Morgan Thomas
Object
Morgan Thomas
Object
Crows Nest
,
New South Wales
Message
I am an owner and resident of a strata property directly next to the proposed Cammeray Seniors Living development. I strongly object to the proposal in its current form due to its scale, its location, the construction risk, and the impact it will have on neighbouring residents.
Safety and structural risk
The level of excavation proposed, particularly the basement works, is a real concern given how close this sits to existing buildings. There is a genuine risk of vibration, ground movement and potential structural damage.
Our building was not designed for this type of work happening immediately beside it. Any impact to the structure creates safety risks and long term financial consequences for owners. I do not believe the proposal clearly demonstrates how these risks will be properly managed.
Scale and fit for the street
A six storey development of this size does not suit this street. It is too large, visually dominant and out of character with the surrounding low rise residential environment.
If this level of density is appropriate anywhere, it should be in a designated high density or transport corridor, not in this location.
Setbacks and separation
The proposed setbacks are not adequate for a building of this height and bulk. The outcome is obvious. Reduced privacy, less daylight, increased noise and a noticeable loss of openness for neighbouring properties, especially those directly next door.
Privacy and amenity
The design will result in direct overlooking into neighbouring apartments, including living areas and balconies. This is a permanent loss of privacy that cannot be fixed once the building is complete.
Overshadowing
The height and scale of the building will lead to overshadowing of surrounding properties, particularly in winter when access to sunlight is most important. This has a direct impact on liveability and comfort.
Construction impacts
Given how close the site is, residents will be heavily impacted during construction. Noise, dust, vibration and ongoing disruption will be unavoidable and will affect day to day living for a long period.
Environmental impact
The removal of around 27 mature trees is significant. This reduces canopy, increases heat and negatively impacts the local environment and overall amenity.
Planning outcome
For a development of this size, the return seems limited. There is minimal genuine aged care benefit and the proposal appears to rely on planning incentives that are not justified by what is actually being delivered.
Overall
When you consider the structural risk, the scale, the lack of proper setbacks, the loss of privacy, overshadowing, construction disruption and environmental impact together, this is not an appropriate development for this site.
Request
I ask that the consent authority either refuse the proposal in its current form, or require a substantial redesign. At a minimum this should include reduced height, increased setbacks and clear protections for neighbouring buildings and residents.
This proposal, as it stands, is not a good planning outcome for this location.
Yours sincerely,
Morgan
Safety and structural risk
The level of excavation proposed, particularly the basement works, is a real concern given how close this sits to existing buildings. There is a genuine risk of vibration, ground movement and potential structural damage.
Our building was not designed for this type of work happening immediately beside it. Any impact to the structure creates safety risks and long term financial consequences for owners. I do not believe the proposal clearly demonstrates how these risks will be properly managed.
Scale and fit for the street
A six storey development of this size does not suit this street. It is too large, visually dominant and out of character with the surrounding low rise residential environment.
If this level of density is appropriate anywhere, it should be in a designated high density or transport corridor, not in this location.
Setbacks and separation
The proposed setbacks are not adequate for a building of this height and bulk. The outcome is obvious. Reduced privacy, less daylight, increased noise and a noticeable loss of openness for neighbouring properties, especially those directly next door.
Privacy and amenity
The design will result in direct overlooking into neighbouring apartments, including living areas and balconies. This is a permanent loss of privacy that cannot be fixed once the building is complete.
Overshadowing
The height and scale of the building will lead to overshadowing of surrounding properties, particularly in winter when access to sunlight is most important. This has a direct impact on liveability and comfort.
Construction impacts
Given how close the site is, residents will be heavily impacted during construction. Noise, dust, vibration and ongoing disruption will be unavoidable and will affect day to day living for a long period.
Environmental impact
The removal of around 27 mature trees is significant. This reduces canopy, increases heat and negatively impacts the local environment and overall amenity.
Planning outcome
For a development of this size, the return seems limited. There is minimal genuine aged care benefit and the proposal appears to rely on planning incentives that are not justified by what is actually being delivered.
Overall
When you consider the structural risk, the scale, the lack of proper setbacks, the loss of privacy, overshadowing, construction disruption and environmental impact together, this is not an appropriate development for this site.
Request
I ask that the consent authority either refuse the proposal in its current form, or require a substantial redesign. At a minimum this should include reduced height, increased setbacks and clear protections for neighbouring buildings and residents.
This proposal, as it stands, is not a good planning outcome for this location.
Yours sincerely,
Morgan
Rosie Thomas
Object
Rosie Thomas
Object
Crows Nest
,
New South Wales
Message
To whom it may concern,
Re: Objection to SSD 96505456 – Cammeray Seniors Living
I am a resident and owner in the residential strata building that is immediately adjoining the site of the proposed Cammeray Seniors Living development. Due to the close proximity of my home to the site, I have serious concerns about the proposal and the significant and permanent impacts it will have on neighbouring residents and buildings.
Risk to Adjoining Foundations and Structures: Of particular concern is the scale of excavation and basement construction proposed directly adjacent to our strata building. Deep excavation, piling and retaining works present a real risk of ground movement, vibration and structural damage to adjoining foundations. As a neighbouring building constructed prior to this proposal, our strata is especially vulnerable to these impacts. Any damage to foundations would have serious safety, financial and long-term structural consequences for residents and owners.
The proposal does not provide sufficient reassurance that these risks can be avoided or adequately managed, particularly given the intensity of development proposed on a constrained site immediately beside existing homes.
Excessive Height, Bulk and Scale: The proposed six-storey development is excessive in height and bulk for this location and is out of character with the surrounding residential street. When positioned directly next to an existing strata building, the scale of the proposal becomes overbearing and fails to provide an appropriate transition to neighbouring development.
Non-Compliant and Inadequate Setbacks: The proposed setbacks are insufficient for a building of this height, particularly along boundaries adjoining residential properties. Reduced separation distances will result in:
•Increased overshadowing
•Loss of privacy
•Loss of outlook and residential amenity
These impacts are significantly amplified due to the immediate adjacency of the development to our building.
Privacy and Amenity Impacts: Given the height and proximity of the proposal, there will be direct overlooking from multiple levels into neighbouring apartments, balconies and living areas. These privacy impacts are ongoing and cannot be adequately mitigated through screening or landscaping alone.
Overshadowing and Loss of Solar Access: The proposed building height and bulk will result in unacceptable overshadowing, reducing access to sunlight for neighbouring dwellings, particularly during winter months. This represents a permanent loss of potential to install and reap the benefit of solar amenity.
Reduced Housing Outcomes: Despite being promoted as a major development, the proposal results in fewer dwellings and fewer people housed, rather than meaningfully contributing to housing supply. This outcome does not justify the scale of impacts imposed on neighbouring residents.
Minimal Genuine Aged Care Provision: While described as seniors living, the proposal includes only two care beds, both located in the basement. This raises concerns about the genuine provision of aged care and whether the development appropriately relies on planning incentives intended to support ageing-in-place outcomes.
Environmental Impacts: The proposal involves near-total site clearance, including the removal of approximately 27 mature trees. This will result in the permanent loss of canopy, shade, habitat and environmental amenity for the local area and neighbouring residents.
Inappropriate Location: A development of this scale and intensity is not appropriate for a quiet residential street that is not designated as a high-density or transport-oriented development area. The proposal places a disproportionate burden on existing residents who will experience the impacts most acutely.
Community and Broader Concerns: The concerns raised by local residents have also been echoed in submissions made by community representatives following direct site inspections. These submissions reflect the widespread and consistent nature of the issues arising from this proposal.
Cumulative Impact: When considered together, the impacts of:
•Structural and foundation risk
•Excessive height and bulk
•Inadequate setbacks
•Privacy loss
•Overshadowing
•Environmental damage
Result in an unacceptable cumulative impact on neighbouring residential amenity and safety.
Relief Sought: I respectfully request that the consent authority:
• Refuse the proposal in its current form; or
• Require substantial amendments including reduced height, increased setbacks and a redesign that properly protects adjoining properties; and
• Ensure that any development does not pose an unacceptable risk to neighbouring foundations and structures.
In its current form, the proposal does not appropriately respond to its context and should not be approved.
Yours sincerely,
Rosie Thomas
3/2-4 Trafalgar Street, Crows Nest NSW 2065
Re: Objection to SSD 96505456 – Cammeray Seniors Living
I am a resident and owner in the residential strata building that is immediately adjoining the site of the proposed Cammeray Seniors Living development. Due to the close proximity of my home to the site, I have serious concerns about the proposal and the significant and permanent impacts it will have on neighbouring residents and buildings.
Risk to Adjoining Foundations and Structures: Of particular concern is the scale of excavation and basement construction proposed directly adjacent to our strata building. Deep excavation, piling and retaining works present a real risk of ground movement, vibration and structural damage to adjoining foundations. As a neighbouring building constructed prior to this proposal, our strata is especially vulnerable to these impacts. Any damage to foundations would have serious safety, financial and long-term structural consequences for residents and owners.
The proposal does not provide sufficient reassurance that these risks can be avoided or adequately managed, particularly given the intensity of development proposed on a constrained site immediately beside existing homes.
Excessive Height, Bulk and Scale: The proposed six-storey development is excessive in height and bulk for this location and is out of character with the surrounding residential street. When positioned directly next to an existing strata building, the scale of the proposal becomes overbearing and fails to provide an appropriate transition to neighbouring development.
Non-Compliant and Inadequate Setbacks: The proposed setbacks are insufficient for a building of this height, particularly along boundaries adjoining residential properties. Reduced separation distances will result in:
•Increased overshadowing
•Loss of privacy
•Loss of outlook and residential amenity
These impacts are significantly amplified due to the immediate adjacency of the development to our building.
Privacy and Amenity Impacts: Given the height and proximity of the proposal, there will be direct overlooking from multiple levels into neighbouring apartments, balconies and living areas. These privacy impacts are ongoing and cannot be adequately mitigated through screening or landscaping alone.
Overshadowing and Loss of Solar Access: The proposed building height and bulk will result in unacceptable overshadowing, reducing access to sunlight for neighbouring dwellings, particularly during winter months. This represents a permanent loss of potential to install and reap the benefit of solar amenity.
Reduced Housing Outcomes: Despite being promoted as a major development, the proposal results in fewer dwellings and fewer people housed, rather than meaningfully contributing to housing supply. This outcome does not justify the scale of impacts imposed on neighbouring residents.
Minimal Genuine Aged Care Provision: While described as seniors living, the proposal includes only two care beds, both located in the basement. This raises concerns about the genuine provision of aged care and whether the development appropriately relies on planning incentives intended to support ageing-in-place outcomes.
Environmental Impacts: The proposal involves near-total site clearance, including the removal of approximately 27 mature trees. This will result in the permanent loss of canopy, shade, habitat and environmental amenity for the local area and neighbouring residents.
Inappropriate Location: A development of this scale and intensity is not appropriate for a quiet residential street that is not designated as a high-density or transport-oriented development area. The proposal places a disproportionate burden on existing residents who will experience the impacts most acutely.
Community and Broader Concerns: The concerns raised by local residents have also been echoed in submissions made by community representatives following direct site inspections. These submissions reflect the widespread and consistent nature of the issues arising from this proposal.
Cumulative Impact: When considered together, the impacts of:
•Structural and foundation risk
•Excessive height and bulk
•Inadequate setbacks
•Privacy loss
•Overshadowing
•Environmental damage
Result in an unacceptable cumulative impact on neighbouring residential amenity and safety.
Relief Sought: I respectfully request that the consent authority:
• Refuse the proposal in its current form; or
• Require substantial amendments including reduced height, increased setbacks and a redesign that properly protects adjoining properties; and
• Ensure that any development does not pose an unacceptable risk to neighbouring foundations and structures.
In its current form, the proposal does not appropriately respond to its context and should not be approved.
Yours sincerely,
Rosie Thomas
3/2-4 Trafalgar Street, Crows Nest NSW 2065
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
CROWS NEST
,
New South Wales
Message
I object to the proposed Cammeray Seniors Living development (Seniors 19-23 Rosalind Street, Cammeray).
I live at 191 West St, our apartment block is on the western boundary of the proposed development. The development’s boundary is approximately 6 metres from living spaces in our block.
I have serious concerns about the proposed size and design of the development, the impacts on green space and wildlife, impacts on local buildings, the suitability of the proposed development to meet housing needs as well as incompatibility with the established character of our neighbourhood.
Further there has been a lack of true community engagement with marketing presentations used to fill the time allocated for discussion, and unanswered questions.
1. Proposed size and design
The site is zoned R4, surrounded by a range of R4, R3, R2, E1 and RE1 sites. Existing buildings in the area with federation-era cottages adjoining the site and across the road. Current buildings on the site are three storeys.
The proposed development includes six and seven storey buildings, with four-five storeys above ground. This seeks to use the permissible height bonus for seniors housing, and a further variation beyond this bonus.
The proposed height is excessive for the neighbourhood and will create significant overshadowing and loss of sunlight to our, and other, residences as well as the broader neighbourhood. The variation should be denied, and the proposal revised to be compliant with planning controls.
The proposed setbacks are small, ranging from 3 to 6 metres on the western boundary of the site. Awnings will further reduce these. Larger setbacks are particularly important given the height and bulk of the proposed development. The existing buildings on the site are much smaller and have much larger setbacks. The proposed development will cause overshadowing, loss of sunlight and reduced privacy for neighbouring properties. For example our communal washing line will no longer receive sun, making it unusable and our small communal green space area will be completely overshadowed by a large building. The design is also visually intrusive and not consistent with the character of the area. The design needs to be modified to include larger setbacks on the western boundary to reduce the impact on privacy, usability of outdoor areas and sunlight of adjoining properties and spaces.
2. Impacts on green space and wildlife
The planned removal of trees and loss of deep soil is inconsistent with existing planning and environmental protections. Such destruction will have detrimental effects on local biodiversity and species habitats. The site is very close to St Thomas Rest Park which is a historically significant green space. It is heavily used by residents (many such as myself living in apartments seeking green space and connection to nature) as well as home to diverse species (for example Tawny owls). The area is already subject to loss of green space and vegetation through the construction of Warringah freeway. The cumulative impact needs to be considered.
The development needs to be modified to retain more existing trees on the site, and reduce the visual impacts (due to bulk and scale) as well as have a clear plan to make sure St Thomas rest park is protected from construction impacts.
3. Impacts on local buildings and residents
A development of this scale will be long-running and require significant earth works and construction. The site is surrounded on all sides by numerous residential dwellings including numerous apartment blocks. Many residents work from home and will be heavily impacted by noise, vibrations and dust. This means:
a. The development must be required to take steps to minimise impacts on residents, such as sound walls and minimising dust and debris.
b. Construction hours must be limited to 8am-5pm on M-F (and 8am-3pm Sat) to still provide a 9 hour window of operation and enable rest for residents.
c. Dilapidation reports must be prepared and surrounding buildings restored to at least the pre-construction state following the development.
4. Proposed development is ill suited to housing needs
North Sydney faces a pressing need for affordable housing. The site currently contributes apartments (largely studio or 1 bedroom) to scarce housing stock. Many of these are rental properties, and when advertised are very quickly leased indicating the demand.
This development proposes to replace the existing units with large 3-4 bedroom luxury units for seniors. Most of these 3-4 bedroom apartments will be occupied by a single person or a couple. This does not effectively support downsizing. Despite the size and bulk of development it gives a net reduction in units. This is an inefficient use of land space and development. The same number of people could be comfortably and appropriately housed with a much smaller and less bulky development and therefore with far less impact on the environment, neighbourhood and residents.
The development should:
a. Include some affordable housing.
b. Be scaled back to provide the same number of residences, with less height and bulk to reduce impact on neighbouring properties and the community.
5. Incompatibility with local neighbourhood and local infrastructure
The proposed seniors development is not suited to the site. The proposal refers to Bus Stop IDs 206217 and 2065105 and the routes that service these stops as providing connectivity to services. As someone who uses these bus stops I know that these services are regularly at capacity, there are queues during peak hours. A site closer to higher capacity transport such as the metro would be more suitable for the proposed seniors development. Similarly large supermarkets and extensive amenities and services are available in Crows Nest, far exceeding those available in Cammeray which provide limited offerings and low competition. Crows Nest metro is around a 1.2km walk from the site. This means Crows Nest metro and the Crows Nest amenities/services are widely used by local working age residents on foot. However, a much a larger portion of seniors’ residents would find these out of reach, or require the use of cars. The site should not be used for a seniors development. There is also a large seniors development planned by the Moran Group for Falcon St, much more appropriately located by the Crows Nest metro. This will create sufficient seniors housing, what is lacking is affordable housing and housing for working ages.
This means:
a. The site should be used for an alternative development which provides more modest housing for all ages, including some affordable housing.
b. North Sydney local council should have a greater role in the assessment of the development of refinement of plans as they have an understanding of the local area needs and heritage.
I live at 191 West St, our apartment block is on the western boundary of the proposed development. The development’s boundary is approximately 6 metres from living spaces in our block.
I have serious concerns about the proposed size and design of the development, the impacts on green space and wildlife, impacts on local buildings, the suitability of the proposed development to meet housing needs as well as incompatibility with the established character of our neighbourhood.
Further there has been a lack of true community engagement with marketing presentations used to fill the time allocated for discussion, and unanswered questions.
1. Proposed size and design
The site is zoned R4, surrounded by a range of R4, R3, R2, E1 and RE1 sites. Existing buildings in the area with federation-era cottages adjoining the site and across the road. Current buildings on the site are three storeys.
The proposed development includes six and seven storey buildings, with four-five storeys above ground. This seeks to use the permissible height bonus for seniors housing, and a further variation beyond this bonus.
The proposed height is excessive for the neighbourhood and will create significant overshadowing and loss of sunlight to our, and other, residences as well as the broader neighbourhood. The variation should be denied, and the proposal revised to be compliant with planning controls.
The proposed setbacks are small, ranging from 3 to 6 metres on the western boundary of the site. Awnings will further reduce these. Larger setbacks are particularly important given the height and bulk of the proposed development. The existing buildings on the site are much smaller and have much larger setbacks. The proposed development will cause overshadowing, loss of sunlight and reduced privacy for neighbouring properties. For example our communal washing line will no longer receive sun, making it unusable and our small communal green space area will be completely overshadowed by a large building. The design is also visually intrusive and not consistent with the character of the area. The design needs to be modified to include larger setbacks on the western boundary to reduce the impact on privacy, usability of outdoor areas and sunlight of adjoining properties and spaces.
2. Impacts on green space and wildlife
The planned removal of trees and loss of deep soil is inconsistent with existing planning and environmental protections. Such destruction will have detrimental effects on local biodiversity and species habitats. The site is very close to St Thomas Rest Park which is a historically significant green space. It is heavily used by residents (many such as myself living in apartments seeking green space and connection to nature) as well as home to diverse species (for example Tawny owls). The area is already subject to loss of green space and vegetation through the construction of Warringah freeway. The cumulative impact needs to be considered.
The development needs to be modified to retain more existing trees on the site, and reduce the visual impacts (due to bulk and scale) as well as have a clear plan to make sure St Thomas rest park is protected from construction impacts.
3. Impacts on local buildings and residents
A development of this scale will be long-running and require significant earth works and construction. The site is surrounded on all sides by numerous residential dwellings including numerous apartment blocks. Many residents work from home and will be heavily impacted by noise, vibrations and dust. This means:
a. The development must be required to take steps to minimise impacts on residents, such as sound walls and minimising dust and debris.
b. Construction hours must be limited to 8am-5pm on M-F (and 8am-3pm Sat) to still provide a 9 hour window of operation and enable rest for residents.
c. Dilapidation reports must be prepared and surrounding buildings restored to at least the pre-construction state following the development.
4. Proposed development is ill suited to housing needs
North Sydney faces a pressing need for affordable housing. The site currently contributes apartments (largely studio or 1 bedroom) to scarce housing stock. Many of these are rental properties, and when advertised are very quickly leased indicating the demand.
This development proposes to replace the existing units with large 3-4 bedroom luxury units for seniors. Most of these 3-4 bedroom apartments will be occupied by a single person or a couple. This does not effectively support downsizing. Despite the size and bulk of development it gives a net reduction in units. This is an inefficient use of land space and development. The same number of people could be comfortably and appropriately housed with a much smaller and less bulky development and therefore with far less impact on the environment, neighbourhood and residents.
The development should:
a. Include some affordable housing.
b. Be scaled back to provide the same number of residences, with less height and bulk to reduce impact on neighbouring properties and the community.
5. Incompatibility with local neighbourhood and local infrastructure
The proposed seniors development is not suited to the site. The proposal refers to Bus Stop IDs 206217 and 2065105 and the routes that service these stops as providing connectivity to services. As someone who uses these bus stops I know that these services are regularly at capacity, there are queues during peak hours. A site closer to higher capacity transport such as the metro would be more suitable for the proposed seniors development. Similarly large supermarkets and extensive amenities and services are available in Crows Nest, far exceeding those available in Cammeray which provide limited offerings and low competition. Crows Nest metro is around a 1.2km walk from the site. This means Crows Nest metro and the Crows Nest amenities/services are widely used by local working age residents on foot. However, a much a larger portion of seniors’ residents would find these out of reach, or require the use of cars. The site should not be used for a seniors development. There is also a large seniors development planned by the Moran Group for Falcon St, much more appropriately located by the Crows Nest metro. This will create sufficient seniors housing, what is lacking is affordable housing and housing for working ages.
This means:
a. The site should be used for an alternative development which provides more modest housing for all ages, including some affordable housing.
b. North Sydney local council should have a greater role in the assessment of the development of refinement of plans as they have an understanding of the local area needs and heritage.
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
CROWS NEST
,
New South Wales
Message
Objection to SSD-96505456 - Cammeray Seniors Living
I am a resident of Trafalgar Street, Crows Nest and the property where I reside is on the southern boundary of the proposed development, and I am writing to submit my objection given the following concerns:
Excessive bulk and height of the development: The scale of the development is markedly out of character with the existing streetscape and will tower over neighbouring properties which, in turn, will impact solar access casting longer shadows onto adjacent dwellings, light and privacy. The impact of overshadowing and visual dominance will be significant when viewed from surrounding streets. In the vicinity, current building heights are up to 12m, this development intends to overreach the acceptable limits to 18.36m for Building B – purely with the intent being to capitalise on potential water views – and 15.8m for Building A. In response to community concerns, we were advised there had been a 300mm height reduction which is clearly an insignificant concession given the scale of the development.
Ground level setbacks: The setbacks are inadequate with the scale of the development and impact significantly on neighbouring properties – the setbacks do not provide adequate separation nor do they protect the amenity of those properties.
Significant geotechnical risks & hazards: Due to the deep excavation required to accommodate the development as it currently stands, the excavation compromises the integrity of surrounding buildings. Neighbouring properties are in jeopardy of being damaged due to vibration and ground movement, not only during excavation but the construction phase as well, in addition to essential services being potentially compromised as well.
No increase in housing: Three residential unit complexes comprising 54 dwellings housing residents with social diversity, are to be demolished in order for 49 Independent Living Units to be built affording seniors to ‘age in place’, all whilst the residents in the 54 dwellings are displaced to age elsewhere. In essence, this is purely a luxury apartment development masquerading under the guise of seniors housing as evidenced by the token addition of two residential care facilities in order to comply with the SEPP2021.
Excessive removal of trees: 27 trees to be removed from the site thus removing the green canopy and habitat for native bird and wildlife. Ironically the leafy character of Rosalind Street has been cited as one aspect which makes the site so attractive to the developers, yet they are removing a significant number of mature trees including a Port Jackson Fig. The proposed replacement planting does not adequately compensate for the removal of mature trees as it will take decades for any tree planted on the site to reach maturity.
Future development of adjacent sites: As indicated in the Urban Design Report, Section 6.4, the plan clearly outlines the desired future acquisition of: 185-187 West Street, 191 West Street, Crows Nest (both two storey unit complexes), 27 and 29A Rosalind Street, Cammeray which signals that this development will only spread and, ultimately, affect even more neighbouring properties in the future, whilst further exacerbating impact to those that will be affected by the development as it is currently planned.
The process: My understanding of the intent of State Significant Developments is that it is a pathway to address housing needs and supply. This development is significant to the State solely for economic reasons alone; that being the construction cost exceeding $30 million. Social reasons do not apply in this case given this is housing for an affluent sector of society, it is not housing which is diversified or provides affordability. The developers have clearly chosen this pathway as it circumvents planning controls that would generally apply to North Sydney Council. Council’s input has been heavily diluted, given they have a very limited opportunity for meaningful and considered input, and heavily favours the developer. This development does carry potential social & environmental impacts – more so for those that will be impacted by its establishment rather than for those it is being built for.
I fail to see the benefit to either the community or the State and urge the Minister for Planning to personally visit the site to see first hand the impact this over-development will have, not only in irreversibly changing the character of the suburb, given that if the development is approved it will set a precedent for Cammeray, but on all neighbouring properties. This development is not “suitable for the site, and in the public interest” as claimed in the EIS (8.0 Conclusion).
This development should be assessed at a local level, not State, as its impacts are highly local in nature. If the site were to be developed and assessed in line with North Sydney Council planning controls I firmly believe there would be very limited concern from the community. The far reaching local impacts this proposed development will have would not be acceptable under a council-led assessment and Council should be given greater weight in determining this application.
Thank you for considering my objection.
I am a resident of Trafalgar Street, Crows Nest and the property where I reside is on the southern boundary of the proposed development, and I am writing to submit my objection given the following concerns:
Excessive bulk and height of the development: The scale of the development is markedly out of character with the existing streetscape and will tower over neighbouring properties which, in turn, will impact solar access casting longer shadows onto adjacent dwellings, light and privacy. The impact of overshadowing and visual dominance will be significant when viewed from surrounding streets. In the vicinity, current building heights are up to 12m, this development intends to overreach the acceptable limits to 18.36m for Building B – purely with the intent being to capitalise on potential water views – and 15.8m for Building A. In response to community concerns, we were advised there had been a 300mm height reduction which is clearly an insignificant concession given the scale of the development.
Ground level setbacks: The setbacks are inadequate with the scale of the development and impact significantly on neighbouring properties – the setbacks do not provide adequate separation nor do they protect the amenity of those properties.
Significant geotechnical risks & hazards: Due to the deep excavation required to accommodate the development as it currently stands, the excavation compromises the integrity of surrounding buildings. Neighbouring properties are in jeopardy of being damaged due to vibration and ground movement, not only during excavation but the construction phase as well, in addition to essential services being potentially compromised as well.
No increase in housing: Three residential unit complexes comprising 54 dwellings housing residents with social diversity, are to be demolished in order for 49 Independent Living Units to be built affording seniors to ‘age in place’, all whilst the residents in the 54 dwellings are displaced to age elsewhere. In essence, this is purely a luxury apartment development masquerading under the guise of seniors housing as evidenced by the token addition of two residential care facilities in order to comply with the SEPP2021.
Excessive removal of trees: 27 trees to be removed from the site thus removing the green canopy and habitat for native bird and wildlife. Ironically the leafy character of Rosalind Street has been cited as one aspect which makes the site so attractive to the developers, yet they are removing a significant number of mature trees including a Port Jackson Fig. The proposed replacement planting does not adequately compensate for the removal of mature trees as it will take decades for any tree planted on the site to reach maturity.
Future development of adjacent sites: As indicated in the Urban Design Report, Section 6.4, the plan clearly outlines the desired future acquisition of: 185-187 West Street, 191 West Street, Crows Nest (both two storey unit complexes), 27 and 29A Rosalind Street, Cammeray which signals that this development will only spread and, ultimately, affect even more neighbouring properties in the future, whilst further exacerbating impact to those that will be affected by the development as it is currently planned.
The process: My understanding of the intent of State Significant Developments is that it is a pathway to address housing needs and supply. This development is significant to the State solely for economic reasons alone; that being the construction cost exceeding $30 million. Social reasons do not apply in this case given this is housing for an affluent sector of society, it is not housing which is diversified or provides affordability. The developers have clearly chosen this pathway as it circumvents planning controls that would generally apply to North Sydney Council. Council’s input has been heavily diluted, given they have a very limited opportunity for meaningful and considered input, and heavily favours the developer. This development does carry potential social & environmental impacts – more so for those that will be impacted by its establishment rather than for those it is being built for.
I fail to see the benefit to either the community or the State and urge the Minister for Planning to personally visit the site to see first hand the impact this over-development will have, not only in irreversibly changing the character of the suburb, given that if the development is approved it will set a precedent for Cammeray, but on all neighbouring properties. This development is not “suitable for the site, and in the public interest” as claimed in the EIS (8.0 Conclusion).
This development should be assessed at a local level, not State, as its impacts are highly local in nature. If the site were to be developed and assessed in line with North Sydney Council planning controls I firmly believe there would be very limited concern from the community. The far reaching local impacts this proposed development will have would not be acceptable under a council-led assessment and Council should be given greater weight in determining this application.
Thank you for considering my objection.
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
CAMMERAY
,
New South Wales
Message
• Removal of existing, affordable, mostly one bedroom home units that attract young workers & older singles in favour of luxury, oversized family units.
• Not really Seniors Living. Will maybe sell to families with more than one car. Maybe older children living there too with their own vehicles. Family noise will become a problem, more people living in this space even though similar amount of units. Noise rises eg. Stockland Cammeray Square units are very noisy from courtyard shopping area.
• Closer to street, closer to existing fence lines & deep underground rooms, shop means more staff activity, trucks delivering.
• Windows & balconies seem to be overlooking other existing homes & units. I think the design is inclined to create dissatisfaction amongst those living there & everyone else.
• I believe No. 15 will have balconies directly adjacent to their windows. Plus the new building being closer to the road & higher means all morning light from the East will be blocked. North facing means little direct sunlight makes it into rooms.
• Government wants workers to return to the City but this project removes current workers to another place if only for Senior Living. Just providing downsizers with places so that larger family homes can be sold or redeveloped. This makes sense but no need to ruin every older building. There has been some deplorable residential building - grey roofs, too close, overheating as no tree canopy. Other ugly tower unit blocks seen from Albany St, Crows Nest just grey blocks. Paraween St Cremorne many older homes removed for a development. No parking for theatre & restaurant crowds. Walker St, North Sydney 5 older blocks to be redeveloped. I appreciate varied architecture & detest people who follow fashion trends. Over past 20 years fashion colours have gone through blue grey, grey, black to currently frigid white & melamine. All dismal.
• Trying to introduce high rise into well established Low-Medium Rise area which will change area and values forever.
• Rosalind St was deliberately planted with native trees Paperbarks and Bottlebrush to be a native corridor between Anzac Park, golf course and St Thomas Rest Park. Many birds and animals inhabit this street. This property was also planted with Paperbarks - 3 along fence lines. These are to be removed & probably the large one on nature strip. Both types of possums, bees, flocks ie lorikeets, flying foxes (in early summer) all rely on these for food. Various owls, tawny frogmouths, butcher, magpie, currawongs, cockatoos, king parrot, noisy minors, etc & small creatures inhabit this immediate area. All make some noise but are part of the environment here. Visitors like AirB&B guests to 19-23 Rosalind St appreciated seeing Australian creatures.
• 15 Rosalind St was built in about 1957. Well built, 9 one bedroom units. When the existing 19-23 the units were built this property suffered some damage as 19-23 is nearly a metre lower. Some subsidence even though there is a wall ie handrail to Unit 1 pulled away from wall.
• 15 Rosalind has also been affected by the mature Paperbarks along the fenceline (as mentioned above). Roots are well established under No. 15's driveway & carpark concrete. Removal of these trees will cause roots to decay & this area to subside. Having spent years sweeping up leaf litter daily in summer I am annoyed that they will be destroyed. Previous owner of house behind us planted 3 sheoaks (stupid)(maybe casaurinas) so there are other large trees nearby also proving attractive to birds & animals.
• One sheoak was removed, also a huge camphor laurel in the 1990s. Although professionally done & backfilled we are of the opinion our land is soft. Whilst there is a wall along the fenceline with No. 19-23 we wouldn't like deep digging & tree removal to happen for fear of damage to our building.
• Water pools on No. 19 at the West side of the building from rains so the tree removal & drainage on their property might be a problem for them. They don't get much light there & it is drafty down that side, like our left side driveway.
• We have been enduring the Freeway Upgrade from North Sydney to Naremburn, night & day, especially the lower end of Rosalind St where many gum trees were removed. The Anzac Park & golf course have been taken over. 1000 trees reportedly removed along & around Freeway. Now they are building a tunnel & pollution stacks there just a short distance from the Anzac School.
• There were no bush turkeys around although there were ones around Kirribilli & Balmoral Beach in 2020-21. When the 1000 trees were removed turkeys naturally moved into Rosalind St at Miller St. They are still there. A male & 2 females moved to 19-23 & bred over the next few years. They came onto No. 15 as chicks & adults as we have a quiet backyard & hedges. They don't like the many dog walkers on Rosalind St going to St Thomas Rest Park each afternoon. We were coping with 26 up until the units at 19-23 were bought up then the agent or owner company got rid of 21. Suddenly gone. I believe they would have had to be poisoned as they are nervy things. I wonder if approval was sought, as they are meant to be protected! Five were left, traumatised in the Paperbarks. The dominant male began mating again so we now have about 7 in the trees. I know that a dog & a cat have killed or injured 4. Two got run over. People blast their horns at them.
• Which brings me to the road. It is not as quiet as assumed. Cars race down, families with school kids pass by from Anzac School. West St has heavy traffic periods. Helicopters from RNSH can be heard plus ones over the Freeway or North Sydney Oval ie media. The traffic on Miller & the Freeway can clearly be heard, especially buses. There has always been a renovation or 2 going on nearby plus each dwelling has gardening noise, especially Mondays. We get afternoon sea breeze in summer & no sun in backyard in winter. North facing.
• I have found that owners buy in, want to change things, renovate, put down wood floors, plant trees, buy decorative stuff then move out & rent (often to couples or families) leaving us to cope with all the problems they create. I think developers are probably the same. It causes everyone a lot of unhealthy resentment & frustration. Colliers people talk nicely but I don't think the developers have any other interest than greed. The agent is already buying up properties in other streets, so I've been told.
• I think 3-4 storeys is quite sufficient to keep an Australian appeal in this street at least. No one is going to come to Sydney to see boring concrete towers. They want blue skies, green trees, harbour, beach, unique animals & Outback red soil.
• Towers just end up blocking each other's views. Tower buildings have underground parking but usually take up street parking with two or three large driveway entrances.
• The buildings when sold are to be managed by Waterhouse. I know that in Qld managing companies of unit blocks are contracted for a 25 year term. This means they don't have to try very hard. I don't know about Sydney but it is not right.
• Thank you for reading this. My apologies. Some of it is relevant!
• Not really Seniors Living. Will maybe sell to families with more than one car. Maybe older children living there too with their own vehicles. Family noise will become a problem, more people living in this space even though similar amount of units. Noise rises eg. Stockland Cammeray Square units are very noisy from courtyard shopping area.
• Closer to street, closer to existing fence lines & deep underground rooms, shop means more staff activity, trucks delivering.
• Windows & balconies seem to be overlooking other existing homes & units. I think the design is inclined to create dissatisfaction amongst those living there & everyone else.
• I believe No. 15 will have balconies directly adjacent to their windows. Plus the new building being closer to the road & higher means all morning light from the East will be blocked. North facing means little direct sunlight makes it into rooms.
• Government wants workers to return to the City but this project removes current workers to another place if only for Senior Living. Just providing downsizers with places so that larger family homes can be sold or redeveloped. This makes sense but no need to ruin every older building. There has been some deplorable residential building - grey roofs, too close, overheating as no tree canopy. Other ugly tower unit blocks seen from Albany St, Crows Nest just grey blocks. Paraween St Cremorne many older homes removed for a development. No parking for theatre & restaurant crowds. Walker St, North Sydney 5 older blocks to be redeveloped. I appreciate varied architecture & detest people who follow fashion trends. Over past 20 years fashion colours have gone through blue grey, grey, black to currently frigid white & melamine. All dismal.
• Trying to introduce high rise into well established Low-Medium Rise area which will change area and values forever.
• Rosalind St was deliberately planted with native trees Paperbarks and Bottlebrush to be a native corridor between Anzac Park, golf course and St Thomas Rest Park. Many birds and animals inhabit this street. This property was also planted with Paperbarks - 3 along fence lines. These are to be removed & probably the large one on nature strip. Both types of possums, bees, flocks ie lorikeets, flying foxes (in early summer) all rely on these for food. Various owls, tawny frogmouths, butcher, magpie, currawongs, cockatoos, king parrot, noisy minors, etc & small creatures inhabit this immediate area. All make some noise but are part of the environment here. Visitors like AirB&B guests to 19-23 Rosalind St appreciated seeing Australian creatures.
• 15 Rosalind St was built in about 1957. Well built, 9 one bedroom units. When the existing 19-23 the units were built this property suffered some damage as 19-23 is nearly a metre lower. Some subsidence even though there is a wall ie handrail to Unit 1 pulled away from wall.
• 15 Rosalind has also been affected by the mature Paperbarks along the fenceline (as mentioned above). Roots are well established under No. 15's driveway & carpark concrete. Removal of these trees will cause roots to decay & this area to subside. Having spent years sweeping up leaf litter daily in summer I am annoyed that they will be destroyed. Previous owner of house behind us planted 3 sheoaks (stupid)(maybe casaurinas) so there are other large trees nearby also proving attractive to birds & animals.
• One sheoak was removed, also a huge camphor laurel in the 1990s. Although professionally done & backfilled we are of the opinion our land is soft. Whilst there is a wall along the fenceline with No. 19-23 we wouldn't like deep digging & tree removal to happen for fear of damage to our building.
• Water pools on No. 19 at the West side of the building from rains so the tree removal & drainage on their property might be a problem for them. They don't get much light there & it is drafty down that side, like our left side driveway.
• We have been enduring the Freeway Upgrade from North Sydney to Naremburn, night & day, especially the lower end of Rosalind St where many gum trees were removed. The Anzac Park & golf course have been taken over. 1000 trees reportedly removed along & around Freeway. Now they are building a tunnel & pollution stacks there just a short distance from the Anzac School.
• There were no bush turkeys around although there were ones around Kirribilli & Balmoral Beach in 2020-21. When the 1000 trees were removed turkeys naturally moved into Rosalind St at Miller St. They are still there. A male & 2 females moved to 19-23 & bred over the next few years. They came onto No. 15 as chicks & adults as we have a quiet backyard & hedges. They don't like the many dog walkers on Rosalind St going to St Thomas Rest Park each afternoon. We were coping with 26 up until the units at 19-23 were bought up then the agent or owner company got rid of 21. Suddenly gone. I believe they would have had to be poisoned as they are nervy things. I wonder if approval was sought, as they are meant to be protected! Five were left, traumatised in the Paperbarks. The dominant male began mating again so we now have about 7 in the trees. I know that a dog & a cat have killed or injured 4. Two got run over. People blast their horns at them.
• Which brings me to the road. It is not as quiet as assumed. Cars race down, families with school kids pass by from Anzac School. West St has heavy traffic periods. Helicopters from RNSH can be heard plus ones over the Freeway or North Sydney Oval ie media. The traffic on Miller & the Freeway can clearly be heard, especially buses. There has always been a renovation or 2 going on nearby plus each dwelling has gardening noise, especially Mondays. We get afternoon sea breeze in summer & no sun in backyard in winter. North facing.
• I have found that owners buy in, want to change things, renovate, put down wood floors, plant trees, buy decorative stuff then move out & rent (often to couples or families) leaving us to cope with all the problems they create. I think developers are probably the same. It causes everyone a lot of unhealthy resentment & frustration. Colliers people talk nicely but I don't think the developers have any other interest than greed. The agent is already buying up properties in other streets, so I've been told.
• I think 3-4 storeys is quite sufficient to keep an Australian appeal in this street at least. No one is going to come to Sydney to see boring concrete towers. They want blue skies, green trees, harbour, beach, unique animals & Outback red soil.
• Towers just end up blocking each other's views. Tower buildings have underground parking but usually take up street parking with two or three large driveway entrances.
• The buildings when sold are to be managed by Waterhouse. I know that in Qld managing companies of unit blocks are contracted for a 25 year term. This means they don't have to try very hard. I don't know about Sydney but it is not right.
• Thank you for reading this. My apologies. Some of it is relevant!
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
CROWS NEST
,
New South Wales
Message
I am writing to make a submission objection regarding the proposed independent living development at 19, 21 and 23 Rosalind Street Cammeray/ SSD 96505456 – Cammeray Seniors Living”.
While I acknowledge the importance of providing appropriate accommodation for older residents, I am concerned that the proposed building height is not in keeping with the established character and scale of the surrounding area, setback and loss of Trees. As with all developments there will be developer creep once this proposal is endorsed. The Developer has already purchased surrounding real estate as stated in community consultation meetings.
I look directly onto the proposed Independent / Aged Care Facility B Building. From 228 west St, I will be able to look down directly the driveways between 191 and 187 West St and also see both proposed buildings, in addition to the skyline right across. The proposed development will significantly obstruct the morning light that I value. The visual impact of the built form with its 6 floors and plant rooms near the roof line is unacceptable loss of amenity to the local residents and suburb (Noting that if endorsed there will be 8 floors). Additionally, the back of my house will also have some shade effects from the proposed Pacific Highway impacts of the 52 – 42 floor buildings of the NSW Govt Transport Orientated Development Program over the next decade, noting council plans.
The immediate locality is predominantly characterised by lower-scale development, with several buildings in close proximity being heritage-listed or contributing heritage items. Noting 205, 179 and 169 West St are part of the Holtermann Estate B Conservation Area and State Heritage Database No.: 2186346. The proposed height would visually dominate these buildings, diminish their setting, and undermine the historic character and streetscape that Council’s planning controls seek to protect. A development of this height risks setting an undesirable precedent and eroding the established character of the neighbourhood.
I respectfully request that NSW Govt for Planning, Housing and Infrastructure with the local Council reconsider the proposed building height and seek a scale that is more consistent with the local area and the nearby heritage items, while still allowing for appropriate aged-care / Independent living accommodation.
There remains no one bedroom apartments with this proposal. There appears no community dining area within the proposed plan. No dementia specific areas despite stating that there would be care. There appears no staff, medical, emergency services parking and this will impact the local area. There is concern as to the management of the Building Plant noise and monitoring as this is a residential area. There appears no noise abatement despite the Noise Acoustic Report Documenting on page 24 ; there is no definitive information supplied therefore only anticipated. Will this proposal align with the guidelines to provide aboriginal heritage assessment ? Noting the extensive excavation to be undertaken with this proposal? Will any of the units provided be subject to social and affordable housing for aged care people who are unable to pay the cost of these apartments proposed? This would align with the NSW Govt TODP for social and affordable Housing.
Thank you for kindly considering my objection to this project.
While I acknowledge the importance of providing appropriate accommodation for older residents, I am concerned that the proposed building height is not in keeping with the established character and scale of the surrounding area, setback and loss of Trees. As with all developments there will be developer creep once this proposal is endorsed. The Developer has already purchased surrounding real estate as stated in community consultation meetings.
I look directly onto the proposed Independent / Aged Care Facility B Building. From 228 west St, I will be able to look down directly the driveways between 191 and 187 West St and also see both proposed buildings, in addition to the skyline right across. The proposed development will significantly obstruct the morning light that I value. The visual impact of the built form with its 6 floors and plant rooms near the roof line is unacceptable loss of amenity to the local residents and suburb (Noting that if endorsed there will be 8 floors). Additionally, the back of my house will also have some shade effects from the proposed Pacific Highway impacts of the 52 – 42 floor buildings of the NSW Govt Transport Orientated Development Program over the next decade, noting council plans.
The immediate locality is predominantly characterised by lower-scale development, with several buildings in close proximity being heritage-listed or contributing heritage items. Noting 205, 179 and 169 West St are part of the Holtermann Estate B Conservation Area and State Heritage Database No.: 2186346. The proposed height would visually dominate these buildings, diminish their setting, and undermine the historic character and streetscape that Council’s planning controls seek to protect. A development of this height risks setting an undesirable precedent and eroding the established character of the neighbourhood.
I respectfully request that NSW Govt for Planning, Housing and Infrastructure with the local Council reconsider the proposed building height and seek a scale that is more consistent with the local area and the nearby heritage items, while still allowing for appropriate aged-care / Independent living accommodation.
There remains no one bedroom apartments with this proposal. There appears no community dining area within the proposed plan. No dementia specific areas despite stating that there would be care. There appears no staff, medical, emergency services parking and this will impact the local area. There is concern as to the management of the Building Plant noise and monitoring as this is a residential area. There appears no noise abatement despite the Noise Acoustic Report Documenting on page 24 ; there is no definitive information supplied therefore only anticipated. Will this proposal align with the guidelines to provide aboriginal heritage assessment ? Noting the extensive excavation to be undertaken with this proposal? Will any of the units provided be subject to social and affordable housing for aged care people who are unable to pay the cost of these apartments proposed? This would align with the NSW Govt TODP for social and affordable Housing.
Thank you for kindly considering my objection to this project.
Attachments
Nicolin Collingridge
Object
Nicolin Collingridge
Object
CROWS NEST
,
New South Wales
Message
To Whom It May Concern,
I am the owner of 4/199 West Street in Crows Nest, located directly behind the proposed development (SSD-96505456) on the western side. I have owned this townhouse for 16 years. I would like to formally object to the application in its current form and request that I be registered as an official objector and kept informed of all updates.
While I understand that change is part of any neighbourhood, this proposed development significantly impacts the key reasons I chose to purchase this property, particularly access to sunlight and privacy. Through my work with mental health organizations, I am very aware of the important role natural light plays in emotional and mental wellbeing. Research shows that exposure to daylight can reduce the risk of depression by around 20 per cent.
My main bedroom and courtyard faces the proposed development, therefore, I have concerns that my sunlight will be impacted, especially since the solar diagrams provided do not accurately reflect existing conditions. I request that updated and independently verified solar diagrams be provided to clearly demonstrate the true impact on my property, particularly during different seasons.
I have engaged Bill Tulloch (DA Objection Pty Ltd), together with neighbouring residents, who has submitted a detailed planning objection expanding on these concerns and broader compliance issues.
My key concerns are outlined below:
Height and streetscape character
• The proposed building height is excessive and inconsistent with the surrounding context of predominantly one to three storey dwellings.
• The scale and bulk create an overbearing presence on my property and could contribute to a loss of sunlight.
I request that the height of Building B does not exceed the maximum permitted height of 15.8 metres.
Setbacks and building separation
• The proposed setbacks along the boundary are inadequate and do not align with the intent of the Apartment Design Guide.
• The application states a 6m setback from ground floor to Level 4; however, this is misleading. When assessed correctly, Level 4 represents five storeys from ground, where a greater setback (9 meters) should apply. Under ADG guidance, a minimum 6m setback should apply to lower levels, with an increased setback (minimum 9m) required at upper levels. This has not been achieved.
• Claims that “enlarged setbacks” have been provided are inaccurate and not consistently applied to all affected properties, including mine.
• Increased setbacks are critical to:
o Reduce bulk and sense of enclosure
o Protect solar access
o Maintain appropriate separation from lower-density neighbouring properties
I request that setbacks be increased to a minimum of 4.5 to 6 metres, with a minimum 9 metre setback at upper levels, and consideration given to additional setback at the boundary to address the transition to lower-density housing.
Loss of sunlight and impact on wellbeing
• My bedroom and courtyard currently receive valuable sunlight, which is essential to daily living conditions.
• Without current solar diagrams, the proposal could significantly reduce my solar access due to overshadowing, excessive height and insufficient setbacks.
• Access to natural light is not only an amenity issue but also a health consideration. The overshadowing impacts appear understated and should be reassessed.
I request that overshadowing impacts be independently reviewed and that the design be amended to preserve reasonable solar access to my home.
Privacy impacts and need for screening
• The proposal introduces overlooking from multiple apartments into my home and courtyard, resulting in a significant loss of privacy.
• This is inconsistent with ADG Objective 3F-1 regarding visual privacy and building separation.
I request that setbacks be increased and that specific privacy mitigation measures be applied to apartments that will have a view into my courtyard and windows (including balconies and windows facing 199 West Street), with fixed privacy screens (minimum 1.6 metres in height) installed where required.
Landscape design and inappropriate tree selection
• The proposed use of Angophora costata trees along the western boundary is inappropriate for this location.
• These trees can grow up to 25 metres in height, exceeding the height of the proposed buildings, and will:
o Overhang into neighbouring properties
o Create ongoing maintenance burdens, including leaf litter and branch management
o Pose potential safety risks from falling limbs
o Result in additional personal costs to manage impacts from trees not located on my property
o Potentially negate any solar access benefits due to their height and canopy spread
I request that tree selection be revised to an alternative species with a smaller canopy and lower mature height, suitable for boundary planting and that does not negatively impact neighbouring properties.
I respectfully request that the proposal be refused in its current form, or significantly amended to:
• Reduce overall building height to align with the surrounding one to three-storey context
• Increase setbacks and building separation along the western boundary
• Protect solar access to neighbouring properties, particularly during winter
• Address overlooking through design changes and appropriate privacy screening
• Revise landscaping, including selection of inappropriate large tree species
Thank you for considering my submission.
Yours sincerely,
Nicolin Collingridge
Owner, 4/199 West Street
Crows Nest NSW
I am the owner of 4/199 West Street in Crows Nest, located directly behind the proposed development (SSD-96505456) on the western side. I have owned this townhouse for 16 years. I would like to formally object to the application in its current form and request that I be registered as an official objector and kept informed of all updates.
While I understand that change is part of any neighbourhood, this proposed development significantly impacts the key reasons I chose to purchase this property, particularly access to sunlight and privacy. Through my work with mental health organizations, I am very aware of the important role natural light plays in emotional and mental wellbeing. Research shows that exposure to daylight can reduce the risk of depression by around 20 per cent.
My main bedroom and courtyard faces the proposed development, therefore, I have concerns that my sunlight will be impacted, especially since the solar diagrams provided do not accurately reflect existing conditions. I request that updated and independently verified solar diagrams be provided to clearly demonstrate the true impact on my property, particularly during different seasons.
I have engaged Bill Tulloch (DA Objection Pty Ltd), together with neighbouring residents, who has submitted a detailed planning objection expanding on these concerns and broader compliance issues.
My key concerns are outlined below:
Height and streetscape character
• The proposed building height is excessive and inconsistent with the surrounding context of predominantly one to three storey dwellings.
• The scale and bulk create an overbearing presence on my property and could contribute to a loss of sunlight.
I request that the height of Building B does not exceed the maximum permitted height of 15.8 metres.
Setbacks and building separation
• The proposed setbacks along the boundary are inadequate and do not align with the intent of the Apartment Design Guide.
• The application states a 6m setback from ground floor to Level 4; however, this is misleading. When assessed correctly, Level 4 represents five storeys from ground, where a greater setback (9 meters) should apply. Under ADG guidance, a minimum 6m setback should apply to lower levels, with an increased setback (minimum 9m) required at upper levels. This has not been achieved.
• Claims that “enlarged setbacks” have been provided are inaccurate and not consistently applied to all affected properties, including mine.
• Increased setbacks are critical to:
o Reduce bulk and sense of enclosure
o Protect solar access
o Maintain appropriate separation from lower-density neighbouring properties
I request that setbacks be increased to a minimum of 4.5 to 6 metres, with a minimum 9 metre setback at upper levels, and consideration given to additional setback at the boundary to address the transition to lower-density housing.
Loss of sunlight and impact on wellbeing
• My bedroom and courtyard currently receive valuable sunlight, which is essential to daily living conditions.
• Without current solar diagrams, the proposal could significantly reduce my solar access due to overshadowing, excessive height and insufficient setbacks.
• Access to natural light is not only an amenity issue but also a health consideration. The overshadowing impacts appear understated and should be reassessed.
I request that overshadowing impacts be independently reviewed and that the design be amended to preserve reasonable solar access to my home.
Privacy impacts and need for screening
• The proposal introduces overlooking from multiple apartments into my home and courtyard, resulting in a significant loss of privacy.
• This is inconsistent with ADG Objective 3F-1 regarding visual privacy and building separation.
I request that setbacks be increased and that specific privacy mitigation measures be applied to apartments that will have a view into my courtyard and windows (including balconies and windows facing 199 West Street), with fixed privacy screens (minimum 1.6 metres in height) installed where required.
Landscape design and inappropriate tree selection
• The proposed use of Angophora costata trees along the western boundary is inappropriate for this location.
• These trees can grow up to 25 metres in height, exceeding the height of the proposed buildings, and will:
o Overhang into neighbouring properties
o Create ongoing maintenance burdens, including leaf litter and branch management
o Pose potential safety risks from falling limbs
o Result in additional personal costs to manage impacts from trees not located on my property
o Potentially negate any solar access benefits due to their height and canopy spread
I request that tree selection be revised to an alternative species with a smaller canopy and lower mature height, suitable for boundary planting and that does not negatively impact neighbouring properties.
I respectfully request that the proposal be refused in its current form, or significantly amended to:
• Reduce overall building height to align with the surrounding one to three-storey context
• Increase setbacks and building separation along the western boundary
• Protect solar access to neighbouring properties, particularly during winter
• Address overlooking through design changes and appropriate privacy screening
• Revise landscaping, including selection of inappropriate large tree species
Thank you for considering my submission.
Yours sincerely,
Nicolin Collingridge
Owner, 4/199 West Street
Crows Nest NSW
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
CASTLECRAG
,
New South Wales
Message
Objection to SSD‑96505456 – Cammeray Seniors Living
I am a long time resident of the North Shore, with family neighboring the proposed development, and I object to the development in its current form.
The development removes privacy and solar access for surrounding properties.
The development doesn't adhere to setback requirements particularly for adjoining lower density zoned areas.
A seniors living development should respect existing privacy and shadowing so as to maintain amenity of the community, and should not come at the expense of neighbors' comfort.
I am a long time resident of the North Shore, with family neighboring the proposed development, and I object to the development in its current form.
The development removes privacy and solar access for surrounding properties.
The development doesn't adhere to setback requirements particularly for adjoining lower density zoned areas.
A seniors living development should respect existing privacy and shadowing so as to maintain amenity of the community, and should not come at the expense of neighbors' comfort.