Yvette Clements
Object
Yvette Clements
Object
CROWS NEST
,
New South Wales
Message
Objection to Proposed Seniors Living Development – 19–23 Rosalind Street, Cammeray (SSD-96505456)
I wish to lodge an objection to the proposed development at 19–23 Rosalind Street, Cammeray.
My concerns are as follows:
Excessive height and scale
The proposed building is significantly taller and bulkier than surrounding development. This area is characterised by low-rise housing, and the proposal is inconsistent with the established streetscape.
Incompatible with local zoning and character
The site sits within a transition between R2 and R3 residential zones, yet the scale and density reflect a much higher intensity outcome. The proposal does not provide an appropriate transition to neighbouring properties.
Overdevelopment and non-compliance
The development appears to exceed key planning controls, including height, setbacks and separation distances, which will impact privacy, solar access and overall amenity for surrounding homes.
Questionable use of SSD pathway
There are concerns that the project has been designed to meet the threshold for State Significant Development, effectively bypassing local planning controls and community expectations.
Loss of appropriate housing mix
The proposal reduces smaller, more affordable dwellings and replaces them with larger, high-end units, which does not reflect the genuine needs of seniors housing.
Limited provision for genuine aged care
Despite being presented as seniors living, there appears to be minimal provision for care services, raising concerns about whether the development supports ageing in place.
Traffic and construction impacts
The scale of excavation and construction will generate significant disruption, including heavy vehicle movements, noise and potential impacts on surrounding properties.
Retail inclusion in a residential street
The introduction of retail space is out of character for this quiet residential area and may increase traffic and activity beyond what is appropriate.
Insufficient community consultation
Consultation to date has not provided adequate opportunity for meaningful engagement or response to local concerns.
Neighbourhood character impacts
The proposal does not adequately respect the existing character of the area, including nearby heritage-style homes, and risks setting an undesirable precedent for future development.
Conclusion
For the reasons outlined above, I strongly object to the proposal in its current form and request that it be reconsidered or refused.
I wish to lodge an objection to the proposed development at 19–23 Rosalind Street, Cammeray.
My concerns are as follows:
Excessive height and scale
The proposed building is significantly taller and bulkier than surrounding development. This area is characterised by low-rise housing, and the proposal is inconsistent with the established streetscape.
Incompatible with local zoning and character
The site sits within a transition between R2 and R3 residential zones, yet the scale and density reflect a much higher intensity outcome. The proposal does not provide an appropriate transition to neighbouring properties.
Overdevelopment and non-compliance
The development appears to exceed key planning controls, including height, setbacks and separation distances, which will impact privacy, solar access and overall amenity for surrounding homes.
Questionable use of SSD pathway
There are concerns that the project has been designed to meet the threshold for State Significant Development, effectively bypassing local planning controls and community expectations.
Loss of appropriate housing mix
The proposal reduces smaller, more affordable dwellings and replaces them with larger, high-end units, which does not reflect the genuine needs of seniors housing.
Limited provision for genuine aged care
Despite being presented as seniors living, there appears to be minimal provision for care services, raising concerns about whether the development supports ageing in place.
Traffic and construction impacts
The scale of excavation and construction will generate significant disruption, including heavy vehicle movements, noise and potential impacts on surrounding properties.
Retail inclusion in a residential street
The introduction of retail space is out of character for this quiet residential area and may increase traffic and activity beyond what is appropriate.
Insufficient community consultation
Consultation to date has not provided adequate opportunity for meaningful engagement or response to local concerns.
Neighbourhood character impacts
The proposal does not adequately respect the existing character of the area, including nearby heritage-style homes, and risks setting an undesirable precedent for future development.
Conclusion
For the reasons outlined above, I strongly object to the proposal in its current form and request that it be reconsidered or refused.
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
MASCOT
,
New South Wales
Message
As someone who drives over to this street a lot to see a friend, I object to this development.
I understand that housing for older people is important. However, this proposal is far too large for this site and causes serious and unreasonable impacts on neighbouring homes, the street, and the local environment and people visiting the street to see friends or family.
Impact on neighbouring homes
The scale and height of the buildings, particularly along the eastern side of the site, would have a major impact on nearby homes. The buildings are too tall and too close to residential boundaries. This would create a long, solid wall that feels overbearing and out of place in a street of small, low scale homes.
Homes on the eastern side rely on their western outlook for sunlight. This development does not take that into account at all. The height and bulk of the buildings would block sunlight and sky views that these homes depend on for everyday comfort and liveability.
There would also be major privacy impacts. Windows and balconies would look directly into neighbouring homes and private outdoor areas. The proposed privacy measures are unclear and do not appear strong enough to properly protect neighbours.
No transition to the street or surrounding homes
There is no proper transition between the scale of this development and the surrounding Federation homes or the street. The buildings do not soften enough near residential boundaries. Instead, the development presents a large and dominant form that does not fit the character of the area and does not respect its surroundings.
Loss of trees and wildlife
The proposal would remove almost all of the trees on the site. Many of these are mature trees that provide shade, greenery, and habitat for local wildlife.
The site currently supports plentiful bird life and other animals. Removing nearly all trees would destroy this habitat and significantly reduce wildlife in the area. This loss is not properly addressed in the EIS.
New planting cannot replace mature trees for many decades. The removal of almost all trees would also make the development look harsher, increase heat, and worsen its visual impact on the street and neighbouring homes.
Scale, cost and lack of community benefit
I am concerned about the reported increase in the cost of the development, from around $31 m to approximately $68 m. It is not clear how or why the cost has more than doubled. I hope the Department closely scrutinises this change and considers whether the scale, height and intensity of the proposal are being driven by financial pressure rather than good planning outcomes.
I do not see the community benefit that would justify allowing a development of this size. The proposal does not deliver clear benefits such as affordable housing, meaningful public facilities, or improvements for the wider neighbourhood. In contrast, it causes significant harm to nearby homes and the local environment.
For this reason, I question why the applicant should be allowed to rely on Clause 4.6 to exceed key planning controls. Clause 4.6 should only be used where there is a strong planning reason and a clear public benefit. That has not been demonstrated here.
Management of the facility
I am also concerned about the lack of detail about how the development would be managed once built. The application refers to Watermark, but it is unclear what role they would play.
There is no clear information about who would manage the Residential Care Facility, whether Watermark would operate it directly, or whether another operator would be involved. There are also no details about any contracts or long term arrangements.
Given the scale of the proposal and its impacts, the Department should require clear and transparent information about who will manage the facility, how it will operate day to day, and whether firm agreements are in place.
Conclusion
For these reasons, I object to the application in its current form.
The proposal is too large for the site, causes unacceptable impacts on neighbouring homes, removes almost all trees and wildlife habitat, and provides no clear community benefit in return.
I ask the Department to refuse the application as lodged. If approval is considered, it should only follow a major redesign that reduces height and bulk, increases setbacks to homes, protects sunlight and privacy, retains far more trees, and clearly explains how the development will be managed.
I understand that housing for older people is important. However, this proposal is far too large for this site and causes serious and unreasonable impacts on neighbouring homes, the street, and the local environment and people visiting the street to see friends or family.
Impact on neighbouring homes
The scale and height of the buildings, particularly along the eastern side of the site, would have a major impact on nearby homes. The buildings are too tall and too close to residential boundaries. This would create a long, solid wall that feels overbearing and out of place in a street of small, low scale homes.
Homes on the eastern side rely on their western outlook for sunlight. This development does not take that into account at all. The height and bulk of the buildings would block sunlight and sky views that these homes depend on for everyday comfort and liveability.
There would also be major privacy impacts. Windows and balconies would look directly into neighbouring homes and private outdoor areas. The proposed privacy measures are unclear and do not appear strong enough to properly protect neighbours.
No transition to the street or surrounding homes
There is no proper transition between the scale of this development and the surrounding Federation homes or the street. The buildings do not soften enough near residential boundaries. Instead, the development presents a large and dominant form that does not fit the character of the area and does not respect its surroundings.
Loss of trees and wildlife
The proposal would remove almost all of the trees on the site. Many of these are mature trees that provide shade, greenery, and habitat for local wildlife.
The site currently supports plentiful bird life and other animals. Removing nearly all trees would destroy this habitat and significantly reduce wildlife in the area. This loss is not properly addressed in the EIS.
New planting cannot replace mature trees for many decades. The removal of almost all trees would also make the development look harsher, increase heat, and worsen its visual impact on the street and neighbouring homes.
Scale, cost and lack of community benefit
I am concerned about the reported increase in the cost of the development, from around $31 m to approximately $68 m. It is not clear how or why the cost has more than doubled. I hope the Department closely scrutinises this change and considers whether the scale, height and intensity of the proposal are being driven by financial pressure rather than good planning outcomes.
I do not see the community benefit that would justify allowing a development of this size. The proposal does not deliver clear benefits such as affordable housing, meaningful public facilities, or improvements for the wider neighbourhood. In contrast, it causes significant harm to nearby homes and the local environment.
For this reason, I question why the applicant should be allowed to rely on Clause 4.6 to exceed key planning controls. Clause 4.6 should only be used where there is a strong planning reason and a clear public benefit. That has not been demonstrated here.
Management of the facility
I am also concerned about the lack of detail about how the development would be managed once built. The application refers to Watermark, but it is unclear what role they would play.
There is no clear information about who would manage the Residential Care Facility, whether Watermark would operate it directly, or whether another operator would be involved. There are also no details about any contracts or long term arrangements.
Given the scale of the proposal and its impacts, the Department should require clear and transparent information about who will manage the facility, how it will operate day to day, and whether firm agreements are in place.
Conclusion
For these reasons, I object to the application in its current form.
The proposal is too large for the site, causes unacceptable impacts on neighbouring homes, removes almost all trees and wildlife habitat, and provides no clear community benefit in return.
I ask the Department to refuse the application as lodged. If approval is considered, it should only follow a major redesign that reduces height and bulk, increases setbacks to homes, protects sunlight and privacy, retains far more trees, and clearly explains how the development will be managed.
Johann-Heinrich Schonfeldt
Object
Johann-Heinrich Schonfeldt
Object
Crows Nest
,
New South Wales
Message
Summary
I am writing to formally object to the proposed redevelopment of 19-23 Rosalind Street. While the provision of seniors housing is a noted strategic goal, the current proposal represents a significant overdevelopment of the site. By seeking substantial variations to height standards and introducing high-density forms into a low-to-medium density context, the proposal causes unacceptable impacts on neighbour amenity, local character, and environmental heritage.
1. Excessive Height and Unjustified Variation of Standards
The proposal relies on a Clause 4.6 Variation Request to exceed the height standards set out in Section 87 of the Housing SEPP.
Double-Dipping on Height: The site already benefits from a "bonus" height of 15.8m under the SEPP. The applicant is seeking a further 16.25% variation to reach 18.36m (Building B).
Misleading Justification: The applicant characterizes the breach as "localized" to lift overruns; however, the drawings show the variation applies to habitable Level 5 units and substantial roof parapets.
Inappropriate Scale: A 6-storey building (Building B) is entirely inconsistent with the North Sydney LEP 2013 objectives, which aim to maintain a 1-to-2 storey "human scale" for the surrounding R2 and R3 zones.
2. Specific Impacts on neighbouring Amenity
The Design Report and Variation Request acknowledge significant impacts on immediate neighbours that have not been adequately mitigated:
27 Rosalind Street: The Design Report explicitly admits that Building A will degrade the amenity of the secondary living spaces of this neighbour. Relying on "privacy screens" is an admission that the building bulk is too close and too high.
Solar Access: The massing will cause significant overshadowing to 4 Trafalgar Street and 29A Rosalind Street. The applicant’s justification—that a "compliant" building would be bulkier—is a false dichotomy; the solution should be a reduction in total scale, not a choice between two types of overshadowing.
Privacy and Overlooking: The 5 and 6-storey heights allow for direct lines of sight into the private open spaces of lower-scale dwellings on West and Rosalind Streets, fundamentally altering the quiet, private nature of these backyards.
3. Loss of Environmental Character and Canopy
Despite the report’s "Warm Green Country" branding, the physical reality of the proposal is a net loss of environmental value:
Vegetation Removal: The project involves the removal of nearly all existing vegetation on the 4,100m² site, retaining only 6 trees. Replacing established, mature canopy with "future" plantings does not mitigate the immediate loss of habitat and the "leafy village" character of Cammeray.
Streetscape Encroachment: The Rosalind Street frontage will be dominated by a two-level basement entry, a substation, and service zones, detracting from the residential quality of the street.
4. "Commercial Creep" and Operational Nuisance
The introduction of a "neighbourhood shop" and "community arbor" at the street frontage is inappropriate for this residential precinct:
Activity Impacts: This introduces commercial foot traffic, delivery vehicles, and noise into a quiet residential street.
Privacy Conflict: The "active sunny space" designed for "informal lingering" is positioned directly adjacent to existing private residences, creating a permanent source of noise and overlooking for neighbours at 15 and 27 Rosalind Street.
5. Net Loss of Housing and Traffic Concerns
Reduction in Dwellings: In the midst of a housing crisis, this development demolishes three residential flat buildings (55 units) to replace them with only 49 luxury ILUs, a net loss of 6 dwellings.
Traffic Concentration: Consolidating all vehicle movements for 49 units plus a care facility into a single access point on Rosalind Street will create significant congestion and safety risks on a street that already services a high volume of local traffic.
Conclusion
The cumulative impact of the height breaches, the loss of mature trees, the admitted impact on the residents of 27 Rosalind Street, and the net loss of total housing units demonstrates that this proposal is an overdevelopment that prioritizes developer yield over community wellbeing.
I request that the Department refuse the application in its current form. Any redevelopment of this site must be restricted to the 15.8m height limit, ensure the retention of more than six mature trees, and provide a design that does not compromise the internal amenity of its immediate neighbours.
I am writing to formally object to the proposed redevelopment of 19-23 Rosalind Street. While the provision of seniors housing is a noted strategic goal, the current proposal represents a significant overdevelopment of the site. By seeking substantial variations to height standards and introducing high-density forms into a low-to-medium density context, the proposal causes unacceptable impacts on neighbour amenity, local character, and environmental heritage.
1. Excessive Height and Unjustified Variation of Standards
The proposal relies on a Clause 4.6 Variation Request to exceed the height standards set out in Section 87 of the Housing SEPP.
Double-Dipping on Height: The site already benefits from a "bonus" height of 15.8m under the SEPP. The applicant is seeking a further 16.25% variation to reach 18.36m (Building B).
Misleading Justification: The applicant characterizes the breach as "localized" to lift overruns; however, the drawings show the variation applies to habitable Level 5 units and substantial roof parapets.
Inappropriate Scale: A 6-storey building (Building B) is entirely inconsistent with the North Sydney LEP 2013 objectives, which aim to maintain a 1-to-2 storey "human scale" for the surrounding R2 and R3 zones.
2. Specific Impacts on neighbouring Amenity
The Design Report and Variation Request acknowledge significant impacts on immediate neighbours that have not been adequately mitigated:
27 Rosalind Street: The Design Report explicitly admits that Building A will degrade the amenity of the secondary living spaces of this neighbour. Relying on "privacy screens" is an admission that the building bulk is too close and too high.
Solar Access: The massing will cause significant overshadowing to 4 Trafalgar Street and 29A Rosalind Street. The applicant’s justification—that a "compliant" building would be bulkier—is a false dichotomy; the solution should be a reduction in total scale, not a choice between two types of overshadowing.
Privacy and Overlooking: The 5 and 6-storey heights allow for direct lines of sight into the private open spaces of lower-scale dwellings on West and Rosalind Streets, fundamentally altering the quiet, private nature of these backyards.
3. Loss of Environmental Character and Canopy
Despite the report’s "Warm Green Country" branding, the physical reality of the proposal is a net loss of environmental value:
Vegetation Removal: The project involves the removal of nearly all existing vegetation on the 4,100m² site, retaining only 6 trees. Replacing established, mature canopy with "future" plantings does not mitigate the immediate loss of habitat and the "leafy village" character of Cammeray.
Streetscape Encroachment: The Rosalind Street frontage will be dominated by a two-level basement entry, a substation, and service zones, detracting from the residential quality of the street.
4. "Commercial Creep" and Operational Nuisance
The introduction of a "neighbourhood shop" and "community arbor" at the street frontage is inappropriate for this residential precinct:
Activity Impacts: This introduces commercial foot traffic, delivery vehicles, and noise into a quiet residential street.
Privacy Conflict: The "active sunny space" designed for "informal lingering" is positioned directly adjacent to existing private residences, creating a permanent source of noise and overlooking for neighbours at 15 and 27 Rosalind Street.
5. Net Loss of Housing and Traffic Concerns
Reduction in Dwellings: In the midst of a housing crisis, this development demolishes three residential flat buildings (55 units) to replace them with only 49 luxury ILUs, a net loss of 6 dwellings.
Traffic Concentration: Consolidating all vehicle movements for 49 units plus a care facility into a single access point on Rosalind Street will create significant congestion and safety risks on a street that already services a high volume of local traffic.
Conclusion
The cumulative impact of the height breaches, the loss of mature trees, the admitted impact on the residents of 27 Rosalind Street, and the net loss of total housing units demonstrates that this proposal is an overdevelopment that prioritizes developer yield over community wellbeing.
I request that the Department refuse the application in its current form. Any redevelopment of this site must be restricted to the 15.8m height limit, ensure the retention of more than six mature trees, and provide a design that does not compromise the internal amenity of its immediate neighbours.
Amanda Hicks
Object
Amanda Hicks
Object
CAMMERAY
,
New South Wales
Message
Objection to the Rosalind Street Seniors Living Proposal
I am writing about the "Rosalind Street Seniors Living Proposal"; for 19-23 Rosalind Street Cammeray 2062 - put forward by Perifa Development. I am a home-owning resident of 31 Rosalind Street Cammeray. Having reviewed the available online documentation, I strongly object to this proposal.
I note that the proposal is non-compliant with regards to building height and set-backs. The existing apartment blocks on the site (at 3 stories) are less than 10m high; the current zoning of the street (R4) would allow for a new building height limit of 12m in the North Sydney Development Control Plan 2025. But the current proposal is 18.4m – more than 50% higher than allowed within current R4 street zoning. The development is also notably higher than the FSR bonus height allowed (a +3.8m) for seniors living in NSW: without strong grounds to justify the initial ‘‘above bonus’ height increase.
It should be noted that the height bonus will have a significant impact on surrounding properties; but that the extent of the impact is amplified by the design also being non-compliant with regards to building set-backs. While design features have been considered in the development to attempt to mitigate the non-compliant variation requests to the proposal, there is no strong case provided by the developer as to why the variations have been initially requested – and therefore why any mitigations are even required. While the applicant states that not granting its Clause 4.6 variation request would be to ‘arbitrarily’ require removal of floors and apartments within their design to meet compliance standards – I would argue that compliance with recognised standards is not an arbitrary request by the SSDA or the impacted residents.
As a closely-located resident to the proposed development, I am naturally highly concerned about the impact of the development on the liveability of my property. Its non-compliant height will result in its upper stories being able to see into our backyard and private living spaces: significantly impacting my family's lives. I am equally concerned with the light impacts, as much as on our family privacy. But I am also concerned about how this non-compliant development will impact the street scape and sense of community. Rosalind Street is currently an effective community mix of 3 storey buildings, and other well preserved Federation style houses with well-kept gardens and greenery. While close to Warringah Freeway, our street is also close is to the Holterman Estate Conservation Areas with their strong heritage feel. The site has multiple established green trees that would be removed during the proposed construction. And the street is used as a walkway by numerous young school children as the access the nearby the ANZAC Park Public Primary School – and will become less safe with the increase in traffic anticipated during construction and after the development is in place.
This non-compliant proposal would set an unnecessary precedent for the suburb of Cammeray. Significant development is underway elsewhere in the North Sydney LGA – closer to public transport, hospitals and care, and retail shopping hubs; areas within the LGA highly suited for higher density and retail development.
This impact of this non-compliant development is not mitigated by providing more seniors living within the immediate area; while the developers’ documentation suggests there are only limited seniors’ living villages in the local area – this is incorrect, and particularly does reflect the new developments planned or underway within walking distance in Crows Nest and St Leonards, many of which are increasing the amount of seniors living spaces available to this community. For example, the Moran Group (an experienced seniors living developer and operator – unlike Perifa, who has no prior experience in this area) has purchased a sizeable block close by on Falcon Street with a pre-approved SSD for seniors living development.
While I am very sympathetic to the need for more affordable housing within the centre of Sydney for current and future generations, a review of this proposal highlights this is not the purpose of this proposal. The existing 54 apartments in the current site are proposed to be replaced with a smaller number of larger apartments (only 49 dwellings, including 3-4 bedroom apartments), with luxury shared facilities such as an indoor cinema, sauna and underground pool; and at a reported build cost of $60million+, the expected commercial sale prices would mean this is the reverse outcome of the desired planning outcomes for Sydney Plan. This development would result in the reduction of the number and the affordability of homes in the area.
It is hard to see the positive outcomes of this proposal for the community – especially genuine planning justification for the non-compliant aspects of the design. We would ask a compliant proposal to be developed and appropriately costed, and re-directed to North Sydney Council approval processes if it does not genuinely reach appropriate thresholds. In short, we wish to see:
• A revised proposal is compliant with regards to height restrictions and set-backs – and more sympathetically matched to the current R4 zoning and Federation houses surrounding the site, including the preservation of a majority of the mature green trees on site;
• Consideration be given as to whether new seniors living development is truly required for the area – or whether alternative affordable uses would be more appropriate; and/or the current site is found to be more sympathetic to the need for affordable housing within the areas;
Many thanks
Amanda Hicks
I am writing about the "Rosalind Street Seniors Living Proposal"; for 19-23 Rosalind Street Cammeray 2062 - put forward by Perifa Development. I am a home-owning resident of 31 Rosalind Street Cammeray. Having reviewed the available online documentation, I strongly object to this proposal.
I note that the proposal is non-compliant with regards to building height and set-backs. The existing apartment blocks on the site (at 3 stories) are less than 10m high; the current zoning of the street (R4) would allow for a new building height limit of 12m in the North Sydney Development Control Plan 2025. But the current proposal is 18.4m – more than 50% higher than allowed within current R4 street zoning. The development is also notably higher than the FSR bonus height allowed (a +3.8m) for seniors living in NSW: without strong grounds to justify the initial ‘‘above bonus’ height increase.
It should be noted that the height bonus will have a significant impact on surrounding properties; but that the extent of the impact is amplified by the design also being non-compliant with regards to building set-backs. While design features have been considered in the development to attempt to mitigate the non-compliant variation requests to the proposal, there is no strong case provided by the developer as to why the variations have been initially requested – and therefore why any mitigations are even required. While the applicant states that not granting its Clause 4.6 variation request would be to ‘arbitrarily’ require removal of floors and apartments within their design to meet compliance standards – I would argue that compliance with recognised standards is not an arbitrary request by the SSDA or the impacted residents.
As a closely-located resident to the proposed development, I am naturally highly concerned about the impact of the development on the liveability of my property. Its non-compliant height will result in its upper stories being able to see into our backyard and private living spaces: significantly impacting my family's lives. I am equally concerned with the light impacts, as much as on our family privacy. But I am also concerned about how this non-compliant development will impact the street scape and sense of community. Rosalind Street is currently an effective community mix of 3 storey buildings, and other well preserved Federation style houses with well-kept gardens and greenery. While close to Warringah Freeway, our street is also close is to the Holterman Estate Conservation Areas with their strong heritage feel. The site has multiple established green trees that would be removed during the proposed construction. And the street is used as a walkway by numerous young school children as the access the nearby the ANZAC Park Public Primary School – and will become less safe with the increase in traffic anticipated during construction and after the development is in place.
This non-compliant proposal would set an unnecessary precedent for the suburb of Cammeray. Significant development is underway elsewhere in the North Sydney LGA – closer to public transport, hospitals and care, and retail shopping hubs; areas within the LGA highly suited for higher density and retail development.
This impact of this non-compliant development is not mitigated by providing more seniors living within the immediate area; while the developers’ documentation suggests there are only limited seniors’ living villages in the local area – this is incorrect, and particularly does reflect the new developments planned or underway within walking distance in Crows Nest and St Leonards, many of which are increasing the amount of seniors living spaces available to this community. For example, the Moran Group (an experienced seniors living developer and operator – unlike Perifa, who has no prior experience in this area) has purchased a sizeable block close by on Falcon Street with a pre-approved SSD for seniors living development.
While I am very sympathetic to the need for more affordable housing within the centre of Sydney for current and future generations, a review of this proposal highlights this is not the purpose of this proposal. The existing 54 apartments in the current site are proposed to be replaced with a smaller number of larger apartments (only 49 dwellings, including 3-4 bedroom apartments), with luxury shared facilities such as an indoor cinema, sauna and underground pool; and at a reported build cost of $60million+, the expected commercial sale prices would mean this is the reverse outcome of the desired planning outcomes for Sydney Plan. This development would result in the reduction of the number and the affordability of homes in the area.
It is hard to see the positive outcomes of this proposal for the community – especially genuine planning justification for the non-compliant aspects of the design. We would ask a compliant proposal to be developed and appropriately costed, and re-directed to North Sydney Council approval processes if it does not genuinely reach appropriate thresholds. In short, we wish to see:
• A revised proposal is compliant with regards to height restrictions and set-backs – and more sympathetically matched to the current R4 zoning and Federation houses surrounding the site, including the preservation of a majority of the mature green trees on site;
• Consideration be given as to whether new seniors living development is truly required for the area – or whether alternative affordable uses would be more appropriate; and/or the current site is found to be more sympathetic to the need for affordable housing within the areas;
Many thanks
Amanda Hicks
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
CAMMERAY
,
New South Wales
Message
I am writing to express my serious concerns about the proposed seniors' housing development (SSD-96505456) at 19-23 Rosalind Street. As a tenant at 29A Rosalind Street, my home shares a direct boundary with this site. While I recognise that our community needs more housing for seniors, this specific proposal is simply too much for the local area and fails to meet several important planning rules.
Problems with Height and Scaling:
The proposed buildings are 5 and 6 storeys high, which is nearly 55% higher than what local standards allow. This height will create a massive "wall effect" that looms over the smaller, lower-scale houses nearby, particularly the property I reside at Unit 4 29A Rosalind Street. Furthermore, the design ignores the "45-degree rule," which requires that for any building taller than two storeys, the higher floors must be set back significantly to prevent them from feeling so overbearing. By only providing 3-metre setbacks, the developers are creating a bulky structure that doesn't fit the character of our neighbourhood.
Loss of Sunlight and Privacy:
If this goes ahead, my neighbours and I will lose about 20% of our solar access. Planning rules are supposed to protect the winter sun for residents between 9 am and 3 pm, but this design fails that test completely. On top of losing light, our privacy will be ruined. The narrow setbacks mean that people on the new balconies will be able to look straight into our private living areas and courtyards.
Traffic and Safety:
As a quiet residential area, Rosalind Street is a poor choice for a massive influx of traffic, especially during the construction phase which will be a nightmare for those residents that are stay-at-home residents, or those regularly coming and going during the course of the day. The noise and vibrations from digging out a huge basement car park will make it nearly impossible to maintain professional productivity.
Noise and Impact on Professional Workspace:
I am on a weekly work roster which means I regularly work from home at least two and sometimes 3 days each week. The construction phase and ongoing operation pose severe risks to my ability to work productively from home due to the excavation phase for extensive basement parking, generating excessive noise and structural vibration risks for the adjacent townhouses located at 29A Rosalind Street. In my own personal case, at No. 4, and pursuant to the North Sydney DCP Part C, Section 4.0, there is a requirement for designs that minimise noise transmission. The current proposal fails to demonstrate adequate mitigation for residents, particularly vulnerable seniors and those working from home in immediate proximity.
A "Tokenistic" Approach to Care:
It is very disappointing to see that this huge project only includes two residential care beds. This feels like a token inclusion just to get the project approved through the "State Significant Development" pathway while focusing almost entirely on making a profit from luxury flats. A more thoughtful, 4-storey design could still help our seniors without destroying the amenity and iconic views of the current residents.
Conclusion:
Between the height breaches, the loss of sun, and the steep topography, this design is the wrong fit for Rosalind Street. I ask the Department to reject this version of the plan and ask for a redesign that actually respects the human scale of Cammeray.
Thank you for taking the time to consider my views
Problems with Height and Scaling:
The proposed buildings are 5 and 6 storeys high, which is nearly 55% higher than what local standards allow. This height will create a massive "wall effect" that looms over the smaller, lower-scale houses nearby, particularly the property I reside at Unit 4 29A Rosalind Street. Furthermore, the design ignores the "45-degree rule," which requires that for any building taller than two storeys, the higher floors must be set back significantly to prevent them from feeling so overbearing. By only providing 3-metre setbacks, the developers are creating a bulky structure that doesn't fit the character of our neighbourhood.
Loss of Sunlight and Privacy:
If this goes ahead, my neighbours and I will lose about 20% of our solar access. Planning rules are supposed to protect the winter sun for residents between 9 am and 3 pm, but this design fails that test completely. On top of losing light, our privacy will be ruined. The narrow setbacks mean that people on the new balconies will be able to look straight into our private living areas and courtyards.
Traffic and Safety:
As a quiet residential area, Rosalind Street is a poor choice for a massive influx of traffic, especially during the construction phase which will be a nightmare for those residents that are stay-at-home residents, or those regularly coming and going during the course of the day. The noise and vibrations from digging out a huge basement car park will make it nearly impossible to maintain professional productivity.
Noise and Impact on Professional Workspace:
I am on a weekly work roster which means I regularly work from home at least two and sometimes 3 days each week. The construction phase and ongoing operation pose severe risks to my ability to work productively from home due to the excavation phase for extensive basement parking, generating excessive noise and structural vibration risks for the adjacent townhouses located at 29A Rosalind Street. In my own personal case, at No. 4, and pursuant to the North Sydney DCP Part C, Section 4.0, there is a requirement for designs that minimise noise transmission. The current proposal fails to demonstrate adequate mitigation for residents, particularly vulnerable seniors and those working from home in immediate proximity.
A "Tokenistic" Approach to Care:
It is very disappointing to see that this huge project only includes two residential care beds. This feels like a token inclusion just to get the project approved through the "State Significant Development" pathway while focusing almost entirely on making a profit from luxury flats. A more thoughtful, 4-storey design could still help our seniors without destroying the amenity and iconic views of the current residents.
Conclusion:
Between the height breaches, the loss of sun, and the steep topography, this design is the wrong fit for Rosalind Street. I ask the Department to reject this version of the plan and ask for a redesign that actually respects the human scale of Cammeray.
Thank you for taking the time to consider my views
Glen Hartman
Object
Glen Hartman
Object
CROWS NEST
,
New South Wales
Message
To: NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure.
I write to formally object to SSDA-96505456 for the proposed Seniors Living Apartment Development at 19–23 Rosalind Street, Cammeray.
I am an architect currently residing approximately 200 metres from the site. My objection is based on a professional understanding of architecture, urban design and planning principles and statutory guidelines, as well as my direct interest in the local built environment and community.
LACK OF CLARITY AND CONFIDENCE IN THE PROPOSAL
A primary concern is the lack of clarity and consistency within the submitted documentation. Elements of the proposal appear ambiguous or insufficiently resolved, which raises doubts regarding the accuracy of representations and the overall integrity of the design intent. For a development of this scale and significance, a higher level of transparency and precision is expected. These elements are referred to in this document below as well as in other documents objecting to this proposal.
STATUTORY FRAMEWORK
The application is primarily assessed under the State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004 (Seniors Housing SEPP), with design guidance from the Apartment Design Guide (ADG), and contextual consideration of the North Sydney Council Local Environmental Plan (LEP) and Development Control Plan (DCP).
While the SEPP permits variations to local controls, it does not override the requirement to achieve good design, minimise impacts, and respond to context (SEPP Clause 4 – Aims; Clause 5 – Location and design requirements).
INAPPROPRIATE SCALE AND CHARACTER
NS North Sydney DCP – Section 1.4.7 (Building Height and Scale) Requires development to be compatible with surrounding built form and minimise visual dominance.
NS North Sydney DCP – Section 1.4.8 (Streetscape Character) Requires new buildings to respond to the established character and scale of the street.
The proposed development, at 6 storeys (18.4m) plus a two-level basement, represents an urban scale that is inconsistent with the prevailing suburban character of Cammeray. The surrounding context is overwhelmingly 1–3 storeys, with only limited exceptions.
The proposal introduces excessive visual bulk and height, resulting in a development that is out of character with the established streetscape and broader locality. Although allowed by this SSD, this is inconsistent with architectural and urban design principles and the objectives of the North Sydney Council planning framework, including the LEP and DCP, which seek to ensure new development responds appropriately to its context.
AMENITY IMPACTS
ADG – Part 3F (Visual Privacy)
ADG – Building Separation Table (p. 36) Recommends separation distances up to 12–18m depending on height.
NS North Sydney DCP – Section 1.4.6 (Setbacks) Requires setbacks that maintain amenity and privacy
The development will result in significant adverse amenity impacts, including:
Overshadowing: Loss of sunlight to adjoining properties on both eastern and western sides, particularly during key daylight hours.
Loss of Privacy: Increased overlooking into neighbouring dwellings due to height and building mass.
Visual Dominance: Excessive bulk leading to a sense of enclosure and reduced residential amenity.
The scale of excavation required for a two-level basement will result in prolonged and intensive construction impacts.
These impacts appear inconsistent with the design quality principles outlined in the Apartment Design Guide.
QUESTIONABLE CONTRIBUTION TO HOUSING OUTCOMES
While the proposal is framed as Seniors Living, the unit mix (predominantly large 2- and 3-bedroom apartments) suggests a high-end product that does not meaningfully contribute to housing affordability or diversity.
There is concern that the development may result in lower overall occupancy yield compared to existing or alternative housing forms, thereby undermining broader housing supply objectives. This raises questions about the appropriate application of the provisions under the State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS
The proposal indicates removal of existing trees and natural habitat; however, details regarding replacement planting and landscape outcomes are unclear and possibly deceptive.
Given the importance of urban tree canopy and biodiversity, particularly in suburban environments, the lack of detailed and credible landscaping information is a significant concern.
PRECEDENT AND PLANNING INTEGRITY
Approval of a development of this scale and nature risks establishing an undesirable precedent for similar proposals in the area. This is particularly concerning where:
The development departs from established local character and urban typology.
Planning controls and recognised design principles appear to be overridden through inappropriate use of State-level pathways.
The use of the State Significant Development process effectively removes determination from local authority, limiting the role of North Sydney Council and reducing local accountability.
INADEQUATE COMMUNITY CONSULTATION
The consultation process has been insufficient:
The public exhibition period of approximately two weeks is inadequate for a project of this scale and complexity.
There was no meaningful community consultation during the design development phase.
This undermines confidence in the planning process and does not align with best practice for community engagement.
CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS ON A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBOURHOOD
The scale of construction activity, including excavation for a two-level basement, will have substantial impacts on a quiet, family-oriented suburban neighbourhood. These include:
Prolonged noise and vibration.
Increased heavy vehicle movements.
General disruption to local residents.
CONCLUSION
For an SSDA-scale proposal, the documentation should clearly demonstrate compliance with:
ADG design criteria, DCP controls (or justified variations)'SEPP objectives.
The current submission lacks sufficient clarity and rigour to enable full confidence in the assessment.
In summary, the proposed development is:
Excessive in scale and inconsistent with local character.
Likely to result in significant amenity and environmental impacts.
Questionable in its contribution to genuine housing need.
Lacking in clarity and transparency.
Supported by an inadequate consultation process.
For these reasons, I respectfully request that SSDA-96505456 be refused.
Yours sincerely,
Glen Hartman
I write to formally object to SSDA-96505456 for the proposed Seniors Living Apartment Development at 19–23 Rosalind Street, Cammeray.
I am an architect currently residing approximately 200 metres from the site. My objection is based on a professional understanding of architecture, urban design and planning principles and statutory guidelines, as well as my direct interest in the local built environment and community.
LACK OF CLARITY AND CONFIDENCE IN THE PROPOSAL
A primary concern is the lack of clarity and consistency within the submitted documentation. Elements of the proposal appear ambiguous or insufficiently resolved, which raises doubts regarding the accuracy of representations and the overall integrity of the design intent. For a development of this scale and significance, a higher level of transparency and precision is expected. These elements are referred to in this document below as well as in other documents objecting to this proposal.
STATUTORY FRAMEWORK
The application is primarily assessed under the State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004 (Seniors Housing SEPP), with design guidance from the Apartment Design Guide (ADG), and contextual consideration of the North Sydney Council Local Environmental Plan (LEP) and Development Control Plan (DCP).
While the SEPP permits variations to local controls, it does not override the requirement to achieve good design, minimise impacts, and respond to context (SEPP Clause 4 – Aims; Clause 5 – Location and design requirements).
INAPPROPRIATE SCALE AND CHARACTER
NS North Sydney DCP – Section 1.4.7 (Building Height and Scale) Requires development to be compatible with surrounding built form and minimise visual dominance.
NS North Sydney DCP – Section 1.4.8 (Streetscape Character) Requires new buildings to respond to the established character and scale of the street.
The proposed development, at 6 storeys (18.4m) plus a two-level basement, represents an urban scale that is inconsistent with the prevailing suburban character of Cammeray. The surrounding context is overwhelmingly 1–3 storeys, with only limited exceptions.
The proposal introduces excessive visual bulk and height, resulting in a development that is out of character with the established streetscape and broader locality. Although allowed by this SSD, this is inconsistent with architectural and urban design principles and the objectives of the North Sydney Council planning framework, including the LEP and DCP, which seek to ensure new development responds appropriately to its context.
AMENITY IMPACTS
ADG – Part 3F (Visual Privacy)
ADG – Building Separation Table (p. 36) Recommends separation distances up to 12–18m depending on height.
NS North Sydney DCP – Section 1.4.6 (Setbacks) Requires setbacks that maintain amenity and privacy
The development will result in significant adverse amenity impacts, including:
Overshadowing: Loss of sunlight to adjoining properties on both eastern and western sides, particularly during key daylight hours.
Loss of Privacy: Increased overlooking into neighbouring dwellings due to height and building mass.
Visual Dominance: Excessive bulk leading to a sense of enclosure and reduced residential amenity.
The scale of excavation required for a two-level basement will result in prolonged and intensive construction impacts.
These impacts appear inconsistent with the design quality principles outlined in the Apartment Design Guide.
QUESTIONABLE CONTRIBUTION TO HOUSING OUTCOMES
While the proposal is framed as Seniors Living, the unit mix (predominantly large 2- and 3-bedroom apartments) suggests a high-end product that does not meaningfully contribute to housing affordability or diversity.
There is concern that the development may result in lower overall occupancy yield compared to existing or alternative housing forms, thereby undermining broader housing supply objectives. This raises questions about the appropriate application of the provisions under the State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS
The proposal indicates removal of existing trees and natural habitat; however, details regarding replacement planting and landscape outcomes are unclear and possibly deceptive.
Given the importance of urban tree canopy and biodiversity, particularly in suburban environments, the lack of detailed and credible landscaping information is a significant concern.
PRECEDENT AND PLANNING INTEGRITY
Approval of a development of this scale and nature risks establishing an undesirable precedent for similar proposals in the area. This is particularly concerning where:
The development departs from established local character and urban typology.
Planning controls and recognised design principles appear to be overridden through inappropriate use of State-level pathways.
The use of the State Significant Development process effectively removes determination from local authority, limiting the role of North Sydney Council and reducing local accountability.
INADEQUATE COMMUNITY CONSULTATION
The consultation process has been insufficient:
The public exhibition period of approximately two weeks is inadequate for a project of this scale and complexity.
There was no meaningful community consultation during the design development phase.
This undermines confidence in the planning process and does not align with best practice for community engagement.
CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS ON A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBOURHOOD
The scale of construction activity, including excavation for a two-level basement, will have substantial impacts on a quiet, family-oriented suburban neighbourhood. These include:
Prolonged noise and vibration.
Increased heavy vehicle movements.
General disruption to local residents.
CONCLUSION
For an SSDA-scale proposal, the documentation should clearly demonstrate compliance with:
ADG design criteria, DCP controls (or justified variations)'SEPP objectives.
The current submission lacks sufficient clarity and rigour to enable full confidence in the assessment.
In summary, the proposed development is:
Excessive in scale and inconsistent with local character.
Likely to result in significant amenity and environmental impacts.
Questionable in its contribution to genuine housing need.
Lacking in clarity and transparency.
Supported by an inadequate consultation process.
For these reasons, I respectfully request that SSDA-96505456 be refused.
Yours sincerely,
Glen Hartman
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
Cammeray
,
New South Wales
Message
1 April 2026
Objection regarding the proposed Seniors Living Housing Development in Cammeray -
19-23 Rosalind Street, Cammeray: SSD-96505456
I object to the current proposal for the following reasons:
- Loss of affordable housing by replacing the existing 54 affordable residential flats for all age groups with fewer larger upmarket apartments for seniors which is contrary to the current housing crisis in particular for affordable housing.
- The current proposed development has an adverse impact on the local community and neighbours who currently live near or next to the proposed development resulting in lack of natural light due to the imposing height of 5 and 6 storey tower buildings and lack of privacy due to proximity to boundaries. There is no genuine consideration by this proposed development of the impact the development will have on the neighbours bounding the property. There is also the risk of structural damage to the adjoining properties due to the excavation required to build the proposed development and the closeness of the development to boundaries.
- The proposed development is out of character with our suburb and is cumbersome and imposing. Rosalind Street is a quiet suburban street in Cammeray - not a main thoroughfare where you would expect to see such a building of this proposed imposition and size. The immediate surrounding buildings are residential dwellings either single storey or double storey height and apartment blocks no higher than 4 storeys.
- Rosalind Street is a walking track for school children in the local area attending the local schools ie Cammeray Public School and ANZAC Public School. Such proposed development will have an impact on the safety of these children given multiple heavy vehicles required for the build.
- Loss of trees - our suburb of Cammeray has already been impacted hugely by the loss of hundreds of trees resulting from the Warringah Freeway Upgrade and Western Harbour Tunnel projects which once completed will have a detrimental impact on the air quality in the surrounding suburbs including Cammeray. The current buildings at 19-23 Rosalind Street are well spaced out and set amongst a varying range or trees in height and foliage which are well established and provide a safe habitat for the local fauna, greenery, shade and are aesthetically pleasing. The removal of these trees to be replaced by multi tower buildings and limited surrounding space due to overdevelopment is unacceptable and should not be allowed.
- Bypasses local council guidelines and controls on the pretext of being a seniors living development.
- The proposed development if approved sets a precedent for further similar developments within this residential suburb which are out of keeping with the existing tone of the suburb.
Please consider very carefully the approval of the current proposed development based on the above concerns. I do not believe this is a genuine development designed for seniors living and any such development if approved will have a detrimental impact on our close knit local community.
Objection regarding the proposed Seniors Living Housing Development in Cammeray -
19-23 Rosalind Street, Cammeray: SSD-96505456
I object to the current proposal for the following reasons:
- Loss of affordable housing by replacing the existing 54 affordable residential flats for all age groups with fewer larger upmarket apartments for seniors which is contrary to the current housing crisis in particular for affordable housing.
- The current proposed development has an adverse impact on the local community and neighbours who currently live near or next to the proposed development resulting in lack of natural light due to the imposing height of 5 and 6 storey tower buildings and lack of privacy due to proximity to boundaries. There is no genuine consideration by this proposed development of the impact the development will have on the neighbours bounding the property. There is also the risk of structural damage to the adjoining properties due to the excavation required to build the proposed development and the closeness of the development to boundaries.
- The proposed development is out of character with our suburb and is cumbersome and imposing. Rosalind Street is a quiet suburban street in Cammeray - not a main thoroughfare where you would expect to see such a building of this proposed imposition and size. The immediate surrounding buildings are residential dwellings either single storey or double storey height and apartment blocks no higher than 4 storeys.
- Rosalind Street is a walking track for school children in the local area attending the local schools ie Cammeray Public School and ANZAC Public School. Such proposed development will have an impact on the safety of these children given multiple heavy vehicles required for the build.
- Loss of trees - our suburb of Cammeray has already been impacted hugely by the loss of hundreds of trees resulting from the Warringah Freeway Upgrade and Western Harbour Tunnel projects which once completed will have a detrimental impact on the air quality in the surrounding suburbs including Cammeray. The current buildings at 19-23 Rosalind Street are well spaced out and set amongst a varying range or trees in height and foliage which are well established and provide a safe habitat for the local fauna, greenery, shade and are aesthetically pleasing. The removal of these trees to be replaced by multi tower buildings and limited surrounding space due to overdevelopment is unacceptable and should not be allowed.
- Bypasses local council guidelines and controls on the pretext of being a seniors living development.
- The proposed development if approved sets a precedent for further similar developments within this residential suburb which are out of keeping with the existing tone of the suburb.
Please consider very carefully the approval of the current proposed development based on the above concerns. I do not believe this is a genuine development designed for seniors living and any such development if approved will have a detrimental impact on our close knit local community.
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
Cammeray
,
New South Wales
Message
To whom it may concern,
I wish to lodge my objection to the Cammeray Seniors Living proposed development.
I am a local resident and I am concerned that this proposal is an overdevelopment of the site and is wholly inconsistent with the intent of the Housing SEPP and good planning outcomes for Cammeray.
My concerns include but are not limited to the following;
1. Inconsistent with the intent of seniors housing policy.
The Housing SEPP is intended to support appropriate housing for seniors and vulnerable people. The proposal does not reflect that purpose and indeed seems to prioritise development yield and greed over the environment, the neighbourhood compatability, good design and genuine community benefit.
2. Excessive scale and overdevelopment
The proposal appears far too large for the site in terms of bulk, height, floor space and excavation. It does not appear to represent a modest or compatible seniors housing outcome. Instead, it appears to be an overdevelopment that will dominate the site and surrounding area.
3. Deep soil and landscaping concerns
I am concerned that the proposal does not genuinely provide the landscape and deep soil outcomes suggested in the documentation. Areas shown as “landscaped” may not satisfy the proper definition of landscaped area if they are compromised by structures, hard surfaces or unsuitable conditions for meaningful planting and long-term tree growth.
The definition of landscaped area is:
“landscaped area means a part of a site used for growing plants, grasses and trees, but does not include any building, structure or hard paved area.”
On the material available, I question whether the claimed landscaped area actually meets that definition.
4. Tree loss, vegetation removal and habitat impacts
I am deeply concerned about the extent of tree removal and vegetation loss proposed. The removal of established trees will significantly reduce canopy, landscape character, habitat value and visual amenity. This is especially troubling in an area where mature trees contribute strongly to local character and environmental quality.
5. Non-Compliance with the Housing SEPP
I am deeply concerned that the proposal does not comply with key development standards in the Housing SEPP, including matters such as height, floor space ratio, landscaped area, deep soil and operational requirements.
I am also concerned that no proper Clause 4.6 variation appears to have been submitted for some of these non-compliances, despite the extent of the apparent departures from the standards.
6. Ambulance and emergency vehicle servicing concerns
For a development of this nature, proper access, servicing and ambulance and emergency vehicle arrangements are critical. I am not satisfied that these matters have been resolved in a clear, transparent and policy-compliant way, particularly given the importance of safe and practical access for older residents and emergency services.
7 Loss of character and amenity
The proposal will adversely affect the surrounding area through excessive bulk, visual dominance, excavation impacts, loss of greenery and likely impacts on privacy, outlook and neighbourhood character. Cammeray is valued for its established residential and landscape character, and this proposal does not sit comfortably within that context.
8. Questions around whether the EIS and supporting documents properly address the real impacts
In my opinion I don't believe that the documentation fully and transparently addresses the true impacts of the proposal, including the practical consequences of the site coverage, excavation, tree removal, landscaping limitations and planning non-compliances.
To conclude, I very strongly object to this poroposed development and request that it be declined.
As an absolute minimum, I ask that the Department require the applicant to properly address all non-compliances, clarify the true extent of the development impacts, and demonstrate full compliance with the relevant planning controls before any determination is made.
Thank you.
I wish to lodge my objection to the Cammeray Seniors Living proposed development.
I am a local resident and I am concerned that this proposal is an overdevelopment of the site and is wholly inconsistent with the intent of the Housing SEPP and good planning outcomes for Cammeray.
My concerns include but are not limited to the following;
1. Inconsistent with the intent of seniors housing policy.
The Housing SEPP is intended to support appropriate housing for seniors and vulnerable people. The proposal does not reflect that purpose and indeed seems to prioritise development yield and greed over the environment, the neighbourhood compatability, good design and genuine community benefit.
2. Excessive scale and overdevelopment
The proposal appears far too large for the site in terms of bulk, height, floor space and excavation. It does not appear to represent a modest or compatible seniors housing outcome. Instead, it appears to be an overdevelopment that will dominate the site and surrounding area.
3. Deep soil and landscaping concerns
I am concerned that the proposal does not genuinely provide the landscape and deep soil outcomes suggested in the documentation. Areas shown as “landscaped” may not satisfy the proper definition of landscaped area if they are compromised by structures, hard surfaces or unsuitable conditions for meaningful planting and long-term tree growth.
The definition of landscaped area is:
“landscaped area means a part of a site used for growing plants, grasses and trees, but does not include any building, structure or hard paved area.”
On the material available, I question whether the claimed landscaped area actually meets that definition.
4. Tree loss, vegetation removal and habitat impacts
I am deeply concerned about the extent of tree removal and vegetation loss proposed. The removal of established trees will significantly reduce canopy, landscape character, habitat value and visual amenity. This is especially troubling in an area where mature trees contribute strongly to local character and environmental quality.
5. Non-Compliance with the Housing SEPP
I am deeply concerned that the proposal does not comply with key development standards in the Housing SEPP, including matters such as height, floor space ratio, landscaped area, deep soil and operational requirements.
I am also concerned that no proper Clause 4.6 variation appears to have been submitted for some of these non-compliances, despite the extent of the apparent departures from the standards.
6. Ambulance and emergency vehicle servicing concerns
For a development of this nature, proper access, servicing and ambulance and emergency vehicle arrangements are critical. I am not satisfied that these matters have been resolved in a clear, transparent and policy-compliant way, particularly given the importance of safe and practical access for older residents and emergency services.
7 Loss of character and amenity
The proposal will adversely affect the surrounding area through excessive bulk, visual dominance, excavation impacts, loss of greenery and likely impacts on privacy, outlook and neighbourhood character. Cammeray is valued for its established residential and landscape character, and this proposal does not sit comfortably within that context.
8. Questions around whether the EIS and supporting documents properly address the real impacts
In my opinion I don't believe that the documentation fully and transparently addresses the true impacts of the proposal, including the practical consequences of the site coverage, excavation, tree removal, landscaping limitations and planning non-compliances.
To conclude, I very strongly object to this poroposed development and request that it be declined.
As an absolute minimum, I ask that the Department require the applicant to properly address all non-compliances, clarify the true extent of the development impacts, and demonstrate full compliance with the relevant planning controls before any determination is made.
Thank you.
Tobias Crittenden
Object
Tobias Crittenden
Object
Cammeray
,
New South Wales
Message
I am writing as the owner of Unit 3, 29A Rosalind Street, which is directly adjacent to the southern and eastern boundaries of the proposed development site. While I support appropriate and well-considered development within the area, I cannot support this application in its current form, as it represents a significant overdevelopment of a constrained site and fails to meet a number of key non-discretionary planning standards.
My objections are outlined as follows:
1. Excessive Building Height and Inadequate Clause 4.6 Justification
The proposal seeks a maximum building height of 18.36 metres, representing approximately a 55% exceedance of the 12-metre limit prescribed under the North Sydney Local Environmental Plan 2013. The applicant’s Clause 4.6 variation indicates that non-compliant elements comprise approximately 68% of the total roof footprint. This extent of variation cannot reasonably be characterised as minor or limited to lift overruns; rather, it effectively introduces an additional storey across the majority of the building.
The claimed 3.8-metre height bonus under the “Seniors Housing Bonus” provisions appears questionable. The proposal includes only two residential care beds for a development comprising 49 large apartments, reportedly located in the basement. This raises concerns as to whether the inclusion of these beds is merely tokenistic, potentially intended to trigger planning pathways not otherwise available. Furthermore, the proposed apartment sizes (ranging from approximately 105m² for two-bedroom units to 160m² for three-bedroom units) are substantially larger than typical seniors housing offerings, which generally range between 20m² and 40m².
2. Visual Bulk, Scale, and Topographical Impact
The site rises toward my rear boundary, and my property is situated at a lower level. As a result, an 18.36-metre building constructed directly adjacent to my courtyard will present an overbearing and dominant visual presence. This impact is exacerbated by the site’s topography, making the building appear even taller and more oppressive than if it were positioned closer to street level. In this context, it would be more appropriate for building height to reduce toward the rear boundary, thereby respecting the natural landform and the amenity of adjoining properties.
3. Loss of Solar Access
The Environmental Impact Statement confirms that my property will experience a reduction in solar access exceeding 20%. This outcome fails to maintain the minimum requirement of two hours of direct sunlight at the winter solstice, as prescribed by the Apartment Design Guide and the Housing SEPP. This represents a clear non-compliance with established planning controls.
4. Inadequate Setbacks and Privacy Impacts
Building B proposes side setbacks as narrow as 3 metres. For a development of approximately six storeys, typical building separation distances would be in the order of 9 to 12 metres. The proposed “privacy fins” are not a sufficient mitigation measure for such limited setbacks. The development will result in unreasonable overlooking into my courtyard and main bedroom, leading to a significant loss of privacy for my property.
5. Excavation, Noise, and Acoustic Impacts
The proposal requires the excavation and removal of approximately 24,739m² of sandstone to a depth of 10 metres. The predicted acoustic impact of this excavation is approximately 75 dB(A) at my property, exceeding acceptable management levels by 25 dB(A). This level of noise will have a substantial adverse impact on occupants, particularly those working from home and children engaged in study.
6. Structural and Vibration Risks
Given the proximity of Building B’s basement excavation to my courtyard and foundations, there is a significant risk of vibration-related impacts. I am concerned about the potential for structural damage to my property as a result of these works.
7. Ongoing Noise, Air Quality, and Amenity Impacts
Due to the minimal setbacks, my property will be exposed to ongoing noise impacts from Building B, including noise transmission from open windows, mechanical plant (such as air conditioning units), basement car park operations (including security gates), and communal open spaces between Buildings A and B. Additionally, the location of garbage storage areas will introduce further disturbance during waste collection. Vehicle emissions from the underground car park are also likely to affect air quality, raising potential health concerns for residents.
8. Cumulative Impacts and Inappropriate Design Response
The cumulative effect of the proposal’s variations—including excessive height, inadequate setbacks, loss of solar access, privacy intrusion, and noise and vibration impacts—demonstrates that the design is not an appropriate or reasonable response to the site’s constraints. Nor does it provide a balanced outcome for the surrounding community. Development of this nature should not come at the expense of the safety, amenity, and reasonable expectations of existing residents.
Conclusion
In light of the above concerns, I respectfully request that the Department refuse the application in its current form. I further request that the applicant be required to submit a revised proposal that complies with the applicable height controls (including the 15.8-metre height plane) and provides appropriate setbacks to protect the privacy, solar access, and amenity of my property and neighbouring properties at 29A Rosalind Street.
My objections are outlined as follows:
1. Excessive Building Height and Inadequate Clause 4.6 Justification
The proposal seeks a maximum building height of 18.36 metres, representing approximately a 55% exceedance of the 12-metre limit prescribed under the North Sydney Local Environmental Plan 2013. The applicant’s Clause 4.6 variation indicates that non-compliant elements comprise approximately 68% of the total roof footprint. This extent of variation cannot reasonably be characterised as minor or limited to lift overruns; rather, it effectively introduces an additional storey across the majority of the building.
The claimed 3.8-metre height bonus under the “Seniors Housing Bonus” provisions appears questionable. The proposal includes only two residential care beds for a development comprising 49 large apartments, reportedly located in the basement. This raises concerns as to whether the inclusion of these beds is merely tokenistic, potentially intended to trigger planning pathways not otherwise available. Furthermore, the proposed apartment sizes (ranging from approximately 105m² for two-bedroom units to 160m² for three-bedroom units) are substantially larger than typical seniors housing offerings, which generally range between 20m² and 40m².
2. Visual Bulk, Scale, and Topographical Impact
The site rises toward my rear boundary, and my property is situated at a lower level. As a result, an 18.36-metre building constructed directly adjacent to my courtyard will present an overbearing and dominant visual presence. This impact is exacerbated by the site’s topography, making the building appear even taller and more oppressive than if it were positioned closer to street level. In this context, it would be more appropriate for building height to reduce toward the rear boundary, thereby respecting the natural landform and the amenity of adjoining properties.
3. Loss of Solar Access
The Environmental Impact Statement confirms that my property will experience a reduction in solar access exceeding 20%. This outcome fails to maintain the minimum requirement of two hours of direct sunlight at the winter solstice, as prescribed by the Apartment Design Guide and the Housing SEPP. This represents a clear non-compliance with established planning controls.
4. Inadequate Setbacks and Privacy Impacts
Building B proposes side setbacks as narrow as 3 metres. For a development of approximately six storeys, typical building separation distances would be in the order of 9 to 12 metres. The proposed “privacy fins” are not a sufficient mitigation measure for such limited setbacks. The development will result in unreasonable overlooking into my courtyard and main bedroom, leading to a significant loss of privacy for my property.
5. Excavation, Noise, and Acoustic Impacts
The proposal requires the excavation and removal of approximately 24,739m² of sandstone to a depth of 10 metres. The predicted acoustic impact of this excavation is approximately 75 dB(A) at my property, exceeding acceptable management levels by 25 dB(A). This level of noise will have a substantial adverse impact on occupants, particularly those working from home and children engaged in study.
6. Structural and Vibration Risks
Given the proximity of Building B’s basement excavation to my courtyard and foundations, there is a significant risk of vibration-related impacts. I am concerned about the potential for structural damage to my property as a result of these works.
7. Ongoing Noise, Air Quality, and Amenity Impacts
Due to the minimal setbacks, my property will be exposed to ongoing noise impacts from Building B, including noise transmission from open windows, mechanical plant (such as air conditioning units), basement car park operations (including security gates), and communal open spaces between Buildings A and B. Additionally, the location of garbage storage areas will introduce further disturbance during waste collection. Vehicle emissions from the underground car park are also likely to affect air quality, raising potential health concerns for residents.
8. Cumulative Impacts and Inappropriate Design Response
The cumulative effect of the proposal’s variations—including excessive height, inadequate setbacks, loss of solar access, privacy intrusion, and noise and vibration impacts—demonstrates that the design is not an appropriate or reasonable response to the site’s constraints. Nor does it provide a balanced outcome for the surrounding community. Development of this nature should not come at the expense of the safety, amenity, and reasonable expectations of existing residents.
Conclusion
In light of the above concerns, I respectfully request that the Department refuse the application in its current form. I further request that the applicant be required to submit a revised proposal that complies with the applicable height controls (including the 15.8-metre height plane) and provides appropriate setbacks to protect the privacy, solar access, and amenity of my property and neighbouring properties at 29A Rosalind Street.
Peter Gooden
Object
Peter Gooden
Object
NORTH SYDNEY
,
New South Wales
Message
This is an objection to the Cammeray Seniors Living proposal for 19, 21, 23 Rosalind Street, Cammeray, SSD-96505456.
I am a resident of North Sydney and have lived here for ten years. I know the area very well.
Cammeray is not in the TOD or LMHR zones, yet the developers are seeking to impose two huge buildings, one of which is six to eight storeys high in this zone. It is totally inappropriate, as the nearest major transport hub is the Crows Nest Metro, which is 1.2 kilometers away.
It is fairly obvious that this is not designed as a care facility for seniors, with forty-nine of the units comprising three to four bedroom units and only two care beds, both located underground. Clearly, this is an attempt to get around the planning laws established by the state government to encourage senior strategic development to address the housing shortfall. This is a cynical attempt to present the development as a care facility for seniors, but in actual fact it is an upscale apartment development for rich downsizers.
The main objections I have are:
- The proposed development is just too big for the site and the area.
- The sheer bulk of the two towers, up to eight storeys high, is completely out of character with the quiet neighborhood of Cammeray.
- The surrounding area is very much a low-scale residential area.
- The development has non-compliant setbacks, which severely impact the neighbors.
- The depth of the excavation proposed is down to ten meters, which will have a negative impact on surrounding homes and could destabilize them. This is a real concern.
- The proposal calls for the removal of most of the established trees on the site, which is a massive blow to the neighborhood. We've already lost three thousand plus trees in the Warringah freeway, and the impact on birds, insects, wildlife, and animals is huge. Cammeray is a very leafy area.
- The driveway that services the development is completely inadequate for its purposes, as it will impact severely on the main route that young children take traveling from Crows Nest to Anzac Park Primary School.
- There is no access for large delivery trucks and other service vehicles. The occupants of 89 parking spaces plus service vehicles attending to this development will place an unsustainable load on Rosalind Street and be a danger to the school children that use this street every day.
- The development will definitely create overshadowing, loss of sunlight, and loss of privacy for many neighbors, particularly those to the rear of the higher second block and also the Federation Homes adjoining the site on Rosalind Street.
- The inclusion of the two care beds is clearly a farce and a mere tool to create the impression that they're complying with the SSD system.
I urge the DPHI to not accept these plans as they are put and make various amendments to the proposed development, including:
- Retention of trees
- Increased setbacks
- Reduced overshadowing
- Reduced height of the second building
- Increased number of care bed facilities to something genuine, at least around forty percent of the project
If the developer is not able to adjust the plans to meet these requirements, then the proposal should be rejected by DPHI.
Peter Gooden
North Sydney
1st April 2026
I am a resident of North Sydney and have lived here for ten years. I know the area very well.
Cammeray is not in the TOD or LMHR zones, yet the developers are seeking to impose two huge buildings, one of which is six to eight storeys high in this zone. It is totally inappropriate, as the nearest major transport hub is the Crows Nest Metro, which is 1.2 kilometers away.
It is fairly obvious that this is not designed as a care facility for seniors, with forty-nine of the units comprising three to four bedroom units and only two care beds, both located underground. Clearly, this is an attempt to get around the planning laws established by the state government to encourage senior strategic development to address the housing shortfall. This is a cynical attempt to present the development as a care facility for seniors, but in actual fact it is an upscale apartment development for rich downsizers.
The main objections I have are:
- The proposed development is just too big for the site and the area.
- The sheer bulk of the two towers, up to eight storeys high, is completely out of character with the quiet neighborhood of Cammeray.
- The surrounding area is very much a low-scale residential area.
- The development has non-compliant setbacks, which severely impact the neighbors.
- The depth of the excavation proposed is down to ten meters, which will have a negative impact on surrounding homes and could destabilize them. This is a real concern.
- The proposal calls for the removal of most of the established trees on the site, which is a massive blow to the neighborhood. We've already lost three thousand plus trees in the Warringah freeway, and the impact on birds, insects, wildlife, and animals is huge. Cammeray is a very leafy area.
- The driveway that services the development is completely inadequate for its purposes, as it will impact severely on the main route that young children take traveling from Crows Nest to Anzac Park Primary School.
- There is no access for large delivery trucks and other service vehicles. The occupants of 89 parking spaces plus service vehicles attending to this development will place an unsustainable load on Rosalind Street and be a danger to the school children that use this street every day.
- The development will definitely create overshadowing, loss of sunlight, and loss of privacy for many neighbors, particularly those to the rear of the higher second block and also the Federation Homes adjoining the site on Rosalind Street.
- The inclusion of the two care beds is clearly a farce and a mere tool to create the impression that they're complying with the SSD system.
I urge the DPHI to not accept these plans as they are put and make various amendments to the proposed development, including:
- Retention of trees
- Increased setbacks
- Reduced overshadowing
- Reduced height of the second building
- Increased number of care bed facilities to something genuine, at least around forty percent of the project
If the developer is not able to adjust the plans to meet these requirements, then the proposal should be rejected by DPHI.
Peter Gooden
North Sydney
1st April 2026