Objection to SDD-96505456 – Cammeray Seniors Living
From: Derek Scott, 3 Lytton Street, Cammeray. We live close by this development and have walked past it on our way to Cammeray Shopping Centre.

My objections on the proposal are in a number of areas.
The size of the building (5 and 6 storeys) from the current 3 will have a substantial impact on the neighbouring properties and Cammeray location.. Obviously noise and disruption during the build, including a very deep car park with potential disruption to neighbouring foundations, but also loss of trees, open space with 1045sqm allocated from a total 4106sqm (will be worth checking should the build progress), anticipation that the “open space will be cement from driveways and pavements (and not the lovely picture shown in the brochure (which has no chairs)). The format of the proposal with 31 3 x bedroom flats, 18 2 bedroom flats, a pool, sauna and gym – does not sound like affordable living. Clearly aimed at middle class seniors – is seniors at all. The addition of the 2 hub rooms sounds like an add on to gain advantage on density and / or size. I believe the building will be closer to the neighbouring buildings , and with them being higher privacy and access to natural light will be much poorer. I do not see how this can be allowed.
I would also like to lodge my concern with the NSW rezoning plans as it seems to have opened up a process to developers that can amend plans and promises to maximise density and profit on a site.

The proposal drives a creep into the heritage listed streets of CrowsNest. It does not accomodate sufficiently that most seniors "downsize" and the lack of 1-2 Bedroom apartments. Key objections I have being in West street. 1. Height Blowout - exceeds LOCAL planning controls by 50% (noting a new fence in west street has to comply). 2. Dangerous Precedent if approved.3. Only two care beds are proposed in the basement - this is not dignified Senior Care therefore implying its a developers financial winfall. 3 Two towers up to eight storeys - excessive height and bulk, non compliant set backs. 4 By passing LOCAL planning - project was costed at 31M when seeking SEARS - The EIS is citing 68M for the build indicatng concerns on accuracy across all elements. 4. Less Housing - not More - If it was seniors living as stated above more 1-2 Bedroom apartments would be in the proposal, 5 Tree-Loss - Significant removal of existing tree Canopy and block of Eastern light to West Street. 6. Traffic impact to the areas of West street which today have speed and traffic light delays in peak traffic. I object to this proposal.

Further to my earlier objection I also object to the amount of bulk excavation for this oversized project. The quantity of the excavation is due to the significant and non compliant size of the development which would result in so much rock sawing, percussion hammering, excavation, loading and truck movements to dispose of the spoil all in a quiet residential street that also serves as a major pedestrian conduit to two local schools. This project should be rejected in its current form and any approval should be conditioned by the requirements of the Apartment Design Guide and the Seniors Housing Policy

I object to this project on a number of grounds. As someone who regularly walks past this site with a grandchild I am appalled by how the proposal is totally contrary to the current streetscape and reduces pedestrian safety. In a suburb suffering massive tree loss due to the freeway upgrade, this proposal removes 33 trees within the site boundary, totally changing the look and feel of the street.
The height and bulk and design of the two buildings pay no recognition to the height and design of the current buildings along both side of the street, exacerbated by the minimal, non-compliant setbacks proposed.
The proposal includes an increased number of car parking spaces than currently exists across the three residential flat buildings. I am confused by the logic that seniors living apartments require 82 car parking spaces for 49 units, especially given that the EIS notes that an advantage of this site for seniors housing is the large and proximate number of public transport options. A major concerns that the increased number of cars have only one point of exit and entry and that visibility of pedestrians from that point is poor. As noted, I accompany a grandchild to and from school along this road. Many school aged children use this street ( a point not made in the EIS). Potential safety impacts have not been adequately adressed.
To remove/mitigate my concerns about the current proposal I believe the following needs to be amended:
- the number of trees lost on site needs to be significantly reduced
- set backs should comply with current Council requirements
- the height, bulk and design of the two blocks should better address integration with the overall streetscape
- the car park space should be reduced and entry/exit better located/designed to address pedestrian safety concerns.
Thank you.

I am writing to formally object to the proposed Cammeray Seniors Living development (SSD-96505456).

As a directly impacted neighbouring resident on Trafalgar Street, I have significant concerns regarding the scale of the proposal, in particular the building height and setbacks.

The proposed height is excessive and does not appear to be in keeping with the established character of the surrounding area. The development presents as overbearing and risks dominating the streetscape, resulting in a loss of amenity for neighbouring properties, including overshadowing, reduced privacy, and diminished outlook.

In addition, the proposed setbacks do not appear to align with the planning controls and expectations set by North Sydney Council. Setbacks play a critical role in maintaining appropriate spatial separation between properties, preserving streetscape character, and ensuring adequate light, ventilation, and privacy.

The reduced setbacks proposed in this development intensify the perceived bulk and scale of the building and exacerbate its impacts on adjoining residents.

Given these concerns, I strongly urge the State to require a redesign of the proposal to ensure compliance with relevant planning controls and to better reflect the character and amenity of the local area. At a minimum, this should include a reduction in height and revised setbacks consistent with Council requirements.

I respectfully request that my objection be considered as part of the assessment process.

The view from my front door would take in the top floors of the proposed development, which will stand out among the surrounding existing units that are mostly three storey. It will not substantially overlook my house- it’s too far away- but it will stand out. I want the overall height to be brought down by at least one storey. I understand there are other “Seniors Living” developments under construction in the Cammeray/Crows nest area, so I doubt there is a strong need for this edifice. A more urgent need is for exactly the type of buildings that are well located and of simple construction, such as are there now. They do a good job of providing relatively affordable housing for people who might otherwise struggle to obtain rental housing in this highly sought after area. I first heard of the proposal when I got a doorknock visit from a young mother and resident who was anxious about the prospect of effectively losing her home. What is apparent to me is that there will be fewer people living in the new development, once complete, than have been housed in the buildings marked for demolition. That is not what is needed.

This development is abusing the State Significant Development and Housing SEPP processes to build more luxury apartments. Seniors do not require 3 & 4 bedroom apartments to age in place. Indeed, most are looking to downsize, so more 1 & 2 bedroom apartments would be appropriate and ensure no overall loss of housing occupancy across the site from the current housing. Also there is no provision for affordable rental housing, which is a major objective of the Housing SEPP, and the current housing provides for affordable housing in an expensive part of the city. The two RAC rooms are an insult to older people in need of high care, situated beside laundry and cleaning facilities in the basement .
The buildings also far exceed all neighbouring properties in height and bulk, as the surrounding housing is all one and two-storey cottages and a few 3-storey apartment blocks. This will completely change the local environment and set a precent for other buildings that exceed the height limits in a character area. The shop is unlikely to be viable, on its own, and the Cammeray shops are just a short stroll from the site. I am in favour of genuine seniors housing that caters for a range of care needs and financial circumstances but not this "nod" to the SSD and Housing SEPP in order to build more luxury apartments.

I object to the proposed height of the buildings, as it is out of character with the surrounding neighbourhood and will overshadow neighbouring properties. I also object to the lack of green space; the plans do not seem to meet the minimum garden area requirements. Finally, I would like the developer to deliver the residential care beds promised within the specialised care hub, to provide palliative and end-of-life care in situ. This is a major gap in many 'seniors living' developments. I suspect the applicant will back out of this commitment, as 2 beds is not viable for an operator. Please ensure that if they are given the Bonus Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of 25% for delivering combined Independent Living Units + Residential Care Facilities, they are commercially obliged to deliver the RCFs and will be commercially penalised if they don't. I suspect the "2 beds" is the absolute minimum they can squeeze into the plans without impact to the ILUs - in the basement no less - in order to receive the Bonus FSR and have no intention of actually delivering the Residential Care Facilities. They will argue they can't find an operator to run the facility as it's not commercially viable to operate as a RCF after being approved to build this non-viable facility. They need to be held to account.

This project will be a significant disruption to the local area, and the proposed nature of the build is significantly out of character with the neighbourhood and suburb.

The construction will have a significant negative impact on the surrounding area, and heavy vehicle movements will generate significant risk to pedestrians which will be challenging for the construction company to mitigate. The proposed 3 level basement drilling and construction will generate a significant amount of noise, vibration and pollution and have a profound negative impact on residents. Rosalind Street is a quiet residential area, and the only way to get on to Miller Street is a left turn stop sign across a pedestrian crossing. Large vehicles will block this and cause considerable traffic disruption.

The building height of up to 6 levels is much higher than anything else in the area, and will have a detrimental effect on neighbouring properties in terms of loss of light and privacy.

This development is being promoted as senior living including care for residents. A cinema and wine room are not that. While more seniors living is needed in Sydney, this proposed development is not it.

Even after construction is complete there will be a significant increase in vehicle movents on a residential street. If underground parking is residents only, staff and visitors will be required to park on the street, which has very limited parking currently.