Lourdes Killara

Gross over development out of step with local character. Forcing a massive, high density institutional complex into a established, low density R20low density residential zone completely destroys the local leafy character of kuringgai. This is a holding submission, i reserve the right to tender comprehensive planning summaries later.

Loss of property Amenity and privacy. The scale of the western and northern elevations create an oppressive visual barrier that strips surrounding residential properties of their privacy and solar access. This is a holding submission, I reserve the right to submit building engineering objections.

Evacuation logistics vs. emergency services tra ffic. A single narrow corridor cannot mathematically support a mass southbound evacuation of elderly residents while simultaneously allowing large RFS fire appliance to head northbound into zone. This is a holding submission; I reserve the right to submit independent traffic-flow analysis.

visual bulk and scale intrusion: the excessive height and institutional massing of the proposed multi storey blocks will cast significant shadows and completely overlook neighbouring residential backyards. This is a holding submission; I reserve the right to submit building engineering objections.

Smoke Inhalation Hazards: Even if flames do not reach the structures, the massive Increase in smoke density during a fire poses an immediate, life-threatening respiratory risk to hundreds of high-density elderly residents trapped by a single exit road. This is a holding submission; I reserve the right to submit supplementary medical-impact evidence.

An Heavy Construction Vehicle Gridlock: The years-long construction timeline will see hundreds of heavy semi-trailers and concrete trucks squeezing down Stanhope Road, destroying the road surface and endangering local school children. As a nearby resident I do doubt the safety. This is a holding submission; I reserve the right to tender detailed traffic arguments.

As a very long time resident of Kuringai in various suburbs I am well aware of the take over of Lourdes Retirement Village. I lived in Lindfield when it was operating as a decent Aged Care Facility and I visited frequently.
I am horrified at your plans. The proximity to the bush, Garigal, is a major concern. To build more even closer is in my opinion lethal. Stanhope Rd at that point is both narrow and has always been an unsatisfactory way in and out.

As an older person I am all too well aware of the need to retain decent Aged Care facilities but not backing onto a bushfire area. In Kuringai we have seen the native bird and animal species almost disappear, mostly through over development .
I strongly object to this proposal

Objection 1: Traffic Safety and Waste Management
Subject: Objection based on Waste Collection and Traffic Hazards
I strongly object to the proposed development on the grounds of inadequate waste management design and the severe traffic hazard it presents local residents. The current site plan inherently relies on heavy waste collection vehicles attempting complex, multi-point turns within narrow, local residential streets. this arrangement creates significant safety risks for pedestrians and surrounding traffic, while inevitably causing severe vehicular congestion. This is a holding submission; i reserve the right to tender detailed traffic arguments.

Objection 2: Environmental impact and light Pollution
Subject: Objection based on Light Pollution and Ecological Impact
I strongly object to the development due to the severe adverse impacts of light pollution on the adjacent natural environment. The requirements for intensive, 24 hour operational lighting for a facility of this density will severely disrupt local nocturnal wildlife. The persistent light spillage will obscure natural habitats and risk permanently displacing native species along the national park boundary. This is a holding submission; i receive the right to submit detailed flora and fauna impacts.

The "Shelter-in-Place" Fallacy: Relying on a "shelter-in-place" emergency protocol for an expanded, high-density aged care facility in a catastrophic bushfire zone places an unacceptable liability on staff and puts vulnerable lives at risk. This is a holding submission; I reserve the right to submit detailed risk assessments.

Please see comments in the attachment.

Please find attached objection

I oppose the current lourdes retirement village initiative given serious concerns that have not been appropriately addressed in relation to following domains.

Bushfire and Emergency evacuation
Environmental and Biodiversity impacts
Traffic, infrastructure and high density
Resident Vulnerability and Disruption
Procedural Unfairness and Insufficient Consultation

With lourdes redevelopment proposal have been declared state significant development (sso), Kuringai council has been stripped of its local planning authority and silenced the community objections. The need for stakeholders to undertake appropriate due diligence and submit and informed response has been compromised by the excessively short exhibition period (21 July to 3 Aug 2026) and by the notably limited extent of mail notifications to an area adjoining the lourdes site.

Misuse of the SSDA Pathway.
Upgrading this development to a State Significant Development via repeated reappraisals is a deliberate strategy to strip Ku-ring-gai Council of its local planning authority and silence community objections. I also object to the fact that local residents who will be affected if this development goes ahead have been given insufficient notice. I only learned of the development proposal via other residents who will be impacted by the development. This meant that concerned residents had very limited time to lodge a submission by the deadline of 3 August.
I am also concerned about the increased traffic both during the construction phase and after completion if the project does proceed. The noise and pollution during the construction phase is also a concern. This is a holding submission. I reserve the right to tender comprehensive planning summaries later.

Depletory effect on Garica National Park: the high-density foot print introduce severe “edge effects”, including weed invasion, domestic runoff, and pollution, directly into a pristine national park ecosystem. This is a holding submission. I reserve the right to submit detailed flora and fauna impact statements.

* lack of response time for local residents and lack of grants for local community requests. This causing unfairness to the general public who has objections to the project.
* The project will puts pressure on local residential parking and introduce un-necessary interruption to the residential everyday life.

I strongly object to the proposed redevelopment of Lourdes Retirement Village. In particular, replacing soft landscaping, soil and native canopy with concrete slabs and multi storey structures will severely worsen the local microclimate and urban heat island effect.

I am writing to formally lodge my strong objection to the Lourdes Retirement Village Killara development application based on significant planning, environmental, and public safety grounds.
1. Severe Bushfire Risk and Inadequate Emergency Access:
The surrounding area is heavily dominated by dense bushland, making it a designated bushfire-prone zone. The proposed development significantly increases the density and puts existing properties at a much higher risk of bushfire exposure. Furthermore, local streets are narrow and heavily congested (particularly during school hours). In a bushfire emergency, this will severely obstruct fire engines and emergency evacuation routes, threatening residents' lives.
2. Environmental Impact and Tree Removal:
The proposal involves the removal of established trees, which destroys local biodiversity, native wildlife corridors, and vital tree canopy cover. Additionally, increasing hard concrete surfaces will diminish natural rainwater absorption, raising concerns about localized stormwater runoff and flooding onto neighboring properties.
3. Loss of Amenity and Privacy:
The scale and bulk of the proposed development are out of character with the low-density, leafy nature of our neighborhood. It also results in an unacceptable loss of privacy (overlooking windows/balconies) and severe overshadowing.

Given these unacceptable risks to public safety and the environment, I strongly urge Council and the Department to refuse this Development Application.

Soil instability on steep slopes.
Heavy excavation and earthworks on the site's steep terrain risk causing slope instability and landslip hazards that could impact lower lying national park terrain.This is a holding submission. I reserve they right to submit independent geotechnical reviews.

I submit the development process was vague and misleading in respect to the project as the public notices downplay the true scale, height and density modifications of the site. This does not allow the residents to understand the full impact without deep technical analysis. This is a holding submission and I reserve the right to submit comprehensive technical, environmental and traffic arguments once proper time is afforded.

In the documentation provided for the proposed redevelopment of Lourdes Retirement Village - Appendix T_Landscape Plans. The documentation on Page 3 shows the landscape plans show the removal of many of the medium sized, well established trees and plants along the north side, along Standhope Road. We strongly object to the removal of the plants and trees in this nature area.

These trees provide screening and privacy for local residents along Stanhope Road. Although the plans are to keep the taller, more established trees, these don't provide the privacy screening for the residents living on the North side of the street, which the smaller trees do due to the elevation. This can be seen in the Visual Impact Report dated May 26 2026 in Viewpoints 1 and 2, (Pages 13, 15 and 69) as well as Appendix E - Positions 4, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34 and 35 on pages 81 - 85.

These smaller, but established, trees and plants currently diffuse some of the noise coming from both the kitchens with their loud industrial extractors and some of the more distressing noises coming from some residents. The removal of these trees would increase impact on the local residents, as well as the local native wildlife which has started to return to the area.

Given this area is next to the Opal Aged care facility which, according to the plans, is not a part of the main development, it comes across as completely unnecessary to disrupt the nature area running along Stanhope Road which protects both the privacy and noise of other residents of Stanhope Road.