Concept Proposal for a residential flat building with infill affordable housing - Nelson Road, Lindfield

To whom it may concern,

I am writing to strongly object to the Concept Development Application (SSD-82899468) for 1–5 Nelson Road, Lindfield. As a long-term resident who has lived in Lindfield since I was five years old, I care deeply about the character, planning integrity, and future liveability of this suburb.

This proposal seeks to approve 167 apartments across 9 storeys, with minimal scrutiny, based solely on a concept design. This is unacceptable. The proper process, including full environmental and heritage assessments, must be done before any such approval, not afterward. It undermines the integrity of the planning system and sets a dangerous precedent.

My primary objections include:
- Location Outside the TOD: This site sits outside the revised Town Centre TOD. Allowing high-density apartments here would compromise the strategic vision for managed growth and open the floodgates for further inappropriate development.
- Height and Scale: At over 32 metres, the proposal grossly exceeds local planning controls and is completely out of scale with the surrounding residential character.
- Heritage Conservation Area: This development lies within a recognised Heritage Conservation Area. Its bulk, height, and density are incompatible with the historic streetscape and values of the area.
- Infrastructure Capacity: Our roads, stormwater systems, schools, and services are already stretched. This proposal does not address how 167 apartments and 251 car spaces will impact local infrastructure.
- Loss of Biodiversity: Approving this development risks irreversible loss of tree canopy and natural habitat in an already ecologically pressured suburb.

Please reject this development in its current form. It is inconsistent with the strategic, environmental, and community values of Lindfield.

Kind regards,
Long-term Resident of Lindfield

There is too much height and bulk to the project. The height of over 32m exceeds the maximum permitted building height. The project is within a Heritage Conservation Area and will interface with 1-2 story much older residences. The site is partially out of the original TOD. The area just to the north is prone to flooding. It is near a busy intersection and more traffic will cause significant peak hour bottlenecks. A significant number of trees will be removed to accomodate the site.

I lived in Lindfield for approximately 20 years and brought my family up in a home around the corner from this site, in Mackenzie Street. I have strong objections to this project on the following bases:

Bulk & scale:

The proposed building is too big for its site and too big in relation to other homes in the street and in adjoining streets. It is too big even when compared with other apartments and commercial buildings in the area. In the context of the neighbourhood of Lindfield overall, it is ridiculously over-sized and out of character. The bulk is made more daunting by the fact it (1) sits directly alongside normal residential homes of max 2 storeys; and (2) the design places the open space off the main street so it is not visible at all to the general public. It does nothing to soften the frontage.

Overshadowing:

The proposed building will block northern sun from many of the Tryon Rd properties - not just those directly alongside the building. The Tryon Rd properties closest to Nelson Rd will lose all their sun in winter from about 10am. The whole block of those properties is overshadowed for almost the entire day, all the way from their back yard to beyond the street frontage, onto the street itself! In a world where we are trying to reduce carbon emissions, this in unforgiveable, not to mention the impact on the mental health of the people in those properties who are now forced to live without the warmth of the sun in their homes for most of winter. Winter is when sun is most valuable for a residential home.
Height transition: there is virtually no height transition proposed from the boundaries. This accentuates the bulk of the building and magnifies the degree of overshadowing.

Parking:

Car parking on Nelson St, Havilah and Tryon is already at a premium due to its proximity to the train station. It will be far worse with the addition of 167 apartments replacing just 3 homes, even with the basement car parking that is proposed. Simple maths will tell you that, allowing 1 car spot for each of the one bedroom apartments, and, say, 3 guest car parks, this leaves 213 car spaces for 132 two and three-bedroom apartments. That equates to just 1.3 car space per apartment. There is no doubt there will be overflow to the street and this will impact parking for residents across the whole of Lindfield and East Lindfield, many of whom rely on the train service.

Traffic safety:

There is the obvious corollary that more cars mean more traffic jams and traffic accidents. More importantly for this site though is the presence of a school for children with a disability immediately across the road. This adds signficantly to the risk of harm (to children in particular) from car accidents. The kids who attend Chromehurst School are vulnerable and need our protection. Even in Year 12, many of them will never have the street smarts of a 5 year old. Many are prone to wandering without any insight into the accompanying risks and, whilst gates will prevent some accidents, they are not fool-proof. Furthermore, the risk will not just be at drop-off and pick-up time. I can say all this because my daughter has severe disabilities and attended Day Programs at the school in holiday time. Parents and teachers of children with a disability live on high alert all the time. As a community, it is our job to aide them in this role, not add to their safety concerns.

Conclusion: It is incredible to me that professional educated business people can propose a build of this scale on this small block in this precious village-like community. I trust that others will consider the bigger picture at play here and find the proposal unacceptable.

The proposed project to build 167 units on 9 storeys with 251 parking spaces is totally nonsense in the area. Nelson road in lindfield is considered as conservation area with most of beautiful federation style of houses. All are zoned R2 in the revised TOD.
The both roads of Nelson road & Tyron road are not wide. Only single line on each way. To build a 9 storeys block with 167 units is going to block all traffic for sure. Consider there is a specific school is already there these students need to be dropped off and picked up by cars.
Also once the 9 storeys building is built there won’t be no privacy to all residents in that areas especially the students in the school. People who is going live in the apartment can easily see these houses backyards and the school playground.

I strongly object to the proposed development at 1–5 Nelson Road, Lindfield. This proposal raises serious concerns across environmental, planning, design, and amenity aspects. I outline my key objections below:

1. Inappropriate Height and Bulk
The proposed 32m, 9-storey building would be the tallest in Lindfield—despite its distance from high-frequency public transport. The excessive height exceeds the 28m TOD limit and fails to provide a transition to the surrounding low-rise, residential character. The building mass is concentrated centrally, creating unacceptable bulk and overwhelming the adjacent streetscape.

2. Misleading Documentation and Heritage Impact
The submitted development proposal materials contain inconsistencies, including incorrect references to the number of stories and even the site address, suggesting that content was copied from an unrelated development. The heritage assessment is based on an 8-storey design with two basement levels, while the actual proposal is 9 storeys plus three basements, invalidating that assessment. Furthermore, all three properties fall within a heritage conservation area, and the 9-storey structure just 6m from the boundary does not respect or interface appropriately with the existing heritage context, contradicting the SEAR (page 3).

3. Environmental and Flood Risks
An unnamed creek traverses the site. This watercourse receives little attention in the proposal, despite the 2023 “Middle Harbour Southern Catchments Flood Study” noting it is already over capacity. Heavy rainfall causes significant runoff, and the development offers no clear flood mitigation for neighbouring downstream properties. 5 Nelson Road is a Category 1 flood zone, yet the proposal includes a 3-level underground carpark. Council’s own guidelines state “limited development” in such zones.

4. Flawed Geotechnical and Cost Assessments
The geotechnical report is a desktop study only, with the consultant recommending borehole drilling, which has not occurred. This renders the assessment incomplete. Moreover, the cost estimate, provided on a single page, appears inflated using a $2,628/m² rate (versus $1,643/m² used in similar nearby projects), seemingly to exceed the $75 million SSD threshold. Depending on which of the two inconsistent floor area figures is used (16,000m² or 26,000m²), the development may not even qualify as SSD.

5. Visual and Amenity Impacts
The visual impact assessment is misleading. Photos were taken from locations where the building is barely or not visible, omitting significant views from Nelson Rd, Tryon Rd, and Lightcliff Ave, where a 32m building will have a stark impact. Rooftop communal space raises privacy concerns for nearby low-rise homes. Southern-facing balconies are just 12 metres from neighbours’ windows, falling well short of acceptable separation standards.

6. Misleading and Inadequate Shadow Analysis
The shadow diagrams fail to reflect the correct location of southern neighbouring buildings, misrepresenting the overshadowing impacts. The development would block winter sun to southern neighbours and severely limit their future redevelopment opportunities.

7. Deficient Traffic and Access Planning
The Transport Impact Assessment does not consider the cumulative effect of multiple developments in Lindfield, a designated growth precinct. Evaluating this project in isolation grossly understates the real traffic impacts. The proposal also relies on a single vehicle access point via Nelson Road, a narrow residential street. This would serve all residents, emergency vehicles, services, and waste collection—raising congestion, pedestrian safety, and emergency access issues.

8. TOD Zoning Does Not Apply to Entire Site
Only one of the three lots falls within the Transport-Oriented Development zone. Applying TOD controls to the entire amalgamated site is inappropriate and unjustified. This undermines the integrity of planning controls and sets a poor precedent.

9. Lack of Genuine Affordable Housing Provision
Affordable housing in this proposal is poorly conceived. It is not supported by a reputable community housing provider and lacks diversity in housing types. The proponent, “Castle Hill #3 Pty Ltd,” is a newly formed entity without a proven record in delivering social or affordable housing.

In light of the above, this proposal is deeply flawed and inconsistent with planning and environmental principles. It should be rejected.

I am an owner and occupier of a property in Lindfield in a street that is adjacent to Nelson Rd so I know the area of the proposed development well and I walk my children to Lindfield station past the site daily. I have the following objections to the proposed development based on my more than 10 years of living in this location.
1) The properties in the proposed development are currently zoned as R2 residential under the Kuringai Council preferred TOD scenario. The bulk and scale of the proposed development is not compatible with the current streetscape, particularly the adjacent Heritage Conservation Area.
2) The excessive height of over 32 m exceeds the maximum permitted building height and is higher than dwellings closer to the train station which means you do not have that gradual transition between high rise and mid to low rise which is one of Council's planning principles. Also, it looks ridiculous to have one building so much higher than everything around it and it causes overshadowing and privacy concerns for neighbours in single story properties given that these neighbours do not have the same development rights because they are restricted in the HCA.
3) The 4-way intersection at the corner of the proposed development is already a bottleneck in the morning peak hour traffic. The pedestrian crossing is unsafe and will only become more dangerous with additional traffic.
4) The local zoned school (Lindfield Public) is already at capacity with students having classes in the school hall because there are no available classrooms and the existing infrastructure for green spaces / sports fields / childcare centres is not adequate to support the increase in density without significant investment which the state government has not provided.
5) The properties in the proposed development are more than 400m from the train station and therefore if 9 stories are allowed as per the proposal this sets a precedent for the suburb that the TOD boundaries are merely a set of guidelines which can be ignored by developers.
6) The Environmental Impact Statement submitted for this proposal contains numerous errors and misleading information.
7) The community engagement appears to have been deceitfully carried out (this has been a recurring theme with SSD developments in the Lindfield area) as the date for the webinar was both 19 and 21 May on various documentation prepared by Planning Ingenuity and therefore many community members missed the opportunity to have a say. The fact that the state government allows developers to treat community engagement as a tick the box exercise is appalling and does nothing to reassure the community about the integrity of the SSD process. When this kind of behaviour by developers is overlooked, it erodes public confidence in government officials and the process.
8) The Geotechnical report page 4 figure 2 is incorrect and has clearly been copied from the report done for the other Landmark development project on 11-19 Middle Harbour Rd Lindfield. If they can't even get basic things like this correct it makes you wonder whether they even bothered to do two separate reports or just cut corners with a copy and paste job.
9) The soil study was a desktop study and did not involve taking samples. The Geotechnical report page 4 states that the site is not in an area of riparian lands - this contradicts Kuringai Council's own planning assessment that part of the site is identified as category 3 and 3a riparian lands (KLEP 2015).
10) The Heritage Impact Statement does not even get the proposed building height correct (8 levels with 2 levels of basement carparking) and the Architectual plans show the site as adjacent to multi-story apartment blocks rather than single level dwellings and we know this won't change because these properties are in an HCA so are stuck at 9.5 metres. This is clearly designed to mislead and should be called out as such by government officials rather than being waved through. These reports should have to be corrected for the application to proceed.

I strongly object to this application on the following grounds:

1. Procedural & Consultation Failures
o Annexure A webinar date altered (21 May 2025 vs original 19 May) without re-notification, reducing participation.
o Community feedback indicates questions were discouraged, contrary to the NSW Community Participation Plan. We didn't recieve anything in our mailboxes and we are only 500m away. This really feels like it was snuck throuh late to avoid local council and community consultation given it is moslty outside the TOD area and across both Tyron and Nelson road so should not be allowed develop at this intensit

2. Geotechnical & Environmental Inaccuracies
o Appendix 13 misidentifies the site (Middle Harbour Rd vs Nelson Rd). Please check this
o Soil report is desktop-only, using data from unrelated sites. Surely this is not adequate
o Incorrectly claims no riparian land, despite Council confirming Category 3 & 3a under Clause 6.4 KLEP 2015.
o Proposal sits within a Heritage Conservation Area with significant tree canopy, yet arboricultural and heritage impacts are under-assessed. Please do these properly

3. Height, Bulk & Character Non-Compliance
o Proposed height (32m) exceeds the LEP maximum by 3m. It is also at the top of a hill
o Severe height transition: 9-storey building directly adjoining single-storey dwellings, breaching urban design principles under SEPP 65 and KLEP 2015. This will dwaf the local house all around? And the property has minimal set backs to single story homes all around - below and behind. Surely this is not appropriate
o 2 of the 3 affected houses appear outside the 400m TOD zone; inclusion is questionable. 2 of the properties are outisde of the TOD and they are across Nelson road (east side) which I am sure was not meant ot part of the original TOD. There should be a road to transition from large developments - this does not at all

4. Amenity Impacts – Overshadowing, Privacy, Solar Access
o Location on a hill and excessive bulk will overshadow neighbouring homes and yards, reducing solar access below the 3 hours required by the ADG.
o Elevated balconies/windows will cause significant overlooking into adjoining private open space and habitable rooms. Privacy breaches will occur in the surrounding houses.

5. Infrastructure & Traffic Constraints
o Inadequate local infrastructure to support the scale of development (water, sewer, transport).
o Site is at a busy intersection; traffic and pedestrian safety impacts are not fully addressed. These are two bust roads and this will create blind spots and already dangerous intersection will worsen
o Cumulative impacts from other nearby SSDs not assessed.

6. Flood & Visual Impact Assessment Deficiencies
o Flood report omits Council’s 2023 PMF maps, understating risk.
o Visual Impact Assessment viewpoints are unrepresentative, downplaying true visual dominance. it will be MASSIVE given the height bulk and the fact that it is high up looking down onto homes that are single storey.

Given the procedural irregularities, statutory non-compliance, and significant amenity, heritage and environmental impacts, this proposal fails the tests under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, relevant SEPPs, LEP controls, and the public interest (s4.15(1)(e)).
I request the application be refused or returned for full re-notification with corrected studies and assessments.

My Perspective on the Lindfield Tower Proposal
I’ve been in Sydney’s North Shore for some time, and I’ve seen first-hand how thoughtful growth can lift a community. That’s why the nine-storey, 35-metre development proposed for 1–5 Nelson Road gives me pause. It promises density but risks overwhelming a street built for low-rise residential life.
Context Matters
Nelson Road is a narrow, heritage-rich lane of single-storey Victorian and Federation homes behind generous garden setbacks. The current 9-metre height limit ensures a human-scale streetscape, where front yards and mature trees frame each home. A tower nearly four times that height would overwhelm the rhythm of the street and obscure those green vistas that define the precinct.
Key Concerns
• Zoning and Statutory Controls
Ku-ring-gai’s Local Environmental Plan 2015 zones this site R2 Low-Density Residential with a 9-metre cap.
The Development Control Plan demands a “contextual fit” in bulk, form, setbacks and landscaping.
SEPP 65 insists new apartment buildings respect neighbourhood character.
This proposal ignores all three.
• Heritage Impact
The street’s homes collectively form the Lindfield Heritage Conservation Precinct.
A monolithic tower would shatter the visual cohesion of the precinct and dilute its cultural narrative, rather than reinforcing the local story embedded in each roofline and garden.
• Streetscape and Design
Minimal street and side setbacks conflict with the generous front gardens and tree canopy that underpin Nelson Road’s leafy charm.
Sparse deep-soil planting within the tower’s footprint would cut into established green corridors, replacing living landscapes with concrete forecourts.
• Infrastructure Capacity
Nelson Road’s average 7-metre carriageway and adjacent laneways already struggle with commuter traffic.
Accommodating 167 dwellings and 251 parking spaces threatens to gridlock tight intersections and narrow rail underpasses.
Early-1900s water infrastructure were never sized for mid-rise runoff, so without major—and currently uncosted—upgrades, flood risk to neighbouring homes will rise sharply.
• Environmental Risks
Removing all on-site mature trees defies Ku-ring-gai’s Urban Canopy Replacement Policy.
An increase in hard surfaces exacerbates urban heat-island effects and fragments wildlife corridors that weave through private backyards.
Implications for the Community
Unchecked, this development could strain everything that makes Lindfield liveable: safe streets for kids walking to school, leafy outlooks for morning coffee, reliable stormwater drainage when the rain falls. Overloaded roads and drains threaten daily routines, and heritage loss chips away at the sense of place that drew many of us here, and for what we paid for, dearly, especially after NSW Stamp Duty.
A Balanced Path Forward
Boosting housing supply is vital—but so is respecting the framework that underpins community wellbeing. In Lindfield, that means:
Prioritising mid-rise opportunities on larger, less constrained parcels closer to Lindfield station.
Securing firm commitments to road, drainage and utility upgrades before any density uplift.
Designing buildings that step down from the station hub toward heritage streets, preserving garden setbacks, canopy cover and sightlines.
More broadly, it means a more comprehensive plan for Sydney including transport, and opening up houding in more suitable places, that can then be services with schools and other infrastructure.
Conclusion
Growth isn’t about mass deployment; it’s about sustainable scaling. The 1–5 Nelson Road proposal breaches zoning rules, undermines heritage values, overloads infrastructure and neglects environmental policies. We should all refuse this application and instead work with developers and planners to deliver a plan for Sydnty that balances the city's growth aspirations with the very character of its living places that makes it unique. Sustainable progress depends on honoring both our obligations to accommodate new homes and our duty to preserve the foundations we already cherish, without turning it a homogenous, heaving, infrastructure-straining mess.

Objection to Proposed development at 1-5 Nelson Road Lindfield
10/08/25
I object to the proposed Concept Development Application (SSD-882899468) development in Lindfield which is not in character with surrounding existing development.
About 85% of the site is outside the 400m radius to the station that determines the TOD development zone. Only one of the 3 sites is nominated as part of the TOD zone.
My objection based on the following.
Response to SEARs
Built Form and Urban Design

Despite assertions the assertions in Section 6 of the EIS, the submission does not demonstrate suitable or appropriate consideration of context, surrounding streetscape or existing and future character of the area. It significantly changes the character of the existing streetscape and area. The area, including most of the development site itself, is not affected by TOD planning changes and is not otherwise expected to experience change. Existing streetscape and local character likewise are unlikely to change.
The proposed building typology is at odds with the existing local setting:
• Front setback - The prevailing front setback in Nelson Road is 12-14m. The proposal shows a 6m front setback. The proposed building juts forward, and is much more massive, compared to neighbouring low scale buildings.
• Building height – Existing homes in Nelson Road and on all other site boundaries, are 8-9m high. The proposed development is up to 30m high - more than 20m higher than surrounding homes. Podium height, at 15-18m fronting Nelson Road, has no relationship to the height of existing neighbouring or other surrounding homes.
• Building footprint – typical existing home footprint is 300-325sqm. The development proposes a building footprint of 3,3675sqm which is not sympathetic to the prevailing context.
• Building separation – Existing homes fronting Nelson Road are 12-14m in width, separated at side boundaries with trees and planting. The proposed development fronts Nelson Road with unbroken 45m building length and no separation. The effect will be jarring and incompatible.


Suggest that the proposal does not take ‘cues from the surrounding development’, is not ‘recessive’ in form and does not appear to be ‘height compliant’ per the points outlined above. Rather, the development is blocky and out of scale compared to the surrounding low density residential setting.
Appropriate Interface with the Heritage Conservation Area
The development site is within the Crown Blocks Conservation Area which is considered valuable in heritage terms due to the and character of the local setting and several existing heritage buildings.
In the heritage report (Appendix ????) the applicant acknowledges that the proposal differs in typology and scale to the valued area and then justify it on the basis of ‘much needed high density housing supply. This cannot be considered a valid response to the SEARs request to consider interface with the HCA.
Further, it is claimed that the proposed setbacks will be consistent with existing setbacks on Nelson Road. This is not the case. The proposed front setback is 6m, only half of the prevailing existing front setback of 12-14m. This will significantly change the character of the valued HCA.
Overshadowing
The proposal results in devastating overshadowing to 5 private homes to the south of the development. These sites are not affected by TOD changes and are not otherwise anticipated to experience uplift.
Visual Impact
The visual impact includes viewpoints at considerable distance from the development site. The impact of the development in the immediate locality appears not to be assessed at all.
Note also that the submission relies heavily on future surrounding high density development on sites immediately adjacent to the proposed development site (ie also beyond the current LEP and TOD planning boundaries) to justify proposed building height, bulk, scale and typology incongruities. These developments, if they happen, will result in removal of existing mature tree vegetation. It is interesting that it this same mature tree vegetation that makes plausible the nil and/or negligible visual impact assessment in this report.

10 August 2025
To: The Consent Authority
Re: Objection – 1, 3 & 5 Nelson Road, Lindfield
SSD-82899468 – Stage 1 Concept DA for Residential Flat Building with Basement Parking
Summary of Objections
Heritage - Incorrect claim in application that there is no “Statement of Significance” for 9 Nelson Road – this
is factually wrong; NSW State Heritage Inventory records its architectural and historic value. Raises
concerns about accuracy and completeness of the entire application.
Bulk, Scale & Streetscape - Nine-storey (~32m) building grossly out of scale with surrounding
single/two-storey homes; minimal 6m setbacks and rooftop communal space will dominate and overlook
neighbouring properties; permanently alters established streetscape.
Privacy & Amenity - Direct overlooking into outdoor areas, bedrooms, and living rooms at 9 Nelson Road
and other nearby homes; rooftop communal space increases noise and light spill.
Environmental Impact - Loss of significant mature trees, including protected Turpentine and Blue Gum
species; potential harm to existing waterway; loss of treescape and biodiversity.
Traffic & Safety - Increased congestion on Nelson Road and Tryon Road intersection; greater safety risks
for children attending nearby special school.
Planning & Zoning - R2 zoning – height/density inconsistent with Council’s preferred Transit Oriented
Development (TOD) model; unclear if site is within required 400m TOD zone.
Conclusion - The proposal is excessive, inaccurate, and incompatible with the heritage, scale, and character
of the area. I respectfully urge the consent authority to reject the application.
Full Submission
Dear Sir/Madam,
I am writing to object to the proposed development at 1, 3 and 5 Nelson Road, Lindfield.
Although I currently reside at 15/3 Gladstone Parade, I grew up at my parents’ home at 9 Nelson Road — a
heritage-listed property that has been in my family since 1980. I have spent much of my life in this street and
remain closely connected to the house, the neighbourhood, and its distinctive heritage and environment.
Having reviewed the application and Environmental Impact Statement, I share my parents’ deep concerns
and wish to add my own objections.
Heritage - The applicant’s statement that “No Statement of Significance has been noted in the NSW State
Heritage Inventory” for 9 Nelson Road is plainly incorrect. The property is heritage-listed, with its
architectural and historical value documented in the NSW State Heritage Inventory. This error casts doubt on
the accuracy of other key details in the application and whether proper consideration has been given to
protecting heritage in this location.
Bulk, Scale and Visual Impact - A nine-storey building, approximately 32 metres high, will overwhelm the
surrounding single-storey dwellings and drastically alter the streetscape. The minimal setbacks, combined
with a rooftop communal space, will create severe overlooking into my parents’ property and others, and will
result in a permanent loss of privacy and amenity.
Privacy and Amenity - From my years living at 9 Nelson Road, I know that the proposed building will directly
overlook private outdoor areas, living rooms and bedrooms. The rooftop communal space will also increase
noise and light spill, intruding into spaces that have always been quiet, private, and residential in character.
Environmental Concerns - The removal of mature trees — including protected Turpentine and Blue Gum
specimens — will irreversibly damage the established treescape and reduce biodiversity. There are also
unanswered questions about the proposal’s impact on the existing waterway between 9 Nelson Road and
the development site.
Traffic and Safety - The development will add significant traffic to Nelson Road and the Tryon Road
intersection, increasing safety risks for children, particularly those attending the nearby special school and
using the pedestrian crossing and Kochia Lane pick-up area.
Inconsistency with TOD and Zoning - The site is zoned R2. The proposed bulk, height, and density are
grossly inconsistent with the Council’s preferred Transit Oriented Development (TOD) approach, which
emphasises heritage protection and appropriate scale. There also appears to be uncertainty as to whether
the site falls within the 400 m TOD zone.
In its current form, this proposal is excessive, insensitive to its surroundings, and fails to address its serious
impacts on heritage, amenity, and the environment. I urge the consent authority to reject the application and
require a design that respects the heritage and character of Lindfield.
Yours faithfully,
Stephen Wright
15/3 Gladstone Parade
Lindfield NSW 2070
Mobile: 0412 774 430
Email: [email protected]

As a 24 year old, I've spent my whole life growing up in this area and have been very proud of our local community's efforts towards conservation and heritage. This project spits in the face of everything and everyone in this community. It's ridiculous to think that we're going to be building an excessive 32m tall complex right within a heritage area right next to single and double story homes. How do you expect the existing infrastructure of Nelson and its neighbouring roads to accomodate all of this? A single 9 story building on a road full of homes next to a school... what a farce!

I have lived In Lindfield, on the eastern side of the railway line, for about 23 years and am very familiar with the site at 1-5 Nelson Rd. I strongly object to this development for the following reasons:
1. I did not receive a flyer about this development
2. This large development is to be positioned in a Heritage Conservation Area (Crown Blocks Heritage Conservation area) which is completely inappropriate and out of character
3. Two out of three properties in this development are outside of the original TODD zone ie they are more than 400metres from Lindfield Station. Considering this the height of this proposed development is in excess of the maximum building height limit. In the original TOD this area would have been eligible for low and mid rise housing (maximum 4 storeys). Even in the Kuringgai Council preferred alternative plan these blocks are zoned R2, not R4, and definitely not zoned for 9 storeys.
4.The bulk and scale of this development will overshadow and dwarf the residential houses adjacent. They will be robbed of sunlight and lose privacy.
5. The leafy streetscape, for which Kuring-gai is recognised and valued, will be destroyed and there will be a detrimental effect on the precious tree canopy and wildlife.
6. Crucially: The location of this development, on the corner of Nelson Road and Tryon Road will inevitably have a very negative effect on traffic flow and congestion within and entering and exiting Lindfield. This is already a very busy corner, adjacent to a school, and it is central to the alternative route in and out of Lindfield for residents on the eastern side of the railway line who wish to avoid the congested area on Lindfield Ave immediately adjacent to the railway station and Harris Farm. It iseems to be a confusing corner for many motorists who seem uncertain as to who has the right of way (those crossing Nelson Road from Tryon Road and heading west, or those turning on to Nelson Rd from Tryon Road, heading east. Extra traffic will increase the risk of accidents on this corner.
7. This proposal should not be accepted based on a concept drawing. There is no adequate provision for necessary new infrastructure and services to cope with this number of extra residents and vehicles and the number needs to be considered in addition to the number proposed in the several other SSDs currently being assessed for Lindfield, not in isolation. How are the roads, footpaths, crossings, schools, ...going to cope with the extra demand?
8. There is also inadequate explanation of how this development will impact storm water, flooding risk and soil. In fact the zoning map within the geotechnical report has the site shown as Middle Harbour Rd not Nelson Rd, which is a different area altogether.

In my opinion this proposal should be rejected.

1. This consolidated site appears to be outside the 400 metre catchment from the station and shouldn't qualify for TOD.
2. The overall height scale and bulk of this building is hopelessly out of scale with the predominantly single/double storey surrounding residences
3. This building would severely impact the solar access to 6 single story houses immediately south, along Tryon Rd.
4. Likewise there would be devastating impacts to privacy via overlooking to the above houses and several along the eastern boundary in Lightfoot Pde.
5. Allowing access to Nelson Pde for 251 houses would compound an already congested major access road.
6. If anything is to be approved here, this building should be restricted to 3 storeys with basement parking.

Mark Jackson / retired architect

The latest TOD planning for Kuringai area has already involved building over 24000 new dwellings in this area which will negatively affect the environment, traffic and parking in this area. The proposed Concept Development Application which will involve 167 apartments outside the TOD will further worsen the problem. The TOD which was finalised after extensive consultation with the community does not include the proposed project.
According to the latest TOD planning, maximum height allowed in the area of the Concept Development Application is only 9.5 meters . The proposed 9 storey development will cause a lot of problems for its neighbors in the sense of shadow and privacy. It will also destroy the character of this area especially that the proposed location is situated within a heritage area and subject to heritage overlay.

The development is within a heritage zone and is significantly out of character with the neighbourhood street scape.
The loss of social amenity of properties - immediately and with sight lines of the development - would be substantial. Including the loss of environmental diversity and green scape.
The bulk and height is excessive and exceeds the maximum permitted building height. The development would result in major overshadowing and privacy concerns.
The development is in a flood zone and has associated implications for future issues with water related matters - including an already maxed out stormwater system in the area.
The area is not set up for the additional traffic congestion at the ingress and egress points and at the major intersections to exit from Lindfield. If adhering to environmental and sustainability matters, including the affordability and close to public transport claims the parking should be reduced to a maximum of 1 space per lot with consideration of bike storage and alternative transport planning.
If permitted to proceed the developers should be required to provide a significant contribution to the increased demands on local infrastructure.

There is currently major traffic flow issues already into and out of Lindfield, especially if seeking to connect to Pacific Hwy and have option of travelling northbound or southbound. For now, this is only supported at one location, via a narrow single-lane (for each direction) rail underpass that regularly sees kilometres of waiting traffic from three feeder streets. This is only if seeking to use Pacific Hwy. A similar situation exists esp. in peak travel times towards the east side, travelling Archibold Road. The idea of adding many TOD developments and then also adding non-TOD developments like this one into the locality without significant re-engineering of road/traffic infrastructure and management to support this is a disaster in the making.

Allowing this development to get as far as it has and now paving the way for it to continue in the absence environmental assessment and planning (incl. biodiversity, flora & fauna, tree canopies) goes against the grain of processes that are meant to safeguard against decisions we can't undo or make up for later. With successive development, whether for individual residences or medium/high density developments, there have been years' of tree removal (approved AND illegal) that all adds up to sizeable loss of tree canopy and biodiversity in our LGA that is one of the key attractants for many who choose to live in the area.

I am a resident of Lindfield and would like to express my strong OBJECTION to Landmark's proposal for 1-5 Nelson Road.
I also like to make it quite clear that this is no so called "nimbyism" as I do not oppose extra density to house more people able to live closer to trains, shops and services. To enable this to happen Ku-ring-gai Council has developed an alternative TOD in consultation with the DPHI, (as I understand) as well as with the residents of the community.
I and others in Ku-ring-gai have supported the council's alternative TOD with it's whopping building heights of up to 61m in Lindfield (even if we could have preferred lower), heights which gradually fall, easing down to far lower apartment blocks along street boundaries which are to separate the denser R3 areas from the lower R2 zonings, where we will see town houses, terraces, etc., and even single houses.
Flying in the face of the future R2 area, the applicant is recklessly proposing to plonk a building of bulk and scale clearly out of place with the future zoning and will dwarf its far lower neighbours, compromising their privacy and "unfortunately" (to quote Landmark's own terminology!) even causing total loss of sunlight during those short winter days when sun is needed most, as has been noted in the winter shadow diagrams.
I would also like to make a specific comment about the applicant's claimed shortest walking distance of 500 m along Kochia Lane, as shown in the Environmental Impact Statement p52 fig 34 under "Accessibility". I know the route well and would not recommend it as safe. The path is narrow and in the absence of a nature-strip pedestrians are forced out onto the roadway in order to pass each other. There are telegraph poles in the middle of the pathway as well forcing foot traffic onto the roadway, an instance of which I even observed yesterday.. The lack of safety of the route can be seen in the photos in the attachment.

IN SUMMARY:
1. The proposal is in conflict with the Ku-ring-gai Council's alternative TOD which is currently waiting gazettal by the state government.
2. The proposal is unnecessary: Affordable and increased housing numbers are well catered for close to station in proposed high density and mixed residential zoning to the west side of Lindfield station plus areas to the east of the station as seen in the council's alternative TOD.
3. Bulk and scale of such a proposal in the middle of an R2 is inappropriate, out of place and obtrusive.
4. Destruction of amenity for surrounding residences of the future permitted LMR R2 zone as well as those presently existing that may choose not to develop
5. A safe walking distance is greater than only 500m from the station.

Due to the above, I humbly request that this proposal not be progressed.

I live in Treatts Road, Lindfield and have lived at this address for 11.5 years during which time I have commuted into the city for work hence using the transport system. I have witnessed the development of Lindfield during the time I have lived there, including the redevelopment of the village centre and the increasing density of living. This development has brought with it significant traffic congestion and danger to pedestrians. Further development needs to be accompanied by improved infrastructure and sensitive design to ensure the context of the suburb remains intact.
I object to the specific development application. The reasons for this are set out below by reference to the SEARS requirements:
Before I address the various elements of the SEARS, let me please mention the various inaccuracies and misleading statements in the submission by the developer.
1. Community Engagement
The flyer inviting residents to a webinar was edited to a later date following distribution. The edited version, shown in Annexure A was never sent to residents thereby restricting attendance.
2. Appendix 13 Geotechnical Report
Pg 4 Zoning – this shows the incorrect site, exhibiting Middle Harbour Road, not Nelson Road.
3. Appendix 13 Geotechnical Report
Soil landscapes – based on Lucas Heights landscapes. Soil landscape in the Ku-ring-gai area does not generally have the same composition as Lucas Heights. This would potentially invalidate this area of the report.
4. Appendix 13 Geotechnical Report
Pg 4 states ‘The site is not in an area of riparian lands and further assessment is not required’. In Council’s letter to DPHI in response to the SEARS on 5 May, it stated that ‘Part of the subject site is identified as ‘Category 4 and 3a Riparian Land’ (letter is in Appendix 5 Engagement Report, Annexure C).
5. Appendix 22 Flood Impact Risk Assessment
Pg 5 states that ‘PMF maps are not available’. In 2023, Council undertook the Middle Harbour Southern Catchment Flood Study with extensive analysis and classification of flood zones. This study can be found on Council’s website.
6. Appendix 9 Architectural Plans
7. Pgs 26-30 show the concept design and surrounding properties. The surrounding properties are portrayed as being large apartment blocks. This is inaccurate as the adjacent properties are single/double story homes with R2 zoning.

The numbering used below corresponds with the SEAR’s Issue and Assessment Requirements:
6. Built Form & Urban Design
SEPP (housing) 2021 requires good design of appropriate build form for a site.
This development plan in terms of bulk and scale does not fit the context of the area which is comprised predominantly of low-rise housing.
Under the Ku-ring-gai Council’s alternative TOD proposal, this area is zoned R2 additionally under NSW Government TOD, two of the three properties are outside of the TOD zone. Surrounding properties are single/double storey homes.
Additionally, the development is within a Heritage Conservation Zone and therefore the development is completely out of context with the surrounding area. No attempt by the developer has been made to transition the building within the surrounding area.
The current streetscape is one of a significant tree canopy which will not be retained under the development.
The current design exceeds the allowable height limits. At this height the building will be above any tree canopy and therefore detrimental to the environmental amenity.

8. Visual Impact
As mentioned previously, the visual impact will be significant and will severely detract from the vista of current residents. The bulk of the development is significantly in excess of any other building in the surrounding area. It will impact views of surrounding properties and impinge on the privacy of neighbouring properties. This is exacerbated by the fact that the proposed development exceeds the maximum permitted building height with no transition to neighbouring properties.
Local residents will be significantly impacted by overshadowing and privacy as a result of this development.

9. Transport
Traffic Impact
This development will increase the volume of traffic on the local roads. The Social Impact Assessment (SIA) reports that a key negative of the development will be the increase in traffic. The cumulative impact from all SSD’s and other development in Lindfield on increased traffic must be taken into account, rather than just this SSD alone.
There are already significant traffic issues in the following areas:
Havilah Road and Pacific Highway
Havilah Road and Lindfield Avenue
Tryon Road and Archbold Road
Woodside Road and Lindfield Avenue
Strickland Avenue and Pacific Highway
Lindfield Village

Additionally, there is a lack of available street parking in the vicinity of the development.

11. Water Management
The proposed development is in a riparian zone, the significance of this is the increased flood risk, potential soil instability and risk to vegetation and wildlife.

19. Flood Risk
See 11 above

22. Environmental Heritage
The development is in a Heritage Conservation Zone. The development is contrary to the context of the area. The size and bulk will dominate the HCA and impair the outlook of heritage property.

Dear NSW Government - Major Projects,

I am writing to lodge my formal objection to the proposed development at [SSD - 82899468], currently under consideration.

My concerns are as follows:

1. Excessive Bulk and Scale
The proposed development is excessive in both bulk and scale relative to the surrounding residential context. It does not respect the established character of the area, and risks dominating the streetscape and adjacent properties. The design appears to prioritise density over liveability, and is inconsistent with local planning controls and community expectations.

2. Stormwater Infrastructure and Drainage Concerns
The area already struggles with drainage and stormwater management, as clearly evidenced in recent stormwater imagery, (please see attachments). Existing infrastructure is not adequate to handle the increased runoff that will result from the scale and impervious surfaces proposed in this development. Without significant upgrades to the stormwater system, this development could exacerbate localised flooding, erosion, and property damage. Kuring-gai Council has already flagged 30% increase to rate payers to account for updating infrastructure.

3. Flood Risk Identified in Middle Harbour Southern Catchment Flood Study
Nelson Road, where this development is proposed, has been specifically identified in the Middle Harbour Southern Catchment Flood Study as an area vulnerable to flooding. Proceeding with a large-scale development in a known flood risk zone without clear, comprehensive mitigation strategies is both short-sighted and potentially dangerous. It raises serious concerns regarding future public safety and liability.

4. Precedent for Overdevelopment
Approving a development of this scale in a flood-affected and infrastructure-challenged location may set a concerning precedent for overdevelopment in other unsuitable areas. This could compromise the integrity of long-term planning and environmental resilience strategies.

For these reasons, I urge NSW Government - Major Projects to reconsider this application. At a minimum, a substantial redesign should be required to address scale, drainage, and flood mitigation.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Yours sincerely,
Sue Walker