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

Please see attached submission on behalf of myself and Rowena.

Whilst not opposed to development I have the following specific concerns with the proposed development: (i) The 9 story proposal is totally out of keeping with the surrounding area including the nearby Blenheim HCA. It will dwarf recent apartment development and should be more aligned to the previous 5 storey developments in Woodside avenue(ii)inadequate consideration has been given to the design and appropriate set backs to ensure the visual impact of the development is reasonable (iii)insufficient thought has been given to the local infrastructure and its ability to support the significant additional dwellings. Roads and parking are already congested, there has been an increase in accidents already over the past year and without adequate planning this will get worse potentially impacting pedestrians. Local infrastructure is in keeping with the heritage houses in the district - in a number of cases it is over 100 years old. It needs to be updated and a plan developed PRIOR to approving these overbearing developments.

Please refer to my submission in the attachement "Submission - Reid and Woodside Avenue"

Residential Development with In-Fill Affordable Housing
1-3 Reid Street and 2-4 Woodside Avenue, Lindfield
Robert Cahill
42 Treatts Road, Lindfield.

I have lived in this locality for 44 years total, and nearby, at 42 Treatts Road, Lindfield which is close to the proposed development at Reid Street/Woodside Avenue for the past 29 years.
In those 44 years in the area, I have lived in one Local Heritage Item listed residence for 15 years, followed by the past 29 years in another Local Heritage Item listed residence. Both residences have a significant impact on the surrounding residential precinct, trees, vegetation and gardens and are excellent examples of fine residential architecture representative of the design influences of the time in which they were built.
They replicate numerous other such examples completed over the same period across the neighbourhood which collectively provide a holistic, consistent and quality residential environment. The suburb provides a meaningful and historic reflection of the greater area of Sydney.
During this time living in Ku ring gai, I have become familiar with the special attributes of the area in terms of biodiversity, tree canopy and exceptional examples of well designed built form representing the careful development of the area over time.
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.

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. In addition, this nearby residential area, forms part of a Heritage Conservation Area. It is very clear that this new development represents too great a height and bulk for the locality; it is an inappropriate level of development. It is of a height to be obvious from the neighbouring streets, including to the north where the ground levels rise.

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 Heritage Conservation Area.
The appropriate height is, as proven nearby, provision of 5 storey buildings. This proposed building is 4 storeys higher than the recent development opposite at Woodside Avenue, an 80% increase in height to that building.
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.

2.3. Streetscapes …………….a mixture of individual houses and apartments blocks of varying scales, commercial building, schools and large, pubic parks. The landscaping is predominantly mature and well established. Of greatest relevance, in terms if visual impact, is the amount and maturity of the existing landscaping …..

The above descriptions are a true representative of the current urban scape.
However the proposed development is nothing like this existing environment.
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 are assessed as “moderate to severe”; Highgate to Reid Street are assessed as “moderate to severe”; views from Reid Street assessed as “moderate to severe”.
The acceptable impact would suggest a 5 level development 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.
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 current 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 deleterious effect upon existing conditions including these locations.
Commuter parking regularly takes up street parking around this proposed development so that 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 will be severely effected beyond the current busy conditions.
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.
The current stormwater system capacity is unable to cope with the local demands.
There is a stormwater inspection lid in the middle of Lindfield Avenue just short of the roundabout.
In heavy rain conditions, this lid can be seen to be lifted, about a meter 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

I object to the density and bulk of this 9 storey project. The overshadowing of the project on surrounding houses will be substantial and it is out of character for the street. 89 more families will need parking for themselves and visitors, school access for their children and the roads are already clogged. More sealed surfaces will lead to more flooding of the streets and houses around the numerous creeks in this area which double as funnels for stormwater run off. Please reconsider the size of this project, Thank you

This project fails to account for the existing infrastructure in Lindfield. It will exacerbate traffic congestion on already overburdened roads. The development also threatens local biodiversity by removing native trees and habitats, leading to a decline in bird and pollinator populations.
Introducing 127 additional vehicles is neither environmentally responsible nor practical given the current traffic conditions. When combined with other proposed developments, the total number of new vehicles could exceed 400, placing further strain on local roads and intersections.
The proposed building's height will reduce sunlight to surrounding vegetation and gardens, negatively impacting native flora and fauna. Furthermore, the development borders heritage-listed areas, raising serious concerns about privacy and the preservation of cultural sites.
There are also concerns about potential conflicts of interest—residents should be informed about any councilors who may benefit financially from these developments.
The local school is already operating beyond capacity, with inadequate parking during drop-off times. No improvements to amenities have been proposed, and the nearest green space is over 800 meters away, limiting access to recreational areas.
Dense construction will increase local temperatures due to reduced vegetation and increased concrete surfaces. Crowded living conditions will contribute to stress, anxiety, and reduced overall well-being. This rapid development has outpaced regulatory frameworks and will lead to poor outcomes for local residents.

Submission Objecting to State Significant Development (SSD-79261463)
1-3 Reid Street & 2-4 Woodside Avenue, Lindfield NSW 2070

To the NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure (DPHI),
I write to formally object to the proposed State Significant Development at 1-3 Reid Street & 2-4 Woodside Avenue, Lindfield (SSD-79261463). My objections are based on the following material concerns, which have not been adequately addressed in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS):
I note that an adjacent development proposal at 2-8 Highgate Road, Lindfield (SSD-78493518) has been submitted by the same developer. My concurrent submitted objection to that proposal follows similar grounds, given their adjacency.

1. Built Form and Massing; Residential Amenity; and Environmental Amenity
• Overbearing Scale: The proposed 9-storey building is grossly incompatible and out of scale with the low-density, single-storey residential character of the adjoining neighbourhood, including the Blenheim HCA nearby. The bulk and height (30.3m) will dominate the streetscape, creating visual intrusion and loss of amenity for surrounding properties.
• Non-Compliant Height:
o The height of the development at 30.35m exceeds the maximum allowable height of 28.6m (inclusive of 30% affordable housing bonus)
• Non-Compliant Setbacks:
o Ground-level to Level 3 setbacks (6m) are insufficient to mitigate the building’s imposing bulk and scale. These setbacks are not even uniformly 6m with encroachments (e.g. balconies and egress stairs) undermining compliance (Figure 39 & 40 of EIS).
o Upper-level setbacks (Levels 4–6, 7-8) do not universally achieve the required setbacks, again with encroachments (Figure 41 and 42 of EIS), exacerbating overshadowing and bulk impacts.
• Solar Access Non-Compliance:
o Adjacent development (SSD-78493518 at 2-8 Highgate Road) create a cumulative "canyon effect," with insufficient solar access and cross-ventilation
o Eastern-facing units will suffer poor cross-ventilation and solar access due to proximity to adjacent developments (SSD-79261463 and SSD-78493518), breaching Apartment Design Guide (ADG) criteria.
• Cumulative Overshadowing: The EIS fails to assess the likely significant combined overshadowing impact from this development and the adjacent SSD-78493518 at 2-8 Highgate Road, violating DPHI’s Cumulative Impact Guidelines.
• Visual Impact:
o The Visual Impact Assessment (Appendix R) only evaluates public viewpoints, ignoring impacts from private properties.
o As a personal example, from our own residence, we will experience negative visual impact with the western skyline and mature tree canopy from our front yard eliminated by an intrusive 9-storey wall.

2. Geotechnical and Flood Risks
• Inadequate Stormwater Assessment:
o The geotechnical assessment in the EIS is inadequate, conducted with superficial testing.
o The EIS dismisses flood risks despite an underground creek beneath the site. A 10.5m-deep 2-storey basement risks destabilising groundwater flows and exacerbating local flooding.
• Flood History Ignored: The EIS relies on theoretical models, ignoring real-world incidents. We residents regularly observe flooding during heavy rain, yet mitigation measures (e.g., OSD tank) lack detail.
o Flooding along Woodside Avenue is a well-documented and recurring issue. As a local resident who uses Woodside Avenue daily, I have first-hand experience of the street’s flood vulnerability.
o As an example, on 8 March 2022, flash flooding damaged property and irreparably destroyed at least one parked vehicle in the south side of Woodside Ave directly opposite the proposed development.
o To give an indication of the extent of flooding risk across the vicinity, flooding also often occurs during heavy rain further up Woodside Ave, further eastward up to Blenheim Rd and Nelson Rd intersections.

3. Overburdened Services and Infrastructure
• Traffic Gridlock and Pedestrian Safety:
o The Traffic Assessment (Appendix U) uses state-wide averages, ignoring local traffic contexts eg school-related traffic from various schools in the vicinity (Lindfield Public, Lindfield East Public, Lindfield Learning Village, Reddam) on top of commercial/retail traffic frequenting the Lindfield commercial centre, and commuter traffic making way to commuter parking at Lindfield train station.
o The intersection modelling is misleading, only assessing Lindfield Avenue and Woodside Avenue, while in reality the traffic situation is a tight four-way intersection including Havilah Road and Balfour Street. This Lindfield Ave-Woodside-Havilah-Balfour intersection is already severely congested during peak hours.
o That same intersection area has no marked pedestrian crossings (closest is the traffic light ~250m away on Lindfield Ave at the train station), already creating safety concerns for current foot traffic. My children must navigate this hazard on their daily walking commute to the station on way to school – several times they have been at risk of accident. Safety concerns will escalate multi-fold with increased pedestrian and vehicle traffic from higher density housing.
o I and my family walk and/or drive this intersection several times a day, so have first-hand knowledge of these traffic gridlock and pedestrian safety issues in this vicinity.
o The planned vehicular access to the development site from Woodside Avenue will only worsen existing congestion and compromise pedestrian safety further.
• Public Transport Deficiencies: Public transport justification is overstated. The T1 North Shore Line (of which Lindfield is a part) has recently been reported as Sydney’s least punctual train line over the last 5 years (SMH, 15 May 2025). Reliance on public transport for TOD compliance is unrealistic.
• Power Outages: Frequent local electricity failures (e.g., multi-day outages in 2023–2024) highlight inadequate infrastructure capacity for the large number of new dwellings.
• Lack of Green Space:
o No parks exist within 400m walking distance of the development site, contradicting TOD principles of walkable communities.
o The closest parks with adequate facility for adult and children recreation are at Lindfield Oval in East Lindfield, Bertie Oldfield in Killara, or Roseville Park, all greater than 1.6km walking distance from the development site.
o Again, we have personally experienced the challenge of lacking walkable green space in the area, having active children ourselves.

5. Heritage Impacts
• Blenheim Heritage Conservation Area (HCA):
o Blenheim HCA is unique in having a very tight heritage context.
o Under Ku-ring-gai council’s proposed TOD alternative, it will exist as a small-area HCA trapped within TOD boundaries.
o As such, it will be like a “low-density island” surrounded by high-rise TOD development to its south-west and mid-rise non-TOD development to its north-east.
o The development’s bulk, scale and proximity to the Blenheim HCA will significantly erode this tight heritage context.
o The EIS also dismisses cumulative impacts, violating Clause 5.10 of KLEP 2015.

6. Flawed Cumulative Impact Assessment
• The cumulative impact assessment is flawed, and hence understated combined traffic, amenity, and services/infrastructure strain
• It has not included the impacts of all relevant development in the area, such as:
o key nearby SSDs (e.g. SSD at Nelson Rd SSD, 3x SSDs at Middle Harbour Rd)
o other non-SSD developments within the same TOD area, which are inevitable.

7. Inadequate Community Consultation
• Engagement was limited to flyers, a website, and two sessions at a senior citizens’ centre. Many affected residents (e.g., my Blenheim Rd HCA neighbours) were not aware and notified.
• The Feedback Summary (Appendix D) misrepresents wider community sentiment by omitting or downplaying widespread concerns about mass & bulk, loss of amenity, infrastructure & service strain, destruction of heritage context, cumulative impacts of broader development
• The vast majority of my fellow residents have consistently expressed their grave concerns on these matters.

8. Misrepresentation of TOD Eligibility
• TOD Boundary Discrepancy:
o The site’s inclusion wholly in the TOD area is questionable.
o Measuring 400m walking distance from Lindfield Station’s ticket office, only the southeast corner (Woodside/Highgate intersection) OR midpoint of Lindfield Ave boundary (the limit of 2 Woodside Ave block) qualifies. (see Figures 1 & 2 below)
o Under these measurements, Blocks 4–8 Highgate Road and 1–3 Reid Street lie outside the TOD boundary and should not fall under TOD planning.
Figure 1: 400m distance
Figure 2: 400m alternative

To summarise, the proposal fails to comply with strategic, statutory, and community expectations. I urge DPHI to:
1. Reject the application in its current form.
2. Require revised designs that respect the surrounding lower-density and heritage context, mitigate flood risks, address infrastructure & services strain, and properly factor in cumulative impacts.
3. Reassess TOD eligibility using accurate 400m walking distances.

This application radically alters Lindfield and should be rejected or significantly amended.

The neighbourhood is heritage conservation and this proposal contravenes this. It changes the character of the area as well as straining the surrounding infrastructure (traffic, parking, pedestrian safety etc). I am not opposed to responsible development which is in character with the surrounds. I also appreciate that we have a housing crisis. However, there is already a high vacancy rate in Lindfield, as well as significant vacant land elsewhere that should be used to achieve housing targets, eg on the west side of the highway. If this development was 3 to 4 storeys like other apartment blocks around Lindfield station, it would be more in keeping with the neighbourhood. The size of this proposal is unreasonable and should be rejected or modified significantly.

Please find attached submission for the Reid Street and Wood side Avenue Lindfield development

I have read the SEAR relating to the SSD.
I a real resident who has lived in Blenheim road for 15 years I know the impacts that the submission will do to my family.
The high rise will directly look over my back yard completely destroying any privacy for my family and rendering my backyard in entertainment or worse by many unit dwellers.
The traffic impact assessments should be completed before any approval
As should the infrastructure assessments.
Takes two trains to pass before I can get on to the city at the moment.
Takes 9 min to travel 800m to pacific highway at the moment
Flooding 4 times a year due to storm water issues
Electricity blackout ave 1 per year for average ice over 24hrs
Children have almost been run over twice in the last two years
I am in HCA and yet we can have an 11 story building opposite me. That makes a mockery of the ‘maintaining aesthetic of the area’

Please see my submission below.

Please see attached letter.

While having a general objection to the Project (impact of the development on the local community, its character, and local traffic congestion), my submission relates specifically to the adequacy of the stormwater system in the immediate area to the south of the proposed development. Having lived in the immediate area for nearly 40 years, I have observed several instances of major water flows accumulating at or near the junctions of Woodside Avenue, Highgate Road and Lindfield Avenue during intense rain events.

By way of recent example, in 8 March 2022 there was a severe weather event resulting in flooding in Woodside particularly impacting the garage under the flats on corner of Woodside & Lindfield The water level was such that a vehicle in the garage was written off by the relevant insurer. Demonstrably, the capacity of the local stormwater drainage infrastructure was inadequate in this recent event. I note that the proposed development has its entrance to underground parking adjacent to the area where the accumulation of stormwater has been shown to be unable to quickly dissipate due to the inadequacy of the local drainage infrastructure. The risk of underground parking being flooded appears real.

The Enviromental Impact Statement refers to the development as being only partially subject to significant overland flooding at an annual probability of less than one percent. I question whether the flood risk has been understated. The "one in a hundred years" criteria may well have been relevant decades ago, but it implicitly assumes no climatic change. As rainfall intensity is projected to increase with atmospheric heating (7% more moisture can be held in the atmosphere for every one degree of atmospheric heating) this inadequacy can only increase. What assumptions are made about changing climate?

Also, the proposed development (and adjacent proposed developments) with loss of vegetation and soil coverage is only likely to increase runoff and thereby increase overland water flow.

Please see my submission attached.

I am against the provision of high rise (9 stories) blocks across the narrow street outside. I have lived here since 1977 having bought to have rapid access to the intensive care unit at Royal North Shore Hospital for forty plus years and had a fortunate career where I was a ministerial adviser and President of the World federation of critical Care and received many other awards including the Order of Australia. My family was raised in this house and there were many overseas lecturers and workers who stayed with us. At present there are four adults live here and we have three motorcars.
The issue in Reid as presented to me is that those who have developed properties in the north do not wish to see and on the south side they do.
There are also concerns that the developers who have spoken to us appear to be very reluctant to build loss cost apartments. The comments in my previous submission regarding traffic and parking are also relevant in Reid street which are now providing traffic jams and lack of parking and I believe some safety issues. The buses in particular are threatening and drive over the roundabout at the end of woodside and the turning under the railway line is very prone to traffic jams and is an area of concern to pedestrians particularly elderly folk and children..
I receive somewhat confusing information about the nature of the development but I am very concerned about the noise and the safety of the build particularly with respect to the water in the block which can be heard and be smelt in Woodside Ave between the railway and Highgate. The height of the development is very intimidating. The increased population and vehicles will increase the traffic which is jamming frequently now. The streets are narrow and Woodside Avenue is a bus route which needs very careful passing in opposite directions. It is hard for people to get into the medical practices in the area where many doctors do not accept new patients. Bendigo is the only bank. We need to go to either Chatswood or Gordon to bank. The trains at rush hours and school days over are quite frightening for older people as there is little standing room and concern when entering or leaving.
I have loved living in this suburb and as some of my friends are leaving and I wish to continue in my retirement in helping my neighbours I am disappointed in my last years.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. We wish to stay in our home and our community.

I am a long-term resident of Woodside Avenue, Lindfield, and I write to lodge my strong and formal objection to the proposed high-rise development at Reid Street and Woodside Avenue.

While I recognise Sydney’s pressing need for additional housing and support well-planned, community-sensitive developments, this particular proposal is neither thoughtful nor appropriate for the character and infrastructure of our neighbourhood. It poses significant environmental, social, and livability issues for current residents and the broader Lindfield community.

Key Objections:
1. Traffic Congestion and Flawed Traffic Study:
The surrounding road network — including Lindfield Avenue, Woodside Avenue, Highgate Road and Havilah Road — already suffers from heavy congestion, particularly during school drop-off and pick-up hours and peak commuter times.
The traffic study submitted by the developer is deeply flawed:
* It appears to have been conducted during unrepresentative times that understate actual traffic conditions.
* It only assesses the Woodside Ave and Highgate Road intersection in isolation and fails to consider cumulative impacts on adjacent streets or intersections.
This lack of comprehensive analysis renders the study unreliable and calls into question the development’s feasibility from a traffic planning perspective.
2. Inadequate Parking Provision:
Parking availability in the area is already severely constrained. Streets such as Highgate Road, Woodside Avenue, and Blenheim Road are consistently full during weekdays, with vehicles frequently blocking residential driveways — including my own.
The proposed development would add 84 new dwellings, likely bringing 150+ new residents and their vehicles, yet the parking provisions fall far short, especially for 2- and 3-bedroom apartments. This will lead to further illegal parking, increased traffic conflicts, and serious safety issues.
3. Excessive Building Height and Visual Impact: The proposed height of nine storeys (~30 metres) far exceeds the permissible limits under the current Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) framework — even accounting for the 30% allowance under affordable housing provisions.
Such a structure will:
* Overshadow existing homes, including mine, significantly reducing access to sunlight and natural ventilation.
* Invade the privacy of residents with high balcony sightlines overlooking private spaces.
* Visually dominate the streetscape in a way that is completely out of character with the surrounding low-rise suburb.
4. Insufficient Setbacks and Streetscape Incompatibility: The proposed development only has setbacks of 6m on most sides - clearly inadequate for a building of this height and size. This defies the design principles meant to maintain visual harmony and transitions between public and private spaces. It shows a blatant disregard for the architectural character of Lindfield.
5. Flood Risk and Infrastructure Pressure:
Woodside Avenue already experiences regular flooding during heavy rainfall as seen recently in the May 2025 weather events. The stormwater infrastructure is insufficient for current loads, and the proposed development offers no credible solution to mitigate further stress on the system. Increased impermeable surfaces will only worsen flood risk and create downstream impacts.

In summary, the proposed development is excessive in scale, inadequate in planning, and irresponsible in terms of infrastructure impact. It jeopardises the safety, amenity, and character of our neighbourhood. I urge the relevant planning authorities to reject this proposal and require the developer to submit a more modest, better-integrated, and community-conscious plan.

Please see attached document noting my objections to this project.

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 urgently request a thorough review of the proposed development application at Reid Street and Woodside Avenue, which openly acknowledges a clear breach of the height limits set out in Sections 155(2) and 18(2) of the SEPP. The proposed building height of 30.35 metres exceeds the permitted height by 1.75 metres - or 6.1% - a significant and unjustified departure from planning controls.

While the developer seeks a Clause 4.6 variation under Section 15A of Division 1, Part 2 of the Housing SEPP—citing the objective of increasing infill affordable housing—they have failed to demonstrate why this housing cannot be delivered within the existing SEPP height limits.

The developer claims that the “minor” increase in height allows for “reasonable and modest” additional dwelling density. This is misleading. A 6.1% increase on top of the existing 30% height concession for affordable housing represents a further 20% uplift, effectively enabling the construction of an additional full floor. This is neither minor nor modest.

Crucially, no evidence is provided to justify why this additional height is necessary to meet the affordable housing objective. In fact, the argument appears to rely solely on the inclusion of a limited amount of affordable housing, without addressing why that housing cannot be accommodated within the permitted parameters.

Given the significant implications this proposal has for the surrounding low-rise neighbourhood—particularly in terms of built form, overshadowing, and the erosion of the area's established tree canopy and community character—I strongly urge Council to reject the proposed variation and uphold the current height restrictions in full.

The height of the proposed development, in its current form, will have a substantial and overwhelming visual impact on the surrounding area. It will dominate the existing streetscape and significantly alter the character of the neighbourhood.


The developer’s submission attempts to minimise this impact by focusing solely on the portions of the building that exceed the height limit. This selective assessment conveniently ignores the fact that these height breaches are what make an additional storey possible - an entire level whose visual and environmental impacts are not addressed or evaluated in the submission.

By omitting a full and transparent assessment of the implications of this extra storey, the developer has failed to provide an honest account of the true scale and consequences of the proposal. This lack of accountability further reinforces the need for scrutiny and rejection of the current design in favour of one that complies fully with planning controls and respects the existing neighbourhood character.

On page 23 of the developer’s Clause 4.6 request, they themselves concede that enforcing the SEPP height limit of 28.6 metres would have minimal impact on the overall proposal. Specifically, it would require the removal of just two penthouse apartments on Level 9, reducing the total number of dwellings from 89 to 87.

Importantly, these two apartments could be retained through internal reconfiguration of the floor plans, meaning no reduction in dwelling yield is necessary.

It is also critical to highlight that neither of these penthouse units is designated for affordable housing. Therefore, enforcing compliance with the 28.6 metre height limit would have absolutely no effect on the provision of low-cost housing within the development.

Therefore, there is no justifiable reason to permit a breach of the SEPP height controls. The additional height serves no public interest and only benefits the developer, while undermining established planning rules and impacting the surrounding community.

A central justification for the Transport-Oriented Development (TOD) program is that all suburbs are located around train stations, based on the assumption that most new residents will rely on public transport and that traffic impacts will therefore be minimal.

However, this assumption is fundamentally flawed. It fails to account for the reality that trains on the North Shore Line are already operating over capacity during peak hours. This is the case even when not disrupted by industrial action or service interruptions. The rail network is already under significant pressure.

The proposed development will significantly worsen traffic congestion and create hazardous conditions for pedestrians in an area already struggling with vehicle flow and pedestrian safety. It is imperative that these local impacts be properly acknowledged and addressed before any further approvals are granted.

It must be noted that the traffic impact assumptions used in the developer’s Traffic Impact Report, appear to be based on Transport for NSW’s statewide averages for high-density residential dwellings in areas with high public transport accessibility. These generic figures fail to reflect the unique and specific conditions of the Lindfield area.


Critically, these assumptions ignore several key local factors:

The high proportion of professionals in the area, who are more likely to commute by car; The fact that North Shore train services are already operating at or beyond capacity during peak times; and the inclusion of this site within the Lindfield Learning Village catchment, which will further increase traffic at already heavily congested intersections during school drop-off and pick-up hours.

Given these realities, it is highly likely that actual traffic impacts will exceed those presented in the developer’s report. The report’s reliance on unrealistic assumptions severely undermines its credibility and renders its conclusions inadequate for informed planning decisions.

Furthermore, the proposed nine storey development is significantly larger than the six-storey limit originally proposed by Premier Minns in December 2023. This increase in scale will have a direct and substantial effect on local congestion and pedestrian safety.

Immediate and serious consideration must be given to the following actions:

· Scaling back the height and density of the proposed development to six-storeys.

· Revising the traffic management plan to reflect realistic local conditions, including high private vehicle usage and train capacity constraints.

· Re-zoning the area to fall within the Killara High School catchment, thereby reducing unnecessary cross-traffic and improving pedestrian safety by limiting the need for students to traverse the Pacific Highway.

Failure to address these issues risks undermining the liveability, safety, and functionality of the Lindfield community.

While I strongly support the need for more affordable housing in Sydney, the current 30% bonus height and floor space incentive under the TOD program creates a powerful motivation for developers to prioritise yield over quality. This approach risks producing developments that are out of character with the surrounding environment and may compromise long-term building integrity.

Furthermore, with 30% of the dwellings controlled by a single entity under the affordable housing provision, the future strata governance structure would be disproportionately influenced by one party. This raises serious concerns about the long-term management and upkeep of the building. An entity with a short-term mandate has little incentive to invest in higher-quality materials or long-term maintenance strategies that support the sustainability and liveability of the building and broader precinct.

This scenario increases the risk of declining property standards and may contribute to the broader degradation of the area over time. It also places additional pressure on existing oversight mechanisms, such as the Department of Fair Trading’s Project Intervene, which is already under strain managing building quality disputes across the state.


Given these risks, it is imperative that the development proposal be critically reviewed. Height and density incentives must not come at the expense of quality, long-term durability, or community cohesion. Planning approvals must enforce higher standards to ensure developments contribute positively and sustainably to the local environment.

I strongly urge a genuine and comprehensive review of the proposed development to ensure it aligns with the true intent of the State Government’s Transport-Oriented Development (TOD) initiative. The goal of this project must be to deliver long-term, high-quality, and sustainable housing solutions—not to enable short-term profit-driven projects that compromise building standards, undermine community character, and fail to deliver lasting affordability. If this development is to contribute meaningfully to Sydney’s housing future, it must prioritise quality, liveability, and long-term stewardship over expedient financial returns. I respectfully request that relevant planning authorities ensure the integrity of the TOD program is upheld through responsible, community-focused decision-making.

Re: Residential Development with In-Fill Affordable Housing at

Reid St & Woodside Ave, Lindfield - SSD-79261463

To whom it may concern,

As long-standing residents of Lindfield, I write with deep concern and growing distress over the proposed development plans currently under review. This is not just about a new building—it is about the irreversible changes being made to a community that we have proudly called home for over 77 years. Lindfield is cherished for its leafy streets, established tree canopy, and its strong sense of community—qualities that are now under serious threat. The scale and nature of the proposed development risk destroying the very character that makes this neighbourhood so special.

While we recognise the need to address housing supply, this proposal shows little regard for how such a development will affect the community who already live here. Instead of developing carefully integrated, housing solutions, the plans appear to prioritise developer profit over long-term community wellbeing. The loss of green space, increased traffic and safety concerns, and the strain on infrastructure will be felt by every resident. We urge you to reconsider the development as it currently stands—to protect not just buildings, but the heart of a neighbourhood generations have worked to build and preserve.

The proposed development at Reid St & Woodside Ave, Lindfield - clearly fails to comply with the height restrictions set out under Sections 155(2) and 18(2) of the State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP), exceeding the allowable limit by 1.75 metres (a 6.1% increase). This is a significant overreach that disregards the planning framework designed to protect both the built environment and community amenity. Furthermore, this non-compliance directly contradicts key requirements in the Strategic Environmental Assessment Requirements (SEAR), particularly SEAR 6 (Built Form and Urban Design), SEAR 7 (Environmental Amenity), and SEAR 8 (Visual Impact), all of which are in place to ensure developments are in harmony with their surroundings. The submission fails to provide sufficient justification for why the proposed height breach is necessary, especially given the already generous height concessions allowed under the SEPP for affordable housing.

Although the developer invokes Section 15A of the Housing SEPP to justify the additional height on the grounds of delivering a limited number of affordable housing units, no evidence has been provided to show why this housing cannot be delivered within the existing height limits. The 6.1% increase, on top of the already permissible 30% uplift for affordable housing, equates to a 20% increase beyond what was originally intended, effectively allowing for an entire extra storey. This is not a reasonable or necessary concession, but an excessive departure from planning controls. It undermines the intent of the SEPP, and the planning principles established in Project Venture Developments v Pittwater Council, where compatibility with the surrounding environment is essential. This proposal must be revised to comply with planning regulations and respect the character of the surrounding neighbourhood.

Aside from a neighbouring State Significant Development (SSD) currently under assessment—also proposed by the same developer and similarly excessive in scale—the surrounding neighbourhood is characterised by modest, two-storey double-brick homes and just two nearby apartment buildings of only five and three storeys. This reflects a long-established low-rise residential character that is both consistent and community oriented.

If approved, the proposed development will visually overwhelm the local streetscape and dramatically alter the skyline. Together with its adjacent sister project, it would be the only structure in the area to rise above the mature, deep-rooted trees that have defined this neighbourhood for generations. The result would be a jarring and out-of-scale intrusion that disregards the harmony of the existing environment and threatens the visual amenity cherished by residents.

One of the central arguments behind the Transport-Oriented Development (TOD) program is that the selected suburbs are located near train stations, operating under the assumption that new residents will predominantly rely on public transport—thereby minimising traffic impacts.

However, this assumption fails to reflect the current reality on the North Shore Line, where trains are already severely overcrowded during peak hours, even without the disruptions caused by industrial action or service delays. Transport for NSW data from 2024 shows that North Shore services are already carrying an average of 156,900 passengers each weekday, excluding school holidays—indicating the system is at, if not beyond, capacity.

Even if we temporarily set aside the issue of strained train capacity, this development presents serious local risks, including significantly increased road congestion and heightened danger for pedestrians. These streets are already logjammed. Getting onto the Highway from either Havilah Ave or Strickland Ave is a nightmare. These impacts cannot be ignored and must be fully addressed before proceeding with any approval.

With this development, the ‘free water’ flow will increase exponentially as no gardens will be there to absorb this water.

Due to overflowing drainage at the southwest corner of Woodside Ave and Lindfield Ave, water flowing in Lindfield Ave has already caused flooding in the garages of ‘Rivenhall’ units, 59 Lindfield Ave,8TH March 2022 and the insurance companies are no longer insuring these garages.

Whilst the developers claim to have sufficient mitigation for water flows, this does not sufficiently account for the now regular heavy rainfall events due to climate change.

While I understand the need for more affordable housing in Sydney, we are deeply concerned that the 30% bonus incentive within the TOD program inadvertently encourages developers to deliver projects of inferior quality that are out of character with the established local area (SEAR 5). This approach risks compromising the visual integrity of the neighbourhood by facilitating developments that may deteriorate over time due to reduced construction quality and ongoing maintenance challenges.

The proposed development includes concrete sheeting and limited use of face brick—an obvious departure from the area's architectural consistency. Coupled with expectations of lower-grade fixtures and fittings for the affordable housing portion, there is significant concern that this will lead to future structural and maintenance issues. Furthermore, with one entity set to control the entire affordable housing component (30% of the development), future strata decisions will be disproportionately influenced by a party with a short-term (15 year) mandate and limited incentive to invest in the building’s long-term upkeep. This imbalance raises serious concerns about ongoing care and asset management. The Department of Fair Trading’s Project Intervene is already under pressure from unresolved building issues, and this development risks adding further strain to an already burdened system.



In conclusion, while we acknowledge the need for additional housing and accept the use of this site for residential redevelopment, it is imperative that the scale of the project strictly adheres to the original commitment made in the TOD Program announcement by Premier Minns in December 2023—specifically, a strict six-storey limit. If that commitment is not honoured, then, at an absolute minimum, the development must fully comply with the State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) regulations. Under no circumstances should the proposed height be allowed to exceed the mandated 28.6 metres. Allowing this would set a dangerous precedent, undermine community trust, and compromise the integrity of the planning process.



Sincerely,

Harold Stephen Goldring

As a resident of Lindfield I object Development SSD-84877707 for a number of reasons
1. Private development of flats does not meet the definition of 'State Significant Development' and therefore cannot legally be summited under a SSD or SEPP
2. Neither the NSW Government nor Ku Ring Gai council have made meaningful investigations or conclusions regarding impacts on traffic, parking, amenity to existing surrounding residents, solar access, infrastructure impacts or public transportation of this development or all other TOD/SEPP/Alternative Ku Ring Gai medium density rezoning and therefore approvals should not occur until the impacts have been assessed
3. There is a clear conflict of duty with Ku Ring Gai councillors in their proposed medium density rezoning that needs to be investigated by ICAC before the damage is done
4. There is prima facie oversupply of units in Lindfield already, with over 500 currently for sale compared to 100 houses, so development of more units, rather than a more considered approach to sustainable and liveable medium density housing, such as townhouses and dual occupancy, must be undertaken and legislated
5. The NSW Government is at risk of destroying the very essence of liveability in Sydney, in addition to houses that are over a century old, by rushing through ill considered and deeply unappealing housing