keeping with the local aesthetic
5. This site is better suited to and should be used for affordable housing, to house young workers and families, due to its close proximity to public transport, schools and essential services.
Please reject this development proposal as it does not serve the interests of current residents / neighbours, nor does it address the key housing priorities of the NSW State Government.
Please allow this site to continue to be used as an affordable housing site for young workers and families, especially for those who work for essential services in the local area, including schools and community services. There is currently a severe lack of affordable housing in this area that already has its fair share of luxury dwellings.
Thank you for your thoughtful consideration.
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
CAMMERAY
,
New South Wales
Message
Objection to SSD 96505456 – Cammeray Seniors Living
As a local homeowner and parent of a toddler under two years old living directly opposite the proposed site, I STRONGLY OBJECT to this development due to its severe risks to my child’s health, safety, and development, alongside broader planning, environmental, and cultural concerns.
Critical Concerns: Health & Developmental Risks to My Toddler
The extended (18 – 24 months+) construction period will create unacceptable hazards for my young child:
Air Quality & Respiratory Health
- Heavy dust, diesel emissions, and particulate matter from excavation and demolition will severely degrade air quality.
- Toddlers are especially vulnerable to long-term respiratory harm from prolonged exposure to construction pollution.
Noise & Sleep Disruption
- Constant loud machinery, truck movements, and demolition noise will disrupt essential sleep cycles, critical for brain development in early childhood.
- Chronic sleep disturbance can lead to irritability, cognitive delays, and emotional distress in young children.
Safety Hazards:
- Increased heavy vehicle traffic poses direct physical danger to families walking or playing outdoors.
- Construction zones attract hazards (debris, equipment, unstable ground), making our street unsafe for toddler exploration.
Mental & Emotional Wellbeing
- Prolonged exposure to chaotic, noisy environments can heighten anxiety and stress in young children, impacting emotional regulation.
- Loss of safe outdoor play space (due to dust, noise, and traffic) deprives my child of critical sensory and motor development opportunities.
Forced Lifestyle Disruptions
- If forced to relocate or increase daycare days to avoid harm, the financial and emotional strain on our family would be immense.
- Five days/week in daycare is developmentally excessive for a child under two and contradicts expert recommendations on attachment and early learning.
Additional Key Objections (Summarized for Impact):
- Traffic Chaos: 49 units + café will overwhelm our already congested street, endangering children.
- Heritage Destruction: 6-storey modern design clashes with low-density, historic neighbourhood.
- Privacy Invasion: North facing balconies directly overlook my backyard;
- Environmental Damage: 24 mature trees destroyed, worsening air quality and biodiversity.
- Cemetery Disrespect: Noise/vibration disrupts Thomas Rest Park’s cultural sanctity.
- Affordable Housing Loss: Replaces 54 affordable units with luxury apartments.
Formal Request
I urge the Department:
- REJECT this harmful proposal, which fails to protect vulnerable residents, especially for families with young children.
- Require independent child health impact assessments for any future construction plans.
My toddler’s safety and development must not be sacrificed for an ill-conceived and profit-driven project.
Sincerely,
James Li
As a local homeowner and parent of a toddler under two years old living directly opposite the proposed site, I STRONGLY OBJECT to this development due to its severe risks to my child’s health, safety, and development, alongside broader planning, environmental, and cultural concerns.
Critical Concerns: Health & Developmental Risks to My Toddler
The extended (18 – 24 months+) construction period will create unacceptable hazards for my young child:
Air Quality & Respiratory Health
- Heavy dust, diesel emissions, and particulate matter from excavation and demolition will severely degrade air quality.
- Toddlers are especially vulnerable to long-term respiratory harm from prolonged exposure to construction pollution.
Noise & Sleep Disruption
- Constant loud machinery, truck movements, and demolition noise will disrupt essential sleep cycles, critical for brain development in early childhood.
- Chronic sleep disturbance can lead to irritability, cognitive delays, and emotional distress in young children.
Safety Hazards:
- Increased heavy vehicle traffic poses direct physical danger to families walking or playing outdoors.
- Construction zones attract hazards (debris, equipment, unstable ground), making our street unsafe for toddler exploration.
Mental & Emotional Wellbeing
- Prolonged exposure to chaotic, noisy environments can heighten anxiety and stress in young children, impacting emotional regulation.
- Loss of safe outdoor play space (due to dust, noise, and traffic) deprives my child of critical sensory and motor development opportunities.
Forced Lifestyle Disruptions
- If forced to relocate or increase daycare days to avoid harm, the financial and emotional strain on our family would be immense.
- Five days/week in daycare is developmentally excessive for a child under two and contradicts expert recommendations on attachment and early learning.
Additional Key Objections (Summarized for Impact):
- Traffic Chaos: 49 units + café will overwhelm our already congested street, endangering children.
- Heritage Destruction: 6-storey modern design clashes with low-density, historic neighbourhood.
- Privacy Invasion: North facing balconies directly overlook my backyard;
- Environmental Damage: 24 mature trees destroyed, worsening air quality and biodiversity.
- Cemetery Disrespect: Noise/vibration disrupts Thomas Rest Park’s cultural sanctity.
- Affordable Housing Loss: Replaces 54 affordable units with luxury apartments.
Formal Request
I urge the Department:
- REJECT this harmful proposal, which fails to protect vulnerable residents, especially for families with young children.
- Require independent child health impact assessments for any future construction plans.
My toddler’s safety and development must not be sacrificed for an ill-conceived and profit-driven project.
Sincerely,
James Li
Margot Jeffery
Object
Margot Jeffery
Object
Cammeray
,
New South Wales
Message
Objection to Proposed Development
I write to formally object to the proposed development on the following grounds:
Excessive Scale and Height
The proposal significantly exceeds applicable local planning controls and is out of character with the established streetscape that is currently maximum of 3-4 storey. The surrounding area is a quiet, low-density residential neighbourhood, and the scale and height of the development would introduce an overbearing built form that is inconsistent with its context.
Non-Compliant Setbacks
The development does not provide adequate setbacks, resulting in reduced separation distances between buildings and existing adjacent dwellings. This will lead to unacceptable impacts on neighbouring properties, including overshadowing, loss of privacy, and a general decline in residential amenity.
Reduced Housing Outcomes
Despite the scale of the proposal, it delivers fewer dwellings and accommodates fewer residents than could reasonably be expected. This represents a missed opportunity to meaningfully contribute to housing supply, particularly in a way that aligns with planning objectives and providing more housing to the community.
Minimal Genuine Aged Care Provision
While the development is promoted as seniors living, it provides only 2 aged care beds, both located in the basement with no windows. This raises serious concerns about the authenticity of its intended use and whether it genuinely serves the needs of older residents who are at the end of their lives.
Environmental Impacts
The proposal involves near-total site clearance, including the removal of approximately 27 mature trees. This would result in a significant loss of local canopy cover, biodiversity, and environmental value, as well as negatively impacting the character of the area. It would be a significant number of years before any new trees planted would provide shade or encourage fauna to return.
Inappropriate Location
A development of this intensity is unsuitable for a quiet residential street that is not identified as a high-density or transit-oriented development area. Such density should be directed to appropriate locations with the infrastructure and planning framework to support it.
Demand on current infrastructure
Increase traffic during construction within an area that children walk to school. The number of residents will also increase demand on infrastructure as there are more multi storey building increasing use on existing electricity and water.
For these reasons, I strongly urge that the application be refused.
I write to formally object to the proposed development on the following grounds:
Excessive Scale and Height
The proposal significantly exceeds applicable local planning controls and is out of character with the established streetscape that is currently maximum of 3-4 storey. The surrounding area is a quiet, low-density residential neighbourhood, and the scale and height of the development would introduce an overbearing built form that is inconsistent with its context.
Non-Compliant Setbacks
The development does not provide adequate setbacks, resulting in reduced separation distances between buildings and existing adjacent dwellings. This will lead to unacceptable impacts on neighbouring properties, including overshadowing, loss of privacy, and a general decline in residential amenity.
Reduced Housing Outcomes
Despite the scale of the proposal, it delivers fewer dwellings and accommodates fewer residents than could reasonably be expected. This represents a missed opportunity to meaningfully contribute to housing supply, particularly in a way that aligns with planning objectives and providing more housing to the community.
Minimal Genuine Aged Care Provision
While the development is promoted as seniors living, it provides only 2 aged care beds, both located in the basement with no windows. This raises serious concerns about the authenticity of its intended use and whether it genuinely serves the needs of older residents who are at the end of their lives.
Environmental Impacts
The proposal involves near-total site clearance, including the removal of approximately 27 mature trees. This would result in a significant loss of local canopy cover, biodiversity, and environmental value, as well as negatively impacting the character of the area. It would be a significant number of years before any new trees planted would provide shade or encourage fauna to return.
Inappropriate Location
A development of this intensity is unsuitable for a quiet residential street that is not identified as a high-density or transit-oriented development area. Such density should be directed to appropriate locations with the infrastructure and planning framework to support it.
Demand on current infrastructure
Increase traffic during construction within an area that children walk to school. The number of residents will also increase demand on infrastructure as there are more multi storey building increasing use on existing electricity and water.
For these reasons, I strongly urge that the application be refused.
Richard Bath
Object
Richard Bath
Object
Cammeray
,
New South Wales
Message
RE: OBJECTION to Seniors Housing Development – 19–23 Rosalind Street, Cammeray
I am a resident of Unit 7, 29A Rosalind Street, located directly adjacent to the proposed development site.
I understand the need for additional housing and I’m not opposed to development in principle. However, I’m concerned that this proposal is too large for the site and will have a noticeable impact on how we live in our home.
CHANGES TO LIGHT, OUTLOOK AND PRIVACY
Our home sits alongside the proposed development, with the new building positioned directly next to our property.
From a practical point of view, this would mean:
- Losing a significant amount of afternoon sun, which is when we most use our outdoor space
- Being adjacent to a substantial multi-storey building in close proximity
- Increased overlooking into our front courtyard and living areas from neighbouring apartments
We have young children and use our courtyard frequently as part of our daily routine. It’s an important space for play, relaxation and time together as a family.
The loss of sunlight and privacy would have a real impact on how we’re able to use that space, and on the sense of comfort we currently have in our home.
DAY TO DAY IMPACT DURING CONSTRUCTION
I work from home five days a week, so the construction phase is a major concern for me.
Given the level of excavation and building works proposed, I expect there will be:
- Regular construction noise during working hours
- Vibration and general disturbance
- An extended build period
This would make it difficult to work from home consistently and would have an ongoing impact on both my work and family routine.
CONCERNS REGARDING THE SCALE OF THE PROPOSAL
Based on what I understand, the proposal relies on building height and proximity to boundaries that go beyond typical expectations for developments of this kind.
The overall scale — including the number of storeys and how close the buildings sit to neighbouring properties — appears to depend on variations to standard planning controls.
From a practical perspective, this results in a development that places a disproportionate level of impact on surrounding homes, particularly those directly adjoining the site.
This suggests the proposal may be exceeding what the site can reasonably accommodate without creating unacceptable impacts on neighbouring properties.
OVERALL VIEW
When you consider the reduction in light, the change in outlook, the loss of privacy — particularly for a family home — and the disruption during construction, it feels like the proposal is pushing beyond what the site can comfortably accommodate.
CONCLUSION
I support thoughtful and well-balanced development, but I don’t believe this proposal achieves that in its current form.
I would ask that it be reconsidered with greater attention to the impact on neighbouring homes.
I am a resident of Unit 7, 29A Rosalind Street, located directly adjacent to the proposed development site.
I understand the need for additional housing and I’m not opposed to development in principle. However, I’m concerned that this proposal is too large for the site and will have a noticeable impact on how we live in our home.
CHANGES TO LIGHT, OUTLOOK AND PRIVACY
Our home sits alongside the proposed development, with the new building positioned directly next to our property.
From a practical point of view, this would mean:
- Losing a significant amount of afternoon sun, which is when we most use our outdoor space
- Being adjacent to a substantial multi-storey building in close proximity
- Increased overlooking into our front courtyard and living areas from neighbouring apartments
We have young children and use our courtyard frequently as part of our daily routine. It’s an important space for play, relaxation and time together as a family.
The loss of sunlight and privacy would have a real impact on how we’re able to use that space, and on the sense of comfort we currently have in our home.
DAY TO DAY IMPACT DURING CONSTRUCTION
I work from home five days a week, so the construction phase is a major concern for me.
Given the level of excavation and building works proposed, I expect there will be:
- Regular construction noise during working hours
- Vibration and general disturbance
- An extended build period
This would make it difficult to work from home consistently and would have an ongoing impact on both my work and family routine.
CONCERNS REGARDING THE SCALE OF THE PROPOSAL
Based on what I understand, the proposal relies on building height and proximity to boundaries that go beyond typical expectations for developments of this kind.
The overall scale — including the number of storeys and how close the buildings sit to neighbouring properties — appears to depend on variations to standard planning controls.
From a practical perspective, this results in a development that places a disproportionate level of impact on surrounding homes, particularly those directly adjoining the site.
This suggests the proposal may be exceeding what the site can reasonably accommodate without creating unacceptable impacts on neighbouring properties.
OVERALL VIEW
When you consider the reduction in light, the change in outlook, the loss of privacy — particularly for a family home — and the disruption during construction, it feels like the proposal is pushing beyond what the site can comfortably accommodate.
CONCLUSION
I support thoughtful and well-balanced development, but I don’t believe this proposal achieves that in its current form.
I would ask that it be reconsidered with greater attention to the impact on neighbouring homes.
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
CAMMERAY
,
New South Wales
Message
FORMAL OBJECTION — SSD-96505456 — CAMMERAY SENIORS LIVING Submitted by: Sarah Pern and Ben Webber, owners and residents, 1/29A Rosalind Street, Cammeray NSW 2062 Date: 31 March 2026
We are the registered owners and permanent residents of 1/29A Rosalind Street, the property immediately adjoining 19–23 Rosalind Street. The proposed Building B is set back only 3 metres from our common boundary. Our north-facing balcony and outdoor living area, which currently overlooks garden, greenery and open sky, sits directly adjacent to that boundary. We have resided here for 2.5 years. We object to this development in its entirety and call for refusal on the following grounds. We are legally informed and reserve all rights to pursue this matter in the Land and Environment Court of NSW.
GROUND 1 — SEPP MISUSE: THIS IS NOT GENUINE SENIORS HOUSING
The development invokes the Housing SEPP 2021 to override the North Sydney LEP 2013 controls that would otherwise prevent a development of this scale. Those override powers exist to deliver genuine seniors housing. This development does not do that.
The proposal demolishes three existing residential flat buildings containing 54 apartments — a net loss of at least 5 to 6 homes — and replaces them with 48 or 49 independent living units available only to seniors, plus 2 aged care beds in a basement "care hub." Those existing 54 homes include affordable 1-bedroom apartments accessible to a broad range of residents. They will be replaced with premium 3–4 bedroom units with a gymnasium, cinema, pool and sauna — a development that removes genuinely diverse, affordable housing and replaces it with a product accessible only to wealthy seniors, with minimal genuine care provision. The ratio of actual care beds to independent living units is 1:24. The industry benchmark for comparable approved developments in NSW is approximately 1 bed per 5 units. A recent North Rosebery precinct approval provides 170 ILUs paired with 34 registered care beds. This development falls eight times below that benchmark.
The development does not increase housing supply — it reduces it. It does not improve housing diversity — it destroys affordable stock. The Housing SEPP is a housing supply and diversity instrument. A development that produces fewer homes, eliminates affordability and provides a token care facility to unlock premium residential development rights is using that instrument for a purpose outside its scope. Land and Environment Court jurisprudence on the former Seniors SEPP is clear that the override powers are not available where the factual substance of a development does not match the SEPP's genuine purpose.
We request the consent authority require: a breakdown of capital investment value attributable to the care facility versus the ILUs; evidence of a binding agreement with a registered aged care provider under the Aged Care Act 1997 (Cth); and a demonstration that 2 aged care beds constitutes substantive rather than token provision. If this cannot be demonstrated, the application should be refused on this ground alone.
GROUND 2 — INCOMPATIBLE HEIGHT, BULK AND CHARACTER
The proposed buildings exceed the permissible height limit under the NSLEP 2013 by approximately 56%. No building in Rosalind Street approaches 5 storeys. Five and 6-storey buildings in a street of 2–3 storey buildings are not compatible with the existing or desired future character of this locality. Clause 4.3(g) of the NSLEP 2013 specifically aims to maintain a built form of mainly 1–2 storeys in Zone R3 Medium Density Residential. The non-discretionary SEPP standards set a floor of permissibility, not a ceiling of acceptability, and the consent authority retains its discretion to refuse where built form is incompatible with zone objectives and local character.
Significant non-compliance with DCP character provisions is a material consideration weighing against consent: Randwick City Council v Micaul Holdings Pty Ltd [2010] NSWCA 245.
The development also involves the removal of approximately 24 established trees from the site — a further and irreversible diminishment of the leafy residential character that defines Cammeray.
Approval will set a precedent for SEPP-enabled upzoning of the entire Cammeray residential precinct by stealth, without the strategic planning, community consultation or infrastructure assessment that a formal rezoning requires.
GROUND 3 — UNACCEPTABLE SOLAR ACCESS AND AMENITY IMPACTS
The development site lies to the west of our property. Our north-facing balcony and outdoor living space will lose direct afternoon sunlight as the 6-storey Building B — set back only 3 metres from our boundary — casts shadows across our primary private open space from approximately 1:00 pm onward on the winter solstice. This shadow impact falls squarely within the protected 9 am to 3 pm window under the North Sydney DCP 2013, which requires a minimum of 3 hours of direct sunlight to principal private open space on 21 June.
Solar access to established residential dwellings is a material planning consideration of significant weight: Coshott v Ludwig [2015] NSWCA 84. The shadow diagrams must be independently verified for compliance at Unit 1, 1/29A Rosalind Street specifically.
At 3 metres horizontal separation, a 6-storey building also enables direct overlooking into our balcony, garden and habitable rooms from levels 2 through 6. No screening or landscaping at boundary level can address overlooking from habitable rooms elevated up to 18 metres above ground at 3 metres distance. The DCP privacy controls cannot be satisfied by standard mitigation at this separation.
GROUND 4 — CONSTRUCTION HAZARDS: VIBRATION, STRUCTURAL RISK AND DUST
Bulk basement excavation at 3 metres from an established mid-20th century residential building creates structural and environmental risks that standard construction management conditions cannot adequately address.
The applicable structural vibration standard is DIN 4150-3, routinely applied in NSW LEC proceedings. At 3-metre separation, standard rock breaking and compaction will generate peak particle velocity values at or approaching the 5–20 mm/s limits for residential structures. The EIS must include a site-specific structural risk assessment for 29A Rosalind Street and must require a pre-construction dilapidation survey by an independent structural engineer agreed to by us, at the developer's cost, before any works commence.
Basement excavation at this distance will also generate sustained elevated concentrations of PM2.5 and PM10 particulate matter, including crystalline silica, a Class 1 carcinogen. A qualitative dust management plan is insufficient. A site-specific quantitative dust impact assessment for 1/29A Rosalind Street demonstrating compliance with WHO air quality guidelines at this receiver throughout a construction programme of two to three years is required.
GROUND 5 — TRAFFIC AND ROAD SAFETY
Rosalind Street is a local residential street not designed for sustained heavy vehicle traffic. The removal of tens of thousands of cubic metres of excavated spoil, plus concrete agitators and construction plant over a multi-year programme, will impose serious pavement, safety and amenity impacts on this narrow street. Critically, Rosalind Street is the primary walking route used by children and families travelling to and from Anzac Public School each day. Heavy construction vehicles sharing this route with young pedestrians during school drop-off and pick-up periods presents an unacceptable and foreseeable safety risk. The Traffic and Transport Assessment must specifically address pavement capacity, pedestrian safety — including safe passage for school children — and the availability of an alternative haulage route. If Rosalind Street is the only viable route, its unsuitability as both a haulage corridor and a safe school route should be treated as a significant factor weighing against consent.
REQUESTED CONDITIONS IF CONSENT IS GRANTED (WITHOUT PREJUDICE)
If consent is granted, we request the following mandatory conditions: (1) pre-construction dilapidation survey of all lots in 29A Rosalind Street by an agreed independent structural engineer, at the developer's cost; (2) real-time vibration monitoring at the common boundary with automatic work-stoppage triggers referenced to DIN 4150-3 limits; (3) quantitative dust monitoring at 1/29A Rosalind Street with data published weekly on the Planning Portal; (4) financial security proportionate to full structural reinstatement of 29A Rosalind Street lodged before works commence; (5) Building B height reduced adjacent to our boundary to comply with the DCP 3-hour solar access standard; (6) all habitable windows facing our boundary screened to prevent overlooking; (7) the care facility to provide a minimum of 20 registered aged care beds operated under a binding agreement with an approved provider; (8) a registered covenant on title restricting all ILUs to occupancy by persons aged 60 or over, enforceable by North Sydney Council, for the lifetime of the development; and (9) tree replacement at a minimum 3:1 ratio with heavy vehicle movements prohibited on Rosalind Street during school drop-off and pick-up hours.
We request that the consent authority commission independent technical reviews of the shadow diagrams, vibration risk assessment, dust impact modelling and traffic assessment before determination, and provide us with the right to respond to any post-exhibition amendments. We are prepared to pursue this matter in the Land and Environment Court of NSW if necessary.
Sarah Pern and Ben Webber 1/29A Rosalind Street, Cammeray NSW 2062 31 March 2026
We are the registered owners and permanent residents of 1/29A Rosalind Street, the property immediately adjoining 19–23 Rosalind Street. The proposed Building B is set back only 3 metres from our common boundary. Our north-facing balcony and outdoor living area, which currently overlooks garden, greenery and open sky, sits directly adjacent to that boundary. We have resided here for 2.5 years. We object to this development in its entirety and call for refusal on the following grounds. We are legally informed and reserve all rights to pursue this matter in the Land and Environment Court of NSW.
GROUND 1 — SEPP MISUSE: THIS IS NOT GENUINE SENIORS HOUSING
The development invokes the Housing SEPP 2021 to override the North Sydney LEP 2013 controls that would otherwise prevent a development of this scale. Those override powers exist to deliver genuine seniors housing. This development does not do that.
The proposal demolishes three existing residential flat buildings containing 54 apartments — a net loss of at least 5 to 6 homes — and replaces them with 48 or 49 independent living units available only to seniors, plus 2 aged care beds in a basement "care hub." Those existing 54 homes include affordable 1-bedroom apartments accessible to a broad range of residents. They will be replaced with premium 3–4 bedroom units with a gymnasium, cinema, pool and sauna — a development that removes genuinely diverse, affordable housing and replaces it with a product accessible only to wealthy seniors, with minimal genuine care provision. The ratio of actual care beds to independent living units is 1:24. The industry benchmark for comparable approved developments in NSW is approximately 1 bed per 5 units. A recent North Rosebery precinct approval provides 170 ILUs paired with 34 registered care beds. This development falls eight times below that benchmark.
The development does not increase housing supply — it reduces it. It does not improve housing diversity — it destroys affordable stock. The Housing SEPP is a housing supply and diversity instrument. A development that produces fewer homes, eliminates affordability and provides a token care facility to unlock premium residential development rights is using that instrument for a purpose outside its scope. Land and Environment Court jurisprudence on the former Seniors SEPP is clear that the override powers are not available where the factual substance of a development does not match the SEPP's genuine purpose.
We request the consent authority require: a breakdown of capital investment value attributable to the care facility versus the ILUs; evidence of a binding agreement with a registered aged care provider under the Aged Care Act 1997 (Cth); and a demonstration that 2 aged care beds constitutes substantive rather than token provision. If this cannot be demonstrated, the application should be refused on this ground alone.
GROUND 2 — INCOMPATIBLE HEIGHT, BULK AND CHARACTER
The proposed buildings exceed the permissible height limit under the NSLEP 2013 by approximately 56%. No building in Rosalind Street approaches 5 storeys. Five and 6-storey buildings in a street of 2–3 storey buildings are not compatible with the existing or desired future character of this locality. Clause 4.3(g) of the NSLEP 2013 specifically aims to maintain a built form of mainly 1–2 storeys in Zone R3 Medium Density Residential. The non-discretionary SEPP standards set a floor of permissibility, not a ceiling of acceptability, and the consent authority retains its discretion to refuse where built form is incompatible with zone objectives and local character.
Significant non-compliance with DCP character provisions is a material consideration weighing against consent: Randwick City Council v Micaul Holdings Pty Ltd [2010] NSWCA 245.
The development also involves the removal of approximately 24 established trees from the site — a further and irreversible diminishment of the leafy residential character that defines Cammeray.
Approval will set a precedent for SEPP-enabled upzoning of the entire Cammeray residential precinct by stealth, without the strategic planning, community consultation or infrastructure assessment that a formal rezoning requires.
GROUND 3 — UNACCEPTABLE SOLAR ACCESS AND AMENITY IMPACTS
The development site lies to the west of our property. Our north-facing balcony and outdoor living space will lose direct afternoon sunlight as the 6-storey Building B — set back only 3 metres from our boundary — casts shadows across our primary private open space from approximately 1:00 pm onward on the winter solstice. This shadow impact falls squarely within the protected 9 am to 3 pm window under the North Sydney DCP 2013, which requires a minimum of 3 hours of direct sunlight to principal private open space on 21 June.
Solar access to established residential dwellings is a material planning consideration of significant weight: Coshott v Ludwig [2015] NSWCA 84. The shadow diagrams must be independently verified for compliance at Unit 1, 1/29A Rosalind Street specifically.
At 3 metres horizontal separation, a 6-storey building also enables direct overlooking into our balcony, garden and habitable rooms from levels 2 through 6. No screening or landscaping at boundary level can address overlooking from habitable rooms elevated up to 18 metres above ground at 3 metres distance. The DCP privacy controls cannot be satisfied by standard mitigation at this separation.
GROUND 4 — CONSTRUCTION HAZARDS: VIBRATION, STRUCTURAL RISK AND DUST
Bulk basement excavation at 3 metres from an established mid-20th century residential building creates structural and environmental risks that standard construction management conditions cannot adequately address.
The applicable structural vibration standard is DIN 4150-3, routinely applied in NSW LEC proceedings. At 3-metre separation, standard rock breaking and compaction will generate peak particle velocity values at or approaching the 5–20 mm/s limits for residential structures. The EIS must include a site-specific structural risk assessment for 29A Rosalind Street and must require a pre-construction dilapidation survey by an independent structural engineer agreed to by us, at the developer's cost, before any works commence.
Basement excavation at this distance will also generate sustained elevated concentrations of PM2.5 and PM10 particulate matter, including crystalline silica, a Class 1 carcinogen. A qualitative dust management plan is insufficient. A site-specific quantitative dust impact assessment for 1/29A Rosalind Street demonstrating compliance with WHO air quality guidelines at this receiver throughout a construction programme of two to three years is required.
GROUND 5 — TRAFFIC AND ROAD SAFETY
Rosalind Street is a local residential street not designed for sustained heavy vehicle traffic. The removal of tens of thousands of cubic metres of excavated spoil, plus concrete agitators and construction plant over a multi-year programme, will impose serious pavement, safety and amenity impacts on this narrow street. Critically, Rosalind Street is the primary walking route used by children and families travelling to and from Anzac Public School each day. Heavy construction vehicles sharing this route with young pedestrians during school drop-off and pick-up periods presents an unacceptable and foreseeable safety risk. The Traffic and Transport Assessment must specifically address pavement capacity, pedestrian safety — including safe passage for school children — and the availability of an alternative haulage route. If Rosalind Street is the only viable route, its unsuitability as both a haulage corridor and a safe school route should be treated as a significant factor weighing against consent.
REQUESTED CONDITIONS IF CONSENT IS GRANTED (WITHOUT PREJUDICE)
If consent is granted, we request the following mandatory conditions: (1) pre-construction dilapidation survey of all lots in 29A Rosalind Street by an agreed independent structural engineer, at the developer's cost; (2) real-time vibration monitoring at the common boundary with automatic work-stoppage triggers referenced to DIN 4150-3 limits; (3) quantitative dust monitoring at 1/29A Rosalind Street with data published weekly on the Planning Portal; (4) financial security proportionate to full structural reinstatement of 29A Rosalind Street lodged before works commence; (5) Building B height reduced adjacent to our boundary to comply with the DCP 3-hour solar access standard; (6) all habitable windows facing our boundary screened to prevent overlooking; (7) the care facility to provide a minimum of 20 registered aged care beds operated under a binding agreement with an approved provider; (8) a registered covenant on title restricting all ILUs to occupancy by persons aged 60 or over, enforceable by North Sydney Council, for the lifetime of the development; and (9) tree replacement at a minimum 3:1 ratio with heavy vehicle movements prohibited on Rosalind Street during school drop-off and pick-up hours.
We request that the consent authority commission independent technical reviews of the shadow diagrams, vibration risk assessment, dust impact modelling and traffic assessment before determination, and provide us with the right to respond to any post-exhibition amendments. We are prepared to pursue this matter in the Land and Environment Court of NSW if necessary.
Sarah Pern and Ben Webber 1/29A Rosalind Street, Cammeray NSW 2062 31 March 2026
Jessica Shirling
Object
Jessica Shirling
Object
Cammeray
,
New South Wales
Message
RE: OBJECTION to Seniors Housing Development – 19–23 Rosalind Street, Cammeray
I am writing as a resident of Unit 7, 29A Rosalind Street, which is located directly adjacent to the proposed development site.
I would like to state that I am not opposed to development in this area, nor to the provision of seniors housing. However, this proposal in its current form would have a significant and direct impact on our home and does not appear to appropriately respond to the constraints of the site or the surrounding residential context.
DIRECT IMPACT TO OUR HOME
Our townhouse is positioned to the south-east of the site, meaning the proposed development will directly overshadow our courtyard and primary living areas.
Given the scale and positioning of the buildings, the development would:
- Significantly reduce afternoon sunlight (photograph attached), which is when our outdoor space is most usable
- Replace our current outlook with a large built form in close proximity
- Introduce direct overlooking into our courtyard
This represents a material loss of amenity and would fundamentally change how we experience and use our home.
SCALE AND POSITIONING OF THE DEVELOPMENT
The proposal includes multiple storeys of residential apartments and a level of building bulk that appears disproportionate to the site, particularly toward the rear boundary.
Due to the site’s topography — which rises toward our property — the visual and physical impact of the development will be amplified. From our perspective, the building will present as taller and more dominant than it may from the street frontage.
The concentration of height and bulk toward the rear of the site does not appear to appropriately consider the relationship with adjoining properties.
CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS
The extent of excavation required for the development is a significant concern given its proximity to our home.
We are particularly concerned about:
- Prolonged construction noise and disruption
- Vibration associated with excavation works
- The overall duration and intensity of the construction phase
My partner works from home full-time, meaning this level of disruption will have a direct and ongoing impact on their ability to work and maintain a stable home environment.
CONCERNS REGARDING THE USE OF THE SSD PATHWAY
I also have concerns regarding whether this proposal appropriately aligns with the intent of the State Significant Development (SSD) framework.
1. Reliance on planning variations to achieve SSD scale
The proposal seeks approval for a building height that exceeds the applicable local planning controls.
It appears that the overall scale and construction value of the development may be closely tied to these variations. Without the additional height and resulting yield, it is unclear whether the project would meet the threshold typically required for SSD classification.
This raises the question of whether the SSD pathway is being enabled by departures from planning controls, rather than reflecting an appropriately scaled development.
2. Limited alignment with genuine seniors housing outcomes
While the development is presented as seniors housing, the proposal includes predominantly large residential apartments, with only a very limited provision of care facilities.
This raises questions as to whether the development is genuinely designed to meet seniors housing needs, or whether this classification is being relied upon primarily as a planning mechanism.
3. Limited increase in housing capacity
The intent of higher-density planning pathways is typically to increase housing supply and make more efficient use of land.
However, based on available information, the proposal appears to result in fewer, larger dwellings than currently exist on the site.
This raises questions as to whether the development delivers a meaningful increase in housing capacity, or instead replaces existing housing with lower-density outcomes.
OVERALL CONCERN
Taken together, the impacts of:
- Reduced sunlight
- Loss of privacy
- Increased building bulk
- Construction disruption
combined with concerns around the scale and classification of the development, suggest that the proposal is too intensive for the site in its current form.
CONCLUSION
I support well-designed and appropriately scaled development in Cammeray. However, this proposal does not currently achieve a balanced outcome between new development and the amenity of existing residents.
I respectfully request that the application be reconsidered and redesigned to better respond to the constraints of the site and to protect the amenity of adjoining properties.
I am writing as a resident of Unit 7, 29A Rosalind Street, which is located directly adjacent to the proposed development site.
I would like to state that I am not opposed to development in this area, nor to the provision of seniors housing. However, this proposal in its current form would have a significant and direct impact on our home and does not appear to appropriately respond to the constraints of the site or the surrounding residential context.
DIRECT IMPACT TO OUR HOME
Our townhouse is positioned to the south-east of the site, meaning the proposed development will directly overshadow our courtyard and primary living areas.
Given the scale and positioning of the buildings, the development would:
- Significantly reduce afternoon sunlight (photograph attached), which is when our outdoor space is most usable
- Replace our current outlook with a large built form in close proximity
- Introduce direct overlooking into our courtyard
This represents a material loss of amenity and would fundamentally change how we experience and use our home.
SCALE AND POSITIONING OF THE DEVELOPMENT
The proposal includes multiple storeys of residential apartments and a level of building bulk that appears disproportionate to the site, particularly toward the rear boundary.
Due to the site’s topography — which rises toward our property — the visual and physical impact of the development will be amplified. From our perspective, the building will present as taller and more dominant than it may from the street frontage.
The concentration of height and bulk toward the rear of the site does not appear to appropriately consider the relationship with adjoining properties.
CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS
The extent of excavation required for the development is a significant concern given its proximity to our home.
We are particularly concerned about:
- Prolonged construction noise and disruption
- Vibration associated with excavation works
- The overall duration and intensity of the construction phase
My partner works from home full-time, meaning this level of disruption will have a direct and ongoing impact on their ability to work and maintain a stable home environment.
CONCERNS REGARDING THE USE OF THE SSD PATHWAY
I also have concerns regarding whether this proposal appropriately aligns with the intent of the State Significant Development (SSD) framework.
1. Reliance on planning variations to achieve SSD scale
The proposal seeks approval for a building height that exceeds the applicable local planning controls.
It appears that the overall scale and construction value of the development may be closely tied to these variations. Without the additional height and resulting yield, it is unclear whether the project would meet the threshold typically required for SSD classification.
This raises the question of whether the SSD pathway is being enabled by departures from planning controls, rather than reflecting an appropriately scaled development.
2. Limited alignment with genuine seniors housing outcomes
While the development is presented as seniors housing, the proposal includes predominantly large residential apartments, with only a very limited provision of care facilities.
This raises questions as to whether the development is genuinely designed to meet seniors housing needs, or whether this classification is being relied upon primarily as a planning mechanism.
3. Limited increase in housing capacity
The intent of higher-density planning pathways is typically to increase housing supply and make more efficient use of land.
However, based on available information, the proposal appears to result in fewer, larger dwellings than currently exist on the site.
This raises questions as to whether the development delivers a meaningful increase in housing capacity, or instead replaces existing housing with lower-density outcomes.
OVERALL CONCERN
Taken together, the impacts of:
- Reduced sunlight
- Loss of privacy
- Increased building bulk
- Construction disruption
combined with concerns around the scale and classification of the development, suggest that the proposal is too intensive for the site in its current form.
CONCLUSION
I support well-designed and appropriately scaled development in Cammeray. However, this proposal does not currently achieve a balanced outcome between new development and the amenity of existing residents.
I respectfully request that the application be reconsidered and redesigned to better respond to the constraints of the site and to protect the amenity of adjoining properties.