• Removal of existing, affordable, mostly one bedroom home units that attract young workers & older singles in favour of luxury, oversized family units.
• Not really Seniors Living. Will maybe sell to families with more than one car. Maybe older children living there too with their own vehicles. Family noise will become a problem, more people living in this space even though similar amount of units. Noise rises eg. Stockland Cammeray Square units are very noisy from courtyard shopping area.
• Closer to street, closer to existing fence lines & deep underground rooms, shop means more staff activity, trucks delivering.
• Windows & balconies seem to be overlooking other existing homes & units. I think the design is inclined to create dissatisfaction amongst those living there & everyone else.
• I believe No. 15 will have balconies directly adjacent to their windows. Plus the new building being closer to the road & higher means all morning light from the East will be blocked. North facing means little direct sunlight makes it into rooms.
• Government wants workers to return to the City but this project removes current workers to another place if only for Senior Living. Just providing downsizers with places so that larger family homes can be sold or redeveloped. This makes sense but no need to ruin every older building. There has been some deplorable residential building - grey roofs, too close, overheating as no tree canopy. Other ugly tower unit blocks seen from Albany St, Crows Nest just grey blocks. Paraween St Cremorne many older homes removed for a development. No parking for theatre & restaurant crowds. Walker St, North Sydney 5 older blocks to be redeveloped. I appreciate varied architecture & detest people who follow fashion trends. Over past 20 years fashion colours have gone through blue grey, grey, black to currently frigid white & melamine. All dismal.
• Trying to introduce high rise into well established Low-Medium Rise area which will change area and values forever.
• Rosalind St was deliberately planted with native trees Paperbarks and Bottlebrush to be a native corridor between Anzac Park, golf course and St Thomas Rest Park. Many birds and animals inhabit this street. This property was also planted with Paperbarks - 3 along fence lines. These are to be removed & probably the large one on nature strip. Both types of possums, bees, flocks ie lorikeets, flying foxes (in early summer) all rely on these for food. Various owls, tawny frogmouths, butcher, magpie, currawongs, cockatoos, king parrot, noisy minors, etc & small creatures inhabit this immediate area. All make some noise but are part of the environment here. Visitors like AirB&B guests to 19-23 Rosalind St appreciated seeing Australian creatures.
• 15 Rosalind St was built in about 1957. Well built, 9 one bedroom units. When the existing 19-23 the units were built this property suffered some damage as 19-23 is nearly a metre lower. Some subsidence even though there is a wall ie handrail to Unit 1 pulled away from wall.
• 15 Rosalind has also been affected by the mature Paperbarks along the fenceline (as mentioned above). Roots are well established under No. 15's driveway & carpark concrete. Removal of these trees will cause roots to decay & this area to subside. Having spent years sweeping up leaf litter daily in summer I am annoyed that they will be destroyed. Previous owner of house behind us planted 3 sheoaks (stupid)(maybe casaurinas) so there are other large trees nearby also proving attractive to birds & animals.
• One sheoak was removed, also a huge camphor laurel in the 1990s. Although professionally done & backfilled we are of the opinion our land is soft. Whilst there is a wall along the fenceline with No. 19-23 we wouldn't like deep digging & tree removal to happen for fear of damage to our building.
• Water pools on No. 19 at the West side of the building from rains so the tree removal & drainage on their property might be a problem for them. They don't get much light there & it is drafty down that side, like our left side driveway.
• We have been enduring the Freeway Upgrade from North Sydney to Naremburn, night & day, especially the lower end of Rosalind St where many gum trees were removed. The Anzac Park & golf course have been taken over. 1000 trees reportedly removed along & around Freeway. Now they are building a tunnel & pollution stacks there just a short distance from the Anzac School.
• There were no bush turkeys around although there were ones around Kirribilli & Balmoral Beach in 2020-21. When the 1000 trees were removed turkeys naturally moved into Rosalind St at Miller St. They are still there. A male & 2 females moved to 19-23 & bred over the next few years. They came onto No. 15 as chicks & adults as we have a quiet backyard & hedges. They don't like the many dog walkers on Rosalind St going to St Thomas Rest Park each afternoon. We were coping with 26 up until the units at 19-23 were bought up then the agent or owner company got rid of 21. Suddenly gone. I believe they would have had to be poisoned as they are nervy things. I wonder if approval was sought, as they are meant to be protected! Five were left, traumatised in the Paperbarks. The dominant male began mating again so we now have about 7 in the trees. I know that a dog & a cat have killed or injured 4. Two got run over. People blast their horns at them.
• Which brings me to the road. It is not as quiet as assumed. Cars race down, families with school kids pass by from Anzac School. West St has heavy traffic periods. Helicopters from RNSH can be heard plus ones over the Freeway or North Sydney Oval ie media. The traffic on Miller & the Freeway can clearly be heard, especially buses. There has always been a renovation or 2 going on nearby plus each dwelling has gardening noise, especially Mondays. We get afternoon sea breeze in summer & no sun in backyard in winter. North facing.
• I have found that owners buy in, want to change things, renovate, put down wood floors, plant trees, buy decorative stuff then move out & rent (often to couples or families) leaving us to cope with all the problems they create. I think developers are probably the same. It causes everyone a lot of unhealthy resentment & frustration. Colliers people talk nicely but I don't think the developers have any other interest than greed. The agent is already buying up properties in other streets, so I've been told.
• I think 3-4 storeys is quite sufficient to keep an Australian appeal in this street at least. No one is going to come to Sydney to see boring concrete towers. They want blue skies, green trees, harbour, beach, unique animals & Outback red soil.
• Towers just end up blocking each other's views. Tower buildings have underground parking but usually take up street parking with two or three large driveway entrances.
• The buildings when sold are to be managed by Waterhouse. I know that in Qld managing companies of unit blocks are contracted for a 25 year term. This means they don't have to try very hard. I don't know about Sydney but it is not right.
• Thank you for reading this. My apologies. Some of it is relevant!

I am writing to make a submission objection regarding the proposed independent living development at 19, 21 and 23 Rosalind Street Cammeray/ SSD 96505456 – Cammeray Seniors Living”.
While I acknowledge the importance of providing appropriate accommodation for older residents, I am concerned that the proposed building height is not in keeping with the established character and scale of the surrounding area, setback and loss of Trees. As with all developments there will be developer creep once this proposal is endorsed. The Developer has already purchased surrounding real estate as stated in community consultation meetings.
I look directly onto the proposed Independent / Aged Care Facility B Building. From 228 west St, I will be able to look down directly the driveways between 191 and 187 West St and also see both proposed buildings, in addition to the skyline right across. The proposed development will significantly obstruct the morning light that I value. The visual impact of the built form with its 6 floors and plant rooms near the roof line is unacceptable loss of amenity to the local residents and suburb (Noting that if endorsed there will be 8 floors). Additionally, the back of my house will also have some shade effects from the proposed Pacific Highway impacts of the 52 – 42 floor buildings of the NSW Govt Transport Orientated Development Program over the next decade, noting council plans.
The immediate locality is predominantly characterised by lower-scale development, with several buildings in close proximity being heritage-listed or contributing heritage items. Noting 205, 179 and 169 West St are part of the Holtermann Estate B Conservation Area and State Heritage Database No.: 2186346. The proposed height would visually dominate these buildings, diminish their setting, and undermine the historic character and streetscape that Council’s planning controls seek to protect. A development of this height risks setting an undesirable precedent and eroding the established character of the neighbourhood.
I respectfully request that NSW Govt for Planning, Housing and Infrastructure with the local Council reconsider the proposed building height and seek a scale that is more consistent with the local area and the nearby heritage items, while still allowing for appropriate aged-care / Independent living accommodation.
There remains no one bedroom apartments with this proposal. There appears no community dining area within the proposed plan. No dementia specific areas despite stating that there would be care. There appears no staff, medical, emergency services parking and this will impact the local area. There is concern as to the management of the Building Plant noise and monitoring as this is a residential area. There appears no noise abatement despite the Noise Acoustic Report Documenting on page 24 ; there is no definitive information supplied therefore only anticipated. Will this proposal align with the guidelines to provide aboriginal heritage assessment ? Noting the extensive excavation to be undertaken with this proposal? Will any of the units provided be subject to social and affordable housing for aged care people who are unable to pay the cost of these apartments proposed? This would align with the NSW Govt TODP for social and affordable Housing.
Thank you for kindly considering my objection to this project.

To Whom It May Concern,

I am the owner of 4/199 West Street in Crows Nest, located directly behind the proposed development (SSD-96505456) on the western side. I have owned this townhouse for 16 years. I would like to formally object to the application in its current form and request that I be registered as an official objector and kept informed of all updates.
While I understand that change is part of any neighbourhood, this proposed development significantly impacts the key reasons I chose to purchase this property, particularly access to sunlight and privacy. Through my work with mental health organizations, I am very aware of the important role natural light plays in emotional and mental wellbeing. Research shows that exposure to daylight can reduce the risk of depression by around 20 per cent.
My main bedroom and courtyard faces the proposed development, therefore, I have concerns that my sunlight will be impacted, especially since the solar diagrams provided do not accurately reflect existing conditions. I request that updated and independently verified solar diagrams be provided to clearly demonstrate the true impact on my property, particularly during different seasons.
I have engaged Bill Tulloch (DA Objection Pty Ltd), together with neighbouring residents, who has submitted a detailed planning objection expanding on these concerns and broader compliance issues.
My key concerns are outlined below:

Height and streetscape character
• The proposed building height is excessive and inconsistent with the surrounding context of predominantly one to three storey dwellings.
• The scale and bulk create an overbearing presence on my property and could contribute to a loss of sunlight.
I request that the height of Building B does not exceed the maximum permitted height of 15.8 metres.

Setbacks and building separation
• The proposed setbacks along the boundary are inadequate and do not align with the intent of the Apartment Design Guide.
• The application states a 6m setback from ground floor to Level 4; however, this is misleading. When assessed correctly, Level 4 represents five storeys from ground, where a greater setback (9 meters) should apply. Under ADG guidance, a minimum 6m setback should apply to lower levels, with an increased setback (minimum 9m) required at upper levels. This has not been achieved.
• Claims that “enlarged setbacks” have been provided are inaccurate and not consistently applied to all affected properties, including mine.
• Increased setbacks are critical to:
o Reduce bulk and sense of enclosure
o Protect solar access
o Maintain appropriate separation from lower-density neighbouring properties
I request that setbacks be increased to a minimum of 4.5 to 6 metres, with a minimum 9 metre setback at upper levels, and consideration given to additional setback at the boundary to address the transition to lower-density housing.

Loss of sunlight and impact on wellbeing
• My bedroom and courtyard currently receive valuable sunlight, which is essential to daily living conditions.
• Without current solar diagrams, the proposal could significantly reduce my solar access due to overshadowing, excessive height and insufficient setbacks.
• Access to natural light is not only an amenity issue but also a health consideration. The overshadowing impacts appear understated and should be reassessed.
I request that overshadowing impacts be independently reviewed and that the design be amended to preserve reasonable solar access to my home.

Privacy impacts and need for screening
• The proposal introduces overlooking from multiple apartments into my home and courtyard, resulting in a significant loss of privacy.
• This is inconsistent with ADG Objective 3F-1 regarding visual privacy and building separation.

I request that setbacks be increased and that specific privacy mitigation measures be applied to apartments that will have a view into my courtyard and windows (including balconies and windows facing 199 West Street), with fixed privacy screens (minimum 1.6 metres in height) installed where required.

Landscape design and inappropriate tree selection
• The proposed use of Angophora costata trees along the western boundary is inappropriate for this location.
• These trees can grow up to 25 metres in height, exceeding the height of the proposed buildings, and will:
o Overhang into neighbouring properties
o Create ongoing maintenance burdens, including leaf litter and branch management
o Pose potential safety risks from falling limbs
o Result in additional personal costs to manage impacts from trees not located on my property
o Potentially negate any solar access benefits due to their height and canopy spread
I request that tree selection be revised to an alternative species with a smaller canopy and lower mature height, suitable for boundary planting and that does not negatively impact neighbouring properties.

I respectfully request that the proposal be refused in its current form, or significantly amended to:
• Reduce overall building height to align with the surrounding one to three-storey context
• Increase setbacks and building separation along the western boundary
• Protect solar access to neighbouring properties, particularly during winter
• Address overlooking through design changes and appropriate privacy screening
• Revise landscaping, including selection of inappropriate large tree species

Thank you for considering my submission.

Yours sincerely,
Nicolin Collingridge
Owner, 4/199 West Street
Crows Nest NSW

Objection to SSD‑96505456 – Cammeray Seniors Living

I am a long time resident of the North Shore, with family neighboring the proposed development, and I object to the development in its current form.
The development removes privacy and solar access for surrounding properties.
The development doesn't adhere to setback requirements particularly for adjoining lower density zoned areas.
A seniors living development should respect existing privacy and shadowing so as to maintain amenity of the community, and should not come at the expense of neighbors' comfort.

Objection to SSD 96505456 - Cammeray Seniors Living:
We object to this development application for the following reasons:
We live in a townhouse in Trafalgar Street, Crows Nest located at the rear of the proposed site on the southern boundary, and we feel that we will be severely impacted by this development.

1. Height, Setbacks and Scale
The proposed development with increased scale, bulk, and height is wholly inconsistent with the established character of the surrounding streetscape. The proposed height will overshadow neighboring properties, reduce sunlight, reduce privacy and create an overbearing bulk when viewed from the street and adjoining residences. This will have a significant negative impact on the amenity, enjoyment and general liveability of existing residents.
The non-compliant setbacks will have a major privacy impact to our property as balconies will be looking directly down into our courtyard, living areas and windows.
The proposed 6m setbacks shown on the plans do not meet the 9+m requirement shown in the Apartment Design Guide.

2. Environmental, Acoustic Implications & Sewerage Line
Given that the three-unit blocks currently on site have been confirmed to contain asbestos materials, we are concerned about the potential for asbestos fibres to be released during demolition, posing a risk to the health of residents and neighbours in the vicinity.
The excavation for the two-level basement will create prolonged noise, dust and vibration impacting surrounding homes for an extended period of time. For residents working from home, retirees and daytime residents the impact on their health and wellbeing caused by experiencing stress, frustration, and exhaustion from constant, long-term exposure to nearby construction noise and vibration.
Located at the rear of 2-4 Trafalgar Street along the southern boundary there is a sewerage line, we have concerns regarding any potential damage that could occur during excavation for the two-level basement.
The removal of approximately 24 trees on the site will cause environmental impacts as they provide vital green canopy and essential habitat for local bird populations and native animals.

3. Construction Impacts:
A development of this scale involving demolition, excavation (substantial earthworks), construction of two new buildings and with a construction period likely to be 24+ months will result in:
- Extended noise, dust, and vibration impacts on neighbouring residents
- Heavy vehicle movements through residential streets
- Disruption to daily life for surrounding families
- Potential structural impacts on neighbouring properties from excavation
- Reduced air quality during construction

4. Inadequate Community Consultation:
The exhibition period of only two weeks is insufficient for a development of this scale and impact. Residents deserve adequate time to review technical documents and formulate comprehensive responses to a development that will permanently alter our neighbourhood.

5. Lack of Genuine Seniors Housing Benefit:
Although marketed as "Seniors Housing" the proposed exists of mainly 3-bedroom luxury apartments including on-site wine cellar, gym, sauna, pool, movie theatre and private lounge with only 2 care beds located in the basement.
The above is targeting the premium market and not catering for the broader seniors living sector.
The current proposal prioritizes developer profit over community wellbeing, environmental protection, and appropriate planning principles.
This development will house fewer residents than the existing affordable one-bedroom apartments.

6. Conclusion:
For the reasons outlined above, I respectfully urge the Department to refuse this application in its current form and require any future proposal to adhere to local planning controls:
- Reduce the height of the buildings so they are within the maximum height planning controls.
- Enlarge building setbacks on all boundaries to increase privacy and reduce solar access loss and ensure a transition in scale with close neighbouring properties.
- Relocate the roof services to the basement or ensure that they have acoustic barriers and are located away from neighbouring properties to reduce noise impacts.

We request that this submission be given full consideration in the assessment process.

Yours sincerely,
Anna & Philip Watson

OBJECTION to Seniors Housing Development – 19-23 Rosalind Street, Cammeray
I am writing on behalf of and as a director and shareholder of the owner of Unit 4, 29A Rosalind Street, Cammeray NSW 2062. The registered owner is Petfern Consultants Pty Limited ATF The Fernandez Family Trust (ABN 99 002 316 761).
Unit 4, 29A Rosalind Street, is a property directly adjacent to the southern and eastern boundaries of the proposed development. I wish to register my objection to the proposal in its current form.
In principle, I am not opposed to development in the area given its location and the proposal for seniors’ living in a quiet, green environment. However, this specific application represents an over-development of a constrained site that fails several non-discretionary planning standards, does not offer affordable housing, and does not adhere to genuine seniors’ housing requirements.
My objection is based on the following technical grounds:
1. Excessive Building Height and Failure of Clause 4.6 Variation
The proposal seeks a maximum height of 18.36m (Building B), which is nearly 55% above the 12m limit set by the North Sydney Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2013.
Scale of Breach: The applicant’s own Clause 4.6 Variation Request confirms that non-compliant elements cover 68% of the total roof footprint. This is not a minor "lift overrun" but an additional storey across much of the proposed building.
Nature of Breach: Even with an extra height of 3.8m due to the "Seniors Housing Bonus," the building still exceeds the maximum height plane. Furthermore, the basis for applying the “Senior Housing Bonus” is evidently flawed:
a) the proposal only includes 2 Residential Care (RCF) beds for 48 / 49 large apartments. It should be checked to confirm this is not a tokenistic inclusion designed solely to trigger State Significant Development (SSD) status and bypass local Council.
b) the proposed apartments vary in average size from 105m² (2-bedroom apartments) to 160m² (3-bedroom + study apartments). For seniors’ premium facilities in Sydney (Refer: Pathways https://pathways.com.au/) private living areas in the range of 20m² to 40m² are offered. These operations provide comprehensive professional services and support, as well as medical care.
Topographical Impact: Because the site rises toward our boundary at the rear, and because our property is on a lower-level platform, an 18.36m building creates a looming visual presence that is significantly more dominant than a compliant 12m or 15.8m building would be. The survey confirms the site sits "slightly elevated at the rear" (on the boundary of our property) compared to the street level. The site rises toward our property, an 18.36m building at the rear of the proposed site (Building B) has a much more dominating and oppressive visual impact on our property’s occupants than it would if it were closer to the street. As such, the height should be lower at the rear, not higher, to respect the natural landform and neighbouring properties.
2. Reduced Solar Access and Amenity Impact
The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) confirms that our property at 4/29A Rosalind Street will suffer a solar access loss of more than 20%.
Reduction in sunlight: The proposal fails to maintain the mandatory 2 hours of direct sunlight at the winter solstice required by the Apartment Design Guide (ADG) and the Housing SEPP.
Building bulk: the "building bulk" is poorly distributed. A compliant 12m (or even 15.8m) building would not cause this level of amenity impact.
3. Inadequate Setbacks and Privacy Intrusion
Parts of Building B have side setbacks as narrow as 3 metres at the lower levels which will create material amenity impacts for our property.
ADG Breach: For a 6-storey building, the ADG typically requires a 9m to 12m separation. The current design has setbacks as narrow as 3m on our property boundary.
Visual Enclosure: The proposed "privacy fins" are a superficial mitigation for a building that is physically too close to our property’s boundary, resulting in an unreasonable loss of visual privacy for private living spaces. Furthermore, the proposed development will overlook our property at the courtyard level and directly into the main bedroom of our property. The balconies in the proposed development are also very close to the boundary.
Floor Space Ratio (FSR): The proposed site coverage of 51% exceeds the 45% limit. The developer is trying to squeeze too much onto the site, which is why they are failing the height, setback, and solar tests simultaneously. This indicates the site is being over-developed beyond its natural capacity.
4. Construction, Noise, and Vibration Impacts
The project requires the removal of 24,739m³ of sandstone via a 10m deep excavation.
Acoustic Exceedance: Peak construction noise is predicted to reach 75 dB(A) at our property. This level is up to 25 dB(A) over management levels.
Excavation impacts: the vibration from bulk rock excavation and the noise from 40 construction workers will be a primary concern during the build phase, particularly as it is in such proximity to our property.
Structural Risk: Given the proximity of Building B's basement to our property’s courtyard and foundations, the vibration risk is significant, and I have concerns about structural impacts to our property.
5. Ongoing Impact on Completion of the Proposed Development:
Due to the lack of setback, the row of townhouses at 29A Rosalind Street, of which our property is No. 4, will be indefinitely affected by the proximity of the proposed Building B and by sound permeating from open windows of Building B, from the air conditioning plant, from underground car parking security gates at the entrance, and from the proposed open courtyard to be located between Building A and Building B and abutting on to the 29A Rosalind Street courtyards. The location of garbage bins (proposed to be located at the rear of the underground basement) means additional noise when locating bins for garbage collection and relocation afterwards. There is also car emissions rising from the underground parking areas, which are being excavated next to the courtyards of 29A Rosalind Street Townhouses (health impact on 29A Rosalind Street residents).
Conclusion
The cumulative impact of these variations - height, solar, setbacks, privacy, noise and vibration, ongoing noise on completion and residents’ occupation, and a lack of mixed residential use (1- and 2-bedroom senior living and affordable housing) - proves that the proposed design is an inappropriate response to the site's constraints and to its potential to the community. The public interest is not served by a development that ignores the safety and amenity rights of its existing neighbours.
Reference is made to attached photographs taken from our property. These are provided as evidence of height, setbacks, solar, privacy, and noise impacts.
I request that the Department refuse the application and require the applicant to submit a redesigned scheme that complies with the 15.8m height plane and setbacks to protect the privacy and solar access of our property and the other properties located at 29A Rosalind Street.