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

The intersection of Woodside Avenue and Lindfield Avenue is already heavily congested and it is already a nightmare at the best of times driving down Woodside Avenue and Lindfield Avenue and trying to turn right onto the Pacific Highway. This project, in conjunction with the proposed project at 2-4 Woodside Avenue and 1-3 Reid Street, will add over 170 new dwellings at the intersection of Woodside Avenue and Lindfield Avenue - exacerbating the existing congestion and causing that intersection to be dangerous for drivers and pedestrians. In addition, the development of 9 storey apartment blocks at the site will destroy the neighbourhood character and streetscape. It is inconsistent with the existing development - the proposed apartment block will be much taller than the one across the road at 5-7 Woodside Avenue.

Dear Sir/Madam,

As a resident of Woodside Avenue Lindfield and significantly affected by the proposed development, I am writing to formally object to the proposed State Significant Development (SSD-78493518) at 2–8 Highgate Road, Lindfield. The application for a Residential Flat Building with in-fill affordable housing is, in my view, ill-conceived and inadequately planned. It does not align with existing planning guidelines, disregards the character of the local area, and fails to consider current infrastructure capacity or the feedback of the local community.

Below are the primary areas of concern:

1. Traffic Congestion and Insufficient Parking
Our community is already experiencing severe traffic congestion and limited on-street parking. The proposed development includes 84 new dwellings, primarily suited for families due to the absence of one-bedroom units. According to the 2021 Census, the average number of vehicles per household in the area is 1.8, with over 55.1% of households owning two or more vehicles. This suggests a potential increase of approximately 151 vehicles (84 x 1.8), exacerbating traffic on already-congested roads such as Lindfield Avenue, Woodside Avenue, Balfour Street, and Havilah Road.

The current parking allocation of 113 residential spaces is inadequate, potentially displacing 38 vehicles onto local streets, further straining on-street parking. Residents frequently report illegal parking blocking driveways and creating safety hazards. Streets such as Highgate Road, Reid Street, Woodside Ave and Kenilworth Road already experience pressure from limited parking availability.

The Traffic and Parking Assessment Report provided is brief, lacks detailed explanation, and contains factual errors—for example, repeated references to a non-existent "Lindfield Road." The traffic survey data is based on a few hours on a Thursday and fails to account for weekend and lunchtime peaks. The conclusion that peak hour traffic will only increase by 28 vehicles per hour (vph) in the morning and 20 vph in the evening, up from 5.4 and 6.2 vph respectively, is not adequately supported. A 300–500% increase in vph should not be considered negligible without further evidence. A comprehensive, multi-day traffic survey is essential before proceeding with any approval.

Additionally, the proposed relocation of a speed hump 30 metres northwest along Woodside Avenue undermines its current function, ie, slowing vehicles entering Lindfield Avenue, a critical pedestrian zone near schools. This compromises safety and encourages speeding through a residential area. The development should instead shift its driveway access to Highgate Road, reducing pressure on the roundabout and major thoroughfares, and maintaining the safety intent of existing traffic-calming measures.

2. Incompatible Transition Between Housing Densities
The surrounding area consists primarily of single-family homes and low-rise apartments with generous setbacks and significant tree cover. These features contribute to the character and livability of Lindfield. The proposed Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of 3.25:1 is more than double the 1.8:1 recommended in Ku-ring-gai Council’s Alternative Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Plan.

Introducing such density without corresponding investment in infrastructure will lead to overcrowding, noise, overstretched public services, reduced green space, and weakened community cohesion. The likely influx of families will place additional pressure on local schools, many of which are already at capacity.

High-density development, when not carefully integrated, also tends to produce higher pollution, noise, urban heat, and social fragmentation. Proper planning and gradual density transitions are essential to preserve neighbourhood amenity.

3. Excessive Building Heights
The proposed 9-storey (30.3m) development is grossly out of scale with the surrounding 1–2 storey dwellings. This abrupt approximate 22m height disparity imposes several problems:

● Overshadowing of adjacent properties (residences along Highgate Road, Woodside Avenue, and Reid Street)
● Loss of privacy for nearby homes and gardens
● Reduced sunlight and diminished residential amenity
● Visual dominance and erosion of the area’s character

Such vertical intrusion undermines the visual cohesion and human scale of the neighbourhood. A maximum height of 4–5 storeys would provide a more appropriate and respectful interface with the existing built environment.

4. Inadequate Setbacks and Inconsistent Documentation
According to the architectural plans, ground-level setbacks on the western side of the site are listed as 6 metres, while accompanying reports inconsistently cite 9 metres. Such discrepancies raise serious concerns about the accuracy and reliability of the submission materials. Minimal setbacks for a structure of this scale are visually disruptive and out of character with
neighbouring properties. A minimum 12-metre setback should be required to maintain consistency with existing developments and protect residential amenity.

5. Proximity to Heritage Conservation Areas
The proposed development is located adjacent to heritage-listed homes and conservation streetscapes. Introducing a high-density, multi-residential building in such close proximity threatens to:

● Undermine the visual cohesion and historic character of the area.
● Cast shadows over private gardens and living spaces.
● Reduce resident privacy through overlooking.
● Increase noise, traffic, and parking pressure.
● Eliminate buffer zones vital to preserving heritage values.

Protecting heritage areas requires careful planning and transition zones. This proposal fails to deliver either.

6. Environmental Impacts and Loss of Tree Canopy
The project poses significant environmental risks:
● Loss of green space and mature trees reduces biodiversity and contributes to the urban heat island effect.
● Increased hard surfaces lead to greater runoff, flooding risk, and water pollution.
● The cumulative impact of density, traffic, and vegetation loss will diminish air quality and public health.

New developments should integrate green infrastructure such as rooftop gardens, permeable surfaces, and tree preservation strategies. Developers must be held accountable for replacing lost trees with suitable native species and maintaining tree canopy targets.

7. Concerns About Developer Capacity and Community Engagement
There is a growing concern within the local community about the recent influx of SSD proposals the past few months, nine in Ku-ring-gai alone, five of which are from the developer CPDM. While I support the need for increased housing, it must not come at the expense of quality, safety, or community engagement.

CPDM's handling of this development has been deeply concerning. Communication was opaque; the initial brochure contained no information (deliberately omitted) about the developer, architect, or planners. The community consultation was superficial and poorly conducted, with representatives (Michael Gee from CPDM) unable to answer basic questions and unfamiliar with their own design or the proposed development. Documentation uploaded to the planning portal was incomplete, riddled with errors, and included outdated maps and generic imagery from the internet.

Such conduct does not inspire public confidence. A development of this scale, with a reported project cost exceeding $80 million, demands professionalism, transparency, and respect for local residents. The apparent lack of due diligence raises serious doubts about the developer’s capability to execute a high-quality, compliant project.

The pattern of error-ridden submissions and superficial engagement is alarming. If a developer cannot deliver a clear and accurate application, how can residents trust them to build responsibly? The risk of future structural or compliance issues, similar to those experienced in developments like Opal Tower (Sydney Olympic Park), is too high to ignore.

Recommendation and Conclusion
In light of the above concerns, I respectfully request that the Department:

● Reject the current proposal in its present form
● Reconsider this proposal to be inline with Ku-ring-gai Council’s TOD Alternative Plan, which accommodates 24,500 new dwellings—well above the State’s 22,580 target—through responsible and community-sensitive planning

Specific Recommendations:
1. Reduce building height from 9 storeys to a maximum of 4–5 storeys
2. Reduce FSR from 3.25:1 to 1.8:1 in line with the Council’s TOD Alternative plan
3. Increase setbacks to a minimum of 12 metres from all site boundaries, consistent with neighbouring developments.
4. Relocate vehicle access to Highgate Road to alleviate congestion and safety risks on Lindfield and Woodside Avenues
5. Reassess the Traffic and Parking Report through a multi-day survey to better capture actual conditions.

These adjustments would create a more balanced and contextual development that supports future growth without compromising community character and quality of life.

Thank you for considering this submission. I trust the Department will uphold its commitment to responsible, inclusive, and place-sensitive planning.

Yours sincerely,
Resident of Lindfield
23 May 2025

Submission: Objection to 2–8 Highgate Road, Lindfield (SSD-78493518)
To whom it may concern,
I have lived in Lindfield for over 15 years and reside within 500m of the proposed development at 2–8 Highgate Road, Lindfield. I am writing to object to the development application SSD-78493518 as my family and I will be impacted by this proposal. My concerns are as follows:
5. Design Quality The building is visually inconsistent with the surrounding area, and lacks architectural merit in comparison to the surrounding houses and other nearby developments. It is an unappealing, towering block located directly opposite 1-2 storey homes that will destroy the cohesive streetscape of the area and suburb.
6. Built Form and Urban Design The building mass is too large and out of step with the surrounding residential properties. The transition across a narrow street to 1-2 stories homes from a 9 storey building with almost no setback is totally inappropriate.
7. Environmental Amenity The development adds disproportionate density and would negatively impact nearby homes on Reid Street, Kenilworth and Highgate Roads through loss of sunlight, overshadowing of homes and gardens and given the scale and height at 9 storeys it will directly face into private homes.
8. Visual Impact This Highgate site represents a significant increase in scale that is completely out of step with the surrounding built environment. It will be an overbearing structure that will be an eyesore for its height and bulk even in the context of a suburb that is evolving toward more four to six storey developments.
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.
10. Noise and Vibration Noise from construction and post-construction traffic will affect nearby residents, including families and children. This will disrupt daily life for at least 2 years given the depth of development required to build a 9 storey apartment. There are dozens of homes and hundreds of people who will be impacted by heavy noise during the day which will impact work from home capability.
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.
14. Trees and Landscaping Tree removal is again a concern, with too little emphasis on retaining or replacing local canopy. This will negatively impact the green character of the suburb and shade for the local community.
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 is located near heritage conservation areas and homes. The scale of the development would be visually jarring against significant heritage streetscapes and will overshadow and dominate 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 resident of Lindfield for over 15 years and having raised 3 children in the area, I request that the Highgate development not be approved in its current form. I am supportive of increasing housing, but this needs to be achieved in a coherent, planned manner that respects the overall character of the area and not by permitting the construction of isolated developments in arbitrary locations, whose scale, height and bulk are completely inconsistent with the character and streetscape of the suburb.
Ku Ring Gai Council is at an advanced stage of finalizing amendments to the NSW Government’s TOD scheme. These amendments have been developed with community consultation and will deliver on the NSW Government’s housing targets while also aiming to preserve the character, amenity and livability of Lindfield for current and future residents.
I urge the Department to reduce the scale, height and bulk of the Highgate development to at least comply with KRG Council’s TOD amendments. This would ensure the development meets good planning principles of being properly integrated into a coherent planning framework for the entire council area, rather than stand out as a towering behemoth.
Recommendation
The Highgate development should be 4-6 storeys at most and have appropriate transition to properties that are only 1-2 stories across Highgate road. The lower height and density would also help alleviate many of the above mentioned issues being:
• Traffic congestion and flow
• Parking on nearby narrow streets.
• Flood risk
• Tree loss or damage
• Environmental heritage impact given this is so close to a heritage conservation area
The Department should reduce the scale, height and bulk of the Highgate development to at least comply with KRG Council’s TOD amendments to ensure the development meets good planning principles of being properly integrated into a coherent planning framework for the entire council area.

Thank you for considering my submission.
Su Lin Ho
17 Balfour Street, Lindfield, NSW 2070

As a resident of Lindfield I object Development SSD-84877210 for a number of reasons
1. Private development of flats does not meet the definition of 'State Significant Development' and therefore should not be 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
6. There is significant profiteering through rezoned properties selling for double what would otherwise be achieved and the property developers - a portion of this profit needs to be taxed or withheld by state or local councils in order that the reduced amenity to remaining residents is partially balanced out, such as increasing green space or improving public transportation. Allowing unfettered super-profits to be made by a small few at the loss to many is inherently unfair and undemocratic

Will cause further overloading of services including local schools as well as medical and other health services.
Infrastructure is inadequate already without further stress on roads, electricity, water, parking for commuters.
Will destroy the heritage value of this special place.

26th May 2025

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

I would like to submit my objection to the current proposal being for 2-8 Highgate Road, Lindfield, Application Number: SSD-78493518 for 9 storeys 84 dwellings and 131 car parking spaces.

I have resided in the Lindfield area for the past 28 years and have witnessed many changes over this timeframe, most of them to the benefit to the community and it’s growth and development.

I am personally familiar with the many streets and the character of Lindfield, using car parks, I’ve done drop offs at various schools, caught public transport, visited local shops, chatted to business owners and residents, so I do have a complete understanding of the area and it’s diversity. The objection here is the size and the scope of the development that will impact the neighbourhood where developers and filtering structures into local communities.

Some brief points that I would like to bring to your attention: -

• Street parking – This proposed complex has 23, 2 bedroom units, 58, 3 bedroom units, 1, 4 bedroom unit and only 131 car spaces allocated. I expect there will be an overflow of cars parking along Highgate, Reid, Woodside and Blenheim as it is already near full capacity Monday to Friday with commuter parking (see further detail below).
• I disagree that the proposed unit complex as stated is “sensitive to the surrounds and responds to the local character of the Lindfield”. At 9 storeys, it does not fit into the local landscape.
• There is an ever increasing traffic flow problem with traffic flow especially around the area at peak times in the a.m. and p.m. peaks in Lindfield Avenue, Havilah Road intersections, photos of which I have attached.

Under the SEAR’s requirements I note the following -

4. Consultation and Engagement
There was a basic flyer delivered to some residents. On the day it was delivered, the website was not operational for a short period and the two drop in sessions only on one day occurred on 4 March 2025. Bad luck if you were on holidays, working or in hospital. In fact, chatting to several of my neighbours, it is noted that they did not receive any flyers from the developer regarding the proposed project.

7. Environmental Amenity
Homes in neighboring streets of Reid, Highgate and Woodside in particular their visual privacy and view loss will be diminished with the height and scope of 9 storeys’ constructions.

8. Visual Impact Assessment
Two of the points referenced, (4) and (20) were behind buildings and were not at all relevant. There is a visual impact, it’s 9 storeys. I will see it from my verandah. I would note that visual impact is not “minor to moderate”. Reference should be made to the two developments, side by side as to scale of the whole block’s development, ie. 2-8 Highgate, 1-3 Reid / 2-4 Woodside.

9. Transport
So during the construction phase of approximately 2 years, residents near the construction phase, wishing to travel north, south, east or west will be inconvenienced bearing in mind also the proposed development planned for 1-3 Reid and 2-4 Woodside.

I also did notice that an article today in the newspapers that the T1 North Shore Train Line, that 1 in 5 trains, 20% did not arrive on time for 2024-2025.

11. Noise and Vibration
I would suggest that there will be an impact of noise and vibration to local residents. When the new Coles facility and units were built on Pacific Highway, you could hear all the construction activity from this site. Given the fact that this development would be, what 200 metres closer (as the crow flies) I suggest it would be quite significant.

14. Trees and Landscaping
The proposal is for the removal of 8 established trees to be replaced (6 moderate, 2 insignificant) by 50 new tree plantings. 17 canopy trees, 15 new feature and garden scale and 18 trees planted in landscape areas. I would suggest that some of them are shrubs and easy to grow plants. The magnificent greenery and tree canopy that also obscures residents from the noise of the railway line.

18. Social Impact Assessment
I would question the negative value on houses that sit opposite these developments and the impact on house prices.

In a brief, it states that the architects CPDM were provided with the design brief that a residential flat building development that was sensitive to the surrounds and responds to the local character of Lindfield. Considering, the homes surrounding this proposed complex are over 100 years old, federation or Californian style, sandstone pillars with ornate balconies and beautifully constructed craftsmanship, I doubt whether it actually fits into the local character of the suburb with 9 storeys towering over single storey dwellings, not to mention the loss of the skyline and the westerly aspect of the homes in the immediate area. What about our homes’ view of the skyline, sunsets and our open space?

23. Public Space
On the plans the open space area is at ground level and on level 8 of the complex.

There are no parks within 400 metres of the proposed development, with some of those grounds not suitable for groups and free space, being ovals for sports or bush walking tracks. There are no parks suitable for relaxation, barbeques, bike riding within 400 metres. The parks in the immediate vicinity are:

1. Lindfield Solders Memorial Park, a distance from the proposed development of 1.6km;
2. Regimental Park, a distance from the proposed development of 1.8km;
3. Queen Elizabeth Reserve a distance from the proposed development of 2.4km;
4. Roseville Park a distance from the proposed development of 1.7km;
5. Seven Little Australians (Bushwalk) a distance from the proposed development of 1.0km;
6. Swain Gardens a distance from the proposed development of 1.0km;
7. Killara Park, a distance from the proposed development of 1.8km;
8. Lindfield Village Green, a distance from the proposed development 500m;
9. Ibbitson Park, the size of a postage stamp, a distance of 1.1km;
10. Millwood Park, 1.1km;
11. Two Turners Reserve 1.5km.

With some of the parks closed at various times for upgrading, flooding and ground closures.

Traffic and Parking
I would suggest that the Ku-ring-gai DCP parking rates have been used to guide the provision of car share spaces will be inadequate. Parking along Woodside, Highgate and Reid Roads Monday to Friday is horrific, I have attached several photos of cars in these streets. Excess cars will then park in the streets, further exacerbating traffic issues. A traffic study was done on one day, Thursday 27th February 2025 which I should consider inaccurate as every day is different when people work from home on some days and not others.

Traffic has been accessed at 20 vehicles per hour in the p.m. and 28 vehicles per hour the a.m. I would suggest that this has been under assessed and wrongly adopted. With the cumulative effect of all the proposed developments in the region, coupled with the hundred of extra vehicles in peak times, traffic around Lindfield would turn even more into a carpark of frustrated motorists. See photos attached of Lindfield Avenue in the a.m. at school drop off times. Local residents avoid the area at such time, like myself or go the long way around to leave the area.

With the size of the proposed complex and the adjourning developments, I find it difficult to understand that “all required parking will be provided on-site such that there is no impact on street parking” is an actual untrue statement having personally experienced parking frustrations in my street.

Cumulative Impact of Assessment Projects
There were at the time of CPDM formulating their reports, they included 5 sites being assessed. By the time I did my response, excluding 2-8 Highgate which has 84 apartments just in Lindfield there were currently 10 as listed below at various stages on EIS, Exhibition, Response to Submissions or Submissions:-

1. 2-4 Woodside & 1-3 Reid Street Lindfield, 89 apartments;
2. 27-29 Tryon Road Lindfield, 62 apartments ;
3. 12-16 Bent Street Lindfield, 115 apartments ;
4. 59-63 Trafalgar Avenue, 1A and 1B Valley Road Lindfield, 220 apartments;
5. 9-21 Beaconsfield Road Lindfield, 377 apartments;
6. 1-5 Nelson Road Lindfield, 200 apartments;
7. 11-19 Middle Harbour Road Lindfield, 210 apartments;
8. 16-20 Middle Harbour Road Lindfield, 100 apartments ;
9. 24, 26, 28 Middle Harbour Road Lindfield ? apartments;
10. 19-25 Balfour Road Lindfield, 98 apartments.

With all these developments proposed at their current sizes, how does the suburb cope with the increased activity at the scale currently being proposed?

The Site and Surround Context
I find it disappointing that the photos used were from Google Source as stated in their reports. It would have been more realistic for the developers to inspect the sites, so as to know exactly the type of area it is and what they are actually proposing as they seem to not have an understanding of the layout of the area and/or it’s impact on the scale that they proposed.

Stormwater Drainage Inadequate
We had in recent years, two deluges of rainfall, mainly on 22nd February 2022 and 8th March 2022. Flooding happened in all the streets along Highgate and Woodside. I would suggest that the stormwater situation needs to be reviewed and is inadequate and that the Woodside stormwater needs to be looked at.

I hope you find some of my observations useful and research useful.

Kind regards

pdf attached

Re: Residential Development with In-Fill Affordable Housing at

2-8 Highgate Road, Lindfield - SSD-78493518

Lindfield is our community, and it has been our life and in our family for over 100 years, and where my father and his siblings were born and my grandfather settled after his service in World War 1.

As long-term residents of Lindfield, we feel compelled to voice our strong opposition to the proposed changes in development plans for this area. It is with great distress that we observe the increasing push towards large-scale developments that threaten to erase the very character that makes this area so unique.

The abundant and leafy tree canopy, the sense of community, and the overall neighbourhood are all at risk of being permanently damaged. We firmly believe that these developments will not only disrupt the lives of existing residents but will also lead to the irreversible loss of the green spaces and tree canopy that have taken generations to cultivate.

While we acknowledge the need for additional housing, we are deeply troubled by the developments proposed for this area. These plans appear to have been put forward without genuine care or consideration for their fit with the existing community or the environment. It is clear that the primary motivation behind these proposals is not to provide thoughtful, affordable housing, but to maximise financial gain for developers—regardless of the lasting damage they may cause.

The development at 2-8 Highgate Road does not comply with the guidelines set by Premier Minns. To ensure integrity in the planning process, it is critical that developers are held to the guidelines set out under existing regulations. The proposed development application at 2 – 8 Highgate Road openly acknowledges that it does not comply with the height limit—reaching 30.3 metres, which is 1.7 metres (5.94%) above what is permitted under Sections 155(2) and 18(2) of the State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP).

This State Significant Development (SSD) directly contradicts the Strategic Environmental Assessment Report (SEAR 8), which emphasises the importance of protecting visual amenity for surrounding properties. Our home will face these units, and the development will significantly disrupt our outlook. Allowing this to proceed would disregard the clear intent of SEAR 8.

In seeking approval for this non-compliance, the developer relies on a Clause 4.6 variation request under Section 15A of Division 1, Part 2 of the Housing SEPP, which is intended to support the delivery of infill affordable housing. While the developer claims their proposal aligns with this objective, they fail to demonstrate why the affordable housing component cannot be delivered within the existing height limits. If developers are allowed to exceed clearly defined regulations without sufficient justification, it undermines the purpose of planning controls and erodes community trust. Adherence to SEPP guidelines must be enforced.

In addition, one of the core justifications for the TOD program is that the precincts identified are centred around train stations, operating on the assumption that new residents will rely primarily on public transport, thus minimising traffic impacts. In relation to the Strategic Environmental Assessment Report (SEAR 9), this assumption is fundamentally flawed—particularly in the context of the North Shore Line, where trains are already overcrowded during peak periods, even without industrial action or service disruptions. According to Transport for NSW’s own 2024 data, North Shore trains carry an average of 156,900 passengers each weekday, excluding school holidays—clearly indicating that the network is already under significant strain.

Setting aside the critical issue of rail capacity, increased residential density from this development will inevitably lead to greater road congestion and heightened pedestrian safety risks in surrounding streets. It is imperative that development plans account for the actual capacity of public infrastructure, rather than relying on assumptions that ignore the lived realities of the existing community.

The proposed development—along with its sister project on the same corner—will significantly worsen safety risks and traffic congestion in an already dangerous area. School-aged children living in these developments will be zoned for Lindfield Public School and Lindfield Learning Village, requiring them to cross the already hazardous intersection at peak times. Parents driving children to these schools will add further pressure to congested routes, including Lindfield Avenue, Havilah Road, and the Pacific Highway.

The traffic assumptions used in the developer’s report are misleading and based on broad TFNSW state-wide figures for high-density areas with high public transport access, ignoring critical local factors: the prevalence of car-reliant professionals, overcrowded trains at peak hours, and the catchment zone for Lindfield Learning Village, which will increase traffic across key intersections. It is highly likely the true traffic impact will far exceed what the developer has projected as they are already log jammed

Furthermore, this nine-storey proposal is substantially larger than the six-storey limit originally outlined by Premier Minns in December 2023. To protect public safety and preserve liveability, this development must be scaled back, traffic impact must be reassessed with realistic assumptions, and school zoning should be reviewed.

We urge you to take these concerns seriously and to review the development plans. It is essential that reason, community needs, and public safety are prioritised before any approval is granted. The future of our neighbourhood—and the wellbeing of those who live in it—depend on decisions made now. This development must not proceed without genuine consideration of its long-term impact on residents, traffic, safety, and the character of our community.

Sincerely,

Harold Stephen Goldring

Re: Residential Development with In-Fill Affordable Housing at

2-8 Highgate Road, Lindfield - SSD-78493518


To whom it may concern,

As a deeply concerned long-term resident of the Ku-ring-gai area, I feel compelled to voice my strong opposition to the proposed changes in development plans. I have proudly called Kenilworth Road my home for the past 20 years, and I have lived in this community for most of my life. It is with great distress that I observe the increasing push towards large-scale developments that threaten to erase the very character that makes this area so special.

The natural environment, the established sense of community, and the unique charm of our neighbourhood are all at risk of being permanently damaged. I firmly believe that these developments will not only disrupt the lives of existing residents but will also lead to the irreversible loss of the green spaces and tree canopy that have taken generations to cultivate.

The proposed changes must be reconsidered with greater respect for the community’s values and the ecological integrity of our surroundings. The future of Ku-ring-gai should not be dictated by short-term development goals but by a long-term commitment to sustainability, heritage, and liveability.

While I acknowledge the need for additional housing, I am deeply troubled by the developments proposed for this area. These plans appear to have been put forward without genuine care or consideration for the existing community or the environment. It is clear that the primary motivation behind these proposals is not to provide thoughtful, affordable housing, but to maximise financial gain for developers—regardless of the lasting damage they may cause.

What was once presented as a plan to support affordable living has now shifted into an aggressive pursuit of profit, with submissions that blatantly disregard the established character of our suburb. The designs are completely out of step with the area’s identity and threaten to overwhelm a low-density, family-oriented neighbourhood with high-density developments that offer no real benefit to those who already live here.

This shift in intent is unacceptable. Our community should not bear the cost of unchecked development driven by financial self-interest. It is imperative that any future planning prioritises the wellbeing of residents and the preservation of the environment we so deeply value.

I find it deeply troubling that the proposed development at 2-8 Highgate Road openly acknowledges its non-compliance with height restrictions—reaching 30.3 metres, which is

1.7 metres (or 5.94%) above the limit set by Sections 155(2) and 18(2) of the State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP). The developer’s justification for this breach relies on a Clause 4.6 variation request under the Housing SEPP, claiming the objective of providing infill affordable housing is met. However, they fail to explain why this housing cannot be delivered within the generous height allowances already provided. It appears that the variation is less about meeting community needs and more about pushing the boundaries for higher returns.

The developer refers to this 6% increase as a “modest” variation, but this additional 1.7 metres—effectively an entire extra floor—represents a 20% uplift beyond the already generous SEPP provisions for affordable housing. This cannot reasonably be described as modest. It raises serious concerns about compliance and respect for the local planning framework. The proposal shows little regard for the character and harmony of the surrounding residential environment, which, according to established planning principles, should be a core consideration. Residents deserve developments that respect the scale and nature of our neighbourhood—not ones that exploit policy intended to support low- and moderate-income housing for commercial gain.

This proposed development will overwhelm the immediate area and permanently disrupt the skyline for neighbouring streets. If approved, this building—along with its proposed sister development—will be the only structures in the vicinity to tower above the long-established, mature trees that define the character of the neighbourhood. Such a stark and imposing presence is entirely out of step with the existing streetscape and will irreversibly alter the natural and visual harmony of the area. This State Significant Development (SSD) is in direct conflict with the Strategic Environmental Assessment Report (SEAR 8), which clearly prioritises the protection of visual amenity for surrounding properties. My home will directly overlook these units, and the impact on my outlook will be immediate and substantial. Approving this development in its current form would not only disregard the clear objectives of SEAR 8, but it would also show a blatant disregard for the wellbeing and quality of life of existing residents.

The proposed increase in building height result in significant and unacceptable impacts on visual privacy, outlook, and neighbourhood character. This additional height will enable greater overlooking into surrounding properties, infringing on residents' right to privacy. It will also obstruct or dominate the existing leafy views, including from my home on Kenilworth Road, where tall, established trees currently define the landscape. The bulk and scale of the development will visually overpower the area, yet the developer’s submission downplays this by focusing only on the sections that technically breach the height limit—conveniently ignoring the broader visual consequences of the added storey and its unreported impacts.

The proposed development and its adjacent development will significantly increase traffic congestion and pedestrian safety risks at an already dangerous intersection. Additional traffic, combined with reduced visibility due to the development’s scale and location, will further compromise resident safety. The traffic reports prepared have relied on broad state-wide assumptions that ignore local realities, such as car-dependent residents,

overcrowded trains, and school catchment patterns that increase cross-highway travel. The projected traffic impact is likely underestimated. Moreover, the nine-storey height far exceeds the six-storey limit announced by Premier Minns in December 2023. To ensure public safety and community wellbeing, this development must be scaled back, traffic modelling reassessed with accurate local data, and school zoning reconsidered.

Finally, while it appears that developers have made multiple submissions for the development of this area it is imperative that they comply with the SEPP regulations. Allowing this development to exceed the 28.6-metre height restriction would not only break trust with the community but also set a dangerous precedent for future non-compliant developments. This must NOT be permitted.

Sincerely,

Please see the attached document noting my objections.

I am a long-term resident of Woodside Avenue, Lindfield, and I write to lodge my strong and formal objection to the proposed high-rise development at 2-8 Highgate Road.

While I recognise Sydney’s pressing need for additional housing and support well-planned, community-sensitive developments, this particular proposal is neither thoughtful nor appropriate for the character and infrastructure of our neighbourhood. It poses significant environmental, social, and livability issues for current residents and the broader Lindfield community.

Key Objections:
1. Traffic Congestion and Flawed Traffic Study:
The surrounding road network — including Lindfield Avenue, Woodside Avenue, Highgate Road and Havilah Road — already suffers from heavy congestion, particularly during school drop-off and pick-up hours and peak commuter times.
The traffic study submitted by the developer is deeply flawed:
* It appears to have been conducted during unrepresentative times that understate actual traffic conditions.
* It only assesses the Woodside Ave and Highgate Road intersection in isolation and fails to consider cumulative impacts on adjacent streets or intersections.
This lack of comprehensive analysis renders the study unreliable and calls into question the development’s feasibility from a traffic planning perspective.
2. Inadequate Parking Provision:
Parking availability in the area is already severely constrained. Streets such as Highgate Road, Woodside Avenue, and Blenheim Road are consistently full during weekdays, with vehicles frequently blocking residential driveways — including my own.
The proposed development would add 84 new dwellings, likely bringing 150+ new residents and their vehicles, yet the parking provisions fall far short, especially for 2- and 3-bedroom apartments. This will lead to further illegal parking, increased traffic conflicts, and serious safety issues.
3. Excessive Building Height and Visual Impact: The proposed height of nine storeys (~30 metres) far exceeds the permissible limits under the current Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) framework — even accounting for the 30% allowance under affordable housing provisions.
Such a structure will:
* Overshadow existing homes, including mine, significantly reducing access to sunlight and natural ventilation.
* Invade the privacy of residents with high balcony sightlines overlooking private spaces.
* Visually dominate the streetscape in a way that is completely out of character with the surrounding low-rise suburb.
4. Insufficient Setbacks and Streetscape Incompatibility: The proposed development only has setbacks of 6m on most sides - clearly inadequate for a building of this height and size. This defies the design principles meant to maintain visual harmony and transitions between public and private spaces. It shows a blatant disregard for the architectural character of Lindfield.
5. Flood Risk and Infrastructure Pressure:
Woodside Avenue already experiences regular flooding during heavy rainfall as seen recently in the May 2025 weather events. The stormwater infrastructure is insufficient for current loads, and the proposed development offers no credible solution to mitigate further stress on the system. Increased impermeable surfaces will only worsen flood risk and create downstream impacts.

In summary, the proposed development is excessive in scale, inadequate in planning, and irresponsible in terms of infrastructure impact. It jeopardises the safety, amenity, and character of our neighbourhood. I urge the relevant planning authorities to reject this proposal and require the developer to submit a more modest, better-integrated, and community-conscious plan.

I am against the provision of high rise (9 stories) blocks across the narrow street outside. I have lived here since 1977 having bought to have rapid access to the intensive care unit at Royal North Shore Hospital for forty plus years and had a fortunate career where I was a ministerial adviser and President of the World federation of critical Care and received many other awards including the Order of Australia. My family was raised in this house and there were many overseas lecturers and workers who stayed with us. At present there are four adults live here and we have three motorcars.
I receive somewhat confusing information about the nature of the development but I am very concerned about the noise and the safety of the build particularly with respect to the water in the block which can be heard and be smelt in Woodside Ave between the railway and Highgate. The height of the development is very intimidating. The increased population and vehicles will increase the traffic which is jamming frequently now. The streets are narrow and Woodside Avenue is a bus route which needs very careful passing in opposite directions. It is hard for people to get into the medical practices in the area where many doctors do not accept new patients. Bendigo is the only bank. We need to go to either Chatswood or Gordon to bank. The trains at rush hours and school days over are quite frightening for older people as there is little standing room and concern when entering or leaving.
I have loved living in this suburb and as some of my friends are leaving and I wish to continue in my retirement in helping my neighbours I am disappointed in my last years.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. We wish to stay in our home and our community.

Please see my submission attached for consideration.

While having a general objection to the Project (impact of the development on the local community, its character, and local traffic congestion), my submission relates specifically to the adequacy of the stormwater system in the immediate area to the south of the proposed development. Having lived in the immediate area for nearly 40 years, I have observed several instances of major water flows accumulating at or near the junctions of Woodside Avenue, Highgate Road and Lindfield Avenue during intense rain events.

By way of recent example, in 8 March 2022 there was a severe weather event resulting in flooding in Woodside particularly impacting the garage under the flats on corner of Woodside Avenue & Lindfield Avenue opposite the proposed vehicle entry to the proposed development. The water level was such that a vehicle in the garage was written off by the relevant insurer. Demonstrably, the capacity of the local stormwater drainage infrastructure was inadequate in this recent event. I note that the proposed development has its entrance to underground parking adjacent to the area where the accumulation of stormwater has been shown to be unable to quickly dissipate due to the inadequacy of the local drainage infrastructure. The risk of underground parking being flooded appears real.

The Enviromental Impact Statement refers to the development as being safe from significant overland flooding at an annual probability of less than one percent. The "one in a hundred years" criteria may well have been relevant decades ago, but it implicitly assumes no climatic change. As rainfall intensity is projected to increase with atmospheric heating (7% more moisture can be held in the atmosphere for every one degree of atmospheric heating) this inadequacy can only increase. What assumptions are made about changing climate?

Also, the proposed development (and adjacent proposed developments) with loss of vegetation and soil coverage is only likely to increase runoff and thereby increase overland water flow.

Please see the attached letter.

I object to the project (as per the attached submission) on the basis of:
5. Inappropriate Design Quality to local environment and closeby Heritage Conservation Area
6. Built Form & Urban Design - the scale and bulk of the development is inappropriate to locality and there is inadequate transition to Heritage Conservation Area.
7. Environmental Amenity: the development's impact to local area will be severe and out of scale.
8. Visual Impact: the development will severely impact the current locality urban scape.
9. Transport: the Traffic & Parking Assessment Report provided is inadequate & does not deal with local congestion & parking issues.
14. Trees & Landscaping: development has little deep soil planting & very small setbacks, with clearly no intention to maintain any trees within site boundaries, and therefore not relate to the existing landscaping in the area.
19. Flood Risk: current stormwater system is overwhelmed in high rainfall conditions & has little capacity to cope with additional demands of this development's scale.
22. Environmental Heritage: this 9 storey development is inconsistent with the local Heritage Conservation Area.
23. Public Space: there is insufficient public space within the development & not a lot of public space, particularly for children, close by.

I have read the SEAR relating to the SSD.
I a real resident who has lived in Blenheim road for 15 years I know the impacts that the submission will do to my family.
The high rise will directly look over my back yard completely destroying any privacy for my family and rendering my backyard in entertainment or worse by many unit dwellers.
The traffic impact assessments should be completed before any approval
As should the infrastructure assessments.
Takes two trains to pass before I can get on to the city at the moment.
Takes 9 min to travel 800m to pacific highway at the moment
Flooding 4 times a year due to storm water issues
Electricity blackout ave 1 per year for average ice over 24hrs
Children have almost been run over twice in the last two years
I am in HCA and yet we can have an 11 story building opposite me. That makes a mockery of the ‘maintaining aesthetic of the area’

Please find attached submission for the 1-8 Highgate Road, Lindfield development

Submission Objecting to State Significant Development (SSD-78493518)
2-8 Highgate Road, Lindfield NSW 2070

To the NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure (DPHI),
I strongly object to the proposed development at 2-8 Highgate Road, Lindfield (SSD-78493518) on the grounds listed below:
I note that an adjacent development proposal at 1-3 Reid St & 2-4 Woodside Ave, Lindfield (SSD-79261463) has been submitted by the same developer. My concurrent submitted objection to that proposal follows similar grounds, given their adjacency.

1. Built Form and Massing; Residential Amenity; and Environmental Amenity
• Overbearing Scale: The proposed 9-storey building is grossly incompatible and out of scale with the low-density, single-storey residential character of the adjoining neighbourhood, including the Blenheim HCA nearby. The bulk and height (30.3m) will dominate the streetscape, creating visual intrusion and loss of amenity for surrounding properties.
• Non-Compliant Height:
o The height of the development at 30.3m is 1.7m above the maximum allowable height of 28.6m (inclusive of 30% affordable housing bonus)
• Non-Compliant Setbacks:
o Ground-level setbacks (6m) are insufficient to mitigate the building’s imposing bulk and scale. These setbacks are not even uniformly 6m with encroachments (e.g., mechanical risers) undermining compliance (Figure 32 of EIS).
o Upper-level setbacks (Levels 4–5) do not universally achieve the required 9m, particularly along the northern edge (Figure 34 of EIS), exacerbating overshadowing and bulk impacts.
• Solar Access Non-Compliance:
o 19% of apartments (16 units) receive no solar access to living spaces during mid-winter (EIS Section 6.2.3), exceeding the Apartment Design Guide (ADG) 15% threshold.
o Adjacent development (SSD-78493518 at 2-8 Highgate Road) create a cumulative "canyon effect," with insufficient solar access and cross-ventilation
o Western-facing units will suffer poor cross-ventilation and solar access due to proximity to adjacent developments (SSD-79261463 and SSD-78493518), breaching Apartment Design Guide (ADG) criteria.
• Cumulative Overshadowing: The EIS fails to assess the likely significant combined overshadowing impact from this development and the adjacent SSD-79261463 at 1–3 Reid Street & 2–4 Woodside Avenue, violating DPHI’s Cumulative Impact Guidelines.
• Visual Impact:
o The Visual Impact Assessment (Appendix R) only evaluates public viewpoints, ignoring impacts from private properties.
o As a personal example, from our own residence, we will experience negative visual impact with the western skyline and mature tree canopy from our front yard eliminated by an intrusive 9-storey wall.

2. Geotechnical and Flood Risks
• Inadequate Stormwater Assessment:
o The geotechnical assessment in the EIS is inadequate, conducted with superficial testing.
o The EIS dismisses flood risks despite an underground creek beneath the site. A 10.5m-deep 2-storey basement risks destabilising groundwater flows and exacerbating local flooding.
• Flood History Ignored: The EIS relies on theoretical models, ignoring real-world incidents. We residents regularly observe flooding during heavy rain, yet mitigation measures (e.g., OSD tank) lack detail.
o Flooding along Woodside Avenue is a well-documented and recurring issue. As a local resident who uses Woodside Avenue daily, I have first-hand experience of the street’s flood vulnerability.
o As an example, on 8 March 2022, flash flooding damaged property and irreparably destroyed at least one parked vehicle in the south side of Woodside Ave directly opposite the proposed development.
o To give an indication of the extent of flooding risk across the vicinity, flooding also often occurs during heavy rain further up Woodside Ave, further eastward up to Blenheim Rd and Nelson Rd intersections.

3. Overburdened Services and Infrastructure
• Traffic Gridlock and Pedestrian Safety:
o The Traffic Assessment (Appendix U) uses state-wide averages, ignoring local traffic contexts eg school-related traffic from various schools in the vicinity (Lindfield Public, Lindfield East Public, Lindfield Learning Village, Reddam) on top of commercial/retail traffic frequenting the Lindfield commercial centre, and commuter traffic making way to commuter parking at Lindfield train station.
o The intersection modelling is misleading, only assessing Lindfield Avenue and Woodside Avenue, while in reality the traffic situation is a tight four-way intersection including Havilah Road and Balfour Street. This Lindfield Ave-Woodside-Havilah-Balfour intersection is already severely congested during peak hours.
o That same intersection area has no marked pedestrian crossings (closest is the traffic light ~250m away on Lindfield Ave at the train station), already creating safety concerns for current foot traffic. My children must navigate this hazard on their daily walking commute to the station on way to school – several times they have been at risk of accident. Safety concerns will escalate multi-fold with increased pedestrian and vehicle traffic from higher density housing.
o I and my family walk and/or drive this intersection several times a day, so have first-hand knowledge of these traffic gridlock and pedestrian safety issues in this vicinity.
o The planned vehicular access to the development site from Woodside Avenue will only worsen existing congestion and compromise pedestrian safety further.
• Public Transport Deficiencies: Public transport justification is overstated. The T1 North Shore Line (of which Lindfield is a part) has recently been reported as Sydney’s least punctual train line over the last 5 years (SMH, 15 May 2025). Reliance on public transport for TOD compliance is unrealistic.
• Power Outages: Frequent local electricity failures (e.g., multi-day outages in 2023–2024) highlight inadequate infrastructure capacity for the large number of new dwellings.
• Lack of Green Space:
o No parks exist within 400m walking distance of the development site, contradicting TOD principles of walkable communities.
o The closest parks with adequate facility for adult and children recreation are at Lindfield Oval in East Lindfield, Bertie Oldfield in Killara, or Roseville Park, all greater than 1.6km walking distance from the development site.
o Again, we have personally experienced the challenge of lacking walkable green space in the area, having active children ourselves.

5. Heritage Impacts
• Blenheim Heritage Conservation Area (HCA):
o Blenheim HCA is unique in having a very tight heritage context.
o Under Ku-ring-gai council’s proposed TOD alternative, it will exist as a small-area HCA trapped within TOD boundaries.
o As such, it will be like a “low-density island” surrounded by high-rise TOD development to its south-west and mid-rise non-TOD development to its north-east.
o The development’s bulk, scale and proximity to the Blenheim HCA will significantly erode this tight heritage context.
o The EIS also dismisses cumulative impacts, violating Clause 5.10 of KLEP 2015.

6. Flawed Cumulative Impact Assessment
• The cumulative impact assessment is flawed, and hence understated combined traffic, amenity, and services/infrastructure strain
• It has not included the impacts of all relevant development in the area, such as:
o key nearby SSDs (e.g. SSD at Nelson Rd SSD, 3x SSDs at Middle Harbour Rd)
o other non-SSD developments within the same TOD area, which are inevitable.

7. Inadequate Community Consultation
• Engagement was limited to flyers, a website, and two sessions at a senior citizens’ centre. Many affected residents (e.g., my Blenheim Rd HCA neighbours) were not aware and notified.
• The Feedback Summary (Appendix D) misrepresents wider community sentiment by omitting or downplaying widespread concerns about mass & bulk, loss of amenity, infrastructure & service strain, destruction of heritage context, cumulative impacts of broader development
• The vast majority of my fellow residents have consistently expressed their grave concerns on these matters.

8. Misrepresentation of TOD Eligibility
• TOD Boundary Discrepancy:
o The site’s inclusion wholly in the TOD area is questionable.
o Measuring 400m walking distance from Lindfield Station’s ticket office, only the southeast corner (Woodside/Highgate intersection) OR midpoint of Lindfield Ave boundary (the limit of 2 Woodside Ave block) qualifies. (see Figures 1 & 2 below)
o Under these measurements, Blocks 4–8 Highgate Road and 1–3 Reid Street lie outside the TOD boundary and should not fall under TOD planning.
Figure 1: 400m distance
Figure 2: 400m alternative

To summarise, the proposal fails to comply with strategic, statutory, and community expectations. I urge DPHI to:
1. Reject the application in its current form.
2. Require revised designs that respect the surrounding lower-density and heritage context, mitigate flood risks, address infrastructure & services strain, and properly factor in cumulative impacts.
3. Reassess TOD eligibility using accurate 400m walking distances.

Nine storeys is ridiculous for this area. The impacts on not only the character of the area but also puts infrastructure under strain and reduces the value of many surrounding properties due to the reduced privacy. This reduction in value is unfair and residents have had no say in this decision and are unlikely to be compensated. Hundreds of thousands of dollars lost means negative impacts on lifestyle and retirement for many. This proposal should not be allowed.