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

Whilst not opposed to development I have the following specific concerns with the proposed development: (i) The 9 story proposal is totally out of keeping with the surrounding area including the nearby Blenheim HCA. It will dwarf recent apartment development and should be more aligned to the previous 5 storey developments in Woodside avenue(ii)inadequate consideration has been given to the design and appropriate set backs to ensure the visual impact of the development is reasonable (iii)insufficient thought has been given to the local infrastructure and its ability to support the significant additional dwellings. Roads and parking are already congested, there has been an increase in accidents already over the past year and without adequate planning this will get worse potentially impacting pedestrians. Local infrastructure including water is in keeping with the heritage houses in the district - in a number of cases it is over 100 years old. It needs to be updated and a plan developed PRIOR to approving these overbearing developments.

I object to the density and bulk of this 9 storey project due to huge overshadowing of surrounding houses. So many beautiful heritage homes may be surrounded and engulfed by proposed high rise apartment blocks. There are already a number of unfilled units in the suburb and more are not needed while these stay vacant. 84 more families will need parking for themselves and visitors, More spaces in schools and churches for their children. The roads are already clogged with parking at a premium around the station/shopping area. More concrete sealed surfaces will lead to more flooding of the streets and houses around the numerous creeks in this area which double as funnels for stormwater run off. Please reconsider the size and nature of this project, Thank you

Please refer to my submission in the attachment "Submission - 2-8 Highgate Road"

Please see attached submission on behalf of myself and Rowena.

Lindfield Ave as a main through road to get to the highway, community shopping hub and public space is not equipped to deal with greater traffic that higher density housing so close to main intersections that have been struggling to manage the increase of traffic from the Harris Farm Apartment was built. As the closest safe entrance to the northbound, the intersection between Lindfield Ave & Havilah Rd sees a significant amount of traffic that backs up across the Reid St and Woodside Ave. An increase in population density will only exacerbate this problem that has not been addressed as a major factor in transport (Public and Personal) going past Havilah Rd. An increase in housing density at this point fails to address the reality of commuter parking that exists on Havliah, Woodside and Reid Street as roads become almost one way with commuter cars filling in the streets. With housing unlikely to cope with multi-car households or their guests cars that fill up to Blenheim will likely fill up to Nelson, increasing the risk of driving on suburban roads. Higher density housing will also make entering Lindfield Ave from the aforementioned roads more dangerous. With existing blindspots and busy traffic the roads aren't exactly safe. With no way to properly ensure that taller developments allow the margin to see at these particular corners there isn't a way to make sure that our community remains safe driving on these roads.

I live at 39 Treatts Road, Lindfield. Treatts Road is part of the Blenheim Road Heritage Conservation Area in the immediate vicinity of this development application. I have lived at this address for 11.5 years during which time I have commuted into the city for work hence using the transport system. I have witnessed the development of Lindfield during the time I have lived there, including the redevelopment of the village centre and the increasing density of living. This development has brought with it significant traffic congestion and danger to pedestrians.
I object to the specific development application lodged for 2-8 Highgate Road due to the following reasons, the numbering used corresponds with the SEAR’s Issue and Assessment Requirements:

6. Built Form & Urban Design
SEPP (housing) 2021requires good design of appropriate build form for a site.
This development plan in terms of bulk and scale does not fit the context of the area which is comprised predominantly of low-rise housing. The height and bulk exceed the apartment block on the south side of Woodside Road, opposite the proposed development. Additionally, there is insufficient tree canopy being maintained to protect the privacy of surrounding residents.
The current streetscape is one of a significant tree canopy which is not retained under the development.
The current design exceeds the allowable height limits. At this height the building will be above any tree canopy and therefore detrimental to the environmental amenity.

7. Environmental Amenity
From our property the 9 storey building will be clearly visible. We currently have a view of the tree canopy and a pleasing outlook from our house. The removal of 30 trees, including 9 significant trees contribute to the poor environmental amenity.

8. Visual Impact
As mentioned previously, the visual impact will be significant and will severely detract from the current vista of current residents. The bulk of the development along with the Reid Street SSD is significantly in excess of any other building in the surrounding area. It will impact views of surrounding properties and impinge on the privacy of neighbouring properties.

9. Transport
Parking
The development allows for 131 car spaces of which 113 of which are available for residents, representing 1.3 car spaces per apartments. Using the 2021 census, 60% of Ku-ring-gai residents own 2 or more vehicles and 36% own 1, on that basis, there will be insufficient parking within the development resulting in an additional 17 vehicles being parked on a small suburban road.
The south side of Highgate Road, where the development is proposed, is already subject daily to commuter parking. This will therefore likely result in increased parking up Highgate Road increasing congestion and causing hazards for local families.
The traffic impact in the DA has not taken into account the impact of the adjacent DA for Reid Street.

Traffic Impact
This development will increase the volume of traffic on the local roads. The Social Impact Assessment (SIA) report notes that 75% of Lindfield resident’s drive to work and that residents were concerned about the increased traffic. There are already there are significant traffic issues in the following areas:
Havilah Road and Pacific Highway
Havilah Road and Lindfield Avenue

Photo taken from Havilah Road looking at traffic on Lindfield Ave and traffic trying to onto Pacific Highway from Havilah Road
Tryon Road and Archbold Road
Woodside Road and Lindfield Avenue


Photo taken of the roundabout at Woodside Road and Li9ndfield Avenue
Strickland Avenue and Pacific Highway
Lindfield Village
The DA also fails to take account of the cumulative impact of the numerous SSD’s, including the developer’s own, in the Lindfield area.

11. Water Management
Woodside Road is subject to frequent flooding. In 2022, the apartments opposite the proposed development were subjected to severe flooding resulting in the write off of vehicles. Climate change is leading to greater significant rainfall events. The area currently has insufficient stormwater management facilities. It is inappropriate to add a development of this size to the area.
In addition, the removal of tree canopy and other vegetation will increase the level of run off exacerbating the situation.

14. Trees and Landscaping
There are 30 trees proposed to be removed, including 9 of 13 significant trees. The tree canopy is part of the visual make up of the area and of significant environmental importance. There is no evidence of opportunities to preserve the significant trees nor is there any evidence of tree root mapping.

19. Flood Risk
See 11 above

22. Environmental Heritage
The development is adjacent to a Heritage Conservation Zone which contains 11 heritage listed property. The development is contrary to the context of the area. The size and bulk will dominate the HCA and impair the outlook of heritage property.

23. Public Space
State Government give the adequacy of a distance of 400m to a public recreational space. There are no recreational facilities with sufficient facilities within this distance. Local parks are a minimum of 1.6km away. This would signify that the development

o whom it may concern, I have many concerns, primarily is the excessive height of these 2 developments. This one & SSD-79261463. Appreciate to get as many apartments as possible to make it financially viable to the detriment of the area. The affordable housing component are poor design. The design is not sympathetic to the area, ie no where is the level of the train line running along the site come into question, let alone set backs & deep soil for trees. Concerned for already established trees alongside Woodside Road, & the 7 on the 2 sites. I as a resident will be facing this building which will block my sunsets & leafy aspect, which my backyard will be exposed to & will affect my privacy. Currently the traffic, particularly durning peak hours & weekends, traffic is excessive, already with constant road rage, horns blaring ... this impacts local residents. Also many commuters park in Highgate, Reid, Woodside, so given the number of units in these 2 developments & carspaces, these sites will take up more street parking & adversely affect local residents not being able to park to use public transport. Sewerage ... is already at capacity, I know this as Sydney Water is regularly dealing with sewerage, & storm water, been to my property countless times. Electricity also is not reliable as we experience many blackouts, some for days. I object to the size, immensity of this project.

I am writing to formally object to the proposed high-density housing development on Highgate Road. While I understand the need for increased housing in the area, the scale and design of this development present significant concerns that I believe are not in the public interest and are inconsistent with sustainable planning principles.

1. Excessive Density and Bulk
The proposed development introduces an excessive concentration of housing units within a relatively small footprint. The minimal setbacks from residential roads and adjacent development, the boxy and bulky design without design elements that soften its brutalist anaesthetic is incompatible with the surrounding heritage area and garden character. The scale and bulk of the buildings will overwhelm the existing streetscape and alter the visual harmony of the neighbourhood, resulting in a permanent loss of the area's unique charm and devalues the neighbourhood.

2. Destruction of Local Heritage
Highgate Road is an area with a rich historical character and architectural heritage. The proposed development threatens to erode this legacy, replacing heritage elements with modern constructions that do not reflect or respect the historical narrative of the area. Once this character is lost, it cannot be restored. Preserving the heritage of our community should be a central consideration in any planning decision.

3. Insufficient Infrastructure and Road Development
The current infrastructure on and around Highgate Road is not equipped to handle the significant increase in population that this development would bring. Lindfield Ave is single lane each direction with significant choke points at Havilah and Balfour corner and Strickland. Traffic is already near standstill at peak times, so is Pacific highway, the main artillery of the upper north shore. The proposed development fails to address how the increased traffic will be addressed. Without significant upgrades, this development will only exacerbate existing problems.

4. Poor Aesthetic Integration
The design of the proposed buildings is incongruous with the established architectural style of the neighbourhood. The aesthetic proposed is modern, brutal and utilitarian, lacking the nuanced detailing and scale that characterise local homes and public buildings. This visual disconnect will contribute to a sense of disjointedness and detract from the community's identity.

5. Environmental Impact – Loss of Trees and Shade
The proposed development entails the removal of mature trees that currently provide essential shade, habitat for local wildlife, and contribute to the area's visual appeal and environmental health. The loss of these trees not only diminishes the natural beauty of the neighbourhood but also undermines efforts to combat the urban heat island effect and improve air quality.

For the reasons outlined above, I respectfully request the application to be refused. I urge further revisions to address set backs, aesthetic, greenery and density concerns.

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, 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.
Tamara Jones
17 Balfour Street, Lindfield, NSW 2070

I am writing to formally object to the proposed State Significant Development SSD-78493518 at 2-8 Highgate Road, Lindfield.

I have lived in Lindfield and Killara for over 50 years so I have a deep understanding and intimate knowledge of all the streets and houses in the area. I currently live approximately 100 metres from the proposed development and walk/drive past this site EVERY DAY for the last 4 years. I have seen the changes over time, with exponential changes in the last couple of years, have deep intimate knowledge and can objectively provide insights as to the negative impact of this proposed development, and the adjoining proposed development (SSD-79261463) has.

My concerns relate to the following key areas in the SEARS document:

5. Design Quality – The design of this development is not in character with the street or the area. The proposed development sits within the “Heart of Lindfield Estate”, which is part of Lindfield's rich history, dating back to the late 19th century. The “Heart of Lindfield Estate” was established in 1893, with its boundaries including Nelson Rd, Blenheim Rd, Wolseley Rd, Treatts Rd, Kenilworth Rd, Woodside Ave, and Lindfield Ave. The estate remains a key part of Lindfield’s historical and residential landscape with a key notable feature of early Federation and Californian Bungalow style homes and the highest proportion of Heritage homes in Ku-ring-gai within the Blenheim Heritage Conservation Area. Further to these Federation and Californian Bungalow style homes, Lindfield is also known to be one of the most extensive historically significant intact interwar housing areas in New South Wales with many interwar houses built between 1918 and 1942.

The design is not in keeping with the existing architecture and not sympathetic to the feel and character of the area.

6. Built Form & Urban Design – The height, bulk, scale, setbacks, and articulation are NOT appropriate for the site and close vicinity to Blenheim Road Conservation Area - C27 (KLEP (LC) 2012) Blenheim Road Heritage Conservation Area, a heritage-listed precinct known for its Federation Queen Anne and Inter-war style housing. It holds historical and aesthetic significance, featuring mature street tree plantings and listed heritage items. This area represents an intact portion of the 1911 Heart of Lindfield subdivision, reflecting the suburb’s early development.

The proposed development’s location poses a serious threat to the integrity of the Blenheim Heritage Conservation Area and the 11 listed Heritage Items located less than 100 metres away.

The sheer size and bulk of this proposed development in this area will have a significant negative impact both from public spaces and from nearby homes like mine. The development has minimal setbacks, include the removal of 9 mature trees and the canopy it provides, and exceeds height restrictions by over 1.7m.

7. Visual Impact – The proposed development will create excessive visual bulk amongst R2 zoning. Our sightlines will be negatively impacted, losing the tree canopy views. My children’s bedrooms will be looking out onto this development.

10. Transport Concerns & Community Infrastructure Strain & Public Safety – Lindfield has a high concentration of schools within 1km from Lindfield centre (Lindfield Public School, Holy Family Catholic School, Chromehurst School, Reddam, Highfields and Lindfield Learning Village, as well as 3 major supermarkets and a commuter parking station that is full before 7am. Traffic is always at a standstill with many out of area Kuringgai residents driving to Lindfield to drop or pick up their children from school (with exception of Lindfield Public School and Lindfield Learning Village, the others are private), doing their shopping or commuting from Lindfield Station. Kuringgai’s own Councillor, Sam Ngai, made a recent social media comment that “Havilah Road really sucks” highlights the worsening traffic problems at the Lindfield Ave/Woodside Rd junction, the location of the proposed development. This particular junction is always at a standstill with many cars trying to cross over the Pacific Highway. The vehicular access to the proposed development is on Woodside Ave, near Lindfield Ave/Woodside Rd junction. This is one of the worst streets in Lindfield with many cars trying to either access the Lindfield centre shops or cross over or on to Pacific Highway. The unusual give way to the cars turning off from Pacific Highway and turning right onto Lindfield Ave often causes confusion and accident near misses I see on a daily basis. Traffic reports provided from planners will not see the first hand problems current residents face on a daily basis and the nuanced risk this junction causes which are unable to be seen on a map. There has been no local community consultation on this intersection which will bear the burden of the increased number of pedestrians and cars from this development.

The recent re-zoning of the high school catchment area means that residents on the east side of the Pacific Highway need to cross over to the west side of the Highway to take their children to school. If the children are to walk to school or bike to school, there is significant safety concerns with them being able to do so. 2 of my 3 children walk to the station Monday to Friday and have been almost hit countless times. With the already narrow (and non-compliant) footpaths up to Lindfield Station, pedestrians risk will only exacerabate with the increase in density and number of cars that accompanies this proposed development. The problems are not just isolated to M-F commuters/school children commutes. The same problems exist on a weekend with even more traffic coming in from out of area residents. Assuming that the new residents use public transport to commute to work, the very same problems still exist on the weekends when they are out on the roads in their cars.

The closest park to the development is over 1.5km away. Lindfield is lacking open green spaces.

Inadequate Community Consultation – There has been a lack of inclusive community consultation, underrepresenting the concerns of all residents. The single letterbox drop flyer was provided in English only, excluding non-English speakers and those with culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) backgrounds. Lindfield, and indeed Kurringgai, has a large proportion of non-English speaking residents, majority of Chinese background. Lindfield East Public School and Lindfield Public School have translated information at the front gate of their schools knowing that a large proportion of the school community are Chinese only speakers. The developer's flyer was only delivered to the houses within 100 metres of the development (many residents relayed that they did not receive, or received too late) and provided 2 drop in sessions but on the same day, severely restricting the opportunity for many of the community to attend. The website given to residents to provide "feedback" was limited and did not allow for meaningful engagement. There was no further contact from the developer to the community prior to the developer submitting their application addressing the concerns raised at the drop-in session.

I respectfully urge DPHI to reject the application in its current form.

Please find attached my submission.
Thank you for taking the time to consider my concerns and reasons for objection.

My family of 4 have lived at our Lindfield address since 2009. As a family of 4 adults we use the trains, roads and local facilities extensively. This proposal is incompatible with both the current and emerging planning framework in Lindfield. It disregards key SEARs obligations in relation to design integrity, transition, traffic impacts and heritage and environmental sensitivity.

The proposal fails to demonstrate “good design” as required by SEARs. There is poorly located communal open space, including a rooftop area that will result in adverse acoustic and privacy impacts on adjacent properties - outcomes that also contradict the applicant’s own planning consultant's advice.

There is also a lack of proximity to public open space, with no high-amenity public park within the recommended 400m walkable catchment, placing greater burden on site design to deliver usable and equitable amenity.

The proposed development is grossly inconsistent with its context in terms of scale, massing, and transition. In detail, I have the following concerns:
- Excessive bulk and height relative to surrounding development (including the Blenheim Road Conservation Area) and future potential development under Council’s preferred planning scenario, which was adopted following extensive community consultation and endorsed on 22 May 2025.
- Poor communal open space placement, with shaded side setbacks and rooftop locations that compromise both user amenity and neighbouring privacy.
- Inadequate transition in height from the proposed 9-storey building to the adjacent low-rise residential properties and Heritage Conservation Area (Blenheim Road), exacerbating visual intrusion and diminishing local character.

The proposal ignores serious and repeated concerns raised by local residents regarding congestion, safety, and parking pressure on Highgate Road and connecting streets. The traffic on the roads around the station and in the vicinity of our home has been increasing even without this additional development. Commuters often park in our street. In fact, in their hurry to secure parking we have twice had cars collide with our front gates which required significant repair.


The site is located adjacent to a Heritage Conservation Area and contains multiple “important” trees, nine of which are proposed for removal. The proposal makes no meaningful attempt to design around these trees. The resulting impact on the local canopy and character of the Heritage Conservation Area is unacceptable.

I urge the Department to reject SSD-78493518 in its current form and give appropriate weight to Council’s endorsed alternative planning controls and the legitimate concerns of the community.

We have made our home in Lindfield since 2009, and as a family of four adults, we are deeply engaged with the local area — relying daily on its public transport, roads, and shared community assets. Over that time, we have witnessed both the strengths and pressures of local infrastructure. It is clear to us that this development proposal is at odds with both the current planning controls and the broader direction for Lindfield’s future. It overlooks fundamental planning obligations relating to design integrity, appropriate transitions, traffic impact, and the sensitive environmental and heritage context of the site.

In particular, the proposal does not satisfy the SEARs requirement for “good design.” The communal open space has been poorly located, most notably with rooftop areas that will unavoidably cause acoustic and visual privacy impacts for neighbouring properties. These effects contradict advice cited from the proponent’s own planning consultant, who previously cautioned against rooftop open space for precisely these reasons.

The design’s deficiencies are further compounded by the absence of high-quality public parkland within the 400-metre walkable catchment. This makes the standard of on-site amenity even more important, yet the proposed communal spaces are shaded, constrained, and exposed to overlooking — failing to provide equitable or usable outcomes.

The proposal also lacks appropriate contextual alignment in terms of scale, form, and transition. In detail:
• The built form is significantly out of proportion with nearby development, including the Blenheim Road Heritage Conservation Area, and is incompatible with future development under Ku-ring-gai Council’s adopted planning controls (endorsed 22 May 2025 following community consultation).
• The placement of communal open space — both on the rooftop and in shaded side setbacks — undermines usability and causes privacy issues for neighbours and between adjoining developments.
• There is no adequate transition in height between the proposed 9-storey building and adjacent low-rise residential lots, resulting in visual intrusion and erosion of established local character.

The proposal also disregards long-standing concerns from local residents regarding traffic and parking pressure. Highgate Road and surrounding streets are already experiencing significant congestion, with many commuters opting to park on residential roads, including ours. We have personally experienced damage to our front boundary on two occasions as a direct result of rushed, careless parking.

The site directly abuts a Heritage Conservation Area and contains numerous established trees, including nine identified as “important.” These are now proposed for removal, with no apparent effort to preserve or work around them. This will lead to an unacceptable reduction in local canopy cover and will diminish the green character of the conservation precinct.

In light of the above, I respectfully urge the Department to reject SSD-78493518 in its current form. The proposal is inconsistent with endorsed local planning strategy and fails to respond meaningfully to community feedback or planning expectations. It should not proceed without substantial revision.

Re: Residential Development with In-Fill Affordable Housing at
2-8 Highgate Road, Lindfield - SSD-78493518

28th May 2025
To whom it may concern,
As someone who has called the Ku-ring-gai area home for most of my life, I feel a deep responsibility to express my firm opposition to the proposed development changes. Having lived on Kenilworth Road for the past two decades, I have developed a strong connection to this community. It is incredibly disheartening to witness the growing momentum behind large-scale developments that threaten to strip away the unique identity of our neighbourhood.
The natural beauty, strong community spirit, and distinct character that define our area are all under serious threat. I am convinced that these developments will not only disrupt the daily lives of long-standing residents but will also result in the permanent destruction of the green spaces and tree canopy that have been nurtured over generations.
While I understand the demand for more housing, I am profoundly concerned by the development plans being proposed for our area. These proposals seem to have been made with little regard for the current residents or the natural surroundings. It is apparent that the true aim is not to create well-planned, affordable housing options, but rather to maximise profits for developers—regardless of the long-term harm to our community.
I am extremely concerned by the proposed development at 2–8 Highgate Road, particularly due to its clear and acknowledged breach of height regulations. The proposed building stands at 30.3 metres—1.7 metres, or 5.94%, above the permitted limit under Sections 155(2) and 18(2) of the State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP). The developer seeks approval for this breach via a Clause 4.6 variation under the Housing SEPP, arguing it still meets the goals of providing infill affordable housing. However, they offer no justification as to why such housing cannot be achieved within the height constraints. It seems evident that this variation is less about delivering community-focused outcomes and more about profits.
Describing the 6% increase as a “modest” variation is highly misleading. An extra 1.7 metres effectively means an additional floor—resulting in a 20% increase beyond the given allowances for affordable housing under SEPP. Such an increase is not insignificant; it raises serious questions about planning integrity and the willingness to uphold the local planning framework. This proposal shows minimal consideration for the established character and scale of the neighbourhood, which should be a key principle in any planning decision. Residents deserve development that complements our community—not projects that exploit policies designed to assist low- and middle-income families for private gain.
The development would dominate the local skyline and disrupt the visual landscape of nearby streets permanently. If approved, this building—and its proposed twin neighbour —would be the only structures in the area to rise well above the established tree canopy that defines our neighbourhood’s character. Their height and bulk would be completely inconsistent with the existing streetscape and would create a jarring, oversized presence. This proposal also stands in direct contradiction to SEAR 8, which prioritises the protection of visual amenity for surrounding homes. From my own property, the change to my view would be immediate and profound. Approving the current plan would not only defy SEAR 8’s objectives but would also undermine the wellbeing and quality of life of those already living here.
Furthermore, the proposed height increase poses unacceptable consequences for privacy, outlook, and the overall character of the neighbourhood. Taller buildings will introduce more opportunities for overlooking adjacent homes, directly compromising the privacy of nearby residents. In areas like Kenilworth Road—where mature trees currently define the view—these developments will block or overshadow the existing green outlook. The scale and massing will visually dominate the streetscape. The developer’s submission selectively focuses on the height non-compliance in isolation, while ignoring the broader visual impact of the additional storey on surrounding homes and streets.
In addition to its visual impacts, the development is likely to worsen local traffic and create new safety risks for pedestrians—particularly at an already hazardous intersection. The increased traffic load, combined with reduced visibility due to the building’s size and positioning, will place residents—especially children and older pedestrians—at increased risk. The traffic analysis provided in the application relies on generalised assumptions that overlook the local context, including car dependency, overcrowded trains, and cross-suburb travel patterns tied to local school zones. As such, the projected traffic impact is almost certainly understated. It’s also worth noting that the proposed nine-storey height significantly exceeds the six-storey limit announced by Premier Minns in December 2023. For the sake of public safety and community health, this development must be significantly scaled back, and a more accurate, locally-informed traffic study must be undertaken—along with a reassessment of school zoning boundaries.
Finally, it is critical that all development proposals remain compliant with SEPP guidelines. Allowing a development to exceed the 28.6-metre restriction would erode public trust in the planning process and set a dangerous precedent for future non-compliant projects. This cannot be allowed to happen.

Thank you,
Kenilworth Road resident

Please find attached my submission.

Subject: Objection to Development Proposal at 2–8 Highgate Road, Lindfield NSW

To Whom It May Concern,

I am writing as a concerned resident and member of the Lindfield community to formally object to the proposed development at 2–8 Highgate Road, Lindfield, NSW.

While I understand the need for considered growth and housing supply, this particular proposal raises serious concerns regarding traffic congestion, neighbourhood character, and long-term sustainability, which I urge the Council to address comprehensively before considering approval.

1. Significant Traffic Congestion
Highgate Road is already under considerable pressure during peak hours, with vehicles frequently backed up due to its narrow width and limited throughput. The proposed development would dramatically increase the number of vehicles using this road, exacerbating existing congestion. Local streets and intersections, including those connecting to the Pacific Highway, were not designed to handle this level of traffic and pose a growing safety risk, particularly for pedestrians and school children.

The area has seen a gradual increase in density, and the cumulative traffic impact of this and other nearby developments has not been adequately assessed. Without major infrastructure upgrades, approving this proposal would be irresponsible and detrimental to public safety and amenity.

2. Ruining Neighbourhood Character
Lindfield is prized for its suburban character, heritage homes, leafy streets, and low- to medium-density profile. The scale and design of the proposed development are entirely out of keeping with the established streetscape and architectural style of the neighbourhood. Introducing a high-density development in this location would fundamentally alter the character of the area, undermining the visual harmony and community identity that residents have built over decades.

This is not just about aesthetics—it's about preserving the social fabric and local heritage of Lindfield, which contributes directly to residents’ quality of life and the area’s long-term appeal.

3. Unsustainable Density
The current infrastructure—including roads, public transport, schools, and community services—is already operating near capacity. Introducing an intensive development at 2–8 Highgate Road will strain these systems further, creating bottlenecks in transport, schooling, and essential services.

The proposal appears to prioritise short-term yield over long-term sustainability. Thoughtful urban planning should not merely meet housing targets but also consider environmental sustainability, social cohesion, and livability. This proposal fails to strike that balance.

Conclusion
For the reasons outlined above, I strongly oppose the development application at 2–8 Highgate Road, Lindfield, and urge the Council to reject the proposal in its current form. I call on Council to advocate for developments that respect the existing community, enhance liveability, and address infrastructure limitations before adding more residential burden to the area.

Yours sincerely,
Cristy McAuliffe

I am a resident of Lindfield having lived on Treatts Road for 11 years. We moved to Treatts Road due to its location in the Blenheim Road Heritage Conservation Area. We spend a considerable amount of time walking in the local area.

I object to the SSD of 2-8 Highgate Road on the following points:

SEAR # 6. Built Form & Urban Design
The bulk and scale of the development does not fit the context of the area.
The SSD exceeds the height of any other building close by, and the bulk and form have not been sympathetically designed to blend in with the surrounding area, which is comprised of mainly low-rise housing with significant tree cover.
There will be a significant loss of privacy in the surrounding area.
The current design exceeds the allowable height limits. At this height the building will be above any tree canopy and therefore detrimental to the environmental amenity.

SEAR # 7. Environmental Amenity
The proposed development will be out of context with the surroundings as it is significantly higher than any surrounding buildings. The HCA area that is adjacent to the development contains 11 heritage listed properties whose outlook and value will be eroded by a building of this height and lack of sympathetic aesthetic.
Due to the size, this SSD will be visible form all surrounding properties, including our own. It will have a detrimental impact on the visual streetscape of the area.

SEAR # 9. Transport
Already in Lindfield there is significant congestion at the following junctions:
Havilah Road and Lindfield Avenue
Havilah Road and Pacific Highway
Lindfield Avenue and Woodside Road
Tryon Road and Archbold Road
Strickland Avenue and Pacific Highway
I have been involved and witnessed accidents and near misses with vehicles at each of these junctions. The increase in vehicle numbers brought by this and related SSD’s will lead to a significant increase in traffic which in turn will result in an increase in accidents for both pedestrians and drivers.
The developer’s own analysis is that 75% of drivers in the Ku-ring-gai area drive to work.
The SSD states that there will be minimal impact on traffic from the development. This fails to recognise the other SSD’s that have currently been submitted, including the developer’s own additional SSD for Reid Street and Woodside Road.

SEAR #14. Trees and Landscaping
Lindfield has significant vegetation and tree canopy, housing biodiversity. The removal of 30 trees, as proposed in the SSD, including 9 of 13 significant trees will have a major impact on the surrounding area including biodiversity, environmental heating and cooling as well as visual. The lack of mature vegetation being left in place surrounding the development will prevent the building blending into the area. For this I note the apartment block on the south side of Woodside Road. Here the apartment block is set well back from the road and surrounded by mature tree canopy.

SEAR # 22. Environmental Heritage
The development is adjacent to a Heritage Conservation Zone which contains 11 heritage listed property. The development is contrary to the context of the area. The size and bulk will dominate the HCA. The area also contains 13 significant trees, of which 9 will be removed as part of this proposed development, with no evidence of a plan to save nor a tree root analysis.

SSD-79261463 – 1-3 REID STREET AND 2-4 WOODSIDE AVENUE, LINDFIELD,
and:
SSD-78493518 – 2-8 HIGHGATE ROAD, LINDFIELD
I wish to formally request you assess the two SSD applications as a single application and then reject the above applications once finding they do not comply with current legislation.

Please see attached letter.

SSD 78493518

2-8 Highgate Rd Lindfield

My Name is Brian Harcourt of 18 Kenilworth Rd Lindfield.

I have lived here since 1999 and am only 120mtrs from the development site. I walk past this site every day and am familiar with the environment, the current traffic congestion, the topography, the flooding that occurs after very heavy rain, and can therefore foresee the negative impacts this development will have.

I object to the development on the grounds of the Design Quality, Build Form and Urban Design, Environmental Amenity, Visual impact and other risks.


Community Engagement

I live only 120mtrs from this proposed development and I have received no information from the developer although they claim to have sent me a flyer. I only learnt of their website from the Engagement Outcome Report on the NSW Government Planning Portal. One assumes there has been a deliberate process to limit feedback that could be negative.

Below is my feedback on the Strategic Environment Assessment Report and the failure to comply.


6 Built Form and Urban Design Set Backs

Set backs of 6 mtrs are inadequate and do not meet current regulations. You need to enforce the regulations.


7 Environmental Amenity Design Elements

The Eastern view of this property certainly lack design quality, it’s just walls of brick and glass, set backs are limited and feels like an ugly box..

7 Environmental Amenity Solar Access
The building to the west will get no light as it is blocked by this building. Page 13 of the Architectural Plans show the sun rising in the south and setting in the north. Totally misleading.


7 Environmental Amenity Tree Removal
The removal of 5 critical Category A trees is unacceptable and the risk to the 6 retained makes one feel it will end up as a treeless desert. The proposed planting cannot hope to soften the design because the setbacks of only 6 mtrs gives little chance for large trees to thrive.





8 Visual Impact Height

If the government specifies a height limit the developer should be subject to the height limit. What’s the point of having rules otherwise. Just because no on lives above the height limit is no reason to allow this breach. Planned Height is 28.6mtrs which exceeds the limit. For the developer to claim the height is exceeded due to the slope of the land is an absolute joke. Most building sites slope.

Also it will be very easy for people on the eastern side of this development to look directly into private yards of 2-8 Highgate road.

8 Visual Impact Transition

The height of the building is totally out of context with the eastern side of Highgate Rd which backs onto a Heritage Conservation Area.(HCA) The Eastern side of this development must be scaled down and stepped back on the east side. This provides a more cohesive transition into the HCA.

9 Traffic Congestion

The roundabout on Lindfield Avenue that is near the rail underpass is regularly congested with cars backing up significantly. This development will only exacerbate the already unacceptable traffic situation. The averages of the traffic Report hide the true extend of congestion as averages always do.

9 Car Parking

The number of Car parks in the development does not meet requirement as per the Government guidelines. Once again enforce your rules. The streets are already full with commuter parking so there will be nowhere for excess cars to park.



14 Trees and Landscaping Deep Soil

Proposed Deep soil area is 21.5% against a requirement of 30%. Enforce the rules.







19 Flood Risk

It is well known that a creek runs from Kenilworth Rd to Woodside Ave and has been built over and regularly floods house yards during heavy rain. There are significant stormwater drains which fail to cope on Kenilworth Rd during heavy rains. The house at 9 Kenilworth Rd is most prone to flooding, this flows downhill to the proposed site. One can also regularly smell sewerage after rain on the south side of No. 2 Woodside Ave.

Social Impact Assessment makes no mention of the significant negative impact on the value of houses close to the site at 2-8 Highgate Rd. Surely this is a negative impact.


Yours sincerely

Brian Harcourt