I am submitting my objection to State Significant Development Application SSD-98363228 (Montefiore Seniors Housing, 19–25 College Crescent, St Ives), as set out in the attached submission document.

Supporting photographs are included within the submission as Appendix A. Three short videos referred to in the submission (Video 1, Video 2 and Video 3) are attached separately as MP4 files, as Microsoft Word does not support embedding playable video.

Attached files:
- Submission SSD-98363228 22 College Crescent.pdf
- Video 1.mp4
- Video 2.mp4
- Video 3.mp4

Please contact me if any further information is required.

Submission in Opposition to SSD-98363228 – 19–25 College Crescent, St Ives
I respectfully object to SSD-98363228 for the following reasons:
The proposed development is excessive in bulk and scale and is completely out of character with the established low-density residential character of St Ives.
The development should not exceed three (3) storeys. A three-storey development would provide a far more appropriate transition to the surrounding residential neighbourhood and significantly reduce visual impacts, overshadowing and loss of amenity.
The proposed 2 x eight-storey built form I and 2x 5-Storey building complex is unprecedented in St Ives. It would become the largest and tallest development in the suburb despite not being located within 800 metres of the St Ives Town Centre, contrary to the planning intent of concentrating higher-density development around centres with supporting infrastructure.
Only one vehicle access driveway should be permitted from College Crescent. Additional access points unnecessarily increase traffic conflict, reduce pedestrian safety and adversely affect local residents.
Traffic impacts have been underestimated. The applicant's Traffic Impact Assessment does not properly assess existing peak traffic generated by nearby schools, community facilities and local activities. College Crescent already experiences significant congestion during school drop-off and pick-up periods, and additional traffic from this proposal will worsen safety and congestion. The Stanley Street roundabout is at capacity during peak 7:30 to 8:30am school drop off and work times I travel there every day and am always queuing at that intersection this additional traffic from a residential care facility as well as a publicly open allied health faciltiy will make it gridlocked- the Link Road entry is under advertised and will be minimally used as the address of this proposal has INTENTIONALLY been advertised as on College Crescent even though the main 2 X 8 storey buildings are on Link Road, when health professionals refer the public to this facility they will have a college crescent address which will direct and navigate the public to utilise the college crescent entry which is the one MAINLY used by school children and residents on college Crescent and is regularly grid locked as it is a narrow road with one side fully parked by school childrens cars and one side having a 2 hour parking restirction not a NO parking restriction as mistated and an ERROR on the traffic report by Montefiore.
The proposed ambulance and service vehicle movements raise significant safety concerns, particularly given the location of driveways and pedestrian activity in College Crescent. It is proposed on a curved street very narrow and no line of sight reports have been provided for this with the Chabad driveway right next to it and 2 opposite driveways on the opposite side I travel regularly down that street on an northerly and southerly direction and already have conflict of way with other drivers on this narrow road it is a real hazard to add another additional driveway there. Should not be allowed another driveway near the Chabad existing driveway on College Crescent.
Visual impacts have been significantly understated. Due to the elevated site, the buildings will appear substantially taller than their stated height when viewed from neighbouring properties i.e the current Masada oval is already artificially raised above the normal ground level of the Street hence the 5x storey building will be significantly higher than predicted on the plans this seems intentionally misleading.The proposal fails to provide an appropriate transition between large-scale development and surrounding homes.
The proposal will result in unacceptable loss of sunlight and residential amenity for surrounding properties through overshadowing, visual dominance and reduced privacy I like the area because of its open space of the Masada oval.
Reliance on future landscaping is not an adequate mitigation measure. Newly planted trees will take decades to mature and will never adequately screen buildings of this height and scale.
Misleading Deep Soil Information
I am concerned that the applicant has provided misleading information regarding deep soil landscaping.
The applicant claims that 24% of the site comprises deep soil (Appendix G, Sheet 55).
However, this claim does not withstand comparison against the Apartment Design Guide (ADG) definition and the Housing SEPP Dictionary.
The applicant's own drawings identify that the basement occupies approximately 8,903 m² (61.4% of the site).
Areas located above basements, underground services, driveways, ramps, hardstand areas and other structures cannot be counted as deep soil under the applicable planning controls.
The light green landscaping shown on Sheet 55 appears to include substantial planting over the basement podium, which should not be classified as compliant deep soil.
Once these non-compliant areas are removed, the genuine ADG-compliant deep soil area appears to be substantially less than the claimed 3,435 m².
I respectfully request that the Department require the applicant to:
Reissue Appendix G Sheet 55 using the correct ADG definition of deep soil.
Exclude all areas above the basement, underground services, OSD and rainwater infrastructure, driveways and impervious surfaces.
Clearly distinguish podium landscaping from genuine deep soil using separate mapping.
Demonstrate that every deep soil area satisfies the ADG minimum 6-metre dimension requirement.
Confirm that no areas have been double-counted between deep soil, landscaped area and communal open space.
Allied Health Services
I object to the proposed allied health facilities being made available to the general public.
Opening these services to external patients changes the nature and intensity of the development from a seniors housing facility to a broader community health destination. Causing even more traffic congestion and visits to the facility that have not been assessed by the traffic report of Montefiore.
This would generate additional traffic, parking demand, practitioner movements, deliveries and visitor activity beyond what would ordinarily be expected for seniors housing.
The applicant has not adequately assessed these additional impacts.
If public access is retained, a separate traffic, parking, noise and amenity assessment should be required specifically addressing external patients, carers, practitioners and staff.
Alternatively, allied health services should be restricted to residents of the development and their carers or visitors only.
Independent Traffic Engineer
I respectfully request that the Department give substantial weight to the findings and recommendations of the independent traffic engineer when assessing this application.
Strong Community Opposition
There is overwhelming community concern regarding this proposal.
At least 578 people have signed a petition objecting to this development, demonstrating widespread concern about its scale, traffic impacts, visual dominance and incompatibility with the surrounding neighbourhood.
The level of community opposition reflects the unprecedented nature of this proposal and should be given significant weight during the assessment.
Conclusion
For the reasons outlined above, I respectfully request that the Department refuse SSD-98363228 in its current form. If the proposal is not refused, it should be substantially redesigned to:
Limit the development to a maximum of three storeys.
Provide only one driveway access from College Crescent.
Accurately reassess deep soil in accordance with the ADG and Housing SEPP.
Restrict allied health services to residents only.
Address the deficiencies identified in the independent traffic engineering review.
Reduce the bulk, scale, traffic generation, visual impact and overshadowing so the development is compatible with the established character of St Ives.
please access this link for the petition of over 500 concerned residents.
http://www.change.org/p/stop-overdevelopment-at-19-25-College-crscent-st-ives-9-storeys-is-not-st-ives

regards,

Notes
SSD-98363228 — Montefiore Seniors Housing Development, 19–25 College Crescent, St Ives
SUBMISSION: Impacts on Alcove, 132–138 and 9-15 Link Road Killeaton Street, St Ives
Attention: Liz James, NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure

I firmly believe that the Montefiore Seniors Housing St Ives is sorely needed because although there are a number of aged care homes in St Ives these days , this will be the only independent living units in an area where the community is ageing
I note that there are plans for a residential care facility which makes sense for people who need care once they age even further and need care .
They will simply move across to a care facility
The people who will be attracted to the independent living units will have their independence, pride at what I believe will be modern units with the added extras of a "club lounge, cafe, gym , swimming pools and allied health services" as stated in the proposal .
I recent years College Crescent has seen an expansion of townhouses and/or apartments and the increase in traffic has been well catered for to the point where eg I go for walks in College Crescent ( which I often do) I don't notice or find any problems
The area already has the apartments up a few levels and 5-8 levels will fit in well
I note that the proposal allows for 260 basement parking spaces as well as a private access road from 9-15 Link Road
I believe that this will be more than enough to cover any fear of extra traffic
Visually I think and believe the structures will blend in well to the area and I'm sure noise will be minimal considering the age of people who will be attracted to the proposal
I addition I expect construction noise to be limited to business hours ie no different to the buildings there already or being constructed right now
Reading the proposal I think Montefiore have an excellent plan and it deserves your full support and approval
I look forward to seeing construction getting under way soon

Dear Liz,
Please find attached my Submission in Objection to SSD-98363228.
Thank you for your consideration.
Kind Regards,
Tony Moody