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

Please see submission,
With thanks,
Robert Cowley

I live at 39 Treatts Road and have done for 11 years. I am 18 years old and have grown up in Lindfield. I commute to school in Wahroonga daily, spending many hours walking past the proposed development area and using the public transport. I love living in Lindfield and the historical/heritage elements of the area are very special to me. In the fast-paced world of technology that we live in, it is important to cherish and protect history.

I object to the SSD of 2-8 Highgate Road. My submission is the same as put in for Reid Street and Woodside Road as the SSD is by the same developer and has the same impacts on the area. The following points that are the basis of my object relate to NSW State Government SEAR’s and are listed below:

SEAR #6. Built Form & Urban Design
The form and bulk of the development is contrary to the context of the area. The development is not sympathetic to the visual aesthetics of the area. See SEAR #22 for more details.

SEAR # 9. Transport
The reliability of trains has been poor in recent years. According to statistics released by the ABC, approx. 20% of trains on the T1 and T9 North Shore line have run on time. This pushes more cars onto the road.
There is already a lot of traffic congestion in Lindfield. Having had driving lessons in the area, I have firsthand experience of the congestion and aggression resulting from that congestion. The area is already dangerous for pedestrians and increasing traffic on the roads in the area will exacerbate. An amazing part of life in Lindfield is the ability to walk to the station and around the nearby streets. Making the area more dangerous will push more people into their cars, impacting resident’s ability to take fresh air and exercise and therefore reduce quality of life. For a young person, we are forever told to get off our phones and get outside. Building high rise developments such as this in a residential area will not help achieve this outcome.
My experience of the worst congestion is at the following intersections:
Havilah Road and Lindfield Avenue
Havilah Road and Pacific Highway
Lindfield Avenue and Woodside Road
The developers, in their SSD submission state that there will be minimal impact on traffic from the development. I don’t agree with this an make the observation that they have not looked at the cumulative impacts of the Reid /Woodside development and other SSD’s in the area.

SEAR # 14. Trees and Landscaping
As a teenager, I am concerned with the future of the environment. Other new developments approved by the NSW State Government have not ensured the retention of tree canopy and biodiversity. Studies have shown that this can result in much higher temperatures for an area. In a time of global warming, developments that involve cutting down significant vegetation should not be allowed. Developers need to be held to account to properly include deep soil and retention of existing trees. This SSD involves the removal of 30 trees, including 9 of 13 significant trees.
The developer has not complied with the SEAR requirements for tree root mapping and the goal of significant tree retention.
Removal of old growth trees and replacement is not good planning. Additionally, removing trees and vegetation will lead to increased water run off – see SEAR 11 & 19 below.

SEAR #11 & SEAR #19. Water Management & Flood
Stormwater drainage on Woodside Road cannot cope with the current dwelling numbers as the areas floods frequently with heavy rain. There are predicted to be more extreme weather events in the future due to global warming. Adding the high level of density proposed under the terms of the SSD will add to this water management issues in the area.

SEAR # 22. Environmental Heritage
The development is next to the Blenheim Road Heritage Conservation Zone which contains 11 heritage listed property. It is important that HCA’s are maintained throughout the state. Building 9 storey developments on the edge and overlooking an HCA is not protecting it. It completely changes the context of the area. In 20 years’ time, we will regret irrevocably damaging the historical building heritage of local residential areas. It is possible to build in a more sympathetic fashion – lower rise building such as 5-6 stories (evident on the south side of Woodside Road). The Woodside Road development has been done with good set back from the road and the retention of tree canopy.

I am a 19 year old and have grown up in Lindfield, having lived at 39 Treatts Road for 11 years. I commuted to school in the city for 6 years, spending many hours walking past the proposed development area and using the public transport. I also have used the local amenities such as sports fields and playgrounds over the last 11 years.

I object to the SSD of 2-8 Highgate Road. I am lodging the same submission for both this SSD and Reid Street and Woodside Road. The 2 should be considered together as they are substantively the same development, split merely to avoid certain SEAR requirements. My objections relate directly to NSW State Government SEAR’s that I think are important and relevant to my lived experience and are listed below:

SEAR #6. Built Form & Urban Design
The bulk and form of the development are total alien to the current area. Set-back from the road is insufficient, the number of storeys and bulk is out of keeping with the area aesthetic and will overpower the built landscape. The height exceeds anything in the surrounding area and exceeds the planning maximum height.
There is insufficient parking in the SSD, which will result in additional cars parked in narrow heritage streets. This in itself may lead to higher pedestrian issues and risks.

SEAR #11 Water Management
If have frequently experienced flooding on Woodside Road as a result of inadequate stormwater capacity. There is no inclusion in this SSD for upgrade/improvements. The high density of the development will put too much strain on an already failing system.

SEAR # 9. Transport
The developers traffic statistics are that in the Ku-ring-gai area, 75% of residents drive to work. Based on these statistics, there is no need to build this high-density apartment block close to an already overcrowded village centre.
Congestion in Lindfield is very high especially at peak hours in the morning and afternoons as well as at weekends. The cumulative impact of the additional cars from this development and 2-8 Highgate Road will add to the current issues and impact the liveability of the area.
Key traffic congestion issues occur at the following intersections:
Havilah Road and Lindfield Avenue
Havilah Road and Pacific Highway
Lindfield Avenue and Woodside Road
The unreliability of trains on the T1 and T9 North Shore line will also force more cars onto the road. Currently reliability is at 20%. Additionally, my experience is that at peak hours, there is insufficient train capacity to cope with current volumes.

SEAR # 14. Trees and Landscaping
Protection of the existing environment needs to be a key factor in planning. Once we remove old growth vegetation, we cannot replace it. There is insufficient protection of trees, especially since 9 or 13 significant trees will be removed, in this SSD. The removal of the trees impacts the lived environment, the visual environment and the local biodiversity.
As a teenager, it will be my generation that have to live with the damage caused by developments such as this one.
The developer has not complied with the SEAR requirements for tree root mapping and the goal of significant tree retention.

SEAR #19. Flood Risk
See SEAR # 11

SEAR # 22. Environmental Heritage
The development is next to the Blenheim Road Heritage Conservation Zone. There are 11 heritage listed property in the HCA’s. The inclusion of 9 storey developments so close to the HCA damages the historical nature of Lindfield. It is important that we can protect these areas for future generations. This does not mean stopping development but making the developments more in keeping from a size and visual look.
This SSD would be more in keeping if it were 5 stories and allowed for better set backs from the road. 5 stories would allow it to be shielded by tree canopy and thereby allowing privacy for local residents.

23. Public Space
As a user of local park facilities to exercise and play sport. There are insufficient recreational facilities to support the size of this development within the stated 400m. Adequate recreational facilities are approximately 1.6km away.

Please refer to the attached objection.

I am writing to OBJECT to the proposed State Significant Development (SSD) at 2–8 Highgate Road, Lindfield. We are a young family who have moved into the area due to the appeal of Heritage Conservation Areas and the amount of space and greenery the area is so beautifully known for, as well as the excellent schools. In the 4 years since living here, we have already seen the area change in ways which were not expected nor desired. The impact of the SSD at 2-8 Highgate Road will further exacerbate the the current issues further in the following ways, which relate directly to the Strategic Environmental Assessment Requirements (SEARs) as follows:
1. SEAR Section 9 - Transport
The development is proposed in an area already suffering from significant traffic congestion, particularly near the ROUNDABOUT in Lindfield Road where it intersects with Woodside Avenue. This area often causes delays of about 10-15 mins from the nearby traffic lights on Havilah Rd & from people parking on Lindfield Ave visiting the supermarkets.
The increase in residential density will place additional strain on surrounding roads, with insufficient mitigation for efficient traffic flow, off street parking and pedestrian safety. Further, with local high school zoning changes removing access to Killara High School for residents living in this location, many families will face longer commutes across the Pacific Highway to reach schools (i.e. Lindfield Public or Lindfield Learning Village), adding to morning and afternoon peak traffic volumes in an already constrained network.
2. SEAR Section 23 - Public Space
The area lacks sufficient local parks and public open space to support a high-density residential population. The proposal does not provide adequate communal or recreational space, contrary to SEAR expectations for social and environmental sustainability. This would diminish the quality of life for future residents and increase pressure on already stretched community facilities.
3. SEAR Section 22 - Environmental Heritage - Impact on Blenheim Road Heritage Conservation Area (HCA)
The scale and bulk of the proposed development are out of character with the nearby Blenheim Road HCA, which features predominantly low-rise, early 20th-century housing. The proposal would visually dominate the surrounding area and erode the heritage value of this well-preserved precinct, failing to meet SEARs requirements for contextual design that respects adjacent heritage conservation areas. This would also degrade the appeal of families wanting to move into the Blenheim HCA due to fear of congestion and mis-match street appeal.
4. SEAR Section 7 - Environmental Amenity - Loss of Sunlight to Adjacent Properties & Loss of Privacy
Shadow diagrams & existing trees suggest that neighbouring homes will experience significant loss of sunlight during key parts of the day, especially in winter. This negatively affects residential amenity and contravenes SEARs guidelines requiring the minimisation of overshadowing in low-density zones of neighbouring properties. They will also be negatively impacted due to the lack of visual privacy.
In conclusion, the current proposal does not align with SEAR principles referenced above, specifically in terms of traffic impacts, lack of shared public and open spaces, impacts to nearby heritage conservation areas, solar access or privacy. The development needs to be refused or substantially modified to better reflect the needs and character of the Lindfield community.
Yours sincerely,
Lindfield Resident

I would like to object to the proposed residential development with in-fill affordable housing at 2-8 Highgate Road, Lindfield – SSD-78493518
We bought our first property in Lindfield 18 years ago. We are not opposed to development within the Lindfield area, providing it is appropriately executed. I have significant concerns regarding both the development (SSD-78493518) itself and its potential impact on the well-being of residents and amenity of the surrounding Lindfield area. Not only will there be very notable impact to the streetscape in a historically significant area, but environmental impact and increased safety hazards.
I have outlined my main concerns using the Strategic Environment Assessment Report (SEAR) document as reference;
ENGAGEMENT (4)
I do not believe the objective of providing timely information to residents about the proposal was met in relation to SSD-78493518. There was inadequate time between the flyer distribution and the two community drop in sessions on 4 March 2025. There were no Development Applications for the public to exhibit at this time so very difficult for engagement to occur.
DESIGN QUALITY (5)
- I do not believe the design elements are in keeping with the area
BUILT FORM & URBAN DESIGN (6)
- This building will significantly alter our neighborhood's character due to the inappropriate height, bulk and scale
- A new residential development such as this, in this location, is not in keeping with the area
ENVIRONMENTAL AMENITY (7)
- The SEAR document states “A high level of environmental amenity for any surrounding residential or other sensitive land uses must be demonstrated”. The Visual Impact Analysis (VIA) has not considered view loss and visual impact from nearby residential properties
VISUAL IMPACT (8)
- Same as above
TRANSPORT (9)
- Increased vehicle and pedestrian traffic will further exacerbate the current traffic issue specifically on Woodside Ave, Lindfield Ave and Havilah Road - East and West bound
- From daily personal experience in using Woodside Ave, Lindfield Ave and Havilah Rd, on to the Pacific Highway - these EXISTING issues will only be further exacerbated by additional road usage. For example, the sheer number of cars that could be exiting the proposed development at peak times will cause further delays at this junction – already these streets are gridlocked at this time (see photograph attached, dated 28/05/25, of backed up intersection along Lindfield Ave and Havilah Rd). I have witnessed many dangerous incidents at this location.
- Woodside Ave is already heavily lined with parallel car parking creating poor visibility to moving cars whilst posing a safety risk to pedestrians.
- Street parking is already limited and difficult along Woodside Ave, Lindfield Ave and Havilah Rd.
WATER MANAGEMENT (11)
- Management of storm and waste water at this location is a flood risk concern
- I have witnessed at times overflowing drains on the corner of Woodside Ave / Lindfield Ave, this issue will only worsen with the proposed development
TREES AND LANDSCAPING (14)
- A loss of 9 of the 13 significant trees on-site is concerning and not consistent with the SEARs requirement of retaining significant trees
ENVIRONMENTAL HERITAGE (22)
- The proposed development is in close proximity to the Kenilworth and Blenheim Road Heritage Conservation Area (HCA)
- A new residential development such as this, in this location, would undermine the very purpose of protecting our HCAs recognized and valued for their historical and aesthetic character
PUBLIC SPACE (23)
- The lack of public open spaces and parks to cater for additional residents within walking distance (400m) of the proposed development

I ask you to consider these significant areas of concern.
Thank you.

We object to this development on the basis of:

1. Non-compliance
2. Failure to adequately assess impact - traffic
3. Failure to adequately assess impact - solar amenity and visual
4. Culture of non-compliance and inadequate assessments

1. Non-compliant - the developer acknowledges that they exceed height envelope limits. Despite the fact that this is one of the first new TOD applications the developer has already shown no regard for limits set, the community expectations of 6 floors, and the significant shift in allowable development that existed prior in the area.
2. Failure to adequately assess impact - traffic - the developer has engaged a professional firm who have produced a beautiful 61 page report that may meet planning requirements and yet completely fails to understand impact of increased traffic flows. By only assessing impact of two property facing intersections, they completely dismiss local area impact. A bit like saying you could eat 30% more, and you could swallow 30% more - and dismiss the real congestion and constipation issues for the stomach and bowel! In this case, the real point of constipation is the next intersection of Lindfield Ave and Havilah Road and the dogleg intersection with Balfour street and congestion arising from the Highway traffic lights. The developer and their consultant have failed to walk 20 metres up the road and review this intersection. They have failed to include in their cost estimates the necessary extra lane, or widening of a tunnel under the railway bridge. There are already frequent delays at this intersection and a dramatic increase of drivers will increase already frequent frustration and even potential grid lock stemming from this choke point.
3. Failure to adequately assess impact - solar amenity and visual - The develop has chosen 15 points for analysis, and failed to consider ours! OK they can’t consider everybody’s perspective, however the development is directly north of most of us in the apartment block at 2B Havilah Road. I have attached a photo from our balcony and my artist impression of the impact which is not acceptable given they are already planning to wilfully exceed TOD height limits. Their own assessment does confirm that we will be robbed of warming winter sunshine from 3pm - impacting our amenity and needlessly leading to higher heating costs.
4. Culture of non-compliance and inadequate assessments - I do not have the skills to determine how the storm water and drainage assessments have been made, however given the developer has wilfully breached TOD height limits, avoided real traffic impact assessments, solar amenity and visual impact - it indicates a culture of non-compliance and failure to adequately assess water course impact. 2 Havilah Road has not been developed due to water course issues, and I can take no comfort in the developer adequately assessing this impact, especially given their failure to adequately assess the impact may be borne by our apartment at 2B Havilah and other local neighbours. This same concern then applies to social impact, noise and vibration reports and etc.
In summary we object because of a lack of compliance on the application, and a misleading attempt to assess impact on traffic and visual amenity, and it’s likely not to stop there. They should provide an alternative design for up to 6 floors and work with Council to fix the Lindfield Avenue and Havilah intersection before the State Government could consider approving.

Whilst I am objecting to the proposed development of the area bounded by Woodside Ave, Highgate Rd, Reid St and Lindfield Ave which incorporates applications for apartments at 2-8 Highgate Road and also 1-3 Reid St + 2-4 Woodside Ave, these objections are based on the sheer scale of the buildings being proposed.
We have had an example of two apartment blocks built nearby (lower end of Highgate Rd and officially addressed as 2 and 2B Havilah Road) which have successfully been incorporated into our community without imposing themselves in a negative manner. They were restricted to 5 storeys in height and as can be seen in a supporting photograph, have now blended into the area due to the amount of natural foliage from the surrounding flora.
Purely from my own perspective, I would not object to having five storey apartment developments in the area under application by the developer as long as the existing trees, where possible, would be retained as they would help to ‘hide’ the structures.
The sheer magnitude of the proposed developments will not only be out of character for the area but irrevocably change the nature of Highgate Road and the surrounding streets. Every community in the world grows and develops based upon its past and its needs for the future. In this instance, Lindfield and Highgate Road are unique due to what its residents have maintained and been limited to for over 100 years. This can be said of every street in every suburb.
The developments at 2 & 2B Havilah Rd show that new living styles (apartment living) can be introduced without changing the character of its immediate environment. The proposed apartment blocks would have an imposing and negative effect on those who would live next to them or nearby due to their proposed 9 storey height and 173 apartments of various sizes.
As it is, Highgate Road and numerous side streets on many weekdays are already filled with vehicles from those who work nearby at the Lindfield shops and commuters who are opting for train services. Even though the developers are providing a large number of car parking spots within their complexes, it is inevitable that there will be overflow of those resident’s vehicles onto the surrounding streets.
Having lived in Meadowbank and Waitara where high-rise abounds, there are residents who will find it easier to park their vehicles on the street rather than use their allocated car spot(s) as they don’t have to go into the basement levels and then be further delayed by an electric carpark gate. Then there will be the apartments that are sublet and occupants don’t have the necessary car spots. In apartment blocks, car spaces are allocated to specific apartments. It is not like a community carpark at a shopping centre where you can park in any spot.
My other main concern is regarding vehicle movement. The dreaded intersection of Havilah Rd and Lindfield Ave is already at a point where it cannot cope with the demands of traffic to and from the Pacific Highway, traffic alongside the Lindfield shops, traffic coming up Havilah Rd from residents and the IGA and Harris Farm carparks plus the traffic coming down Lindfield Avenue from Killara.
With the addition of so many apartments and associated vehicles (yes, many residents will walk to the station but many will drive to their place of work), the roundabout at Woodside Rd and Lindfield Ave will be further clogged due to high vehicle demand (this roundabout also serves shoppers who have to use the roundabout to do a 360 degree turn in order to access Havilah Lane and the entrances to the IGA and Harris Farm carparks. Highgate Road and Kenilworth Road will be subject to vehicles not wanting to navigate the roundabout and the clogged intersection of Lindfield Ave and Havilah Ave. This increased level of traffic will have a negative effect on residents.
A minor problem that is sure to arise will be the number of shopping trolleys that will be left on the nature strips after residents from the proposed apartment buildings do their shopping at Coles, IGA and Harris Farm. The journey from these three stores is all downhill to Woodside Ave. Will the residents be equally willing to return their trolleys?
As previously stated, I am not against the development of apartment blocks in Highgate Road (inc. Woodside Ave, Reid St and Lindfield Ave) as long as they do not negatively impact upon the local residents who have, in many instances, lived here for decades.
The 2 & 2B Havilah Road apartment buildings of 5 storeys show how well these new builds can be incorporated into the existing environment. Having 9 story behemoths will change this scenario dramatically and drastically. I would very much advocate for the maximum height of the new structures to be 5 storeys so that their impact will be lessened substantially.

Dear Adela,

Please find attached my submission and accompanying CV in response to SSD - 78493518.

Thankyou for your consideration.

Regards,

Tony Moody

Heavy traffic and limited parking

My family, wife and four children, has lived in the area for over 22 years in a house which was built in 1898. We treasure the heritage of the area and are deeply concerned about the impact this development will have on the environmental heritage. We have seen in places like Singapore where heritage places have been replaced by high rise buildings, only to experience deep regret later.
The adverse visual impact of such a multi storey development will be considerable.
Further, there is already considerable traffic congestion, especially at the nearby Havilah Road intersection and at the very least there needs to be a comprehensive traffic study.

Please refer attached which contains my submission opposing the project.

I have lived at !8 Kenilworth Road for over 20 years and I know this area extremely well. This development is a big threat to the quality of life for Kur-ring-gai residents, current and future.
Design Quality, Built Form and Urban Design
This building has a very poor design. It is best described as a monstrosity. The units are crammed together. There is very little communal space for so many people, especially considering the lack of parks within 400m of the site. The outlooks from the units would be very poor. It will be completely out of place in this location for a whole host of reasons. Its height and bulk far exceeds that of any surrounding buildings including the existing, well designed units across the street on Woodside Road. The only other building which will be in the same league (if approved) will be the other proposed building, immediately adjacent, proposed by the same developer, and it is even more horrendous in terms of height and bulk. The separation between the 2 blocks will be completely inadequate to allow a good quality of life for the residents. These huge buildings should be considered as one development. Each of these complexes will have a huge detrimental impact on the other and on the surrounding residences.
The setbacks at street level do not meet the requirements in the SEARS and this will destroy the beautiful existing streetscape. The building encroaches beyond the boundaries, robbing the community of amenity, not providing it. There is inadequate setback at higher levels, really only starting at level 6. There will be overshadowing of neighbours and surrounding gardens and residences throughout most of the day.
The building height of 28.6 metres exceeds the height limit. It will take the building height above the height of the very tall trees on the side of the railway line. Because of its height it will not meet requirements for including affordable housing.
This building should be considered in combination with the other block ie the SSD proposed in Woodside Avenue. The developer has clearly submitted separate applications to have a better chance of meeting requirements especially for deep soil and for solar access. But the adjacent proposed multistorey apartment building on the western side will rob residents of light, ventilation, and an acceptable outlook. There will also be noise from the main north shore railway line which is <100 metres away from this building. There is not enough room left to sustain enough healthy large trees to fit in with the Kur-ring-gai’s traditional leafy streetscapes and visual appeal. We need tree preservation in Kur-ring-gai not only for aesthetic value, but also for health and climate reasons.
The building does not provide adequate parking for the number of residents it proposes to accommodate. It provides < 2 car spaces per unit. There is inadequate provision for visitor parking. The streets nearby are already having to accommodate a lot of commuter parking and the trains are filled to capacity.
I have lived in this area, 120 metres from this proposed construction for over 20 years and pass it almost daily when I walk to the Lindfield shops. I know where north is and I know where the sun rises. In some diagrams this application has been drawn incorrectly to give the impression that as though the units will receive more sun than they actually will. Units will receive very little direct sunlight. In the afternoons this building will also be shaded by the proposed taller Woodside avenue complex. There will also be very little cross ventilation due to the proximity and size of the Woodside proposal.

Environmental Amenity
This building will do nothing to provide “environmental amenity” to the surrounding community. The streetscape between my house and Kenilworth Road is currently a joy to walk down on my way to the shops. I love observing the gardens and birds. I often go this way to walk my dogs. This street helps to make up for the lack of parks within 400 metres of my house. With all of these extra people living in the immediate vicinity there will a dire lack of public open green space.
Traffic
The traffic situation in the area is already dreadful especially in peak hour and at school drop off and pick up times. The roundabout on the corner of Woodside Rd and Lindfield Avenue gets heavily congested, from traffic banking up to get through the traffic lights onto the highway, and also from cars trying to proceed to the very busy local shops and Harris Farm. It already often takes 3 changes of lights to get onto the highway. Pedestrians trying to cross Woodside Rd at this point need to take great care to avoid danger. This complex will puts unacceptable extra burdens on traffic at these points but also at the corner of Nelson Rd and Tryon Rd, and at the corner of Tryon Rd and Archbold Rd, where it currently takes several traffic light changes to access Archbold Rd each morning. The fact that school zonings have recently changes also needs to be factored in, which it has not. Children who live on this side of the highway will now be zoned into schools on the other side of the line, that further increasing traffic pressures at intersections entering the highway, and also increasing pedestrian usage and danger to pedestrians.

The extra traffic burden from this building needs to be considered in the context of the additional traffic from the proposed building next door and from all the extra residents who will be moving into the area due to The TOD proposals/or the Councils preferred alternative scenario if that goes ahead instead. The cumulative traffic burden needs to be fully investigated and the contribution of this building will be significant to the overall outcome.
Pedestrians
I’m very worried about all of the cars from this complex and the one proposed next door entering on to Woodside Rd so close to the roundabout. It will become a very congested and dangerous intersection especially for the increased number of pedestrians, including children and school students, who will be walking regularly to the shops, the bus and the station.

Impact on nearby Blenheim Heritage Conservation Area
Very bulky high contruction’s such as this, containing high density residential, are incongruent with Kur-ring-gai’s character and established planning values. This construction cannot avoid having a negative impact on the nearby Blenheim HCA, within which I live. It will seriously impact its setting and cultural value for now, and for future generations. The heritage implications of all of the extra traffic should also be considered in this proposal.

I am objecting to the 2- Highgate & Woodside Lindfield SSD proposal and set out my reasons in the attached PDF document

My family and I have owned property in the area since 2007. We have witnessed significant, yet appropriate, development across Lindfield in this time and support similar, future development. I emphasise "appropriate" as this sets the tone for size, context, quality and sympathy for the surrounding environment. This SSD proposal does not follow these qualitative statements.

I would like to object to the proposed residential development on the following basis in line with the SEARS table and/or order presented within the EIS of the planning application:

3). Mitigation measures - a). Flooding : A well established subterranean stream runs through the proposed development site as evidenced by the specific and inadequate storm water drainage that crosses Woodside Avenue. No specification nor understanding for the enhancement of the storm water run off has been described. The plans state "location and depth of underground services to be investigated prior to work commencing." b). Arboricultural : The submitted document is a draft. Removal of 9 healthy and significant trees. 21 low retention value trees being removed, yet only 7 are exempt from Ku-ring-gai's tree preservation order.

4).Engagement - strongly object that appropriate engagement of the community occurred. According to ID population database, in the SA1s immediately surrounding the proposed site, the population in 2021 was 1,463 yet only 55 surveys were completed, 37 people attended drop ins and 51 emails sent, 9 emails responded to. These response numbers are the same for this SSD as to those of the adjacent SSD-79261463 i.e. it was a combined engagement for separate projects which I think is misleading. Proactive engagement would result in a much higher response rate, with voluntary questionnaire response being the least statistically credible method. Community meetings were held on 4th March, in 2 sittings, immediately after release of the flyer without time for consideration. I would also argue that without the detail provided in the exhibition of the development application, which began on 1/5/2025, it is not possible to have any meaningful engagement with the community nor for the developer to be able to answer detailed questions prior to this date, as many of the assessments required under SEARs had not been completed at that time.

5). Design Quality - Strongly contest that the design elements are in keeping with those of the area nor is there substantial set back. The pathways and verge are already compromised without significant width to cater for side by side pedestrian traffic, disabled / wheelchair access. This is not accounted for in the proposal.

6). Built form & Urban Design - a). There is no account for performance of each unit against the ADG design criteria. b). There is misrepresentation of volume, duration and direction of sunlight to units and the rooms therein (bedrooms rather than living rooms as required by the ADG). c). Communal space includes an area on the roof top which is firstly counter to the advice provided by the development's own planning advisor; and will result in significant overlooking impact to the adjacent properties and adverse noise, not to mention potential safety hazard for those visiting the communal space and for those below from non-deliberate falling debris. d). The design of this SSD and the adjacent SSD 79261463 of 2-4 Woodside Ave, which has been engineered to navigate around the deep soil building codes required if the development were one consolidate building, create significant overlooking across the internally facing apartments of the respective SSD's. The western ground level communal area will suffer from significant shading for the majority of the day. e). the closest park area is significantly greater than 400m accepted walking distance which places even more emphasis on the appropriateness of the communal area.

7). Environmental Amenity - "A high level of environmental amenity for any surrounding residential or other sensitive land uses must be demonstrated." This is not the case within the proposal. There has been no assessment of visual impact from nearby residential property. There will be notable overlook from both the apartments and the referenced rooftop communal space into the nearby residential properties.

8). Visual Impact - per above. Same points apply.

9). Transport - the construction will create significant and long standing disruption to both pedestrian and vehicular traffic on what is already a severely comprised road junction - Lindfield Ave / Woodside and heading south to Havilah Rd - east and west direction and on to Lindfield Avenue. Vehicles are regularly backed up from the Havilah Rd / Lindfield Ave junction to access the Pacific Highway, all the way beyond Lindfield Ave / Woodside, with vehicular traffic from this development using Woodside to access Pacific Highway along with traffic from the adjacent SSD at the Lindfield Ave / Woodside. There is no understanding / consideration of the rules of the road at these condensed junctions and the lack of traffic management exacerbates this already dangerous area considerably. There is no consideration given to the concerns of local residents - who witness dangerous situations with increasing regularity - in the submitted traffic impact assessment. Please see attached video of the traffic area of concern. On street parking is already at a premium / barely available across the whole area due to the increase in commuter traffic using Lindfield station and the inadequate provision of commuter "park and ride "facilities in the Lindfield Green car park.

12). Ground and ground water conditions - The site analysis conducted - 2 hand auger samples and shallow depth analysis - against the depth of the development - 2 subterranean levels - is inappropriate for the magnitude of the development and should not be used as a basis for support. There should be real concern surrounding the depth of excavation at both sites leading to potential ground instability.

14). Trees and landscaping - see #3 "Mitigation measures" referencing Aboricultural. SEAR's document requires "Tree root mapping" of significant trees to be removed and this has not been incorporated into the Arboriculutral Impact Assessment.

Please see attached document

Please see attachment.

I have been a long term resident over of Roseville and Lindfield, having lived in these 2 suburbs for c35 years. I accept the need for additional housing, however a more balanced approach might be a small building up to 6 stories. This would reduce concerns around:
- Traffic congestion
- Parking
- Flood risk
- Tree loss
- Further degradation to the fact the development is near I Heritage conservation area
- I support the councils proposed alternative scenario which would put limits on these buildings and transitional impacts would be better managed.
Other issues with the submission include:
- transitional considerations are not addressed into the surrounding streets
- poor design quality, its just a high box
- construction for such a large building will course significant disruption to the surrounding community
- appropriateness of water and flood risk mgmt
- availbility of open public space.

It is going to ruin the beautiful suburb of Lindfield.

We have lived on Nelson Road Lindfield since 1999 and raised our family here. We were attracted to the leafy nature with federation and heritage houses. Whilst I am in favour of affordable housing in the area this development as proposed has a number of fundamental flaws. Specifically I am against the height allowance as the development is approx 1.7metres higher than the State maximum permitted. Whilst the developer could argue that only minor parts of the building are above the allowance this is a breach and if approved the penthouse apartments for example are not low cost housing as intended. The building is above the natural tree line and will mean the removal of a large number of significant trees. These are necessary for the birds and wildlife in the area as well as bad for climate change. The setbacks from the street in the proposal start at 6 storeys on some sides so not an effective setback. The building encroaches over the boundary by way of balconies.The car parking proposed in less than 2 per apartment when the majority are 2-3 bedrooms so the already congested surrounding streets being parked in by commuters on the train will be worse. Traffic flows travelling south along Lindfield Avenue to the station and under the bridge to the Pacific Highway already see a 20 minute peak hour every morning and afternoon and cannot adequately cope with more traffic. The footpaths along Lindfield Ave are not wide enough and are dangerous for pedestrians accessing Lindfield Station. I have witnessed many near misses with cars and pedestrians and this development will make it more dangerous. I do not support the development as it stands specifically with regard to height and setbacks as stated. Thank you