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.

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

To Whom It May Concern,

I write to formally object to the proposed development at 19–23 Rosalind Street, Cammeray (SSD-96505456). I am deeply concerned that the proposal, in its current form, represents an overdevelopment of the site and fails to adequately respond to its environmental context, established character, and the amenity of surrounding properties.

My objections are outlined below:

1. Excessive and Unnecessary Removal of Healthy Trees
The proposal involves the removal of a substantial number of mature, healthy trees that contribute significantly to the local canopy, biodiversity, and streetscape character. These trees provide important ecological and amenity benefits, including urban cooling, habitat provision, and visual screening between properties.
There appears to be insufficient justification for the extent of tree removal proposed, particularly where design alternatives could reasonably allow for retention. The loss of established vegetation is inconsistent with broader environmental objectives and will result in irreversible degradation of the local landscape character.

The proposed extent of tree removal is not only environmentally detrimental but also indicative of a design that fails to properly respond to key requirements under the NSW planning framework, including the Apartment Design Guide (ADG) and relevant local environmental planning controls.

a. Failure to Prioritise Tree Retention (ADG & State Policy Context)
The ADG clearly establishes that development should be designed to retain existing significant trees wherever possible, with site planning and building footprints responsive to natural features rather than displacing them.

Specifically, the ADG (Part 4 – Landscape Design) emphasises:

Retention of mature trees as a priority design driver
Integration of development with existing site vegetation
Minimisation of site disturbance

The current proposal appears to invert this principle—removing established trees to accommodate building massing—demonstrating a clear departure from best practice design intent.

This approach is also inconsistent with the objectives of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing) 2021, which promotes high-quality, sustainable residential development that responds to environmental context.

b. Non-Compliance with ADG Deep Soil Zone Requirements
A critical issue underpinning the extent of tree removal is the apparent inadequacy of deep soil provision.

Under the ADG (Part 4D – Deep Soil Zones), developments are required to provide sufficient deep soil areas to:

Support retention of existing trees
Enable planting of large canopy trees
Maintain long-term ecological function

For a development of this scale, the ADG typically requires:

A minimum percentage of the site as deep soil (commonly 7–10%+ depending on site size and context)
Deep soil zones of sufficient dimension and continuity to sustain mature vegetation

The proposed 3-metre setbacks severely constrain the ability to deliver meaningful deep soil zones, particularly along site boundaries where existing trees are most likely located. Narrow setbacks fragmented by basements, services, and hardstand areas do not function as true deep soil zones and cannot support large canopy growth.
As a result:

Existing trees are unable to be retained
Replacement planting will be limited to small or medium species
Long-term canopy outcomes are compromised

This represents a functional non-compliance with ADG objectives, even if numerical targets are nominally claimed.

c. Inconsistency with Local Environmental Planning Controls (North Sydney LEP/DCP)
The proposal is also inconsistent with the intent of the North Sydney Local Environmental Plan 2013 and North Sydney Development Control Plan 2013, which place strong emphasis on:

Preservation of landscape character
Protection of significant trees and vegetation
Provision of adequate landscaped area and deep soil zones

The DCP in particular requires:

Development to be designed around existing vegetation
Retention of trees that contribute to the streetscape and local amenity
Landscaping that achieves visual softening of built form

By proposing widespread removal of healthy trees and limiting opportunities for meaningful replacement, the development fails to satisfy these objectives.

d. Relationship Between Building Mass, Setbacks, and Tree Loss
The excessive building mass and minimal setbacks are directly linked to the extent of vegetation removal.

A more compliant and context-sensitive scheme would:

Increase setbacks to allow tree retention corridors
Reduce basement and building footprint encroachment into root zones
Provide contiguous deep soil areas capable of sustaining canopy trees

Instead, the current design maximises yield at the expense of landscape outcomes, resulting in a clear conflict between built form and environmental constraints.

e. Cumulative Strategic Impact – Undermining Urban Canopy Targets
The NSW Government has established clear strategic objectives to increase urban tree canopy cover across Greater Sydney, recognising its importance for:
Urban heat mitigation
Climate resilience
Biodiversity
Public health

The unnecessary removal of mature trees on this site—particularly in a suburb already experiencing cumulative canopy loss—directly undermines these objectives.

Given the long maturation period required for replacement trees (often decades), the proposal results in a net long-term loss of canopy, contrary to both state and local planning priorities.

Conclusion
In summary, the extent of tree removal is not an unavoidable consequence of site constraints, but rather the result of a design that fails to properly accommodate the environmental characteristics of the site. This represents a fundamental misalignment with the ADG, local planning controls, and broader strategic objectives for urban canopy preservation.

2. Excessive Building Mass and Scale
The overall bulk and scale of the development are excessive for the site and out of character with the surrounding built form. The proposal presents as visually dominant and fails to provide appropriate transitions to adjoining lower-scale residential properties.
This overbearing massing will result in adverse visual impacts, overshadowing, and a sense of enclosure for neighbouring dwellings, particularly those located to the south and east.

3. Inadequate Boundary Setbacks (3 Metres)
The proposed 3-metre setbacks are insufficient given the scale and height of the development. These minimal setbacks exacerbate the perception of bulk and reduce opportunities for landscaping, deep soil zones, and meaningful canopy retention.
In addition, the limited setbacks contribute to privacy impacts, overlooking, and reduced solar access to adjoining properties. Greater setbacks are necessary to achieve an appropriate interface with neighbouring residential lots and to mitigate the development’s impacts.
4. Non-Compliance with Apartment Design Guide (ADG)
The proposal includes multiple significant variations from the Apartment Design Guide (ADG), which collectively undermine the design quality and liveability outcomes expected of such developments.
These variations appear excessive and unjustified, rather than minor or site-constrained exceptions. The cumulative effect of these departures raises serious concerns about compliance with established planning principles and the precedent this may set.

5. Impacts on Neighbouring Properties (South and East)
The development will have pronounced adverse impacts on properties to the south and east, including:

Loss of privacy due to overlooking from upper levels
Increased overshadowing and reduced solar access
Visual dominance and reduced outlook
Noise and general amenity impacts associated with increased density

These impacts have not been adequately mitigated through design measures and represent an unreasonable imposition on neighbouring residents.

In respect to our property located on the Southern boundary at 6 Trafalgar St Crows Nest, from the arborists report, trees T40 and T41, both natives in excess of 12m in height and set well back from the proposed development site have been classified as having a sparse canopy and of being 'low value'. Please see attached photo of the two trees from the Southern side showing that the canopy is not sparse, and they are of significant value to our neighbouring property to create screening and privacy from future development.

6. Lack of Contextual Sensitivity
The proposal does not sufficiently respond to the established character of the area. Its scale, massing, and site coverage appear driven by maximising yield rather than achieving a balanced and context-sensitive design outcome.
A more considered approach is required—one that respects the site’s environmental attributes, retains significant vegetation, and provides appropriate transitions to surrounding development.

Conclusion
For the reasons outlined above, I strongly object to the proposal in its current form. I respectfully request that the consent authority either refuse the application or require substantial redesign to:

Retain a significantly greater proportion of existing healthy trees
Reduce building bulk and scale
Increase setbacks to improve amenity and landscape outcomes
Achieve genuine compliance with the Apartment Design Guide
Better protect the amenity of neighbouring properties

Thank you for considering this submission.

Yours sincerely,

Andrew Taylor

I object to this application in the strongest terms.
This proposal is not seniors housing. It is a luxury residential development - two eight-storey towers - constructed by stacking every available mechanism under the Seniors Housing SEPP to override the planning controls that would otherwise apply. The 'care' component that unlocks this entire edifice consists of two beds placed in a basement. That is not dignified ageing in place. It is the identification of the minimum regulatory input required to extract the maximum planning bonus.
The consequences are severe and permanent: 54 genuinely affordable one- and two-bedroom apartments demolished and replaced with 48 luxury three- and four-bedroom ILUs that fewer people can afford; a building exceeding local height controls by more than 50% in a suburb with no strategic basis for towers of this scale; 24 established trees removed in a neighbourhood already stripped of more than 3,000 trees by the motorway; and North Sydney Council bypassed entirely.
The project cost submitted to access the SSD pathway was $31 million — one million dollars above the threshold. The EIS now claims $68 million. That figure doubled without explanation. The Panel should not accept that the SSD pathway was validly engaged without requiring the applicant to justify this discrepancy with current, accurate cost information.
The community has been given 14 days to respond to a voluminous and complex EIS. That is not meaningful participation. It is procedural compliance dressed as consultation.
Technical navigation of SEPP bonus mechanisms does not establish public interest. The public interest requires this Panel to look at what is actually being delivered: fewer dwellings, no affordable housing, two care beds in a basement, and a precedent that will be used by developers across every low-density suburb in Sydney. That is not an outcome this Panel should endorse.
This application should be refused.

The Plateau Precinct is a Community based group supported and endorsed by North Sydney Council with other Precincts throughout the LGA to give local residents, workers and students a voice to raise concerns and meet in person to discuss their Community that surrounds their daily lived experience, we are neighbouring this site with our boundary of Miller St Cammeray, with Anzac Park Precinct Cammeray where this development application is located.
We have not found 1 person who supports this application, in fact people have responded with grave concerns due to the location, size, height exceeding local planning by 50% tree loss, current residents amenity - near and throughout Cammeray (that includes 'Seniors), loss of existing affordable housing, congestion issues for vehicles and pedestrians with close proximity to Primary schools (Anzac Park and Cammeray Public) as most children walk to school sometimes without an adult, with multiple long daycare facilities nearby which walking to is a preferred option due to a lack of street parking.
We also see significant errors in the submission, EIS pages 98 &99 refer to local shops such as Location 8 - Friendly Grocer (IGA) with the photo clearly showing a crane on the roof as this location is a construction site for a responsible development of shops - more than 1 (not the Friendly Grocer) and housing again more that 1 which is what was there prior, so we are not anti development bur it must be responsible, fit for the place and not be a Trojan Horse for something it is not!
Seniors housing should be dignified - two care beds in the basement that's not dignified care, zero 1 bedroom units is not catering to Seniors who are often 1 person households, seeking Harbour/ District views has an unmentioned downside of air pollution intake to air conditioning with close proximity to the busiest road in Australia - Warringah Fwy which will also have the currently under construction Western Harbour Tunnel with the Ventilation / unfiltered Pollution outlet in close proximity near Ernest st
Housing types that already exist in Cammeray offer a great number of options for Seniors, low cost housing (45 Amherst St where Plateau Precinct meets is social housing development with a Community meeting room/kitchen) we embrace the life cycle from birth to death in a respectful way with an inclusive attitude, not exclusively for the wealthy with an age restriction blocking any type of resident.
The location is also surrounded by many Community concerns, we have already lost significant numbers of mature trees from Cammeray Park due to the NSW Government WFU/WHT State Significant project which we have live thorough since 2017 on paper and 2021 - 28 in practice with severe trauma to our Community, endless noise, dust, project workers parking out our local streets, day work, night work, severe sleep deprivation road closures, unexpected design changes and ill conceived consultant driven assessments that don't capture our topography, under ground water, history as a Sandstone quarry - hence silca dust issues, the list goes on...
We represent the local community who have not been consulted with in an inclusive and respectful way, this development is not well planned with seeming to try to meet the SSD regardless of the facts to bypass local planning and destroy existing amenities, we are not a TOD area, they are nearby and many unit residences there are vacant, North Syd LGA has high density populations that meet all types of households, this should not be built in it's planned form, we (The Plateau Precinct) OBJECT to having our Community destroyed by such a non compliant housing 'project'.

I am an owner and resident of West Street, Crows Nest, and I make this submission to object to the proposed Seniors Living development at 19–23 Rosalind Street (SSD 96505456) for the reasons outlined below.

As a direct neighbour to the proposed development, my property would be immediately affected. I am concerned about the development’s scale and its short- and long-term impacts on solar access, residential amenity, traffic and pedestrian safety, construction-related risks, and the established low-scale residential character of this part of Crows Nest and Cammeray.

The intersection of West Street and Rosalind Street already operates as a constrained location and services multiple nearby schools. The introduction of a higher-density development (including construction and servicing activity) is likely to increase vehicle movements and congestion.

The proposal includes deep basement excavation of approximately 10 metres, including the location of care beds below ground level. This raises concerns regarding prolonged construction noise and vibration, potential impacts on neighbouring older buildings, and loss of amenity over the stated construction period of approximately two years.

The proposal exceeds applicable local planning controls by more than 50%, representing a substantial height exceedance that, in my view, is not adequately justified. The tallest building is proposed to reach approximately 18.4 metres, compared with the existing 8-metre buildings on the site. This increase in height is inconsistent with the surrounding low-scale residential context and would result in significant visual bulk, reduced amenity, and increased overshadowing.

The proposal introduces two towers of up to eight storeys within a low-scale residential area. The bulk and scale are excessive and are compounded by non-compliant setbacks, which would increase impacts on neighbouring properties through additional overshadowing, reduced privacy, and visual intrusion. The proposed built form is not compatible with the established character of Cammeray, which is predominantly low-rise; no building in the immediate area exceeds four storeys. The bulk and height of the proposed buildings would reduce daylight and winter sunlight to neighbouring homes and yards, diminishing residential amenity and the usability of outdoor areas.

Proposed setbacks to existing buildings are as narrow as 3 metres, which is not appropriate for development of this scale. The proposal also indicates elements (including awnings) encroaching into setback areas.

The removal of up to 24 existing mature trees and the reduction in green space would reduce local canopy cover, contribute to heat-island effects, and remove visual screening and habitat for native birdlife and fauna. These values have already been adversely affected in recent years due to the expansion of the Warringah Freeway and associated removal of mature trees.

Finally, I query whether the proposal is appropriately assessed through the SSD pathway, given the limited provision of genuine aged-care or assisted-living accommodation; instead it is clearly a luxury development. The proposal indicates two care beds located below ground level, alongside a range of premium facilities (including a wine cellar, private dining room, gym, sauna, steam room, swimming pool, and cinema). In addition, the existing buildings on the site comprise one- and two-bedroom apartments, whereas the proposed development predominantly comprises three- and four-bedroom apartments. In my view, this dwelling mix is likely to limit affordability and does not respond to local housing needs.

Thank you for your consideration.

1. Traffic Modelling Flawed
The traffic modelling is fundamentally flawed and cannot be relied upon as it understates the level of traffic in West St and to a lesser extent Miller St. The Data used the modelling was taken on the 11 November 2025 ( Section 8.3) after the completion of the HSC exams

The traffic in West Street in the mornings is mainly due to school traffic in the mornings. In Particular the following High Schools : Cammeragal High School Senior Campus, North Sydney Boys, North Sydney Girls, Wenona, Monte and Shore )

The Traffic Count was completed after HSC had been completed and hence underestimation as all these schools will not have year 12's attending school.


2. Signalised intersections
On page 12 of the Traffic Impact Assessment, states that both Rosalind and West Street and Rosalind and Miller Street are signalised. This is incorrect as there are NO Traffic lights at this intersection.

If such simple things are incorrect, then what faith have you in the rest of the document

3. CTMP
a. Pedestrian Management for school children
Rosalind Street is a regular walking path for the primary school children who attend Anzac School. Given the number of heavy truck movements as outlined below, this represents a major safety risk for these Primary School children.

Based on my experience at least 2 traffic controllers plus a 1 Traffic Controller for breaks will be required before and after school. This should be reviewed with Safework NSW, if the developer thinks these are not required

b. Parking for Workers
The proposal the workers will catch public transport is optimistic at best and unrealistic. It is a statement in the report which sounds good, but they know will not occur
The Developer should provide off street parking nearby as there are very limited all day parking spots in the vicinity
If nothing is provided workers will park in the street in an area which already has very limited parking. Or North Sydney Council will make money via fines

c. Heavy Vehicle Movements
The CTMP should be prepared at this stage due to the 24000, m3 of Cut that will need to be removed with high level of heavy vehicle truck movements as outlined in my table below

Volume of Cut = 24,000 m3 to be removed from site
Boggy ( per venicle movement) = 12 Tonnes or 6 m3 which will result in 4000 Truck movements
Truck & Dog ( per venicle movement) = 32 Tonnes or 15.5 m3 which will result in 1550 Truck movements

Based on the above I object to the development

RE: OBJECTION to Seniors Housing Development – 19–23 Rosalind Street, Cammeray
I am writing as the owner of Unit 9, 29A Rosalind Street, which directly adjoins the proposed development site.
Given the immediate boundary interface between my property and the proposed development, I have significant concerns regarding the impact this proposal will have on the value, condition, and long-term amenity of my property.
While I support appropriate development and recognise the need for additional housing, this proposal in its current form represents a level of intensity that does not appear compatible with adjoining properties.
Direct boundary impact
My property shares a direct boundary with the proposed development site. As a result, the impacts of the proposal will be immediate and substantial.
Due to the scale and positioning of the buildings, the development will:
Result in a greater loss of sunlight, given the proximity to the building footprint
Introduce direct overlooking both from the rear and along the side boundary of the property
Create a strong sense of visual enclosure along the boundary interface
The side-on relationship between the proposed building and my property significantly increases the loss of privacy across multiple areas of the home.
Privacy and setback concerns
A key concern is the proximity of the proposed building to the boundary.
Based on the available plans, parts of the development appear to be located at very limited setback distances relative to their height.
For a building of approximately five to six storeys, the Apartment Design Guide (ADG) typically expects separation distances of around 9 metres as a minimum, with 12 metres preferred between habitable spaces, to support adequate privacy, outlook and solar access.
The proposed development does not appear to achieve separation distances of this order along the shared boundary. This level of separation is typically intended to mitigate exactly the types of privacy, overshadowing and amenity impacts that are expected to arise in this instance.
As a result:
There will be direct lines of sight into private areas of the property
The usability of outdoor and internal spaces will be reduced
The overall level of privacy currently experienced will be significantly diminished
Design treatments such as screening or fins do not adequately address the fundamental issue of building proximity.
Scale and positioning of the development
The proposal introduces multiple storeys of development immediately adjacent to the boundary.
Given the site’s topography and the positioning of the buildings, this will present as a large and dominant structure when viewed from my property.
The concentration of height and bulk along the boundary does not appear to adequately respond to the presence of adjoining low-scale residential properties.
Construction impacts and structural considerations
The scale of excavation required is a major concern given the immediate proximity to my property.
In particular:
Vibration associated with excavation may impact surrounding structures
There is a risk of movement or stress to adjoining foundations
Prolonged construction activity will significantly affect the usability of the property
Given the direct adjacency, these impacts and risks will be experienced at their highest level.
Drainage and runoff considerations
Excavation and changes to site levels may alter existing drainage patterns.
Given the direct boundary interface, there is a risk that:
Surface water flow may be redirected toward adjoining properties
Runoff may increase during rainfall events
Long-term drainage conditions could be affected
Overall concern
Taken together, the impacts of:
Increased building bulk at the boundary
Significant loss of sunlight
Loss of privacy along both rear and side interfaces
Reduced setbacks relative to building scale
Construction and structural risks
indicate that the proposal is too intensive for a site that directly interfaces with existing residential properties.
Conclusion
As an adjoining owner, I am particularly concerned about the direct and lasting impacts this development will have on my property.
I respectfully request that the application be reconsidered and redesigned to incorporate appropriate setbacks, reduced scale, and stronger protections for neighbouring properties.