I strongly object for the reasons set out in the attachment

I support the project, I believe it will significantly improve housing affordability and availability in the area.

I would, however like to see the number of storeys and units significantly increased.

I have attached a full submission outlining my objection to SSD 96505456 – Cammeray Seniors Living. The document details planning non‑compliances and the impacts on my property at 4 Edwin Street, including height exceedance, inadequate setbacks, privacy loss, tree removal, excavation impacts, parking loss, traffic increases, and concerns regarding the proposal’s suitability under SEPP Seniors.

In addition to my submission of Objection (01/04/2026), re: the amalgamation of the three sites - 19, 21 and 23 Rosalind Street, Cammeray - could I request that the Department scrutinise that all owners consent has been provided in accordance with s (23) (1):
23 Persons who may make development applications
(1) A development application may be made by—
(a) the owner of the land to which the development application relates, or
(b) another person, with the written consent of the owner of the land.

Objection to SSD-96505456 – Cammeray Seniors Living Development

A Profit-Driven Project Threatening Families & Exploiting Seniors, As:
- A grandparent living opposite the proposed site
- A member of the senior community
- A concerned citizen fighting for affordable, dignified housing

I strongly oppose this development because:
1. It Exploits Seniors & Misuses SSD Planning Avenue:
- Tokenistic "aged care" sham: Only 2 basement "care beds" next to noisy service areas) – with no genuine intention of providing age-caring facilities.
- Fixed screen window design which has significant mental impact to the seniors mental health and wellbeing
- $68 million luxury project (~$2.5-3M/unit) marketed as "luxury senior living" – not affordable for real community needs. As the grandparent of an existing family living opposite to the development site, I'd love to move closer to my children's family and to look after my grandchildren when required. However, I can't afford this price compared with the existing unit on 19-21 Rosalind Street.

2. It Harms My Family & Grandchildren
- Health risks: Years of toxic construction dust near children’s bedrooms
- Safety threats: Dangerous traffic increases on our narrow street (school walking route)
- Loss of community: Replaces family homes with unaffordable "investment/luxuary" units"

3. It Dishonours Our Cultural Values
- Insensitive cemetery proximity (against Chinese traditions of respecting ancestors)
- Destroys neighbourhood character with oversized, profit-maximizing design

I request the department to REJECT This Exploitative Proposal due to:
This project:
- Fails seniors with fake "care" provisions
- Endangers children through pollution & congestion
- Violates planning intent for genuine affordable housing

We stand united – grandparents, parents, and grandchildren – against this greedy development.

I am unequivocally opposed to this proposal as a long term resident of Rosalind street. The bulk is exorbitantly out of context of the local area. This proposal is undoubtedly an abuse of the planning system where the proponent is seeking to game the system. It is blatantly obvious that the development is for up market, luxury units under the guise of a “seniors development “ to obtain the associated benefits of increased building height and FSR by throwing in a couple of so called residential care beds. This is an absolute abuse of the planning system, driven by greed and if approved will justify a class action to challenge the assessment!

Dear Sir/Madam,

I write to object to the proposed Cammeray Seniors Living development.

I am a local resident of Cammeray, and I am concerned that this proposal is an overdevelopment of the site and is inconsistent with the intent of the Housing SEPP and good planning outcomes for Cammeray.
My concerns include the following:

1. 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.

2. Inconsistency with the intent of seniors housing policy
The Housing SEPP is intended to support appropriate housing for seniors and vulnerable people. In my view, this proposal does not reflect that purpose. It appears to prioritise development yield over good design, neighbourhood compatibility, landscape retention and genuine community benefit.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. Non-compliances with the Housing SEPP
I am 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 servicing concerns
For a development of this nature, proper access, servicing and ambulance 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 local 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 about whether the EIS and supporting documents properly address the real impacts
I am concerned that the documentation does not fully and transparently address the true impacts of the proposal, including the practical consequences of the site coverage, excavation, tree removal, landscaping limitations and planning non-compliances.

Conclusion
For these reasons, I object to the Cammeray Seniors Living proposal and request that the Department refuse the application.
At a 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.

Yours faithfully,
Nicola Morgan
9, 378 Miller Street Cammeray NSW 2062
[email protected]
01/04/2026