Residential Development with In-Fill Affordable Housing at Beaconsfield Parade, Lindfield

Please find attached the submission from Friends of Ku-ring-gai Environment Inc.

I strongly support this proposal.
The reason as to why are the following
1. I support this proposal as it is close to public transportation (~ 400m from Lindfield station) and shops (including various supermarkets - Coles, Harris Farm Markets, and Supamart IGA). We need more housing supply as we are in a housing crisis.
2. It is excellent to see what seems to be an all electric building, saving future residents money, and reducing dependency & use of fossil fuels.
3. The provision of affordable units is excellent to see "Of the 56 affordable units, 2% will be managed in perpetuity (TOD) and 11% will be affordable for a minimum of 15 years (in-fill) commencing on the day an occupation certificate is issued."

Please see attached letter of objection from Nos 16 and 18 Newark Crescent, Lindfield.

The project as presented will prevent any sunlight into the adjacent townhouses at no 25 from dawn to 2pm in winter. This is an unacceptable impact on residents at No 25. Their winter living conditions will be severely impacted, as will as their gardens and their energy bills. The impact in summer will also be significant and prevent any reasonable expectation for solar access to roof panels and hot water, and restrict many hours of potential battery charging. In addition, the Arborists report advises that one of the only trees marked for retention on the boundary adjacent to townhouses at No 25 will not survive the building works and construction plans as presented for approval. The loss of the vegetation and canopy on the site is akin to clear felling and there is minimal vegetation with deep soil areas and canopy habitat being replaced on the site. This proposal as presented is not sustainable, of significant negative impact for privacy and solar access and tree retention on residences at no 25 Beaconsfield Parade Lindfield.

Objection to the project SSD-81623209 at 9-21 Beaconsfield Parade, Lindfield
1. The proposed development has a huge number of buildings of height 6 to 10 storeys with merely 6m from my backyard, while my house has only one story. Undoubtedly it will cause disturbance to the visual and acoustic privacy of my family at Newark Crescent.
2. I spend a lot of time in my backyard, including my daily meals and exercises. As a consequence of the height of the new buildings along my backyard boundary, residents there will be able to have a bird eye view of our house, backyard and front yard from their home. This will be detrimental to the privacy to my family.
3. Any parties that these new buildings will have noise thumping down on my backyard, resulting in a negative impact on my daily life.
4. The bulk and scale of the project will result in loss of trees. Just on the other side and along my backyard (but within the intended development site) there are lots of very beautiful and tall trees (some more than 4 storeys high). The narrow gap between my boundary and the dwellings to be built does not have enough space for the existing mature trees
5. It will be impossible to live in my house for the period of years during the proposed development so close to my home. They intend to excavate 2 storeys deep before they start building. Imagine the massive noise the drilling will cause and the dust. There is no way that I will be able to live here for those years.

Ku-ring-gai Council objects to the project.

Please see attached objection.

23 June 2025
James Crowe
20 Newark Crescent
Lindfield NSW 2070

Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure
4 Parramatta Square, 12 Darcy Street, Parramatta NSW 2150

Objection lodged via Major Projects portal
RE: SSD-81623209– RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, 9-21 BEACONSFIELD PARADE, LINDFIELD
RE: 9 Beaconsfield Parade dwelling into 347 apartments
Dear sir,
I object to the height, mass and proximity of this development as it oppresses the homes in Newark Crescent. The development has an extremely severe impact upon all the houses 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8,10, 12,14, 16, 18, 20, 22, 24 and 26. Regrettably these homeowners are not advantaged to be able to sell their homes and relocate. Given the .85 FSR the homes are not attractive to developers and a sale at a depressed price will not allow ‘like for like’ purchase of a replacement home.
Also, leasing of the homes is problematic as construction noise, dust and dirt will drive lessees away. So, these homeowners are caught in an intolerable Catch 22 situation.
Another issue is that we do not enjoy a stepped transition from Beaconsfield as was promised in the legislation. The ratio of built area on the home boundaries will be 10:1 and 8:1. Surely that is intolerable by any standard, it will approximate the worst excesses of Stalinist architecture.
My argument is encapsulated in my subject reference “9 Beaconsfield Parade dwelling into 347 apartments”. In closing this is not just bad for the people of Newark Crescent but also for the people who move into a residential development that does not have light, sun, or ventilation. It may meet the return on investment of the developers but it fails the people who live in the structure, Lindfield and Ku Ring Gai.

Regards James Crowe, a 46 year resident of 20 Newark Crescent.

Dear Sir/Madam:
Please find the submission attached, prepared by Evolution Planning on behalf of the owners of 4, 6, 8, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20 and 22 Newark Crescent, Lindfield, located to the immediate north of the development site.

It really saddens me to have to write this email to the Department, but there is so much negativity towards the massive building applicant intends to erect directly behind my backyard that I am imploring you to please give it more careful consideration.
SSD is supposed to stand for ‘state significant development’ the applicant’s proposal takes all the advantages offered by the TOD legislation in terms of height, FST and affordable housing then maximises profit at the expense of good design and due to the over density of the design has turned the opportunity for world class design into a profit grab and inevitably a different SSD being a ‘state shabby development’.
My neighbour in No 4 Newark Crescent leads a busy life spending a considerable amount of time with her adult children and grandchildren who often stay in the house and spend hours using the back garden. I also believe my neighbour and her husband moved into No 4 Newark Crescent in 1983 (the family bought the place in 1924) and along with No 10 Newark Crescent are two of the longest residents in the Crescent. Other residents have been living in the crescent for over 40 years and many 30 years.
I am a relative newcomer having lived in Newark Crescent for 19 years.
I also spend a lot of time in my backyard. I have large shade house there where I grow a lot of vegetables. Also, all my washing is hung in the backyard. When I have friends over, we spend most of the time sitting in the backyard garden.
Now the thought of having a 10-storey building 6m from my backyard where there are going to be a lot of flats (and therefore many pairs of eyes) directly looking at every activity I do, scares the daylight out of me. Note that it is going to be higher than 10 storeys because there is already a 3m difference between the ground levels of my house and the intended development.
Also, any parties that these apartments will have, will have the noise thumping down on my backyard.
Just on the other side and along the border (but within the intended development site) there are lots of very beautiful tall trees (some more than 4 storeys high). To think that all these trees will have to be taken down is unnecessary and these trees must be protected not only to protect the trees but also to preserve some privacy. The same issue applies at no 4 where the rear of the property has large trees on the Beaconsfield Parade side which should be preserved to allow some privacy.
It will be impossible to live in my house for 2 years – during the development. They intend to excavate 2 storeys deep before they start building. Imagine the massive noise the drilling will cause and the dust. There is no way that I will be able to live here for those 2 years.
What comes to mind is like having one’s house in the middle of the CBD and not to being able to sell it or to build higher. If I want to sell it, it will be a giveaway, I will basically have to sell it for the same price that a flat will be going in the intended development. So, I do not even have the option of getting out of here now – Lindfield has become a prison for me.
Then the council intends to have a park here directly in Newark Crescent, but it appears to be just for the show, because if the people living in the intended development wants to visit the park (or even just want to buy stuff from Coles) they will have to walk a massive detour to get there.
I am very concerned that the Department of Planning and Infrastructure will approve this development without significant changes thereby denying the people living in Newark Crescent any semblance of the privacy and amenity they previously enjoyed.
I implore you to please consider the people having single storey houses here.
I agree with the objections made by some of my neighbours when they say that the applicant has completely ignored aims of legislation which I understand is contained partly in Chapter 5 of SEPP(Housing) 2021, related to TOD requiring that TOD developements:
(i) are well designed, and
(ii) are of appropriate bulk and scale, and
(iii) provide amenity and liveability.
While I fully support the stated aims, in terms of increasing housing density around transport nodes I don’t agree that this development meets the aims or objectives of the relevant legislation.
The Applicant’s EIS is as expected is a self-serving misleading document that for all its 126 pages does not deal in any way with the environmental impacts on the residents of Newark Crescent in terms of loss of amenity and privacy. This is shameful and presumably not consistent with the ethical standards of the town planner who has signed off on the report who is presumably just a gun for hire. I would have thought that a proper analysis of the environmental impacts of the applicant’s site on Newark Crescent residents would have required many pages. However, it appears that the topic was simply impossible to deal with and the easy road was taken to ignore the Newark Crescent problem completely hoping it will be overlooked by the Department of Planning and Infrastructure and simply evaporate.
It is as if by not dealing with the environmental impacts on Newark Crescent or mentioning the word Newark in the EIS the resident’s living there doesn’t exist!

The applicant’s proposed development
I agree with my neighbours when they say that the proposed development will result in unnecessary massing of apartment on the applicant’s northern boundary creating terrible built form relationship with the adjoining Newark properties, (as existing and into the future).
I understand that buildings can exist together in harmony without having the same density, scale or appearance, though as the difference in these attributes increases, harmony is destroyed.
I submit that when the planned adjoining 10 levels of apartments which are massed on the northern boundary of the applicant’s site collide over a fence line with single storey 1920’s cottages being a difference of 10 storeys to one, the required harmony has been severely disrupted not just for 1 neighbour but in fact a whole side of the street being my neighbours at numbers 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, and 16 Newark which are severely impacted at the fence line but also for numbers 1, 3, 18, 20 and 22 Newark which will be severely overlooked.
The applicant’s EIS discusses in detail how its proposed development is compatible with the apartment properties on Beaconsfield Parade, it briefly mentions its relationship to 25 Beaconsfield next door and even discusses compatibility with properties in Frances Street (some distance away) but omits entirely to explain in its EIS how the applicant’s proposed development is compatible with the properties over the fence line to the north and overlooking Newark Crescent.
Where compatibility is to be achieved physical and visual impacts need to be considered. The most important contributor to compatibility is the relationship of built form to surrounding space, a relationship that is created by building height, setbacks and landscaping.
The applicant’s design is essentially an opportunity to include as many apartments on the site as possible and as many as possible on the northern boundary of the site, making a mockery of its statement in the EIS that the development is of ‘appropriate bulk and scale’.
Heights, Landscape and Setbacks
The applicant appears to have ignored accepted planning principles in ensuring that its proposed development includes buildings of a compatible height, setbacks and landscaping, where there are significant differences in height, compatibility can be achieved when the change is gradual rather than abrupt. No attempt has been made to make transition gradual from Beaconsfield Parade to Newark. We note that the topography of Beaconsfield is approximately 9 metres higher than Newark accentuating the loss of amenity and transition impacts.
The extent to which height differences are acceptable depends also on the consistency of height in the existing streetscape. When viewed from Newark Crescent it is apparent that no consideration has been given to height compatibility and no effort to reduce bulk or height along the northern boundary. Any statements to the contrary in the applicant’s EIS should be vigorously challenged.
It is noted that the open space on the applicant’s design creates space which will be shaded for most of the day and long corridors that will operate as wind a funnel when the breeze and storms from the south arrive.
Landscaping is also an important contributor to urban character and compatibility. The applicant has allowed for the minimum of setbacks on the northern boundary,
In addition over my back fence a number of large trees are located on the applicants site close to the boundary. These trees must also be saved to protect the trees themselves but also the amenity for myself and No 4.

Photo of trees at the rear of No 4 and 6 Newark
If I am correct, I understand that the applicant states that 19% of the site will be ‘deep soil’. We request the Department to look carefully at the possibility of saving these trees as well as other trees in the middle of the site so that these trees may also be preserved even at the expensive of carparks below which I also understand are above the required minimum.
The applicant extolls the virtues of the leafy street character and 10-metre-wide street verge on either side of Beaconsfield containing substantial street tree planting while respecting the site’s heritage context.

However the the applicant’s site does not apply these same standards, quite to the contrary the applicant’s site will be denuded of trees, adopt minimum setbacks all round, knock down all the properties on the site that are part of the Beaconsfield HCA and basically cram as many units on the space as it can get away with and bedamned with its many neighbours on Newark Crescent.

The impact for Newark landowners is terrible in terms of livability, privacy and amenity not to men

Please see attachment.
SSD-81623209

I represent my mother, Margaret Carrigg who is the owner of unit 2, 25 Beaconsfield Pde, Lindfield and who no longer resides there due to advanced age. In March 2025 she suggested that the unit be sold. My inquiries with local RE agents alerted me to the proposed development and soon after I was contacted by the developer's agent, PropertyFox. At this time, we were told there were significant obstacles to overcome with respect to other property zoning and acquisitions, eg. #21. We were willing to proceed, however the other owner at #25, units 1 and 3 was adamant that he would not sell and consequently we were affectively prevented from further participation in the proposal. I acknowledge the proposal speaks to the situation of Site Isolation at #25.

Earlier this month (June 2025) my partner and I returned to reside at unit 2 to prepare the property for sale as originally planned and have learnt from our neighbours of the current Exhibition status of the proposal. Upon review of this document, the EIS (p81 of pdf, Details of Impact Assessment) in regard to shadowing states that, ...."owners are not adversely affected". The shadow plans provided in Appendix F, dwgs 403 and 404 show that the eastern side #25 homes are in total shade until 2PM, whereas presently (mid winter) direct sunlight beams through the upper level windows of both bathrooms and central staircase by 0730 and the lower level living area windows by 0800. These units were deliberately designed to capture the morning sun on this western sloping site. The proposed shadow plan will negate the efficient utilisation of rooftop solar on the present building.
The proposed development will have an enormous impact on the ambience, increasing cost of room heating and clothes drying, and future loss of value at #25, which is clearly contrary to the misleading statement referenced above in respect to shadowing.
If the project is to proceed, we would ask that the building design be altered so that the shadow on the current homes #25 be reduced to be out of shade by at least 9AM mid Winter.

Objection to the project SSD-81623209 at 9-21 Beaconsfield Parade, Lindfield
1. The proposed allowable height of the dwellings close to my backyard boundary in Beaconsfield Parade is 29 metres, while my house has only one story. Undoubtedly it will cause disturbance to the visual and acoustic privacy of my family at Newark Crescent.
2. As a consequence of the height of the new buildings along my backyard boundary, residents there will be able to have a bird eye view of our house, backyard and front yard from their home. This will be detrimental to the privacy to my family.
3. The noise from such a huge residential compound will definitely be tremendous and damage the current quite environment seriously.
4. The bulk and scale of the project will result in loss of trees. The narrow gap between my boundary and the dwellings to be built does not have enough space for the existing mature trees.

Looks like it will be great for the density around the station!

There is currently a significant housing shortage in New South Wales. This project aims to accommodate a large number of families, helping to address the growing demand for housing. The inclusion of affordable housing within the development specifically supports individuals and families from lower socioeconomic backgrounds. Overall, the project is designed to cater to a diverse range of demographics, promoting inclusivity and community diversity.

Development and housing are required in the area to give young families a chance of owning property

An excellent project for down sizers, first home buyers and essential workers .
Easy Walking distance to station, Cole’s and future Lindfield hub .
Compliant to NSW TOD requirements .

With the Kuringai Councils plans to significantly increase density around Lindfield station and alternate TOD scenario which will make the Lindfield Village Hub a reality, we need well located apartments neat LVH. Beaconsfield Parade is an ideal location with this in mind to bring increased housing to local residents with its wide street, already numerous medium density buildings and upcoming Lindfield Village Hub project which clearly has council's blessing.

Well done to the Minns government for creating the SSD pathway to deliver much needed increased housing in this acute housing affordability crisis.

To whom may it concern,
This is Katie Xingyu Chen, as a current resident living on Beaconsfield Parade I am here writing to object to the
planning project of 9-21 Beaconsfield Parade.
As a local resident of Lindfield, I am concerned about the proposed development plan will have a profound impact on the existing
quality of life for current residents in the area. As follows
1. Impact on Residential Amenity
The scale and density of the proposed development appear highly incompatible with the established character of the neighbourhood.
2.Environmental and Visual Impact, especially as the one living in the
low amenity apartment across the parade.
3. Traffic Pressures to Pacific Hwy
The proposed development is likely to add further traffic pressures to Pacific Highway, which is already experiencing significant congestion and high traffic volumes during peak periods.


I respectfully would like the department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure to consider the long-term effects of
this proposal on the local community, and to prioritise the wellbeing and
interests of existing residents in your assessment process.
Yours sincerely, Katie Xingyu Chen

Our family have lived in Beaconsfield Parade Lindfield for over 50 years. My parents, as long term residents in this street & we (who now live closeby) strongly object to the proposal. The proposal should be refused. Our reasons include;
1. the excessive bulk & scale of the proposal is completely out of character & will significantly affect the area. The clause 4.6 variation is not made out.
2. the poor & unattractive design does not fit in with the area. There is no transition in form or design to seek to fit in with surrounding homes & locality.
3. adverse & irreversible impact on HCA.
4. will have a detrimental impact on houses in the immediate vicinity including 25 Beaconsfield Parade Lindfield & character of the street
5. will have an adverse impact on amenity including impacts of overshadowing & on privacy
6. will have an adverse impact on traffic & parking in the street - short term impact during construction & long term impact with the traffic from increased residents
7.there will be an adverse impact on biodiversity & trees (169 trees to be removed)
8. the proposal is inconsistent with Council's preferred scenario. The preferred scenario has been the subject of extensive consultation & approval is imminent. The preferred scenario provides for more planned & orderly development of KLGA.
9. The proposal is not in the public interest.