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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please see attached document.
I inadvertantly left off the attachment in the prior attempt.

With thanks,
Robert Cowley

Please see submission attached.
With thanks,
Robert Cowley

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

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

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

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

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

6). Built form & Urban Design - a). There is no account for performance of each unit against the ADG design criteria. b). There is misrepresentation of volume, duration and direction of sunlight to units and the rooms therein (bedrooms rather than living rooms as required by the ADG). c). Communal space includes an area on the roof top which is firstly counter to the advice provided by the development's own planning advisor; and will result in significant overlooking impact to the adjacent properties and adverse noise, not to mention potential safety hazard for those visiting the communal space and for those below from non-deliberate falling debris. d). The design of this SSD and the adjacent SSD 78493518 of 2-8 Highgate Rd, which has been engineered to navigate around the deep soil building codes required if the development were one consolidate building, create significant overlooking across the internally facing apartments of the respective SSD's. The eastern ground level communal area will suffer from significant shading for the majority of the day. e). the closest park area is significantly greater than 400m accepted walking distance which places even more emphasis on the appropriateness of the communal area.

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

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

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

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

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

Please see attached letter with stated reasons for my objection.

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

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

I object to the SSD of Reid Street and Woodside Road. My submission is very similar to that put in for 2-8 Highgate Road as the SSD is by the same developer and has the same impacts on the area. My submission covers the following SEAR’s points:

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

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

SEAR # 9. Transport
Already in Lindfield there is significant congestion at the following junctions:
Havilah Road and Lindfield Avenue
Havilah Road and Pacific Highway
Lindfield Avenue and Woodside Road
Tryon Road and Archbold Road
Strickland Avenue and Pacific Highway
I have been involved and witnessed accidents and near misses with vehicles at each of these junctions. The increase in vehicle numbers brought by this and related SSD’s will lead to a significant increase in traffic which in turn will result in an increase in accidents for both pedestrians and drivers.
The developer’s own analysis is that 75% of drivers in the Ku-ring-gai area drive to work.
The SSD states that there will be minimal impact on traffic from the development. This fails to recognise the other SSD’s that have currently been submitted, including the developer’s own additional SSD for 2-8 Highgate Road.

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

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

Subject: Formal Objection to Proposed Development at 2–4 Woodside Avenue and 1–3 Reid Street, Lindfield NSW

To Whom It May Concern,

I am writing to lodge my strong objection to the proposed development at 2–4 Woodside Avenue and 1–3 Reid Street, Lindfield.

While I recognise the importance of providing diverse housing options, this specific proposal presents serious and far-reaching concerns regarding traffic congestion, neighbourhood character, and unsustainable urban density. It is imperative that the Council fully considers the cumulative impact of this development on the broader Lindfield community.

1. Exacerbation of Traffic Congestion
The Woodside Avenue and Reid Street intersection already experiences regular traffic delays, particularly during school drop-off and pick-up hours, with narrow streets and limited visibility creating safety hazards for drivers and pedestrians alike. The proposed development will significantly increase vehicle numbers on these residential roads, compounding congestion and elevating risks for all road users.

This area lacks the road infrastructure to safely and efficiently handle the increased traffic volumes that would result from a high-density development. Without a comprehensive traffic impact study and supporting infrastructure upgrades, this project would create more problems than it solves.

2. Incompatibility with Established Neighbourhood Character
The scale, bulk, and architectural style of the proposed development is completely out of character with the surrounding properties, many of which are heritage or period homes.

Approving this development would set a dangerous precedent for incompatible infill that chips away at the established identity of the suburb. Residents chose to live here for its calm, suburban atmosphere—not to be encircled by out-of-place, high-density blocks that overshadow existing homes and gardens.

Sustainable development must consider more than housing quantity; it must balance quality of life, service accessibility, and environmental considerations. Unfortunately, the current proposal appears to ignore these principles, instead prioritising developer profit over long-term community wellbeing.

Conclusion
For all these reasons—intensified traffic congestion, loss of neighbourhood character, and unsustainable density—I respectfully urge Council to reject the development proposal for 2–4 Woodside Avenue and 1–3 Reid Street in its current form.

Re: Residential Development with In-Fill Affordable Housing at
Reid St & Woodside Ave, Lindfield - SSD-79261463

To Whom It May Concern,
I am writing to express my strong objection to the proposed development at the corner of Reid Street and Woodside Avenue, and to call for a reassessment of the application. The development clearly violates the height restrictions set out in Sections 155(2) and 18(2) of the State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP), with a proposed height of 30.35 metres—exceeding the permitted limit by 1.75 metres or 6.1%. This is not a MINOR deviation but a serious overreach of established planning rules.
The developer is seeking a variation under Clause 4.6 of Section 15A, Division 1, Part 2 of the Housing SEPP, claiming the increase in height is justified in pursuit of additional infill affordable housing. Yet they have provided no evidence explaining why this housing cannot be delivered within the height limit of 28.6 metres already permitted. This omission suggests the variation is less about meeting housing needs and more about maximising development yield.
The submission refers to the 6.1% breach as a “minor” adjustment to allow “reasonable and modest” extra density. This framing is misleading. When added to the 30% height bonus already granted for affordable housing, this additional increase represents a further 20% uplift—enabling the construction of an entire extra floor. This is neither reasonable nor modest.
Crucially, there is no rationale provided to explain why this extra height is essential for meeting the affordable housing target. The argument hinges solely on the presence of some affordable units, without addressing why they couldn’t be accommodated within the allowable building envelope.
Given the significant implications for the surrounding low-rise, tree-lined neighbourhood—particularly regarding scale, overshadowing, and the environmental erosion—I strongly urge Council to reject this unjustified height variation and uphold the existing planning controls.
The proposed height will significantly impact the visual character of the area. It will dominate the streetscape and permanently disrupt the balance and scale of surrounding homes. Yet, the developer’s submission attempts to minimise these impacts by narrowly focusing ONLY on the specific segments of the building that breach height limits. This approach fails to acknowledge that these breaches make the extra storey possible—and with it, a host of additional visual and environmental effects that are not transparently addressed.
By omitting a comprehensive analysis of this added floor’s consequences, the submission lacks honesty and accountability. It demonstrates a disregard for the existing community and reinforces the need for stricter oversight and enforcement of planning standards.
On page 23 of their Clause 4.6 request, the developer concedes that strict adherence to the 28.6-metre height limit would only result in the removal of two PENTHOUSE apartments on Level 9, reducing the total dwelling count from 89 to 87. These units could easily be absorbed into the existing design through internal layout adjustments, meaning the total housing yield would not be affected.
Neither of these PENTHOUSE apartments is earmarked for affordable housing. Enforcing the height limit would have no impact on the delivery of low-cost housing, confirming that this request for excess height serves no public interest and purely benefits the developer.
The justification for this Transport-Oriented Development (TOD) rests on the assumption that proximity to train stations will limit car usage and traffic congestion. But this theory does not align with reality in Lindfield. North Shore rail services are already at or over capacity during peak periods, even without disruptions or delays. Our local infrastructure simply cannot absorb the added pressure this development would bring.
The proposed scale of the development will increase vehicle traffic and create serious safety concerns for pedestrians, especially at already busy intersections. The Traffic Impact Report accompanying the application relies on generic state-wide transport assumptions that ignore the local conditions in Lindfield—such as high car dependency, limited rail capacity, and the site’s inclusion within the Lindfield Learning Village catchment, which will increase school-related traffic during peak hours.
These overlooked realities make it highly likely that the development's true traffic impact is significantly underestimated. Without accurate, context-specific modelling, the report’s conclusions are unreliable and unsuitable as the basis for any informed decision-making.
Additionally, the proposed nine-storey height starkly contradicts Premier Minns’ December 2023 commitment to a six-storey cap under the TOD scheme. This excessive scale will have a direct and lasting effect on congestion, safety, and our community.
To mitigate these impacts, I strongly urge the reduction in the development’s height and scale to a maximum of six storeys in line with the Premier’s announced limits and the review of traffic plans to reflect real local conditions, including high private vehicle use and current rail network limitations.
Ignoring these concerns will place undue strain on local infrastructure and compromise community safety and wellbeing.
While I fully support the creation of more affordable housing, the current TOD incentives—particularly the 30% bonus in height and floor space—risk encouraging developments that prioritise quantity over quality. This short-sighted approach jeopardises the long-term integrity and character of established communities.
Additionally, with 30% of dwellings controlled by a single affordable housing provider, the balance of power within the strata scheme will be skewed, potentially undermining building management and maintenance. A single entity with a short-term focus may lack the incentive to invest in suitable building materials or long-term infrastructure, leading to quicker deterioration of the property and placing added pressure on already overburdened regulatory bodies like the Department of Fair Trading’s Project Intervene.
It is vital that quality, liveability, and community values are not sacrificed in the pursuit of short-term gains. Planning authorities must demand that developments genuinely align with the long-term vision of the TOD initiative.
This proposal, in its current form, falls short of that vision. It prioritises profit over people, density over design, and expedience over sustainability. I respectfully urge that all relevant planning bodies enforce the existing height limit, reject the current Clause 4.6 variation, and require a revised proposal that better serves both the needs of our community and the principles of good planning.
Sincerely,
Long term resident of Kenilworth Road, LINDFIELD

Please find attached my submission.

As long-standing members of the Lindfield community, my family and I care deeply about the suburb’s unique character, amenity, and overall liveability. With four adults in our household, we rely daily on the area’s public transport, local services, and community infrastructure. We are therefore highly concerned that this development proposal is misaligned with both the intent of Council’s adopted TOD Preferred Scenario and the planning standards outlined in the Secretary’s Environmental Assessment Requirements (SEARs).

The proposed development does not demonstrate the level of design excellence expected of a State Significant Development. Communal open space (COS) has been poorly positioned in side setbacks and on the rooftop — areas that are heavily shaded, offer limited usability, and pose privacy risks to adjoining residents. These locations fail to meet basic design expectations and contradict the applicant’s own consultant, who has previously acknowledged the negative amenity impacts associated with rooftop COS. The absence of a nearby high-quality public park within a 400-metre walkable radius only increases the pressure on the development to provide high-standard on-site amenity — a requirement that has clearly not been met.

In terms of built form, the proposal reflects a disregard for the surrounding context and planning intent:
• The scale, bulk, and height of the building significantly exceed what is appropriate for the area, especially in light of the surrounding low-rise streetscape and the development patterns envisioned by Council’s TOD strategy.
• No adequate transition is provided between the 9-storey structure and neighbouring homes or the adjacent proposal at 2–8 Highgate Road, resulting in an abrupt and visually dominant cluster of high-rise forms that is entirely incompatible with the established and emerging neighbourhood — including the Blenheim Road Heritage Conservation Area.

Traffic and parking pressures, already pronounced in this part of Lindfield, will be further aggravated:
• Streets such as Reid Street and Woodside Avenue are experiencing regular congestion during peak periods, with narrow roadways and minimal pedestrian infrastructure posing real safety risks — particularly for schoolchildren walking to and from the station.
• Train commuters and site visitors already strain local parking availability, and this proposal offers no compensatory improvement in road or parking infrastructure.
• These issues have been repeatedly raised by local residents and should be afforded proper consideration.

Several elements of the proposed COS are also problematic:
• A key section of the open space adjoins the eastern boundary with 2–8 Highgate Road and will receive limited sunlight while being directly overlooked — rendering it functionally and visually inadequate under SEARs’ amenity provisions.
• Another communal area located at the corner of Lindfield Avenue and Reid Street would be subject to constant street-level noise and would require high screening for privacy, which would in turn compromise the visual quality of the streetscape.
• The proposal involves the removal of nine trees identified as “important,” without any meaningful design response to retain them — a clear breach of the SEARs expectation that significant trees be preserved wherever feasible.

Given the cumulative impact of this proposal and other nearby SSDs, I respectfully ask the Department to reject this application. Any future proposal should be required to demonstrate alignment with Council’s community-endorsed planning framework and to meet the full obligations of the SEARs, particularly in regard to design quality, contextual responsiveness, and environmental sensitivity.

As a long-term resident of Lindfield (15 years), my family and I are deeply invested in the preservation of the suburb’s character, amenity, and liveability. We are a household of four adults and make daily use of local transport, community facilities and public infrastructure. The scale and design of this proposed development are incompatible with the site’s context, Council’s adopted TOD Preferred Scenario and the requirements of the Secretary’s Environmental Assessment Requirements (SEARs).

The proposal fails to demonstrate the standard of “good design” expected of State Significant Developments (SSDs). The communal open space (COS) is inadequately located in side setbacks and rooftop areas that lack usability, experience extensive shading and intrude upon neighbours’ privacy. This contradicts even the applicant’s own planning advisor, who has previously noted rooftop COS can generate unacceptable amenity impacts. The absence of a high-quality public park within a 400m walkable distance further compounds the problem. In such cases, SEARs requires the development to provide high-amenity on-site COS, which is clearly not delivered here.

The scale and configuration of the proposal reflect a failure to respond appropriately to site context and planning intent. The bulk and height of the development are excessive, particularly when assessed against the surrounding low-rise character and future development anticipated under Council’s TOD Preferred Scenario. There is no meaningful height transition between the proposed 9-storey development and the adjacent residential lots or adjoining proposed development at 2–8 Highgate Road. This creates a block of high-rise forms entirely out of step with the established and evolving neighbourhood character, particularly the nearby Blenheim Road Heritage Conservation Area.

This development fails to address the cumulative traffic and parking impacts of concurrent SSDs in the Lindfield TOD precinct. Local roads including Reid Street and Woodside Avenue are already subject to significant peak-hour congestion, made worse by narrow carriageways and limited pedestrian infrastructure. This causes significant safety concerns for the many children who use the local roads to access the station. The parking overflow from train commuters and visitors is a daily challenge for residents. The proposed scale will further exacerbate these issues without corresponding upgrades to local road capacity or parking supply. Community concerns about traffic have been consistently voiced and must be given appropriate weight.

Part of the COS is proposed within the eastern side setback, abutting the adjoining development at 2–8 Highgate Road. This area will receive little sunlight and be directly overlooked, rendering it unusable and inconsistent with the SEARs requirements for amenity. Another COS area sits at the corner of Lindfield Avenue and Reid Street, where it is highly exposed to street noise and traffic and would only achieve privacy through high screen walls, which would in turn create adverse streetscape impacts.

Numerous “important” trees have been identified on the site. Nine are to be removed and no attempt is made to modify the design to retain them which directly contradicts SEARs expectations that significant trees be retained where possible.

I respectfully urge the Department to reject this application and require any future proposal to align with the Council-led planning framework and SEARs obligations.

I have attached my submission for your review.

Thank you for taking the time to read my concerns and basis for objection.

I am writing to formally object to the proposed State Significant Development SSD-79261463 at Reid and Woodside Ave, Lindfield. My objection is based on the same grounds as the adjoining development proposal at 2-8 Highgate Road, Lindfield (SSD-78493518) given their adjacency.

I have lived in Lindfield and Killara for over 50 years so I have a deep understanding and intimate knowledge of all the streets and houses in the area. I currently live approximately 100 metres from the proposed development and walk/drive past this site EVERY DAY for the last 4 years. I have seen the changes over time, with exponential changes in the last couple of years, have deep intimate knowledge and can objectively provide insights as to the negative impact of this proposed development, and the adjoining proposed development (SSD-78493518) has.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The closest park to the development is over 1.5km away. Lindfield is simply lacking parks.

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

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

I live at 39 Treatts Road, Lindfield. Treatts Road is part of the Blenheim Road Heritage Conservation Area in the immediate vicinity of this development application. I have lived at this address for 11.5 years during which time I have commuted into the city for work hence using the transport system. I have witnessed the development of Lindfield during the time I have lived there, including the redevelopment of the village centre and the increasing density of living. This development has brought with it significant traffic congestion and danger to pedestrians.
I object to the specific development application. Many aspects of this objection are the same as for the 2-8 Highgate Road SSD as they are very similar developments by the same developer. Splitting the development facilitates breaching the deep soil requirements. The numbering used below corresponds with the SEAR’s Issue and Assessment Requirements:

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

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

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

9. Transport
Parking
The development allows for 127 car spaces of which 108 of which are available for residents, representing 1.2 car spaces per apartments. Using the 2021 census, 60% of Ku-ring-gai residents own 2 or more vehicles and 36% own 1, on that basis, there will be insufficient parking within the development resulting in an additional 31 vehicles being parked on a small suburban road. Combine this with the Highgate road proposal and it is an additional 48 vehicles.
Reid Street is a very small side street with insufficient street parking. Woodside Road is already subject to large numbers of commuter traffic.
The traffic impact in the DA has not taken into account the impact of the adjacent DA for Reid Street.
Traffic Impact
This development will increase the volume of traffic on the local roads. The Social Impact Assessment (SIA) report notes that 75% of Lindfield resident’s drive to work and that residents were concerned about the increased traffic. There are already there are significant traffic issues in the following areas:
Havilah Road and Pacific Highway
Havilah Road and Lindfield Avenue

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


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

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

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

19. Flood Risk
See 11 above

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Submission: Objection to 2–4 Woodside Avenue & 1–3 Reid Street, Lindfield
(SSD-79261463)
To whom it may concern,
I have lived in Lindfield for over 15 years and reside within 400m 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, 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.
Tamara Jones
17 Balfour Street, Lindfield, NSW 2070

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

This project is to address Sydney’s housing needs, however there are many places in Sydney, why this happens in a cultural and classical NorthShore? do you want demolish all tradition that was built hundreds years ago showing what our ancestors' lives are and what quality and art they created in the past. It is great shame we destroy our history.
To improve access to public transport, we can do many other things, it is surely traffic will become worse and worse, as unlike you imagined, not many of new residents are able to take train, but drive. Lindfield is unlike big city, there are not many facilities and shops, are you think more before a high rise out there?

To whom it may concern, I have many concerns, primarily is the excessive height of these 2 developments. This one & SSD-78493518. Appreciate to get as many apartments as possible to make it financially viable to the detriment of the area. The affordable housing component are poor design. The design is not sympathetic to the area, ie no where is the level of the train line running along the site come into question, let alone set backs & deep soil for trees. Concerned for already established trees alongside Woodside Road, & the 7 on the 2 sites. I as a resident will be facing this building which will block my sunsets & leafy aspect, which my backyard will be exposed to & will affect my privacy. Currently the traffic, particularly durning peak hours & weekends, traffic is excessive, already with constant road rage, horns blaring ... this impacts local residents. Also many commuters park in Highgate, Reid, Woodside, so given the number of units in these 2 developments & carspaces, these sites will take up more street parking & adversely affect local residents not being able to park to use public transport. Sewerage ... is already at capacity, I know this as Sydney Water is regularly dealing with sewerage, & storm water, been to my property countless times. Electricity also is not reliable as we experience many blackouts, some for days. I object to the size, immensity of this project.