Residential development with in-fill affordable housing - Reid Street and Woodside Avenue, Lindfield

I am lodging an objection to this proposal.

I have lived in Treatts Road for 37 years. I have chosen to stay here for the peaceful neighbourhood amenity, the heritage housing and gardens, the streetscape, and the green nature of the area.

Comments according to the SEARs requirements:

4. Engagement
Rudimentary with a misleading image on the flyer not representing the number of storeys in the structure, no indication of the developer and very general information which limits the effectiveness of commentary. My email with commentary was unable to be delivered.

6. Built form and urban design
Boxy, plain style and massive bulk is out of character with the existing scale of the heritage style of the suburb which includes much variety and interest in style, character and finishes.

7. Environmental amenity
Solar access for neighbouring buildings to the south on Woodville Avenue will be impaired.

8. Visual impact
Instead of low rise housing, greenery and sky the outlook from the surrounding housing will be soaring hard, boxy surfaces. The structure has no sympathy with close proximity surrounds.

9. Transport
This proposed structure will increase the pressure on our narrow suburban roads intended for low density settlement.
Lindfield has almost no commuter parking so roadside parking is at a premium.
Commuter parking on both sides of streets is impeding traffic flow as only one car can progress on Woodside, Reid and Highgate roads. Buses using Woodside have even more difficulty. This proposed structure does not include sufficient parking at 1.3 per unit meaning overflow will add to the adjacent streetside parking pressure. While the hope of planners and developers is that public transport will be in use to enable less car ownership the reality is that the aged heavy rail system is increasingly unreliable. Even when the intention is to patronise trains a car is always required as backup.
Traffic pressure points:
- Woodside/Lindfield Avenue roundabout at a standstill multiple times each day. This is one block from the proposed structure. This evening I witnessed considerable road rage accompanied by an orchestra of car horns at this intersection & the next south at Balfour Street leading to the underpass due to failure to progress.
- Balfour Street railway underpass intersecting with Pacific Highway has massive queues from north and south Lindfield Avenue. This is one block from the proposed structure.
- Tryon Road accessing East Lindfield and Archbold Road queues.
- Stanhope Road difficulty accessing Pacific Highway and crossing the highway to Fiddens Wharf Road.
- Lady Game Drive very long queues morning and evening with Lindfield/North Ryde and further west trips.

14. Trees and landscaping
Loss of trees and the imposition of a large, hard surface structure will change the microclimate with heat traps in Summer and Winter shade and sunblocks.

18. Social impact
Replacement of established housing and residents has a destabilising effect on neighbourhood relationships and culture so fundamental to feelings of security and wellbeing.
There is no immediate playspace for resident children to safely use and nothing within walking distance for
young children. The tiny park in Wolseley Road on the other side of the railway has just a few aged pieces of equipment and only for the very young.The nearest interesting park would be Killara Park about 1.5 kilometres away. East Lindfield Park is a similar distance away.

19. Flood risk
After heavy rain semi regular flooding occurs on Woodside Avenue from Highgate Road. There is an underground stream draining down to Woodside Avenue under 4 Woodside Avenue.
There is also an everpresent stench of sewage at the footpath adjacent to that property.

Social and affordable housing is most important

To whom it may concern,
I have lived in Lindfield for over 15 years and reside within 500m of the proposed development at 2–4 Woodside Avenue & 1–3 Reid Street, Lindfield. I am writing to formally object to the development application SSD-79261463 as my family and I will be impacted by this proposal. My concerns are as follows:
5. Design Quality The building is visually inconsistent with the surrounding area, and lacks architectural merit in comparison to the surrounding houses and other nearby developments. It is an unappealing, towering block located directly opposite 1-2 storey homes that will destroy the cohesive streetscape of the area and suburb. The development will be a jarring eyesore in an area where the predominant architectural style consists of 1-2 story traditional homes.
6. Built Form and Urban Design The building mass is too large and out of step with the surrounding residential properties. The transition to 1-2 stories homes from a 9 storey building with almost no setback is inappropriate.
7. Environmental Amenity The development adds disproportionate density and would negatively impact nearby homes on Reid Street, Kenilworth and Highgate Roads through loss of sunlight, overshadowing of homes and gardens and given the scale and height at 9 storeys it will directly face into private homes.
8. Visual Impact While the site is closer to the train line and less visible than the Highgate site which is part of this joint development, it still represents a significant increase in scale that is completely out of step with the surrounding built environment. It will be an overbearing structure that will be an eyesore for its height and bulk even in the context of a suburb that is evolving toward more four to six storey developments.
9. Transport and Parking The site is close to the train station, but increased traffic and reduced parking will impact local streets such as Reid, Kenilworth, Woodside and Highgate. Even with proximity to the train station, the proposed number of units will inevitably increase car ownership, exacerbating existing parking shortages.
10. Noise and Vibration Noise from construction and post-construction traffic will affect nearby residents, including families and children. This will disrupt daily life for at least 2 years given the depth of development required to build a 9 storey apartment. There are dozens of homes and hundreds of people who will be impacted by heavy noise during the day which will impact work from home capability.
11. Water Management There is concern the proposal doesn’t sufficiently address stormwater drainage impacts on nearby properties, particularly in areas like Woodside Avenue and Lindfield Avenue. This property is at the bottom of two steep streets and already is prone to flooding and poor water run off.
14. Trees and Landscaping Tree removal is again a concern, with too little emphasis on retaining or replacing local canopy. This will negatively impact the green character of the suburb and shade for the local community.
19. Flood Risk Paving over green areas increases runoff and the possibility of localised flooding, especially near the roundabout at Woodside and Lindfield Avenue
22. Environmental Heritage This site is located near heritage conservation areas and homes. The scale of the development would be visually jarring against significant heritage streetscapes and will overshadow and dominate heritage structures.
23. Public Space and Amenity There is very little open and public space within 400m of this development apart from a very small park near Lindfield station.
Conclusion
As a resident of Lindfield for over 15 years and having raised 3 children in the area, I request that the Woodside development not be approved in its current form. I am supportive of increasing housing, but this needs to be achieved in a coherent, planned manner that respects the overall character of the area and not by permitting the construction of isolated developments in arbitrary locations, whose scale, height and bulk are completely inconsistent with the character and streetscape of the suburb.
Ku Ring Gai Council is at an advanced stage of finalizing amendments to the NSW Government’s TOD scheme. These amendments have been developed with community consultation and will deliver on the NSW Government’s housing targets while also aiming to preserve the character, amenity and livability of Lindfield for current and future residents.
I urge the Department to reduce the scale, height and bulk of the Highgate development to at least comply with KRG Council’s TOD amendments. This would ensure the development meets good planning principles of being properly integrated into a coherent planning framework for the entire council area, rather than stand out as a towering behemoth.
Recommendation
The development should be 6 storeys at most and have appropriate transition to properties that are only 1-2 stories. The lower height and density would also help alleviate many of the above mentioned issues
• Traffic congestion and flow
• Parking on nearby narrow streets. Ensure there is more off street parking available
• Flood risk
• trees loss or damage
• environmental heritage impact given this is very close to heritage conservation areas.
The Department should reduce the scale, height and bulk of the Woodside development to at least comply with KRG Council’s TOD amendments to ensure the development meets good planning principles of being properly integrated into a coherent planning framework for the entire council area.

Thank you for considering my submission.

I would like to express my strong objections to the proposed development on Reid Street and Woodside Avenue, Lindfield (SSD-79261463).

Traffic Congestion
The site is currently zoned for R2 Low Density Residential despite its proximity to the Lindfield Train Station because any high density development on the site will simply cripple the traffic on the East side of Lindfield. The only way for Lindfield residents travelling north to get onto the Pacific Highway is via Havilah Rd where the train tunnel is located. North bound traffic on Lindfield Ave, South bound traffic on Lindfield Ave, traffic from Havilah Rd and Woodside Ave all converge on Havilah Rd in order to get onto the Pacific Highway. This has been a long-standing traffic issue at Lindfield which has no solution to relief the pressure to date.
The Traffic and Parking Assessment Report paints an over-simplistic view of the potential impact of adding hundreds of cars on the road as the result of the development. The entire analysis is based on a one-day survey which does not provide much statistically credibility. As a long-time local resident who drives through Woodside Ave at peak hour time daily, what was described in the report was not a true representation of the traffic condition. During peak hour time, traffic at the roundabout comes to a stand-still due to the sheer number of cars coming from 4 directions as well as the wait time required for traffic light to turn and allow a handful of vehicles to get onto the pacific highway. Contrary to the conclusion stated in the Report, the developments at Woodside and Highgate combined will mean that residents of these buildings will have difficulty getting in and out of the buildings themselves. Because the traffic is interlocked at the roundabout, no emergency vehicles will be able to get through when there is an emergency during peak hour time. I would urge the Assessors of this SSDA to cross reference the real extend of the traffic condition with Ku-Ring-Gai Council as the traffic condition is so severe that Council is now conducting another investigation into the issue.
TfNSW Guide to Transport Impact Assessment guidelines were used in the Report to predict traffic impact. However, as noted in the report, these are generic measures which in reality, are completely inapplicable to Lindfield. The demographic of Lindfield is such that older residents who are looking to downsize will sell their houses and opt for apartment living. This is the age group where health and mobility issues are a key concern and catching public transport is simply out of the question. Therefore, most elderly residents rely on cars as means of transport. In addition, as both the Woodside and Highgate developments have a high portion of three-bedroom apartments, one would assume the residents will likely be families. Hence, the number of cars per apartment is being grossly underestimated.

Flood Management
In the Middle Harbour Southern Catchments Study 2023 commissioned by Ku-Ring-Gai Council, Woodside Ave was identified as a hot spot where inadequate capacity leads to widespread nuisance flooding throughout the catchment. The study also found that “Overland flow down Lindfield Avenue passes through properties downstream of Woodside Avenue, across the Havilah Road sag through properties on Milray Street and into the open channel.” Extensive residential developments on Havilah Rd had lead to worsened flood conditions on Lightcliff Ave. The flow on effect of large-scale residential development on Woodside Ave will cause further negative impact as far as flooding is concerned. The mitigation strategies suggested in the Water Management are not sufficient as Ku-Ring-Gai simply does not have adequate stormwater infrastructure.

Bulk and Scale
Once built, It will be the furthest from Lindfield Station along Lindfield Ave and yet at least 2-3 storeys taller than all the other apartments. This completely goes against best practice town planning and design principles whereby the highest point of development should be the closest to the town centre/train station then gradually stepping down away from town centre. Rather than complimenting neighbouring apartment buildings, this development stands to destroy the street scape. It will overshadow neighbouring houses as well as negatively impact on their privacy.

In conclusion, the proposed development is located in a bottle neck location with amplified implications on traffic flow in Lindfield. The additional amount of traffic generated by the development will simply cripple the East side of Lindfield. Residents in the building will have trouble accessing in and out of the building themselves. This is not the location to have such a large scale development, hence, the application should be declined.

It will ruin the beautiful suburb of Lindfield

We have lived on Nelson Road Lindfield since 1999 and enjoy the leafy surroundings with predominantly federation or heritage significant dwellings. It is what attracted us to buy here. Whilst I am in favour of creating more affordable housing in our area, this development does not meet regulations. Specifically I am against the allowance heights being sought. This development is approx 1.7 metres higher than the State maximum permitted. Whilst developer argues only minor parts of the building are above allowance, if approved they gain penthouse apartments which cannot be low cost housing. The build is above the natural tree line which ruins the suburb and is hazardous for wildlife and birds. Clearing of trees creates more climate change. Due to the height non compliance this build does not reflect affordable housing requirements.Street frontage setbacks also do not comply. The setbacks from the street start at 6 storeys on some sides so not an effective setback. The building encroaches over the boundary by way of the balconies. The car parking is less than 2 per apartment so street parking will be adversely affected in an already congested street. The cumulative impact for the Nelson Road Lindifeld development has not been taken into account with regards to traffic and noise. I do not support the height of the building not the setbacks proposed.

Please see attached document

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

Please see attachment.

I have lived at 18 Kenilworth Road for over 20 years and I know this area extremely well. This development poses a major threat to the quality of life for Kur-ring-gai residents, current and future.

Design Quality, Built Form and Urban Design.
This building has a very poor design. It is best described as a monstrosity. The units are crammed together. There is very little communal space for so many people, especially considering the lack of parks within 400m of the site. The outlooks from the units would be very poor. It will be completely out of place in this location for a whole host of reasons. Its height and bulk far exceeds that of any surrounding buildings including the existing, well designed units across the street on Woodside Road. The only other building which will be in the same league (if approved) will be the other proposed building, immediately adjacent, proposed by the same developer, which is also horrendous in terms of height and bulk. The separation between the 2 blocks will be completely inadequate to allow a good quality of life for the residents. These huge buildings should be considered as one development. Each of these complexes will have a huge detrimental impact on the other and on the surrounding residences.

The setbacks at street level do not meet the requirements in the SEARS. The building encroaches beyond the boundaries, robbing the community of amenity, not providing it. There is inadequate setback at higher levels. There will be overshadowing of neighbours and surrounding gardens and residences throughout most of the day.

The building height exceeds the height limit. It will take the building height above the height of the very tall trees on the side of the railway line. Because of its height it will not meet requirements for including affordable housing.

This building should be considered in combination with the other block ie the SSD proposed in Highgate Rd. The developer has clearly submitted separate applications to have a better chance of meeting requirements especially for deep soil and for solar access. But the adjacent proposed multistorey apartment building on the eastern side will rob residents of light and ventilation, and an acceptable outlook. There will also be significant noise from the main north shore railway line which is just across the road from this building. and from vtraffic on very busy Lindfield Avenue. There is not enough room left to sustain enough healthy large trees to fit in with the Kur-ring-gai’s traditional leafy streetscapes and visual appeal. We need tree preservation in Kur-ring-gai not only for aesthetic value, but also for health and climate reasons.

The building does not provide adequate parking for the number of residents it proposes to accommodate. It provides < 2 car spaces per unit. There is inadequate provision for visitor parking. The streets nearby are already having to accommodate a lot of commuter parking and the trains are filled to capacity.

I have lived in this area, 120 metres from this proposed construction for over 20 years. I avoid walking on the footpath on the eastern side of this proposed development because it is very narrow and dangerous. It fails to meet the standard requirements for footpath width. If i walk my dog on a short lead down that footpath and someone comes along in the opposite direction, one of us if forced to walk on the road. Units will receive very little direct sunlight. I

Environmental Amenity
This building will do nothing to provide “environmental amenity” to the surrounding community. With all of these extra people living in the immediate vicinity there will a dire lack of public open green space. The nearest park is a long way away (well over 400 metres which is what is recommended).

Traffic
The traffic situation in the area is already dreadful especially in peak hour and at school drop off and pick up times. The roundabout on the corner of Woodside Rd and Lindfield Avenue gets heavily congested, from traffic banking up to get through the traffic lights onto the highway, and also from cars trying to proceed to the very busy local shops and Harris Farm. It already often takes 3 changes of lights to get onto the highway. Pedestrians trying to cross Woodside Rd at this point need to take great care to avoid danger. This complex will puts unacceptable extra burdens on traffic at these points but also at the corner of Nelson Rd and Tryon Rd, and at the corner of Tryon Rd and Archbold Rd, where it currently takes several traffic light changes to access Archbold Rd each morning. The fact that school zonings have recently changes also needs to be factored in, which it has not. Children who live on this side of the highway will now be zoned into schools on the other side of the line, that further increasing traffic pressures at intersections entering the highway, and also increasing pedestrian usage and danger to pedestrians.

The extra traffic burden from this building needs to be considered in the context of the additional traffic from the proposed building next door and from all the extra residents who will be moving into the area due to The TOD proposals/or the Councils preferred alternative scenario if that goes ahead instead. The cumulative traffic burden needs to be fully investigated and the contribution of this building will be significant to the overall outcome.

Pedestrians
I’m very worried about all of the cars from this complex and the one proposed next door entering on to Woodside Rd so close to the roundabout. It will become a very congested and dangerous intersection especially for the increased number of pedestrians, including children and school students, who will be walking regularly to the shops, the bus and the station.

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

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

Heavy traffic and limited parking

Dear Adela,

Please find attached my submission and accompanying CV in response to SSD - 79261463.

Thankyou for your consideration.

Regards,

Tony Moody

Please refer attached regarding my submission opposing this project.

SSD SSD-79261463

2-4 WOODSIDE AVE & 1-3 REID STREET, LINDFIELD

My Name is Brian Harcourt of 18 Kenilworth Rd Lindfield.

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

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


Community Engagement


Similar to SSD 78493518 at Highgate Rd the community engagement was non existent. I live less than 120mtrs from this site and there was no commination’s delivered here. Looks like intentional community avoidance to me.


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





6 Built Form and Urban Design Set Backs

Set backs of 6 mtrs are not achieved right around this structure and that is unacceptable. This limits the ability to grow trees to hide the scale of this building.

7 Environmental Amenity Design Elements

The north side of this property looks reasonable however the height is certainly of of character with the area and the nearby Heritage Conservation Area. The wester side is a pile of bricks and glass and a very sorry design. The western side will be dark and cold to live on and I am sure mushrooms will thrive in that environment. Not to mention that a view of the hill of weeds and the railway line will be very sad.


7 Environmental Amenity Solar Access
The overshadowing from the Highgate Rd development and vice versa is significant and if this was a single development this wouldn’t be allowed to happen. Looks like developers are working within your rules but against the spirit of the rules. The government needs to challenge this.


7 Environmental Amenity Tree Removal
The removal of 9 High significant value trees is very disappointing and replacing trees around the outside of the building close to roads and driveways will not soften the scale of this building.


8 Visual Impact Height

If the government specifies a height limit the developer should be subject to the height limit. What’s the point of having rules otherwise.


9 Transport Traffic Congestion

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












19 Flood Risk

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



Yours sincerely

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

I have lived in Ku-ring-gai for 60 years; most recently in Lindfield close to the proposed development.
I have also lived in other parts of Sydney, overseas and have children living in the inner west. Ku-ring-gai has a unique character and quality, with a blend of bushland, tree canopy, village centres and distinctive housing and streetscapes in Heritage Conservation Areas (HCA) which provide a historical perspective from the 1880s of this area of Sydney.
Having lived in two Local Heritage listed residences , I understood that we are 'custodians' of these heritage items for future generations. We spent a lot of effort, care, time and expense in renovations to both heritage items, often with extensive delays in securing approvals to undertake any changes. Both are good examples of residential architecture of their era, and have contributed significantly to the surrounding residential precinct.
Each Heritage Conservation Area (HCA) is unique and brings together good examples of predominantly residential housing and streetscape completed over an extended period which collectively constitute a consistent, quality residential environment, and window into the history of the greater area of Sydney.
Most residents appreciate the need for higher density housing around transport hubs, but higher density must not come at the cost of destroying the area's unique qualities. Each development must be considered in the context of its impact, particularly on HCAs.
I make the following points and observations referring to the SEAR requirements.
5. Design Quality
The proposed construction of 89 dwellings, at Reid Street/Woodside Avenue, in the place of 4 residential houses and 1 granny flat, lacks empathy with the existing environment, look and feel of the surrounding garden suburb. The design includes long facades to the east and west, at Lindfield Avenue, to 9 storeys high, which do not reflect the scale and diversity of built form which characterises the surrounding streets. The development is not a good or environmentally sensitive design.
6. Built Form and Urban Design
The 9 storey flat building, is built to a large scale where one street away the existing 2 storey residential development will remain. This nearby residential area, forms part of a HCA. This new development represents too great a height and bulk for the locality; it is an inappropriate level of development.
The east and west facades, though indented here and there, are the full length of the block, and not modulated to any degree. This again is at odds with nearby residential development.
The transition from this development to nearby retained built form, is inadequate to properly protect the locality and its importance as a recognised HCA.
Given the locality and context of Lindfield, the setbacks to street facades to a nominal 6m are inadequate and do not reflect the general conditions of the area.
A more appropriate setback to key streets is 9m consistent with residential setbacks of surrounding residential areas at the lower side of the street. (Note high side of streets has a 12m setback)
7. Environmental Amenity
The Urbaine Design Group report on visual and environmental impacts includes photomontage images which confirm that the design is foreign to the present environment in respect to visual impact, bulk as viewed from Lindfield Avenue, Highgate Road and Reid Street. It confirms this by categorising the impact as “moderate to severe” or “moderate” in 5 views.
The impact is created by the building height at 9 storeys, the lack of street setback and issues around capacity to provide screen planting of significant trees. The façade to Lindfield Avenue extends for some 65m set back from the boundary at a nominal 6m.
As opposed to surrounding residential development, the façade design has limited variation in form, materials, facade treatment so provides limited amenity to the streetscape.
8. Visual Impact
The Visual Impact Report by Urbaine Design Group advises as follows:
'2.1. The Visual Context The immediate surroundings ………… mostly single-storey residential dwellings with some 2 and 3 storey mixed-use developments towards the town centre. These buildings showcase a blend of architectural styles, encompassing both traditional and contemporary designs. ……………. leading to a mixture of construction materials and finishes. …………………… exhibit varying setbacks from the public domain, contributing to the overall character of the neighbourhood. …………leafy character characterised by a streetscape quality of side setbacks and predominant, mature landscape.'
The above descriptions are true representations of the current urban scape.
The proposed development is nothing like this.
Given there is only a 6m building street setback from Reid Street and nominal 6m to Lindfield Avenue, and 6m deep soil to Reid Street and about 2-4m to Lindfield Avenue, landscaping will not be able to shield views to this proposed building per the current environment. There is only a narrow footpath (about 1m) to Lindfield Avenue and no nature strip.
The impact of this development will therefore be very high.
The Urbaine Report correctly advises that views from Woodside to Lindfield Avenues, Highgate to Reid Street and views from Reid Street are assessed as “moderate to severe”.
The acceptable impact would suggest a 5 level development more consistent with the locality.
9. Transport
The submission includes a Traffic and Parking Assessment Report by Varga Traffic Planning.
This is a totally inadequate report which only deals with two intersections at Highgate and Woodside and Woodside and Lindfield Avenue.
Within 50m of the site at Lindfield Avenue and Havilah Road is a totally inadequate intersection that provides one of the few locations to enter and leave the Pacific Highway to service those living in this vicinity.
This intersection presently operates chaotically during morning and evening peak times, weekdays and very inadequately at many other times, 7 days per week. For those travelling north along Lindfield Avenue and entering the Pacific Highway, traffic light changes of more than 4-5 times may be required to enter the Highway, with wait time in long queues.
Some key locations during peak times are:
• Havilah Road/Lindfield Avenue to Pacific Highway requiring 4-5 light changes
• Stanhope Road mornings to Pacific Highway with queued traffic back to Killara Avenue
• Tryon Road west to Archbold Road queued to Howard Street requiring 4-5 light changes both morning and evening peak
The traffic report ignores and does not deal with these locations and conditions and therefore can only be deemed inadequate. The provision of 89 new dwellings replacing 4 residences plus granny flat will have an incremental and negative effect upon existing traffic conditions.
Commuter parking regularly takes up street parking around this proposed development; typically commuter cars are parked in the street at Woodside Avenue from Lindfield Avenue to Blenheim Road, in Highgate Road to past Reid Street, and Reid Street.
Given 4 houses plus granny flat will be replaced by 89 dwelling units street parking issues will become worse.
The proposal provides for 127 carparks of which 18, at the rate of 1 car space per 5 dwelling units will be provided for visitors.
This leaves 108 car spaces for 89 dwelling units or 1.21 spaces per dwelling. This will cause significant street parking to be used by the occupiers of the new development where car ownership is likely to be well in excess of the assumptions.
A more realistic calculation ought be used.
14. Trees and Landscaping.
Visual Impact Report by Urbaine Design Group confirms the existing conditions on the site and around the site as follows:
'Of greatest relevance, in terms if visual impact, is the amount and maturity of the existing landscaping in this area, both along the streets and within the private gardens.'
However, the proposed development has little deep soil planting.
The deep soil planting to Lindfield Avenue is only 2-4m wide for the greater part, and to Reid Street, about 6m wide. To Woodside Avenue, the deep soil planting space is 5-7m wide. Within these constraints, it is not possible to complement and replicate existing conditions. The development is therefore inappropriate and the design ineffectual in maintaining existing environmental conditions and landscape.
No trees remain within the site boundaries. There is no room to plant trees of scale within the site boundaries given the narrow allocation of deep soil conditions.
The development will be dependent upon planting within the public area nature strip which is non-existent at Lindfield Avenue.
The development will not be able to reflect the correct observations as stated within the proposal’s own submission, as noted above.
19. Flood Risk.
The current stormwater system is overwhelmed in high rainfall conditions; its capacity is unable to cope with the local demands.
There is a stormwater inspection lid in the middle of Lindfield Avenue near the roundabout.
In heavy rain conditions, this lid can be lifted, about a metre above road surface level, supported on a stream of water sprouting from the inground system. This demonstrates the pressures within the pipework and the lack of capacity within the system as installed.
22. Environmental Heritage
The development is one street away from Blenheim Road HCA.
This road consists of one to two storey post WW1 residences and gardens, consistent in form and quality and to a high standard representative of the period.
They are well maintained.
The adjacency of 9 storey flat development one street away is inconsistent with the existence of the HCA.
23. Public Space
Predominant public space in the development is landscape roof space - restricted public space for children - & no useable ground level public space other than a sunless strip between two developments; inadequate for proposed scale of development.

I would like to object to the proposed residential development with in-fill affordable housing at REID STREET AND WOODSIDE AVENUE, LINDFIELD, SSD-79261463

We bought our first property in Lindfield 18 years ago. We are not opposed to development within the Lindfield area, providing it is appropriately executed. I have significant concerns regarding both the development (SSD-79261463) itself and its potential impact on the well-being of residents and amenity of the surrounding Lindfield area. Not only will there be very notable impact to the streetscape in a historically significant area, but environmental impact and increased safety hazards.
I have outlined my main concerns using the Strategic Environment Assessment Report (SEAR) document as reference;
ENGAGEMENT (4)
I do not believe the objective of providing timely information to residents about the proposal was met in relation to SSD-79261463. There was inadequate time between the flyer distrubtion and the two community drop in sessions on 4 March 2025. There were no Development Applications for the public to exhibit at this time so very difficult for engagement to occur.
DESIGN QUALITY (5)
- I do not believe the design elements are in keeping with the area
BUILT FORM & URBAN DESIGN (6)
- This building will significantly alter our neighborhood's character due to the inappropriate height, bulk and scale
- A new residential development such as this, in this location, is not in keeping with the area
ENVIRONMENTAL AMENITY (7)
- The SEAR document states “A high level of environmental amenity for any surrounding residential or other sensitive land uses must be demonstrated”. The Visual Impact Analysis (VIA) has not considered view loss and visual impact from nearby residential properties
VISUAL IMPACT (8)
- Same as above
TRANSPORT (9)
- Increased vehicle and pedestrian traffic will further exacerbate the current traffic issue specifically on Woodside Ave, Lindfield Ave and Havilah Road - East and West bound
- From daily personal experience in using Woodside Ave, Lindfield Ave and Havilah Rd, on to the Pacific Highway - these EXISTING issues will only be further exacerbated by additional road usage. For example, the sheer number of cars that could be exiting the proposed development at peak times will cause further delays at this junction – already these streets are gridlocked at this time (see photograph dated 28/05/25 attached of backed up intersection along Lindfield Ave and Havilah Rd). I have witnessed many dangerous incidents at this location.
- Woodside Ave is already heavily lined with parallel car parking creating poor visibility to moving cars whilst posing a safety risk to pedestrians.
- Street parking is already limited and difficult along Woodside Ave, Lindfield Ave and Havilah Rd.
WATER MANAGEMENT (11)
- Management of storm and waste water at this location is a flood risk concern
- I have witnessed at times overflowing drains on the corner of Woodside Ave / Lindfield Ave, this issue will only worsen with the proposed development
TREES AND LANDSCAPING (14)
- A loss of 9 of the 13 significant trees on-site is concerning and not consistent with the SEARs requirement of retaining significant trees
ENVIRONMENTAL HERITAGE (22)
- The proposed development is in close proximity to the Kenilworth and Blenheim Road Heritage Conservation Area (HCA)
- A new residential development such as this, in this location, would undermine the very purpose of protecting our HCAs recognized and valued for their historical and aesthetic character
PUBLIC SPACE (23)
- The lack of public open spaces and parks to cater for additional residents within walking distance (400m) of the proposed development

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SEAR #19. Flood Risk
See SEAR # 11

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

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