Residential Development with In-Fill Affordable Housing at 2-8 Highgate Road, Lindfield

Please do not approve the project until the state and the council has reached an agreement as it will affect the long term living conditions of the flora, fauna and the existing residents as well as the heritage values of the area

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on SSD-78493518. Please see the attached response and information sheet for the applicant.

I am writing to object this project due to below reasons.

1. The project provides only 28% deep soil, which is well below the 50% deep soil requirement in Ku-ring-gai - undermining canopy retention, biodiversity objectives and storm infiltration. Also, this would be unfair for future 15 years local residential development projects.
2. The proposed FSR (i.e 3.25) is too high, far above the residential development standard in this suburb. As Ku-ring-gai council is going to finalize its preferred scenario which indicates a maximum FSR 2.34 (base 1.8 with 30% bonus) for this site. The project FSR doesn't take the transition impact into account as it only considers its own project alone. Though other factors are considered in the design process, they are not able to consider other compliant projects/infrastructure/community feedback as a whole.
3. The Stakeholder engagement includes the relevant parties, but not that comprehensive. It didn't include wider residents in Linfield or even LGA whereas council's preferred scenario did. The council preferred scenario is more a balanced, comprehensive, better planning scenario that takes all planning principles into account (a compromise among all residents as well).

I respectfully request that you consider the above, please refer to the council's preferred scenario as planning guide.

Thank you.

This project is very close to HCA and heritage items and whilst I support development in line with the TOD this is a very dense and massive construction within this area

Having 10 storey buildings across the road from 2 storey housing is totally inappropriate and totally out of character with the area.

1. This scale fails to respect the councils own design principles for transition between high density and low density zones. There should be set backs on the side that face housing.

2. Flood risk.
The site sits at bottom of a steep hill making it highly vulnerable to run off and flash flooding. A large development will intensify storm water issues.

3 loss significant trees and biosurgery
The purposed block is Home to mature significant native trees which provide habitat support local biodiversity and help urban cooling. Their removal would contradict councils canopy preservation and enviro sustainability.

4. Visual impact and amenity loss.
A 10 storey building would dominate the skyline and overwhelm so many adjacent homes. There would significant overshadowing to the north side of the property.

5 Traffic and infrastructure strain
Tariff at the roundabout at Woodson is already terrible and strained during peak times. Any development of this size would worsen this during the years of construction and post.

Please reduce the intensity of the building and ensure setbacks and transition. As well as protect the near 100 year old trees and ensure traffic and flooding risks / strain are considered.

We support the proposed development for the reasons outlined in the attached.

That is too much density and bulk for Lindfield Village atmosphere.
After IGA and Harris Farm appeared in Lindfield Ave, there are lots of traffic congestion while attempting to drive through, parking and customers stopping for a coffee pickup. More units will only compound the congestion.
On a work day, cars are fully parked in Highgate Road for commuters catching the train. Imagine adding 50 more cars onto Highgate Road.
I have lived on Kenilworth Rd for over 20 years. My neighbours and I experience low water pressure in our taps. With additional units, we can only see even lower water pressure.
The current infrastructure is already struggling to cope.

1. 9 storey buildings without a transition to lower height buildings is an anathma for any Town Planner or Civic designer. There are to be residences adjacent which are essentially single storey of circa 1930's along Blenheim Road which will be overshadowed by such developments. Heights should be restricted so as not to impinge on these properties, albeit 3-4 storeys?
2. Parking and traffic at the intersection and along of Woodside Avenue and Highgate Street to Lindfield Avenue is currently full. The intersection to the Balfour Street under the tunnel is currently impossible during peak periods and to a lesser extent in off-peak times.
3. Any development unless developed with a view to provide some element of a heritage design is out of keeping with the HCA which it is currently.
4. The Neighbourhood will change drastically.
5 Access to the train station is still quiet a hike leaving illegal parking to be a problem as limited station parking available
6. Any construction traffic in this narrow street will be a nightmare.
7. It is not in the public interest to have such a development in this quaint area of Lindfield. There will be a loss of trees and limited sebacks not idol and to Council Standards.

This request is threefold (i) that the maximum number of roof top solar panels be installed on this development, preferably with orientations facing east and especially west when demands for power are high. (ii) that at least some garages be equipped with a 32 A circuit in preparation for a charger for an electric vehicle. This is much cheaper than retrofitting a circuit later. (iii) the development should make provision for a battery with a minimum capacity to power the body corporate lights, stairwells, etc.
For the record, the writer is a long term resident of Lindfield.

Generally, I am supportive in-principle of increasing housing density in Lindfield (and Kuringgai more broadly) through the introduction of medium to high density housing (inc affordable housing), oriented around transport hubs, where:
(i) existing or in-development infrastructure (schools, hospitals, parks, transport) fully supports the population uplift in full;
(ii) existing heritage & conservation controls are observed; and
(iii) existing environmental and sustainability controls are observed

However, and in accordance with above, I strongly object to SSD-78493518 (combined with SSD-79261463), primarily for three reasons:
(i) traffic - local infrastructure simply cannot cope with a total additional 173 dwellings on this site. At present, local traffic on Lindfield Avenue and Havilah Road regularly block and back up onto surrounding streets, at both peak and off-peak times. Adding traffic for 173 dwellings will exacerbate an already highly congested and 'broken' traffic flow
(ii) height as it relates to neighbourhood character - nine storeys is in excess of local planning rules and even the height limitations of TOD plan; a maximum four storeys would be reasonable and in-keeping with other local developments and character of the local surrounds
(iii) over-shadowing & privacy - surrounding houses will be significantly overlooked, losing their privacy

The result of the above is that the local community will be significantly negatively impacted, and immediately surrounding houses will have their property values and quality of living significantly reduced.

I strongly urge the NSW Government to reduce the scale, and specifically the height, of this development to a reasonable and sustainable level.

Thank you

My wife and I own 6 Highgate Road and have lived here for 40 years. We have accepted an offer from CPDM and are keen to see this project proceed to completion as planned. The 4 properties in Highgate Road, including our own, are occupied by "empty nesters" and we support the principles of TOD which would allow the construction of 84 apartments including a substantial number of affordable homes for essential workers. This is socially responsible and an influx of younger residents will have a positive social impact. We have been assured by CPDM that the project will be completed in a style which is in harmony with the surrounding neighbourhood. This project is situated ideally as it will be within a few minutes' walk of Lindfield railway station, and also numerous facilities including three established supermarkets, several cafes and restaurants, a large number of medical and dental practices, a post office and other businesses.
To address some particular issues:
* Traffic and parking will not be a problem, giving the provision of underground parking. Streetside parking is already impossible during weekdays in Highgate Rd, Woodside Rd and Reid St as commuters and people working in the area park their vehicles from 7.00 am until 6.00 pm daily. Already it is difficult for residents and visitors to find streetside parking by day.
* There will be no overshadowing of any other properties
* None of the properties involved is heritage listed and no heritage listed properties are in proximity
* The character or streetscape will not be affected detrimentally. Already in adjoining Woodside Rd there is a well-established 6 storey apartment building. Properties on the other side of Highgate Road are now being sold to buyers prepared to "land bank" in expectation of rezoning to permit buildings of at least three storeys.
* Lindfield is already a popular destination for young families offering easy access to excellent schools and kindergartens. This will be especially attractive to those couples and families seeking affordable housing.
* Recreational opportunities abound in the area, with major sports grounds, tennis courts etc, again making this a desirable destination for families

In summary, while we have a vested financial interest in seeing the application be approved, we also believe it is a socially responsible project which fulfills all the aims of the TOD policy and will be of substantial benefit to the wider community.

John Gatfield OAM
Sonya Gatfield

I strongly support his proposal and have some commentary to provide.
1. I support this proposal as it is close to public transportation and shops. We need more housing supply as we are in a housing crisis.
2. Gas is a fossil fuel, as there are more efficient and less costly to the environment and for people who will live in the apartments, its use should be reconsidered. If gas is to be used for cooktops and hot water, then apartment owners will be forced to pay for a separate daily connection fee to use the gas cooktop and for hot water they will be paying an estimated additional $479 a year (https://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/how-sydneysiders-could-save-730-a-year-by-ditching-gas-20240325-p5feyf.html). You can find evidence to show that hot water heat pumps are more efficient than gas hot water heating and that induction cooktops are more efficient than gas cooktops. Gas is also a fossil fuel, has potential health impacts when used as part of cooking.

I am a property owner and resident of Lindfield and have been living in my home, which is two streets away from the proposed development, for the past 10 years. I commute from Lindfield station and therefore walk past the development site twice a day and have done so for the past 10 years. I am very familiar with the site for this reason.
I object to this proposed development on the following grounds:
1) Disingenuous community consultation: I never received the alleged mailbox flyer advising of the community consultation session and neither did any of my neighbours despite the assertion that more than 1000 flyers were delivered to local mailboxes. This meant I did not get the opportunity to engage with the developers and ask further questions about the proposal.
2) Design quality (SEARs requirement 5): the development cannot be categorised as a “good design” when it does not take into consideration the surrounding properties, the majority of which are single storey federation style heritage homes. The design should be more sympathetic to the locality and incorporate federation elements including the use of timberwork and gabled roofs.
3) Built form and urban design (SEARs requirement 6): the height and scale of the development does not fit with the current area as at nine storeys, it will be higher than the existing developments closer to the station at five and six storeys, and it will not be consistent with the gradual fall of building height away from the station which currently exists.
4) Visual impact (SEARs requirement 8): from the back of my property, which is all glass, I can see trees in the distance and the skyline. This proposed development will be of such a height and bulk that it will significantly impinge on my views, and I will lose the tree lined view that I currently enjoy. I would like to see this proposed development incorporate some mature trees to replace the ones that will be removed and there should be a requirement that the trees need to survive for at least 10 years so that the development incorporates the deep soil requirements to make this possible.
5) Traffic and transport concerns (SEARs requirement 9): the intersection at Lindfield Ave and Woodside Ave is already extremely congested during peak hours, especially morning and afternoon school drop off and pick up times, and it is dangerous for pedestrians as there is no designated street crossing on Woodside Ave. This development will directly impact the number of cars on Woodside Ave and pose a risk to future residents who will be crossing the road to access the train station. Woodside Ave, High Gate Rd and Reid St are currently parked out Monday to Friday with commuters accessing the train station. There is no capacity for additional on-street parking for future residents of the development.
6) Water management (SEARs requirement 11): the storm water drains on Woodside Ave already floods during heavy rains and the water pools and covers the street adding to the risk for pedestrians trying to cross to access the train station. The current drainage system is clearly at capacity and needs to be addressed before any construction is undertaken in this area.
7) Trees and landscaping (SEARs requirement 14): as previously identified the significant loss of trees and natural canopy with this proposal is a concern and should be rectified with the requirement for the developer to plant mature trees with appropriate deep soil requirements and ensure the survival of these trees for at least a period of ten years.
8) The footpath beside the proposed development on Lindfield Ave is currently inadequate and unsafe for pedestrians and the proposed development should address this for local residents attempting to access the train station by walking down the hill towards the station.

I do not believe the developer CPDM PTY LTD has done a fulls SEARS assessment.
There is a water course running through the development and a full assessment need to be done for flooding, storm water etc.
Tod allows for 6 stories but with the affordable housing component increases to 9 stories. The size and bulk will impact the surrounding environment, character and streetscape. There will be overshadowing, reducing our use of solar panels, lack or privacy, degrade the heritage area. The design is a square box not a high quality liveable outcome. There is no front or side setback with minimal building separation from their development 2-4 Woodside Ave & 1-3 Reid St Lindfield resulting in poor internal amenity.
Low cost housing should be perpetual not ONLY for 15 years. Unaffordability of housing for Key Workers will remain.
Traffic Congestion- There is only one exit to allow access to the Pacific Highway under the rail line at Havila Rd which is already at capacity. Full traffic assessment need to be done before any approval is given.
The application is not Compliant. The Development should not be approved before the Council has submitted their alternate scheme.

When the NSW Government announced the TOD program for the 31 designated TOD precincts in the days before the Christmas break in 2023, it proposed “Maximum building height 21m (approx. 6 storeys)” within 400m of the TOD train stations. (see page 8 here - https://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/sites/default/files/2023-12/transport-oriented-development-program.pdf).

No mention was made of the subsequently gazetted 30% uplift for SSDs that provided for low cost housing. As a 20 year resident of Lindfield, I braced myself for such development in our area on the naive assumption that it would be in keeping with the area akin to the 5 storey apartment building fronting Woodside and Reid Street.

I could never have imagined that this would pave the way for 16 (to date) applications for SSDs within Ku-Ring-Gai all seeking a 30% (or greater) uplift in height.

9 storey buildings over 30m in height is a massive is 43% taller than Premier Minns announced!

The impact of this level of development is material in many respects. I will focus the remainder of this submission on just some of these impacts with respect to the proposed SSD described above. Please see attachement.

As a resident of Lindfield I object Development SSD-78493518 for a number of reasons
1. Private development of flats does not meet the definition of 'State Significant Development' and therefore cannot legally be summited under a SSD or SEPP
2. Neither the NSW Government nor Ku Ring Gai council have made meaningful investigations or conclusions regarding impacts on traffic, parking, amenity to existing surrounding residents, solar access, infrastructure impacts or public transportation of this development or all other TOD/SEPP/Alternative Ku Ring Gai medium density rezoning
3. There is a clear conflict of duty with Ku Ring Gai councillors in their proposed medium density rezoning that needs to be investigated by ICAC before the damage is done
4. There is prima facie oversupply of units in Lindfield already, with over 500 currently for sale compared to 100 houses, so development of more units, rather than a more considered approach to sustainable and liveable medium density housing, such as townhouses and dual occupancy, must be undertaken and legislated
5. The NSW Government is at risk of destroying the very essence of liveability in Sydney, in addition to houses that are over a century old, by rushing through ill considered and deeply unappealing housing

Objections to DAs for REID street, HIGHGATE rd. and Woodside Avenue.
We all know we need more housing but placing a nine-storey edifice in the middle of a suburban street will create more problems than it solves. It is inappropriate to place the tallest building in Lindfield at the furthest point allowed from the station. (400m).

1. SAFETY
Car Safety.
The roads around this proposed development are not currently coping with the increase in cars due to the development of the shops on East side of Lindfield station. There are common traffic jams and many accidents and near misses at the roundabout and the intersection that leads under the railway bridge.
With an increase of 127 parking spaces from SSD-79261463 and 131 parking spaces from SSD-78493518, the safety of the residents and general community will be at risk.
There has been no provision for improvement to or widening of these roads. How is the state government going to mitigate these risks it if allows a development of this size to go ahead with such little thought. It is not the community’s responsibility to pay for this.
The corner of Woodside Avenue and Lindfield Ave is a blind corner, and the corner of Reid Street and Lindfield Avenue is also a blind corner. This development will further impede our ability to see to be able to join the traffic on Lindfield Avenue safely and make this problem worse. Will the state government be responsible for the increase in injuries and deaths?
NO DEVELOPMENT OF THIS SITE CAN GO AHEAD WITHOUT ADDRESSING THESE VERY REAL SAFETY CONCERNS

Pedestrian safety:
The increase in the number of residents will also increase the foot traffic around these roads. There will be children and the elderly trying to navigate their way to schools, shops and the railway. The developers should be made to make provisions for these necessary changes.
At the very least there needs to be significant widening to the footpath that runs along Lindfield Ave and the development. At present it is only 1 metre wide. It can hardly accommodate one person at the moment. People are constantly needing to step out into the road.
NO DEVELOPMENT OF THIS SITE CAN GO AHEAD WITHOUT ADDRESSING THESE VERY REAL SAFETY CONCERNS


2. SIZE and SCALE
There are no buildings greater than 7 stories in Lindfield, Roseville or Killara. The 7 storey apartments are appropriately at the station. Placing a nine-storey building at the 400-metre limit will look out of place It is surrounded on 2 sides by single or double storey family residences. This will loom over and devalue surrounding property. This will impact privacy and increase noise.
The apartments built in Woodside to Havilah Road are only 5 storeys. They have a 10-metre setback, and this has allowed them to be planted well with large trees that hide the development with trees. This development although large aims to blend with the surrounding structures and preserves the trees and canopy.



3. Not adequate setback
A 6-metre setback is entirely inadequate for a development of this size.
There is not adequate room for planting of trees to hide the bulk of the building. There will be significant reduction in privacy for the surrounding residents. KMC policy is for a 10-metre set back from all boundaries. Why does everyone else need to follow the rules but not this development. The rules have been created for safety and amenity for the community. The state government has not tried to work with council to create developments that do not destroy the ambience and nature of our neighbourhood.

4. Green space inadequate
Where are the 400 or so people living in these apartments meant to go?
There are limited areas provided on site. To get outside and those provided are either right outside another person’s apartment or up on the 8th storey where they will be fried by the westerly sun or blown off the Highgate apartment communal area is overlooked by the residence of the Reid Street apartments. The nearest park is over 2km away in all directions.

5. Shadowing
The houses opposite the development in Highgate Road will have significant overshadowing. This will affect their lives, ability to utilise solar power and devalue their properties.
Thank you
Caroline Downing
6 Reid Street Lindfield
0425203187

Submission: Objection to 2–4 Woodside Avenue & 1–3 Reid Street, Lindfield (SSD-79261463)
To whom it may concern,
I have lived for 10 years Lindfield living within 300 metres of the proposed development at 2–4 Woodside Avenue & 1–3 Reid Street, Lindfield. I am writing to formally object to the development application SSD-79261463. My family and I will be directly impacted by this proposal. We not only would see the new property given its height but also I would have to walk past this huge building everyday to the station. I would like to raise the following concerns:
5. Design Quality The building does not complement the surrounding area, and lacks architectural sensitivity or visual appeal in comparison to the surrounding house and even the nearby developments. It looks very steep and sits way above any tree line and dwarfs all other structures nearby. The predominant architectural style in the area are modest 1-2 story traditional homes. This will look like a concrete / brick monstrosity.
6. Built Form and Urban Design The building mass is too large and out of step with the surrounding residential properties. The transition to 1-2 stories homes from a 9 storey building with almost no setback is inappropriate. The height that have requested is 1.7m above the state limit (and well above any previous council limit as per the current alternate scenaios being developed). Please reduce the height! The setbacks which seem to start at 6 storeys are also way too abrupt given they will look down onto Reid street properties that are 1-2 storeys. A complete privacy loss as the trees they will plant won’t be 6 storeys high. Please make the transition more reasonable.
7. Environmental Amenity The development adds disproportionate density and would impact affecting nearby homes on Reid Street, Kenilworth and High gate roads through loss of sunlight (please re-check their claims of sun and shadowing it feel wrong?), overshadowing of homes and gardens and given the scale and height at 9 storeys it will look directly into private spaces. This would directly impact my home on Treatts road given the height along with dozens of homes on Kenilworth, Reid, High gate and Blenhiem road. I can’t see where the windows will be but they look like he balconies will look straight down onto Reid street properties.
8. Visual Impact While the site is closer to the train line and less visible than the Highgate site which is part of this joint development, it still represents a significant increase in scale that doesn’t align with the surrounding built environment. It would impact my home and dozens of others in terms of district views given its height and scale, lack of setbacks and lack of any attempt to add/keep trees to increase privacy. It will sit way above the tree line which no other developments in Lindfield do.
9. Transport and Parking The site is close to the train station, but increased traffic and reduced parking will impact local streets such as Reid, Kenilworth, Woodside and Highgate. Even with proximity to the train station, the proposed number of units will inevitably increase car ownership, exacerbating existing parking shortages. We have a much higher car usage than average so their assumptions of increase traffic are way too conservative if half the residents have to drive to work or take their kids to school? There is also a safey risk as woodside is a small street with a roundabout which is the proposed entry to this apartment complex. Is there a proper footpath to be built on all sides – aprticlarly Lindfield avenue and woodside.
10. Noise and Vibration Noise from construction and post-construction traffic will affect nearby families. This will disrupt daily life for at least 2 years given the depth of development to build a 9 storey apartment. There are dozens of homes and hundreds of people who will have sleep impacted and heavy noise during the day which will impact WFH capability. Also please check where the noise meter is put as it should be on reid or woodside not on Lindfield avenue.
11. Water Management There is concern the proposal doesn’t sufficiently address stormwater drainage impacts on nearby properties, particularly in areas like Woodside Avenue and Lindfield Avenue. This property is at the bottom of two steep streets and already is prone to flooding and poor water run off. The storm water drain at Woodside it as complete capacity and overflows regularly as I walk past it all the time.
14. Trees and Landscaping Tree removal is again a concern. They are pulling down 30 old and established trees with 9 of high value. Come on? How can we let them remove all of them? They will put a few small trees 1-2 storeys high on the perimeter. This is not enough surely. Please go and check two >50m high trees directly adjacent to the property which may be affected. Also when the new trees get planted is there deep soli or they will just die given the concrete need and underground parking required which will take out much the current soil and earth.
19. Flood Risk Paving over green areas increases runoff and the possibility of localised flooding, especially near the roundabout at Woodside and Lindfield Avenue.
22. Environmental Heritage This site sits near conservation areas. The scale of development could visually clash with historic elements by introducing a jarring modern aesthetic into a historically significant streetscape and will certainly overshadowing and dominating views of heritage structures.
23. Public Space and Amenity There is very little open and public space within 400m of this development apart from a very small park near Lindfield station.
Conclusion
As a local resident for over 10 years, I ask that this development not be approved in its current form and reduced significantly to a more appropriate size and scale. Whilst I am totally supportive of increasing housing in area, it needs to be done in a more planned and appropriate way. We were not consulted at all. Going to a nursing home/rsl to consult with the community feels totally token and having spoken to so many residents I don’t know anyone supportive of 9 storeys here and on the edge of 400m of the station. This development poses significant local impacts that have not been properly addressed or in fact violated. Therefore, I urge the Department to protect the character, amenity, and livability of Lindfield for current and future generations and require changes.
Recommendation
The property should be 6 storeys at most and have an appropriate transition to properties that are only 1-2 stories. The lower height and density would also help alleviate many of the above mentioned issues
• Traffic congestion and flow
• Pedestrian safety and complete foot paths adjoining Lindfield avenue and Woodside avenue
• Increase onsite parking as the local streets have not more space.
• Flood risk – the roundabout areas gets flooded regularly already.
• Trees loss or damage. Please keep at least some of the important tree on the property. (also take into account the 2 >50m high trees that adjoin the property and that would be at high risk of dieing given the deep underground built.
• Environmental heritage impact given this is so close to a HCA. I am not expert here but surely the visual harsh impact of over 30m and above any tree line is not in keeping with a HCA area.

Thank you for considering my submission.

Dear Madam/Sir,
I submit my comments in point form to assist you in efficiency of reading:
- I have lived in Kuringai LGA my entire life, including the at Lindfield address for the past 25 years
- I understand the TOD process, and have understood the Kuringai proposal for focusing density in some areas and not others
- All LGA's, including Kuringai should be supporting the chronic shortage of housing supply, and this development appears to tastefully and respectfully go towards meeting that moral committment
- The bulk and scale is sensible in this instance, as the longest boundary borders Lindfield Avenue and across from it the Train Line, therefore seeks to minimise impact on surrounds
- The solar access appears to have been carefully thought out such that neighbouring properties (including mine) will have minimal solar impact (I note I have only seen winter solstice diagrams - I couldn't see the summer solstice ones, but working on the basis that it will be better than the winter angles). The impact appears primarily between 1-2pm, and is otherwise allowing solar access
- On the basis of my solar access comments, I am supportive of the proposed height
- The setback minimums appear to be compliant and reasonable, and I encourage those to continue to be honoured in the DA
- Vehicular access is of potential concern on Woodside avenue, which could create further bottlenecks, but if appropriately done, then ok. Perhaps consider having dual access from both Woodside Ave and Reid Street.
- The proposed relocation of the speed hump is sensible, and will be more practical for the buses that turn right at the roundabout into Woodside from Lindfield Ave
- My principal comment, which would be consistent with all new developments in recent times, is to ensure that the building has architectural features and is aesthetically beautiful, and in keeping with the general aesthetic of the area. Too often, there have been instances of developments that put up rectangular boxes with minimal design aesthetic, that end up looking dated very soon after completion. Provided that something visually beautiful and uniquely "Lindfield" in character can be created, then I am supportive of proceeding.
- Further to my comments on being consistent with Lindfield character, I strongly encourage the landscaping and gardening elements of the DA to be upheld to the highest standards. In particular this specific area of Lindfield (Woodside, Blenheim, Nelson, Lindfield Ave, and surrounding streets) are the natural mature hedges that have long been planted and create a unique and beautiful visual for the area. I would strongly encourage Hedges and greenery to be incorporated into the garden landscaping around the perimeter of the property, which would both provide privacy for the proposed development residents, but also maintain the green nature of the surrounding streets. This would be a good compromise between the bulk of the building (generally at height), while maintaining an otherwise neutral impact at street level view.
I am happy to be contacted should the need arise, and I support this development.

The plan is ill considered. The impact to traffic in the small streets has not been thought through. There are 3 places to turn right on to the Highway between Lindfield and Gorden. Sometimes the queue is 20 mins long of a morning. Adding 84 dwellings and 131 car spaces will negatively impact the traffic flow and amenities. Combined with the proposed Woodside avenue development of 89 dwellings and 127 car spaces, plus the Tryon Road development of 84 dwellings and 131 car spaces - adds 389 more cars within 600meters. Add to that the 220 dwellings and 174 car paces proposed for Valley Road - we have 756 new cars introduced to an 800m radius. Approximately 1192++ people will be added - without any infrastructure to support that.
Tree removal will cause loss of habitat for native birds and pollinators. With 9 stories of development shade will be cast across natural vegetation further impacting the habitats of wildlife, including plants and birds, negatively impacting the delicate ecosystem. For a government that is so concerned about climate change , this seems to go against all the rhetoric. High density housing doesn't fix social issues, it creates them. The proposed development adjoins Heritage areas and there as been no consideration as to the impact of this.
The Public School is already overflowing and incredibly difficult to drop off students and the afterschool care is difficult to get in to. There needs to be a plan - rather than hodgepodge development proposals. Please show some leadership. Look into which Councilors will benefit financially from these proposals.

To the NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure,

I am writing to object to the current State Significant Development Application for Residential Development with In-Fill Affordable Housing at 2–8 Highgate Road, Lindfield (SSDA Reference: SUB-84849502).

While I support appropriate development near transport infrastructure, this proposal is poorly conceived and demonstrates little regard for the surrounding community or established planning frameworks. Specifically:
• The proposed tower grossly exceeds both the Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) guidelines and Ku-Ring-Gai Council’s height controls. It introduces no transitional scale, instead overshadowing adjacent low-rise residential homes with an abrupt and dominant built form.
• The development appears to be rushed through to exploit state-level planning pathways without meaningful consideration of local context, character, or cumulative impact.
• The scale and bulk should be concentrated near the railway line, in line with sound planning principles, and step down in height towards surrounding houses — not the reverse.
• A reasonable benchmark already exists in the Harris Farm building, which should be considered the maximum allowable height at this site. Any proposal should match or remain below this level and reduce in bulk away from the rail corridor.

I do not oppose development of this site in principle. However, the current proposal is clearly driven by developer profit rather than planning merit. It fails to reflect any thoughtful urban design or integration with its surroundings. This is not how we should deliver increased housing — affordable or otherwise — in established neighbourhoods.

I strongly urge the Department to reject the proposal in its current form and require a redesign that reflects appropriate scale, respects local planning controls, and enhances the character of Lindfield rather than undermining it.