Residential Development with In-fill Affordable Housing - 21, 23 & 25 McIntosh Street and 55 Werona Avenue, Gordon

To: NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure
Re: SSD-83478456 – Residential Development (21–25 McIntosh St & 55 Werona Ave, Gordon)
From: Owner – 12 Forsyth Street, Killara NSW

1. Position Statement

I am the owner of 12 Forsyth Street, Killara, which directly adjoins the proposed development site.
I strongly object to this State Significant Development Application.

The submitted documentation contains serious errors and contradictions. The proposal will cause unacceptable impacts on my property, my family, and the wider community.

2. Key Grounds of Objection

(1) Errors in Documentation

My property is wrongly identified as a single-storey dwelling.

In reality, it is a newly constructed two-storey CDC-approved residence (main structure completed 2024).

As a result, shadow, privacy, and visual assessments are factually wrong.

(2) Excessive Height and Bulk

Proposal: up to 30.5 m (8 storeys).

Exceeds the 28.6 m control and overwhelms a low-density streetscape.

My house ridge height is only 8.5 m – less than one-third of the proposal.

(3) Loss of Sunlight and Solar Energy

Shadow diagrams ignore my two-storey form.

Winter solstice overshadowing will block all north-facing windows and roofline.

My home will effectively receive zero hours of direct sunlight (9am–3pm).

Violates Apartment Design Guide (≥3h rule) and Ku-ring-gai DCP.

(4) Privacy and Amenity

Proposal includes balconies and roof terraces directly overlooking my bedrooms, office, and backyard.

Rooftop communal areas and lighting will spill into my property.

This breaches ADG and DCP privacy controls.

(5) Structural and Excavation Risk

Two full basement levels proposed, with piling and excavation metres from my boundary.

High risk of settlement, wall cracking, and waterproofing damage to my new home.

No independent survey or protection offered.

3. Public Interest

The project is inconsistent with the Ku-ring-gai Development Control Plan.

The Social Impact Assessment itself concedes negative impacts on neighbourhood character.

It is not in the public interest.

4. Request for Refusal

For the reasons above, I request refusal of SSD-83478456.

5. If Approval Is Considered – Essential Conditions

Should the Department nevertheless consider approval, strict conditions must be imposed, including:

Height capped at ≤5 storeys / 17 m.

Minimum 3 hours direct sunlight to Forsyth Street homes on winter solstice.

Privacy screens and deep landscaping along southern boundary.

Ban on construction traffic using Forsyth Street.

Independent structural condition surveys, vibration monitoring, and insurance bond to cover any damage to neighbouring homes.

(For the full set of proposed conditions, see Supporting Document – Objection_Letter_SSD83478456).

Sincerely,
Owner – 12 Forsyth Street, Killara NSW

The historic house and garden at Eryldene, 17 McIntosh Street, Gordon, is one of the finest 'house and garden' historic properties in NSW. The house and garden pavilions are major works of the celebrated architect W Hardy Wilson, while the garden contains Professor E G Waterhouse's world famous camellia collection. In 2021 and 2022 I donated significant funds to ensure the conservation and well-being of the camellia collection. While the whole property is highly significant, the camellia collection attracts international visitors.
It is my view that no new development should be allowed which overshadows this truly important garden during public visiting hours, on occasion from 9 am to 5 pm.
Howard Tanner's appointments include: Chair, Heritage Council of NSW; Councilor, Australian Heritage Council; National President, Australian Institute of Architects; Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra.

As residents living in close proximity to the proposed development, we will bear the direct consequences of this project long after construction is complete. Beyond the anticipated increase in traffic congestion, the development is likely to create a range of negative impacts, including increased noise, air pollution, parking shortages, pressure on local infrastructure and public services, reduced privacy for neighboring properties, shadowing of adjacent homes and public spaces, and a fundamental change to the character and scale of the existing neighborhood.

High-rise developments are not simply larger buildings; they introduce population densities that require substantial investments in transportation infrastructure, utilities, emergency services, schools, parks, and community amenities. There is little evidence that the surrounding area has the capacity to absorb these impacts without a significant decline in livability for existing residents. Approving this project without first addressing these deficiencies would place the interests of a private developer ahead of the well-being of the established community.

The argument that increased density should be accepted regardless of infrastructure limitations is neither responsible nor sustainable planning. Growth must be matched by the infrastructure necessary to support it. In this case, the proposed development represents an over-intensification of the site that is incompatible with the surrounding residential area and would impose substantial and lasting burdens on nearby residents.

For these reasons, we strongly urge the City to reject this proposal in its entirety. The deficiencies associated with this project are not minor issues that can be addressed through conditions of approval or incremental modifications. The scale and intensity of the development are fundamentally inappropriate for this location. Approval would create long-term impacts on traffic, safety, infrastructure capacity, neighborhood character, and residents' quality of life that cannot be adequately mitigated.

We respectfully request that the application be denied and that any future redevelopment proposals for the site be required to reflect the existing character of the neighborhood, respect infrastructure limitations, and prioritize compatibility with the surrounding residential community. The current proposal should be withdrawn or refused, not revised and resubmitted in substantially the same form.

Attached report from the town planning collective as supporting document.

I strongly object to SE-128704239. As a local resident, I am deeply concerned about the negative impacts this development will have on the surrounding community, specifically regarding the requested increase in building height and the reduction in mandatory parking spaces.
My specific grounds for objection are detailed below:
1. Excessive Building Height and Visual Amenity
• Breach of Local Planning Controls: The proposed increase in height significantly exceeds the established local environmental plan (LEP) and development control plan (DCP) limits. These limits exist to ensure development scales remain sympathetic to the existing neighborhood character.
• Overshadowing and Loss of Privacy: The additional height will cause unacceptable overshadowing on adjacent properties and public spaces, stripping neighboring residents of natural solar access. Furthermore, the increased height leads to direct overlooking issues, severely compromising the privacy of existing homes.
• Visual Bulk and Scale: The building presents an overdevelopment of the site. The sheer bulk and scale are visually intrusive and fail to transition smoothly into the surrounding low-to-medium density context.
2. Inadequate Parking and Traffic Infrastructure
• Reduced Parking Allocation: The proposal seeks to reduce the number of required on-site parking spaces below the standard statutory requirements. This is highly unrealistic and fails to account for actual car ownership rates in the area. The streets are already packed and this will exacerbate the situation.
• Overspill into Local Streets: Cutting on-site parking will inevitably force residents, visitors, and delivery vehicles to compete for limited on-street parking. Local streets are already heavily constrained, and this overspill will severely restrict access for existing residents and emergency services.
• Traffic Congestion and Safety: The reduction in parking, combined with the increased density from the building's height, will compound traffic congestion at nearby intersections. This poses a direct safety risk to pedestrians, cyclists, and motorists alike.
Conclusion
The cumulative impact of an increased height allowance paired with a deficit in parking represents a severe overdevelopment that places the burden of infrastructure strain directly onto the existing community. The proposal in its current form fails to demonstrate a public benefit that justifies these significant departures from planning standards.
I urge the Department to reject the proposal.

I am writing to formally lodge my strong objection to the amended proposal. While the applicant presents the amended scheme as a "reduction" to 151 apartments, a closer review of the actual technical reports reveals that the building's scale, floor area, and physical impacts have intensified exactly where they will most damage the surrounding neighbourhood.
I urge the Department to refuse the application based on the following critical planning, technical, and environmental grounds:
1. Invalidation of Environmental Assessment via Outdated and Contradictory Plans
The amendment features severe inconsistencies between its core technical documents, proving that the environmental impacts have not been properly evaluated against the final design:
* **Out-of-Date Biodiversity Assessment:** The Biodiversity Development Assessment Report (Appendix I) still bases its findings on an obsolete 163-unit, 8-level design. It fails to assess the true impacts of the final 151-apartment, 9-storey plans shown in the architectural and BASIX documents.
* **Eroneous Baseline Data:** The Stormwater Management Plans (Appendix P) explicitly mislabel an adjacent property as a single-storey residence under construction, when it has already been approved as a two-storey home. Because the baseline data is flatly wrong, the applicant’s shadow, solar access, and private amenity assessments are completely unreliable.
### 2. Excessive Height and Unjustified Clause 4.6 Variation Request
The proposal requests a maximum height of 30.95 metres for Building A and 30.57 metres for Building C. Both figures substantially breach the statutory height limit of 28.6 metres—a limit that *already* includes the generous 30% affordable housing bonus.
* The Clause 4.6 variation request seeks to wave through an additional height breach primarily to provide a communal rooftop terrace for future residents.
* To protect the heritage setting of *Eryldene* to the west, the applicant has pulled the bulk away from the street frontage and redistributed the expanded Gross Floor Area (GFA) and height directly towards Building C on the rear and southern boundaries. Achieving heritage mitigation by shifting severe bulk and amenity losses onto adjacent southern neighbours is not a sound planning basis for a variation.
### 3. Severe Overlooking, Overshadowing, and Amenity Loss
The severe redistribution of massing directly compromises the privacy and solar access of surrounding residential lots:
* **Rooftop Terrace Intrusiveness:** The Level 8 active communal rooftop area on Building C (featuring BBQs, decking, and seating) will project evening and weekend noise, light spill, and direct overlooking straight into neighbouring backyards, living rooms, and bedrooms. The proposed 1.5-metre glass balustrades are entirely inadequate as privacy screens.
* **Solar Failure:** The applicant explicitly concedes that the amended proposal fails to meet established solar controls, causing additional, unreasonable winter overshadowing to at least one adjoining property.
* **Outdated TOD Justification:** The applicant attempts to excuse this overshadowing by claiming neighbouring lots might be redeveloped under the State TOD scheme. This assumption is legally invalid; Ku-ring-gai’s alternative TOD controls were gazetted on 14 November 2025 and replaced the State controls for Gordon and Killara. The impacts must be assessed against the existing low-density environment.
### 4. High-Risk Groundwater Interference and Insufficient Site Testing
The proposed 9-metre deep basement excavation cuts directly into a shallow aquifer where groundwater sits just 2 metres below the surface.
* The Dewatering Management Plan (Appendix T) establishes that this will be a permanently "drained" basement, requiring active dewatering for up to 9 months and continuous pumping of seepage (up to 2.0 million litres per year long-term) for the entire lifespan of the building.
* Despite this immense hydrological intervention, the applicant's Site Hydrogeology Report relies on only five boreholes, completely omitting any dedicated monitoring bore along the southern or rear boundaries. Furthermore, the Hydrogeology Letter focuses its drawdown analysis primarily on *Eryldene*, completely failing to assess settlement, structural drawdown risk, or water-quality exceedances (metals, E. coli) relative to other surrounding private properties.
### 5. Critical Biodiversity and Canopy Loss
The site contains Sydney Turpentine-Ironbark Forest (STIF), a Critically Endangered Ecological Community (CEEC). The proposal will directly clear approximately 0.05 hectares of STIF, placing it at a confessed risk of a "Serious and Irreversible Impact".
Additionally, the removal of roughly 30 high-value trees will drastically gut local canopy and habitat. The applicant's Arboricultural Impact Appraisal relies on outdated field observations and leans heavily on retaining trees located on neighbouring properties—trees the applicant does not own, control, or have the right to safeguard.
### 6. Systemic Deferral of Environmental Impacts ("Decide Later" Risk)
The application routinely pushes critical engineering, public safety, and amenity resolutions past the determination phase and into the post-consent Construction Certificate stage. Major items left entirely unresolved include:
* **Acoustic Shock:** The applicant’s own figures predict construction noise of up to 104 dB(A) during demolition and 94–95 dB(A) during excavation and tower construction—vocalizing that surrounding homes will be "highly noise affected" through every single phase of development. Yet, actual noise mitigation plans and precise vibration assessments are completely deferred.
* **Infrastructure Shortfalls:** The Transport Impact Assessment provides a mere 5 visitor parking spaces against a Council benchmark of 25, guaranteeing that parking overflow will saturate surrounding streets. Construction traffic routes and the management of 42,500 tonnes of excavation spoil—which may contain hazardous asbestos—are completely left for a later date.
* **Unresolved Complex High-Rise Safety:** The BCA Report lists extensive departures from standard Deemed-to-Satisfy provisions regarding fire-resistance rationalisation, exit travel distances, and long public corridors. Deferring complex fire-engineering sign-offs means the building layout, plant equipment, or facade may change post-approval, creating unvetted external impacts for neighbours.
### Conclusion & Requested Actions
A State Significant designation does not mean the resulting local impacts are acceptable. Forcing an oversized building onto a shallow aquifer, threatening a critically endangered ecological community, and shifting the building's physical burden onto its immediate neighbours constitutes an unacceptable planning outcome.
I request that the Department **refuse** application SSD-83478456 or mandate a comprehensive redesign that:
1. Aligns the building strictly within the maximum 28.6m bonus height limit and completely deletes the Building C rooftop communal terrace.
2. Re-evaluates and reconciles the contradictory baseline data across all appendices before any decision is made.
3. Mandates an independent peer review of the project's noise/vibration, groundwater drawdowns, and fire engineering.
Should the Department move toward approval despite these structural flaws, I insist on the implementation of strict, legally enforceable conditions, including: a total ban on Saturday hours prior to 8:00 AM, comprehensive pre-construction dilapidation surveys for all adjoining homes, continuous real-time noise and vibration monitoring with automatic stop-work triggers, and permanent boundary groundwater monitoring bores.

Finally, as a direct neighbour, having this huge multi-story dwelling directly overlooking me is extremely distressing. I fear for my privacy and safety having so many people able to look directly into my year at all hours of the day and night. This is frightening for a young female living in the area.

Thank you for your consideration of this submission, and I hope that common sense sees this proposal completely rejected.

I am writing as a Ku-ring-gai ratepayer to formally object to the above State Significant Development application.
While I acknowledge the need for additional housing, including affordable housing, I have significant concerns regarding the scale, design, and local impacts of this proposal, which I believe are inconsistent with the established character and infrastructure capacity of Gordon and the broader Ku-ring-gai area.
Excessive Height and Density
The proposed development of up to eight storeys represents a substantial departure from the prevailing built form in this locality. Ku-ring-gai is characterised by lower-density residential environments with significant tree canopy and landscaped setbacks. The scale and density of 162 apartments on this site constitutes overdevelopment and risks setting an undesirable precedent for similar high-density developments in the area.
Impact on Local Character
The proposal does not adequately respond to the garden suburb character that Ku-ring-gai is known for. The extent of site coverage, building bulk, and reduced green space will erode the visual and environmental qualities that define the locality. This is particularly concerning given the cumulative impact of similar developments in Gordon in recent years.
Traffic and Parking Pressures
The inclusion of 191 basement parking spaces suggests a significant increase in local traffic. McIntosh Street and Werona Avenue are not designed to accommodate this level of additional vehicle movement. Increased congestion, safety risks for pedestrians, and pressure on already constrained local roads are likely outcomes.
Tree Removal and Environmental Impact
The proposal involves substantial tree removal and site disturbance. Ku-ring-gai’s urban forest is a critical environmental asset, contributing to biodiversity, cooling, and amenity. The loss of mature trees cannot be adequately offset by proposed landscaping, particularly in high-density developments where deep soil zones are limited.
Infrastructure Strain
Local infrastructure, including transport, schools, and community services, is already under pressure. There is insufficient evidence that the existing infrastructure can support the additional population generated by this development without a decline in service quality.
Inadequate Transition to Surrounding Development
The proposal fails to provide an appropriate transition in height and scale to neighbouring properties. The bulk and height of the buildings will result in overshadowing, loss of privacy, and reduced amenity for surrounding residents.
Affordable Housing Proportion
While the inclusion of affordable housing is noted, the proportion remains relatively modest compared to the overall scale of the development. This raises concerns that the project’s density is not sufficiently justified by its public benefit.
In summary, the proposal represents an overdevelopment of the site, with unacceptable impacts on local character, environment, traffic, and infrastructure. I respectfully request that the application be refused, or at minimum significantly amended to better align with the planning controls and character of Ku-ring-gai.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback on this proposal.

I wish to express my strong objection to the proposed development.
As a homeowner whose property backs directly onto the developement. I am one of the residents who will be most affected by this development. My family and I have lived here for 18 years and chose this area because of its residential character, privacy and peaceful surroundings. It is very upsetting to see a proposal of this scale proceed without proper regard for the people who live in this neighbourhood.

The development of approximately 151 apartments immediately behind existing homes is excessive and completely out of character with the surrounding area. It appears that the applicant is relying on the old (TOD) provisions, which allowed much taller and denser buildings, even though the current planning controls now provide for lower density development. I believe to allow this is unfair and creates a terrible precedent.

There should be a fair transition for everyone. Existing residents should not be disadvantaged simply because an application was lodged under previous rules. Allowing this project to proceed under outdated controls while everyone else is subject to the new zoning framework is inequitable and undermines confidence in the planning process.

The modified proposal does not address the fundamental concerns raised by residents in our earlier objections. Instead, it appears to be another attempt to push through a development that remains inappropriate for this location.

Our home will suffer significant impacts from this proposal. We will experience loss of privacy, increased overshadowing and a big reduction in the enjoyment and amenity of our property. The buildings will tower over our backyard and change the nature of the area forever. These are impacts that cannot simply be undone.

There has also been little consideration given to the infrastructure required to support such a large number of apartments. Increased traffic, parking pressures and the strain on local services are all matters that deserve proper consideration.

The uncertainty surrounding this project has already had a negative impact on our property. We have effectively become trapped in our own home, as the prospect of such a large development directly behind us has affected the desirability and marketability of our property. Families like ours should not have to bear such consequences.

I sincerely ask that the objections raised by residents be genuinely reconsidered and that this new application be refused. The current low-density planning framework reflects the intended character of this area, and it would be unjust to allow this development to proceed under superseded provisions.

I ask the planners to ensure that there is a fair and consistent application of planning rules and to protect the rights of existing residents who will have to live with the consequences of this development for many years to come.

The amended proposed development remains inconsistent with Ku-ring-gai Council’s Preferred Alternative TOD Plan that was gazetted by the NSW State Government on 14th November 2025.

The amended plans would result in unacceptable impacts on the heritage significance of Eryldene Historic House and Garden at 17 McIntosh Street, Gordon, a State-significant heritage item, as well as adjoining heritage-listed and contributory dwellings. The proposal would also undermine the integrity, setting, and character of the surrounding Gordon Park Estate, McIntosh and Ansell Heritage Conservation Area that includes McIntosh Street, Werona Avenue, and Forsyth Street.

The proposed nine-storey built form would result in significant and irreversible adverse heritage impacts on State and locally listed heritage items, as well as on the surrounding Heritage Conservation Areas. As stated, the development would adversely affect the State Heritage Register-listed Eryldene at 17 McIntosh Street (Item I8, Schedule 5 of the Ku-ring-gai LEP), as well as nearby heritage items including Rochester at 51 Werona Avenue, the dwelling at 49 Werona Avenue, and the locally listed heritage item at 14 Forsyth Street, Killara and contributory heritage item at 19 McIntosh Street.

The properties at 21, 23, and 25 McIntosh Street are integral components of the Gordon Park Estate, McIntosh and Ansell Heritage Conservation Area. The proposal would result in unacceptable adverse impacts on the character, significance, and setting of the Gordon Park Estate, McIntosh and Ansell Conservation Area, and surrounding heritage conservation areas.

If demolition is deemed necessary, it is crucial that any new constructions are designed to respect the existing heritage context. This includes ensuring that the heights and scale of the new development are in harmony with the surrounding buildings and the overall character of the Heritage Conservation Area. Failure to adhere to these principles would undermine the historical significance of the Heritage Conservation Area.

The amendments will still allow three nine storey buildings to dominate the curtilage and viewlines of Eryldene Historic House and Garden and potentially negatively impact on its international camellia collection and its aesthetic landscape setting.

In addition, 55 Werona Avenue, a contributory heritage item, would be adversely affected by the scale and proximity of the proposed development.

The proposed three residential flat buildings, with heights increased to 30.95 metres (9 storeys), are inappropriate for this heritage conservation area, particularly in relation to Eryldene, a State Heritage listed property. The amended additional height increase, will result in an excessive built form and intensify the development’s visual dominance, resulting in adverse impacts on the heritage significance, character, and amenity of the Heritage Conservation Area, State Heritage, Locally Heritage Listed houses and contributory heritage houses. As such the application should be refused.
Eryldene is described as “treasured part of Ku-ring-gai’s history” on the Ku-ring-gai Council website (https://www.krg.nsw.gov.au/Council/History/Eryldene) and as such needs special consideration - not merely a one size fits all approach.

Additional housing is better suited along the Pacific Hwy.

21 June 2026

To: Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure
Subject: Objection to State Significant Development – SSD-83478456 (Amended)

Site: 21, 23 & 25 McIntosh Street and 55 Werona Avenue, Gordon NSW 2072

Objector Property: 49 Werona Avenue, Gordon (Locally Heritage Listed)
Directly adjoining the proposed site’s south/west rear boundary


I am the owner-occupier of the locally heritage-listed property at 49 Werona Avenue, Gordon, where I have resided for over 42 years; my wife is a third-generation resident of the area. My property shares a direct common boundary with the proposed development site. My original objection to SSD-83478456 was lodged on 2 September 2025 and should be read in conjunction with this objection to the amended proposal received 9 June 2026.

The amendment has not resolved the fundamental defects identified previously – in several respects it has made them worse – and I again formally and strongly object to the development on the following eight grounds.


1. The Amendment Fails to Address Prior Objections and Worsens Key Development Metrics

The original SSD-83478456 attracted 145 objections in September 2025 from the community, Ku-ring-gai Council (KMC), the National Trust of Australia, FOKE and Friends of Eryldene, centred on bulk, scale, floor space ratio, setbacks and incompatibility with the low-density streetscape.

The amended application does not address these concerns – the comparative figures show the proposal has intensified, not improved:

▪ Building height increased from 30.5 m to 30.95 m.

▪ Gross floor area increased from 18,604 sqm to 19,453 sqm.

▪ Building C relocated to within 6 m of the southern and western rear boundaries, directly increasing privacy and solar impacts on 49, 51 and 51A Werona Avenue and 12A Forsyth Street, Killara.

▪ An additional four-storey infill building with a rooftop communal area has been added.

▪ Deep soil landscaping reduced from 12.4% to 7.49% of the site.

▪ Building footprint and hard surfaces now cover approximately 7,194 sqm – about 92.51% of the total 7,776 sqm site.

▪ No additional weight has been given to the heritage significance of 49 and 51 Werona Avenue and 12A Forsyth Street, which the applicant continues to dismiss as merely “locally listed.”

2. The Proposal Is Inconsistent With the Newly Adopted KMC Preferred Alternative TOD Plan

Ku-ring-gai Council’s Preferred Alternative TOD Plan was endorsed by Council in June 2025 and formally accepted by the NSW State Government on 14 November 2025, following extensive community consultation. It meets or exceeds the State’s housing targets for Ku-ring-gai by directing taller buildings into the Gordon commercial centre, while protecting the heritage and low-density character of surrounding residential streets through graduated height controls.

• The amended SSD-83478456 was lodged on 9 June 2026 – after the Preferred Alternative TOD Plan was adopted (14 November 2025) – and should therefore be assessed against that plan, not the superseded TOD policy that expired under its Sunset Clause on 13 June 2025.
• Under the adopted Plan, buildings above four storeys are directed to the Gordon commercial centre and the western side of the North Shore rail corridor, where topography supports less obtrusive transitions – not to this site.

3. Direct Visual Intrusion and Loss of Privacy

The amendment retains buildings of up to nine storeys and moves Building C to within 6 m of my rear north-eastern boundary, as well as those of 51A Werona Avenue and 12A Forsyth Street – well under any acceptable setback for a structure of this height.

• Upper-floor windows, balconies and rooftop terraces will directly overlook private open space and bedrooms currently screened only by clear sky.
• Larger balconies introduced in the amendment further increase overlooking compared with the original design.
• The current outlook of open sky, sun, moon and stars to the north would be replaced by a nine-storey concrete structure and associated night-time light spill from dozens of apartments, eliminating the reasonable expectation of privacy in a low-density residential setting.

4. Severe Overshadowing and Loss of Solar Access

Building C’s height of 30.95 m, combined with its relocation closer to my rear boundary, will cast extended shadows over my living areas, bedrooms and garden, as well as neighbouring properties.

• Solar access to kitchen, living and bedroom windows and outdoor entertainment areas will be materially reduced, contrary to standard setback and building-envelope principles that protect adjoining low-density properties.

• The visual impact of the height and bulk will remove the existing outlook of open sky and mature tree canopy from the house and garden at 49 Werona Avenue. In winter my house and garden will be completely blocked from morning sunlight.

5. Excavation, Structural Risk and Construction Traffic Impacts

The development requires excavation for 178 basement car spaces, generating approximately 25,000 cubic metres (about 42,500 tonnes) of spoil with no on-site retention, plus demolition waste potentially including asbestos.

• Excavation immediately adjacent to the rear boundary risks the structural stability of neighbouring land, fencing, mature trees and existing foundations.

• A Sydney Water sewer main servicing at least six properties runs from the objector’s corner boundary through the site to a junction at 55 Werona Avenue, creating additional risk during excavation.

• No adequate construction traffic and environmental management plan has been provided for years of heavy vehicle movements through Macintosh Street and Rosedale Road – narrow residential streets already congested by all-day commuter rail parking and gridlocked at peak times.

• Gordon Park, a busy recreation area with tennis courts and a children’s playground, sits adjacent to the affected intersection.

6. Stormwater Management and Hydrology Failures

With hard surfaces covering roughly 92.51% of the site, the development proposes to pump stormwater from on-site OSD/OSR tanks through a single pipe across McIntosh Street and down Rosedale Road, discharging at one point into the Gordon and Stoney Creek system, which flows to the Middle Harbour estuary.

• Ku-ring-gai Council’s Middle Harbour Northern Catchments Flood Study (BMT, dated 10 April 2025, available on the KMC website) confirms this riparian system, including the Macintosh Street catchment, is already at capacity.

• No contingency is identified for retention tank overflow or pump failure during the increasingly frequent extreme rainfall events associated with climate change.

• The natural fall of the land at 55 Werona Avenue is eastward; pump or pipe failure would direct uncontrolled run-off onto 18A Forsyth Street, Killara and other neighbouring properties.

7. Destruction of Mature Tree Canopy and Biodiversity Loss

The site supports more than 30 mature trees, including remnants of the Critically Endangered Sydney Turpentine-Ironbark Forest, which currently provide acoustic and visual screening between properties.

• Minimal deep soil area remains for replacement planting capable of reaching comparable maturity, and the application appears to rely on neighbours’ boundary trees to compensate for lost privacy screening.

• Canopy loss will increase the urban heat island effect at the site boundary and displace local wildlife that relies on the interconnected gardens, including the endangered Red-Tailed Black Cockatoo (Banksia), along with Rosellas, Rainbow Lorikeets, Kookaburras, owls, White Cockatoos and Australian Stingless Bees.


8. The Scale of Amendment and Jurisdictional Status Require a Fresh Application

The amendment is not a minor refinement but a substantial redesign, raising both planning-merit and legal-validity grounds for rejection or re-lodgement:

• Apartment numbers revised from 162–165 to 151 with a changed unit mix; Building C increased from 8 to 9 storeys; lift overruns increased on Buildings A and B; a rooftop structure added to Building A; a new 4-storey infill building added between Buildings A and B with its own rooftop communal space; internal layouts and lobbies reconfigured; car parking reduced from 191 to 178 spaces; and setbacks to the south and west decreased by moving Building C to within 6 m of those boundaries.

• Changes of this magnitude constitute, in substance, a new development application and should be re-lodged for assessment under the adopted KMC Preferred Alternative TOD Plan rather than progressed as an amendment to a proposal lodged under the now-expired transitional TOD provisions.

• A separate and potentially decisive jurisdictional question remains unresolved: whether the site fell within the Department’s official TOD mapping area at the time of the original lodgement before the 13 June 2025 Sunset Clause. If it did not, the original application was never validly saved under the transitional provisions, and the entire development – original and amended – falls away regardless of the amendment timing.


Conclusion

For the reasons set out above, I respectfully but strongly urge the Department to reject SSD-83478456 in both its original and amended forms, and to require any future proposal for this site to be assessed against the adopted KMC Preferred Alternative TOD Plan, which directs taller development to the Gordon commercial centre and the western rail corridor – locations where topography supports appropriate height transitions – while protecting the heritage, tree canopy and low-density residential character that define Gordon.

Yours sincerely,
42+ Year Resident of Gordon
21 June 2026

I am writing with regard to development proposal SSD-83478456 (No. 21, 23, 25 McIntosh St & 55 Werona Ave, Gordon). I have lived in Forsyth St, Killara for the past 14 years. I strongly objected to the original proposed development (please see submission from 10 September 2025) and I object to this updated development proposal for the following reasons:

1. The updated proposal does nothing to address concerns around the impact a development of this scale would have on the local community, particularly with regards to parking, traffic and public facilities. While the new proposal reduces the number of units, it actually represents an increase in the number of people living there due to changes to unit configurations. Overall, the square metreage of the floorplan has also increased significantly. Therefore, the impact on the surrounding area would be greater than that of the original proposal.
2. The number of parking spaces, including visitor spaces, is woefully inadequate for the number of people who would be living there. This would make the parking situation around the local streets even worse than it already is.
3. There are no areas for exercising pets or for children to play in this proposal. With only a small park nearby that is already very busy with existing residents, this enormous increase in the number of residents wanting to use these facilities would have a negative impact on the amenity of the local area, which simply would not cope.
4. The lack of light for the properties immediately behind Building C in this proposal is a big issue and one which has not been adequately addressed in the plan. In fact, the developers admit that the required standards are not met with this proposal and instead rely on an argument that other developments will probably be built around them in the future, so these particular standards and obligations can be ignored! I would be very concerned if a major decision like the approval of this project was based on pure speculation about what might happen in the future. This would set a dangerous precedent that would seriously undermine the whole SSD process.
5. While the updated plan sets back the buildings closest to the historic house Eryldene, these imposing structures would still overshadow the house and more importantly, the gardens of this important heritage property. This would negatively affect the amenity of this property which regularly hosts community events and could affect the ongoing viability of the historic gardens due to lack of sunlight.
6. The proposed development is completely unsympathetic to the landscape of the surrounding streets and the scale of it is completely out of proportion to the neighbouring properties. While increasing the number of dwellings available in the area is important and necessary, it should not be done in a way that ruins the visual amenity of the area.
7. The height of the proposed Building C (30.57m) exceeds what is allowed under the legislation (28.6m). On top of this, the developer wants to include a roof top entertaining area that would make it higher still, increasing the loss of privacy to neighbouring properties in the process. Again, the developer is asking the planning authority to overlook this for no other reason than to make it financially viable for them. Once again, allowing some rules to be ignored, purely for the convenience of the developer, would seriously undermine the integrity of the approval process.
8. The developer (CPDM) has three residential SSD projects within a small radius of Gordon Station, yet there has been no Cumulative Impact Assessment submitted – a mandatory requirement. Having three (or potentially more) active developments of this scale being built in the same area at the same time will have a devastating impact on the local roads and traffic, which would be intolerable.
9. The developer wants to defer having to address many important considerations, including drainage, noise issues, tree protection) until after approval. This is unacceptable for such a large and significant development.
10. The developers are asking for a number of serious and significant issues with this proposal (which they themselves acknowledge to be problems) to be overlooked – not because the issues cannot be resolved, but so they can maximise their profits from the project. Shifting these issues and problems onto neighbours and other landholders is not acceptable.
11. Overall, while this proposed development would increase the number of dwellings in the Gordon area, it does nothing to improve or contribute to the development of the local community. The developers appear to have no interest in designing a development that would benefit the whole community – their interest would seem to be in making as much money as possible from the project, then moving on, leaving the community to deal with the fallout of a poorly designed and ill-conceived development.

This a continuation of my submission to object to SSD-83478456 dated 21/6/2026


3.4 Excavation, Structural Risk and Construction Impacts
The proposal requires massive deep site excavation to accommodate approximately 178 basement car parking spaces. The Waste Management Plan identifies approximately 25,000 cubic metres (around 42,500 tonnes) of excavation spoil with no on-site retention. This, combined with demolition waste and potentially hazardous materials including asbestos, will generate years of heavy truck movements through the local street network.
• Deep excavation immediately adjacent to my rear boundary poses a direct risk to the structural stability of my land, boundary fencing, mature trees, and existing structures, including their foundations.
• A Sydney Water sewerage main commences from the corner of my property boundary and services at least six surrounding properties, including 55 Werona Avenue where a central multiple connection point is located on their driveway. The impact of excavation next to this critical infrastructure has not been adequately addressed.
• McIntosh Street and Rosedale Road are already narrow suburban streets, heavily congested during peak commuter hours with rail passengers parking on both sides. These roads are classified for light traffic only. Sustained heavy vehicle movements over a multi-year construction programme are entirely inappropriate and will pose serious safety risks to pedestrians, cyclists, and other road users.
• Gordon Park — a busy community recreation area featuring tennis courts, children’s play facilities, and picnic areas — immediately adjoins the affected street network and will be directly impacted.
No detailed construction traffic management plan or environmental management plan has been provided. These are essential components of any responsible assessment and must be submitted before any approval is granted.
3.5 Stormwater, Hydrology and Flooding Risk
The extensive site excavation and the near-total elimination of pervious surfaces on the site (92.51% hard coverage) will fundamentally alter the hydrology of the site and pose downstream flooding risks.
• The onsite combined OSD/OSR tank(s) to collect substantially increased stormwater volumes which is then pumped via a single pipe system across McIntosh Street and down Rosedale Road and discharging into Gordon and Stoney Creeks at a single point, places unacceptable additional strain on a riparian system already operating at capacity. This is confirmed by KMC’s commissioned ‘Middle Harbour Northern Catchments Flood Study’ (BMT, 10 April 2025), available on the KMC website.
• There is also no mention of a back up plan should the OSD/OSR tank(s) overflow or the pump out system fails. The natural slope of 55 Werona Avenue runs eastward toward 18A Forsyth Street, Killara. In the event of pump failure or capacity overload of the off-site piping system, the natural stormwater runoff would directly inundate 18A Forsyth Street and adjacent properties
• With climate change increasing the frequency and intensity of extreme rainfall events, the absence of any identified contingency in the event of OSD/OSR tank overflow or pump failure is a critical deficiency in the proposal
3.6 Destruction of Canopy, Biodiversity and the Urban Heat Island
The proposal requires the removal of approximately 30 or more mature trees across the site, including remnants of the Critically Endangered Sydney Turpentine-Ironbark Forest (STIF). These trees currently provide a natural acoustic and visual screen between the subject site and adjoining properties.
• The deep soil landscaping area has been reduced from 7.49%, severely limiting the capacity to establish replacement canopy trees that could ever attain maturity.

• The applicant appears to be relying on existing mature trees located on the properties of neighbouring landowners - including my own property at 49 Werona Avenue, 51A Werona Avenue, and 12A Forsyth Street, Killara - to discharge obligations regarding privacy screening.
This is not an acceptable planning outcome.

• The removal of the existing tree canopy will substantially increase the urban heat island effect along the shared boundaries and will displace local wildlife that routinely uses the interconnected gardens of the neighbourhood, including endangered Red-tailed Black-Cockatoos (Calyptorhynchus banksii), Eastern Rosellas, Rainbow Lorikeets, Kookaburras, Owls, Sulphur-crested Cockatoos, and Australian Stingless Bees
3.7 Construction Amenity Impacts on Adjoining Properties
As an immediately adjoining property owner, my household and those of my neighbours will bear a disproportionate and sustained burden during what is expected to be a multi-year construction programme. Continuous heavy vehicle vibration, construction noise, dust, and pollution directly adjacent to residential dwellings will seriously degrade the health and quality of life of affected residents for an extended period.
3.8 Heritage Impacts
The amended application continues to give inadequate weight to the heritage significance of properties surrounding the development site. The applicant has characterised locally listed heritage items as “only locally listed” - and therefore unimportant.” This approach is not consistent with the NSW Heritage Act 1977 or the objects of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.
The affected heritage items include 49 Werona Avenue, Gordon, 51 Werona Avenue, Gordon, and 14 Forsyth Street Killara. The proximity, scale, and bulk of the proposed buildings will materially harm the setting, curtilage, and heritage significance of these items. This impact has not been properly assessed. The impact on State Heritage Listed Eryldene House and Garden is correctly and appropriately recognised and no doubt prompted the amended SSD-83478456. Unfortunately, it still does not satisfy the objections raised on the original impacts on the property.

4. Conclusion and Formal Request
The amended SSD-83478456 application represents a severe overdevelopment that fails on multiple planning, amenity, heritage, environmental, and infrastructure grounds. The amendments lodged since the original application have, in material respects, worsened the impacts on my property and those of my immediate neighbours and surrounding area. They have done nothing to address the substantive concerns raised in previous 145 community objections.
The proposal is inconsistent with:
• The KMC Preferred Alternative TOD Plan, accepted by the NSW State Government on 14 November 2025
• The established low-density residential character of the Gordon locality
• Standard building envelope and setback principles for adjoining low-density residential properties
• The heritage significance of surrounding locally-listed heritage items
• Responsible stormwater and flooding management principles
• The biodiversity values of the Critically Endangered Sydney Turpentine-Ironbark Forest remnants on site
• The shear, bulk, height and number of apartments are inappropriate for the site location.

I formally and respectfully request that the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure:

• Reject the amended SSD-83478456 proposal in its entirety
• Resolve the outstanding jurisdictional question as to whether the subject site falls within the DPHI’s official TOD mapping area
• Require any revised proposal to be re-lodged as a new application and assessed under the KMC Preferred Alternative TOD Plan
• Ensure that any future assessment of development on this site requires buildings of more than four storeys to be located within the Gordon commercial business centre and west of the North Shore rail line, consistent with the KMC Preferred Alternative TOD Plan, and where the topography of the land supports appropriate height transition zones

I request that this submission be read in conjunction with my first submission dated 2 September 2025.

Yours sincerely,
Resident of Gordon (42+ years)

Date: 21 June 2026

21 June, 2026

To: Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure
Subject: Objection to State Significant Development (SSD-83478456)

Site: 21, 23 & 25 McIntosh Street and 55 Werona Avenue, Gordon NSW 2072

Objector’s Property: 49 Werona Avenue, Gordon NSW 2072
Relationship to Site: Directly adjoining the proposed site’s southern rear boundary


Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing to formally object to the proposed State Significant Development (SSD-83478456) at 21,23 & 25 Macintosh Street and 55 Werona Avenue Gordon Lot A DP 339345, Lot 5 in DP 6515557, Lot 1 in DP 167505 and Lot 11 DP 1078667
1. Introduction
This is my second formal submission to the NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure (DPHI) objecting to State Significant Development Application SSD-83478456, as amended. My previous objection was lodged on 2 September 2025 and should be read in conjunction with this submission.
As owner and occupier of 49 Werona Avenue, Gordon, I have resided in Gordon for over 60 years. I am a third-generation resident. My property shares a direct common boundary with the proposed development site at its southern rear boundary. I have a substantial and direct interest in the outcome of this application.
Despite receiving 145 objections from the community, Ku-ring-gai Municipal Council (KMC), the National Trust of Australia, FOKE, and other organisations — all raising serious concerns about bulk, scale, floor space ratio, setbacks, heritage, privacy, and solar access - the applicant has not withdrawn the proposal. Instead, the amended application has, in several material respects, worsened the impacts on neighbouring properties - including my own - as well as the Gordon locality.
2. Preliminary Matters
2.1 The Amendment Has Intensified, Not Mitigated, Impacts
Rather than addressing the substantial body of community objection, the amended application has made the following substantial and material changes that increase impacts on surrounding properties:
• Building height has increased from 30.5 m to 30.95 m
• Building C has increased in height to 30.95 m and has been relocated to within 6 m of the southern and western rear boundaries, intensifying privacy and solar access impacts on 51A Werona Avenue, 49 Werona Avenue, and 12A Forsyth Street Killara.
• Total floor space has increased from 18,604 m² to 19,453 m²
• A new four-storey infill building has been added between Buildings A and B
• Deep soil landscaping has been reduced from 12.4% to 7.49%, substantially diminishing green buffering and tree canopy
• Hard surface (impervious) area has increased to approximately 7,194 m², representing approximately 92.51% of the total site area of approximately 7,776 m²
• Larger balconies and roof top communal areas have been added, further increasing visual intrusion and loss of privacy for surrounding neighbours
• No adequate consideration has been given to the heritage-listed properties surrounding the site, including 49 and 51 Werona Avenue, Gordon and 12 Forsyth Street Killara.
2.2 Inconsistency with the KMC Preferred Alternative TOD Plan
The proposed development remains inconsistent with KMC’s Preferred Alternative TOD Plan, which was endorsed by Council in June 2025 and accepted and agreed to by the NSW State Government on 14 November 2025. That Plan was developed through in-depth community consultation and is premised on KMC’s established and proven planning guidelines. It aims to meet and exceed the State Government’s housing requirements for Ku-ring-gai without compromising heritage values or neighbourhood character.
The amended SSD-83478456 application was lodged subsequent to the adoption of the KMC Preferred Alternative TOD Plan on 14 November 2025. It should therefore be assessed under that Plan, not under the original TOD policy, whose sunset date was 13 June 2025.
2.3 Jurisdictional Question: Site May Not Be Within the TOD Mapping Area
A significant unresolved jurisdictional question remains as to whether the subject site falls within the DPHI’s official TOD mapping area. If the site was not properly captured within that mapping at the time of the original application, the application was never validly saved under the transitional provisions. In that event, the entire application — including the amendment — would be invalid regardless of the amendment timing. This primary jurisdictional matter must definitively be resolved before any assessment proceeds.
2.4 The Amendment Constitutes a Substantially New Application
The amendments to the original application are so substantial that they constitute a materially different proposal. The key changes include:
1. Reduction in apartment numbers from 162–165 to 151, with a revised apartment mix
2. Increase in height of Building C from 8 to 9 storeys
3. Increase in height of lift overruns to Buildings A and B
4. Addition of a rooftop communal open space
5. Addition of a new four-storey infill building between Buildings A and B with a rooftop communal space
6. Increased setbacks for Buildings A and B to the western boundary (in response to Eryldene concerns)
7. Reconfiguration of internal floor layouts and ground-floor lobby areas
8. Reduction of car parking spaces from 191 to 178
9. Reduction of setbacks for Building C to within 6 m of the southern and western boundaries
10. Addition of larger balconies throughout with glass balustrades


The cumulative effect of these changes is a substantially different development from that originally lodged. It should be re-lodged as a new application and assessed under the KMC Preferred Alternative TOD Plan in its entirety.

3. Grounds of Objection
3.1 Severe Overdevelopment — Bulk, Scale and Height
The proposed development is, by any measure, an extreme overdevelopment of the subject site. The site is surrounded by single and two-storey residential homes. The proposal offers no coherent or graduated transition in height between the proposed 9-storey buildings and the surrounding low-density residential fabric.
The subject site at 55 Werona Avenue sits on one of Gordon’s highest ridge lines, at approximately 113 metres above sea level. Local planning records describe the site as “sitting on relatively high ground.” The elevated topography means that all three proposed buildings would soar well above the surrounding roofline and tree canopy, dominating the skyline for considerable distances in all directions.
This ‘highpoint effect’ will produce significant and unavoidable visual, privacy, and solar impacts on surrounding properties that cannot be mitigated through landscaping or design amendments at this scale.
3.2 Direct Visual Intrusion and Complete Loss of Privacy
The amended layout places Building C within 6 metres of the southern and western rear boundaries, directly adjoining the rear north-eastern corner of my property at 49 Werona Avenue, as well as my neighbours properties at 51A Werona Avenue and 12A Forsyth Street, Killara. A nine-storey building at this proximity will directly overlook our rear garden, living spaces, and bedrooms.
• High-density apartment balconies and a rooftop communal terrace facing my rear boundary will subject my day time private open space to continuous direct overlooking by a large number of occupants within the proposed development.
• The loss of the current ‘clear sky’ outlook and the replacement of that vista with a wall of lit apartment windows will fundamentally change the amenity of my rear garden at night
• This completely destroys the reasonable expectation of privacy for my household, converting what is presently a private, peaceful suburban backyard into an exposed space overlooked by dozens of dwellings.
3.3 Overshadowing and Loss of Solar Access
- The proposal does not fully meet solar controls.
Given my property’s direct common boundary with the site, the sheer bulk and height of the building clusters — now moved closer to my boundary — will materially reduce sunlight to my property as well as my immediate neighbours.
• At 30.95 m, Building C will cast extensive shadows across rear living areas, bedroom windows, and private open space throughout the year.
• In particular, during winter Building C will completely block all morning sunlight from reaching bedrooms, living areas and garden. During winter, lack of sunlight encourages the growth of mould - a known health hazard.
• Our garden is heritage listed, with many mature trees, and provides habitat for many species of birds. Lack of sunshine puts the garden under additional stress.
• The proposal violates standard building envelope and setback principles designed to protect adjoining low-density residential properties from overshadowing
• The loss of solar access will affect internal living zones, outdoor entertainment areas, and kitchen windows — directly diminishing residential amenity.
3.4 Excavation, Structural Risk and Construction Impacts
The proposal requires massive deep site excavation to accommodate approximately 178 basement car parking spaces. The Waste Management Plan identifies approximately 25,000 cubic metres (around 42,500 tonnes) of excavation spoil with no on-site retention. This, combined with demolition waste and potentially hazardous materials including asbestos, will generate years of heavy truck movements through the local street network.
• Deep excavation immediately adjacent to my rear boundary poses a direct risk to the structural stability of my land, boundary fencing, mature trees, and existing structures, including their foundations.
• A Sydney Water sewerage main commences from the corner of my property boundary and services at least six surrounding properties, including 55 Werona Avenue where a central multiple connection point is located on their driveway. The impact of excavation next to this critical infrastructure has not been adequately addressed.
• McIntosh Street and Rosedale Road are already narrow sub

I am objecting to the SSD proposal at 21, 23 & 25 McIntosh St Gordon and 55 Werona Ave Gordon (SSD-83478456).

My objections are:

1) This development will block sunlight to numerous properties for much of the day and to one house (12 Forsyth St) for the full duration of the day. This is in breach of the regulations and does not meet the Solar Access Requirements in the KDCP. This high-rise development (in excess of 8 stories- Building C) will provide night-time light and glare to the surrounding houses. There is no commentary regarding this significant change in night-time light output covered in the proposal. There is no mitigation strategy to address this issue. Many surrounding houses have bedrooms which will be impacted by introduced nighttime lighting of the buildings.

2) There are no measures to address privacy for surrounding houses. This is something that needs to be appropriately designed. Research indicates that privacy from neighbours is critical if harmonious relationships are to be established between neighbours.

3) This large development will increase the local traffic significantly. Gordon is already struggling with the existing traffic on Werona Avenue, between Park St and Forsyth Street during peak hours. The introduction of this large-scale development will add traffic to a system that is failing. This development will make roads in Gordon cease to function during peak hours.

4) I work irregular hours, and currently find it difficult to find a street park during the weekday. This is due to the commuters who use Gordon station. The number of cars associated with this development, either as residents or visitors will increase significantly. The development’s parking plans do not provide adequate parking for residents, and only 5 visitor car spaces in breach of the 25 required. The current proposed plans, will add significantly to the existing parking problem in Gordon.

5) In addition to longer stay parking, there is no ‘drop off/pick up’ zone for deliveries. Food delivery, and grocery delivery services are widely used across the Sydney community. There is nowhere for these delivery trucks, cars and bikes to park. This means that there will be an increased likelihood of double parking further clogging McIntosh St which is a narrow street. The absence of adequate private resident and visitor parking, as well as the absence of a ‘drop-off / pick up’ zone will create a significant problem in Gordon for all residents.

6) Recreation appears to be overlooked by this development. The community has no parks suitable for exercise within walking distance. The development has no outdoor facilities or spaces for people to exercise or meaningfully relax.

7) Pets appear to be overlooked completely in this development. There are no facilities for pets, and inadequate local community facilities.

I wish to state my strong objection to the amended development application for McIntosh Street and Werona Avenue. The proposal introduces unsustainable pressure on local infrastructure and critically endangered ecosystems: 
• Severe Visitor Parking Deficit: The transport assessment allocates a meager 5 visitor parking spaces for a 151-apartment complex, failing spectacularly against the Council benchmark of approximately 25 spaces. This will swamp local streets that are already entirely saturated. 
• Irreversible Ecological Destruction: The development directly impacts the Sydney Turpentine-Ironbark Forest (STIF) on site, a critically endangered ecological community at explicit risk of "Serious and Irreversible Impact". 
• Flawed Tree Retention Strategy: The Arboricultural Impact Appraisal relies heavily on preserving trees located on neighbouring properties—vegetation the applicant does not own or legally control. 
• Outdated Arboricultural Data: The tree assessment relied on historical material and skipped physical re-inspections, while the Preliminary Tree Assessment admits it never performed root mapping or soil analysis. 
• Overuse of the 55 Werona Access Handle: The narrow access strip is heavily constrained by existing legal interests, including rights of way, easements for support, and covenants, which could be compromised by the proposed link. 
• Access Strip Overland Flow Risks: The access handle is a verified flood path experiencing a 1% AEP overland flow of 170 L/s. Any modifications to its levels, paving, or services threaten to worsen local flooding. 
• Deferred Construction Traffic Management: Detailed truck haulage routes, worker parking schemes, and construction traffic impacts have been left completely unaddressed at this major approval stage. 
The community should not have to bear the infrastructure and environmental shortfalls of this flawed design.

I urge the Department to reject this application in its current form & to refuse the application based on the following planning & structural issues:
• Unacceptable Building Height: Proposed maximum heights of 30.95 m & 30.57 m exceed the 28.6 m limit, which already accommodates a 30% affordable housing bonus. A Clause 4.6 variation is unjustified for an overdevelopment of this scale.
• Impact Shifting: Redistribution of bulk away from the western heritage side unfairly concentrates mass, floor space, & height toward the southern & rear boundaries.
• Outdated Redevelopment Assumptions: The claim that overshadowing of neighbouring properties is justified as these blocks might be redeveloped under the State TOD scheme ignores Ku-ring-gai’s localized alternative TOD controls gazetted on 14.11.2025.
• Inaccurate Baseline Property Data: Stormwater plans incorrectly label an adjacent property as a single-storey home under construction. It is an approved two-storey residence. This invalidates the applicant’s shadow and amenity assessments.
• Inconsistent Application Documents: The Biodiversity Development Assessment Report is built on an outdated 163-unit, 8-level design, not the 151-apartment, 9-storey plans shown in the architectural blueprints.
• Drastic Loss of Deep-Soil Landscaping: Cut from 12.4% to 7.49% of the site, limiting capacity for canopy replenishment & greening.
• Non-Binding Affordable Housing Agreements: Correspondence from the community housing provider is a mere expression of willingness to manage, not a binding contract.
• Complex Over-Engineering Deferrals: The Building Code of Australia report highlights departures from Deemed-to-Satisfy provisions regarding fire isolation, corridor lengths, & travel distances. Complex high-rise fire-engineering risks should not be deferred to post-approval stages.
Thank you.

I refer to the“in-fill” development at 21, 23 & 25 McIntosh Street and 55 Werona Avenue, Gordon,(Ref SSD-83478456).
I submit an objection to this development.
I have been a resident for 10 years, on the same block that this development proposal applies to. This area has historic significance, not just to this area, but to greater Sydney. Eryldene is a house with significant historic significance, that sits beside this proposed development. Buildings of historic significance have been assigned importance by communities and governments and, are considered worthy of protection. They are part of the culture, history and aesthetic of this city and indeed, Australia. To surround them with grey apartment blocks would contribute to the growing disfigurement of Sydney. This venue holds great public benefit. It hosts events for the community including Mother’s Day and Father’s Day events, jazz events, Christmas markets and garden shows. There are no other venues in this area that host events that bring the community together. To build a tower of apartments overlooking this venue, not only disturbs the environment in which the building sits, but it will cast light over the garden altering what can be grown, and ultimately disturb the historic value of the building. It is unlikely that people will want to attend events that are overlooked by these apartments and, which will lack the intimacy, and natural, green garden setting of the current venue. As a young adult living in the area I would like to be able to show my children the history of the area. If this proposed 29m building is built it will remove the important historic appeal of the building and area.
As a young adult living in the area I have struggled with the existing council resources. In particular, the broken and uneven footpaths throughout the area surrounding the train station. I am aware of 2 individuals who have sustained injuries requiring paramedic care, due to the existing poor lighting and footpaths. If a large influx of residents move into the area, placing pressure on the existing infrastructure, this will only worsen the situation. This proposal to significantly increase the number of people living in the area, offers no solution to upgrade existing infrastructure. This includes parking, footpaths, lighting, parks, local recreational facilities, local cultural events and schools. Further, the public transport system simply is not good enough as is. The trains are delayed unacceptably regularly, and are very crowded. An influx of even more people to use this already inadequate system will be detrimental.
Finally, in a time where most people are concerned about the environment, this proposal offers no facilities for environmental care eg only limited solar power, composting, community gardens or appropriate facilities for space for pet management. This proposed development is lacking facilities within the plan to allow residents to meaningfully contribute to the natural environment and lessen their impact. Developments such as this have the potential to offer residents and communities resources or infrastructure to allow people to make an environmental difference. Further, I reject the environmental impact statement's crystal ball analysis. The other developments it forsees simply do not yet exist. I do not accept any meaningful analysis about the environmental impact on a situation that does not exist yet. Further, there is not guarantee that they, nor this one, ever will. The 'immediate' impacts which the environmental impact statement itself acknowledges can only be taken to be permanent.

Finally, these properties will simply be bought by overseas investors, per the trend in this and surrounding subrubs, and will not assist the housing crisis. Similar appartments in subrubs such as macquarie park have evidenced this. There is no sense of community in these biuldings which is essential in great neighbourhoods such as this one.

This development
I strongly oppose the development for all the reasons outlined above.

11 September 2025
Objection: SSD-83478456 — 21, 23 & 25 McIntosh Street and 55 Werona Avenue,
Gordon
To Whom It May Concern,
I am a nearby resident and object to the proposed development. This project threatens
the liveability, safety, and identity of our neighbourhood.
Impact on Families
Nine storeys of windows facing our homes will leave backyards exposed, compromising
privacy and safety. Families, and particularly children, deserve better protection.
Tree Removal
The proposal involves cutting down more than 50 mature trees. This directly conflicts
with council’s own greenscape policies and strips the neighbourhood of its natural
character.
Scale and Character
This development is far too large for the area. High-density housing may suit the
commercial core of Gordon, but not a residential street of one- and two-storey homes.
Traffic Problems
An additional 167 cars every day will push Werona Avenue and McIntosh Street past
capacity. Congestion is already severe during school hours, and this project will make
the situation unmanageable.
Loss of Amenity
High-rise apartments bring constant noise and remove privacy. Once approved, they
also set a precedent for more towers, changing a green and quiet suburb into an urban
apartment strip.
Affordable Housing
The development will not deliver genuine affordable housing. Prices in this area quickly
rise to market levels, meaning the project will fail in its stated purpose while penalising
residents who have saved to live here.
Lack of Real Consultation
Residents were not consulted in any meaningful way. A flyer and online survey are no
substitute for proper community meetings or discussions. Without transparent
engagement, the process is incomplete and unfair.
I strongly urge you to reject the application. It is unsuitable for the site, inconsistent with
community values, and harmful to the character of Killara.

This is an absolute disgrace. Do we really think an apartment block butting up next to low-rise heritage dwellings is a good outcome for this location? Let’s apply some common sense here. Yes, ‘affordable’ housing supply is necessary, however the TOD provisions are clearly a ‘cart before a horse scenario’. Proper planning is what Sydney deserves. Ku-ring-gai Council’s Preferred Alternative Scenario delivers greater housing supply than the TOD, yet is underpinned by critical planning considerations which are essential in areas underpinned by historical significance and heritage value. Applying these critical planning considerations prohibits development in this area for good reason and sound judgment.



Put simply, this proposal is a clear attempt to have a fast-tracked set of unaffordable apartments approved under the illusion of providing ‘affordability’, yet only 2% of apartments are slated for affordable housing into perpetuity, a mere drop in the ocean. This is ridiculous and quite frankly, an insult to the existing community which has tirelessly worked to restore and maintain heritage and conservation homes, yet appear entirely overlooked by this monstrous, out of context proposal, motivated by short-term development profit. If this is apartment block is of State Significance and includes heritage like features, so do all other apartment blocks in NSW.



One only needs to view the image on the front cover of the EIA to conclude it is entirely unsuitable. This is not about NIMBY and simplistically applying this lens to objection submissions, it is about giving this suburb, being one of the earliest municipalities on the North Shore, the historical respect it deserves.



A quick-fix band aid solution which the TOD legislation proposes is entirely unsuitable in areas underpinned by their historical significance. Leave the planning to those that know the area best, being Ku-ring-gai Council. They know the intricacies of the area to ensure that housing supply does not come at the expense of preserving the beauty of what this suburb is known for, being its tree-lined heritage and conservation value. Given the development is not aligned with Ku-ring-gai Council’s Preferred Alternative Scenario, save your time trying to assess the endless bounds of misleading commentary in the exhibition documentation to justify its approval, as this proposal should be swiftly rejected. There are plenty of better sites suited to a development of this magnitude under Ku-ring-gai Council’s Preferred Alternative Scenario.

I object to the proposed development at 21-25 McIntosh St and 55 Werona Ave due to the detrimental impact it will have on the following issues:
Bulk & Scale; Negative impact on Conservation Areas and Heritage Items; Overshadowing; Loss of Privacy; Deep soil landscape; Significant tree removal; Right of Way; Increased traffic; and Visitor parking.
Please refer to the detailed statement attached.

SSD-83478456
No. 21,23,25 McIntosh St & 55 Werona Ave Gordon

To whom it may concern,

As a student living in Killara, I feel compelled to speak up about the proposed 8-storey apartment development planned for our neighbourhood. While I understand the need for more housing in Sydney, this particular project feels completely out of step with the character of our community.

Loss of Privacy and Wellbeing
My bedroom window faces the proposed development site. If this project goes ahead, I’ll be living under the constant gaze of residents, with balconies and windows looking directly into my personal space. This isn’t just uncomfortable—it’s an invasion of privacy. It will affect how I study, sleep, and live in my own home.

Environmental Damage
The development will result in the removal of over 30 established trees, many of which provide shade, privacy, and habitat for local wildlife. These trees are part of what makes this area feel like home. Replacing them with small shrubs or low-canopy trees won’t come close to restoring what’s lost. The environmental impact is permanent, and the proposed landscaping offers no real solution.

Overshadowing and Loss of Sunlight
At 26.8 metres tall, the building will cast long shadows over neighbouring homes and backyards. Our family garden that I use daily throughout the year, will be in shade for most of the day. Natural light is essential—not just for comfort, but for mental health and wellbeing. This development will take that away from many residents, including myself.

This video is a drone I flew at the building height around the boundary facing out across the suburb, residents here will be able to see into the backyards and through windows of hundreds of houses, the oldest house in the street Eryldene Historic House will have an 8 story, 26.8 metre apartment block as the backdrop that will destroy the character and privacy of the gardens backyard. I don't understand why anyone would approve apartments so close to such an iconic landmark.

Traffic and Safety Concerns
The area is already under pressure during peak hours, especially near schools like Ravenswood. Adding approximately 400 new residents and vehicles will only make things worse. As someone who walks and takes public transport daily, I’m concerned about increased congestion, reduced pedestrian safety, and the lack of infrastructure upgrades to support this growth.

Community Disconnection
What’s most frustrating is that this development seems to be driven by profit, not people. There’s been little meaningful consultation with residents, and the scale of the project feels like it’s being forced into a space that simply can’t support it. The character of Gordon and Killara—quiet, green, and community-focused—is at risk of being lost.

I’m not against development. I understand the need for more housing, especially for young people like me. But this proposal is excessive, poorly planned, and out of touch with the needs of the community it will affect most.

Please reconsider this development and work with local residents and council to find a solution that supports growth without destroying the heritage of these already busy streets.

Regards,
TM