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

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 and having raised 3 children in the area, I request that the Woodside development not be approved in its current form. I am supportive of increasing housing, but this needs to be achieved in a coherent, planned manner that respects the overall character of the area and not by permitting the construction of isolated developments in arbitrary locations, whose scale, height and bulk are completely inconsistent with the character and streetscape of the suburb.
Ku Ring Gai Council is at an advanced stage of finalizing amendments to the NSW Government’s TOD scheme. These amendments have been developed with community consultation and will deliver on the NSW Government’s housing targets while also aiming to preserve the character, amenity and livability of Lindfield for current and future residents.
I urge the Department to reduce the scale, height and bulk of the Highgate development to at least comply with KRG Council’s TOD amendments. This would ensure the development meets good planning principles of being properly integrated into a coherent planning framework for the entire council area, rather than stand out as a towering behemoth.
Recommendation
The development should be 6 storeys at most and have appropriate transition to properties that are only 1-2 stories. The lower height and density would also help alleviate many of the above mentioned issues
• Traffic congestion and flow
• Parking on nearby narrow streets. Ensure there is more off street parking available
• Flood risk
• trees loss or damage
• environmental heritage impact given this is very close to heritage conservation areas.
The Department should reduce the scale, height and bulk of the Woodside development to at least comply with KRG Council’s TOD amendments to ensure the development meets good planning principles of being properly integrated into a coherent planning framework for the entire council area.

Thank you for considering my submission.
Su Lin Ho
17 Balfour Street, Lindfield, NSW 2070

While I support appropriate development near transport infrastructure, this proposal is poorly conceived and demonstrates little regard for the surrounding community or established planning frameworks. Specifically:
• The proposed tower grossly exceeds both the Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) guidelines and Ku-Ring-Gai Council’s height controls. It introduces no transitional scale, instead overshadowing adjacent low-rise residential homes with an abrupt and dominant built form.
• The development appears to be rushed through to exploit state-level planning pathways without meaningful consideration of local context, character, or cumulative impact.
• A reasonable benchmark already exists in the Harris Farm building, which should be considered the maximum allowable height at this site. Any proposal should match or remain below this level and reduce in bulk away from the rail corridor.
• There is minimal parking provision and this development will massively add to an already congested area. Funding for the underpass at Havilah Road must be given before more development can happen on the East side of Lindfield. The current road plans even propose cutting the traffic down further.

The current proposal is clearly driven by developer profit rather than planning merit. It fails to reflect any thoughtful urban design or integration with its surroundings. This is not how we should deliver increased housing — affordable or otherwise — in established neighbourhoods.

I strongly urge the Department to reject the proposal in its current form and require a redesign that reflects appropriate scale, respects local planning controls, and enhances the character of Lindfield rather than undermining it.

Submission: Objection to 2–8 Highgate Road, Lindfield (SSD-78493518)
To whom it may concern,
I have lived for 10 years Lindfield living within 300 metres of the proposed development at 2–4 Woodside Avenue & 1–3 Reid Street, Lindfield. I walk past this area with my family regularly and almost daily too and from the station so I know these streets well. I am writing to formally object to this development application. My family and I will be directly impacted by this proposal. We also would see the new property daily given its extreme height. I would like to raise the following concerns:
5. Design Quality The building does not complement the surrounding area, and lacks any architectural sensitivity or visual appeal in comparison to the surrounding houses and even the nearby developments which are far more set back and blend into the surrounds. It looks very very steep and would sit way above any tree line and will dwarf all other structures nearby. The predominant architectural style in the area are modest 1-2 story traditional homes. This will look like a concrete / brick monstrosity.
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. The height they have requested is 1.75m above the state limit (and well above any previous council limit as per the current alternate scenarios being developed). Please reduce the height! The setbacks which seem to start at 6 storeys are also way too abrupt given they will look down onto Reid street properties that are 1-2 storeys. I also believe the balconies encroach the setback requirements. This is not minor. A complete privacy loss as the trees they will plant won’t be 6 storeys high. Please make the transition more reasonable. The property also gets higher with the gradient of the road which makes it even high for all those properties on Woodside avenue.
7. Environmental Amenity The development adds disproportionate density and would impact affecting nearby homes on Reid Street, Kenilworth and High gate roads through loss of sunlight (please re-check their claims of sun and shadowing it feel wrong?), overshadowing of homes and gardens and given the scale and height at 9 storeys it will look directly into private spaces. This would directly impact my home on Treatts road given the height along with dozens of homes on Kenilworth, Reid, High gate and Blenhiem road. I can’t see where the windows will be but they look like he balconies will look straight down onto Reid street and all the properties on Highgate Road. A complete invasion of privacy.
8. Visual Impact. Our district views would look directly at the last 3 storey’s which will be above the tree line. Not just our property but all those have any district views would pretty much only see these two developments. I also believe lack of any attempt to add/keep trees to increase privacy. It will sit way above the tree line which no other developments in Lindfield do.
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. We have a much higher car usage than average in Kuringai so their assumptions of increases to traffic are way too conservative. I would assume that 50% of the residents would drive to work or take their kids to school in a morning so the traffic which is already bottlenecked for an hour in the morning will only worsen? There is also a safety risk as woodside is a small street with a roundabout which is the proposed entry to this apartment complex. Is there a proper footpath to be built on all sides – particularly Lindfield avenue and woodside.
10. Noise and Vibration Noise from construction and post-construction traffic will affect nearby families. This will disrupt daily life for at least 2 years given the depth of development to build a 9 storey apartment. There are dozens of homes and hundreds of people who will have sleep impacted and heavy noise during the day which will impact WFH 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 which is prone to flooding and poor water run off. The storm water drain at Woodside is at complete capacity and overflows regularly as I walk past it all the time.
14. Trees and Landscaping Tree removal is again a concern. They are pulling down over 20 most well established trees. Come on? How can we let them remove all of them? They will put a few small trees 1-2 storeys high on the perimeter. This is not enough surely. Please go and check two >50m high trees directly adjacent to the property which may be affected. Also when the new trees get planted is there deep soil guarantee that will survive, or they will just die given the concrete needed to build underground parking required which will take out much the current soil and earth.
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 sits near conservation areas. The scale of development could visually clash with historic elements by introducing a jarring modern aesthetic into a historically significant streetscape and will certainly overshadowing and dominating views of 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 local resident for over 10 years, I ask that this development not be approved in its current form and be reduced significantly to a more appropriate size and scale eg 6 storeys which is still double any other development in the area. Whilst I am totally supportive of increasing housing in area, it needs to be done in a more planned and appropriate way. We were not consulted at all. Going to a nursing home/rsl to consult with the community feels totally token and having spoken to so many residents I don’t know anyone supportive of 9 storeys here and on the edge of 400m of the station. In fact most people in the area don’t even know that a potential 9 storey building with almost 2 apartments (developments combined) is being proposed. This development poses significant local impacts that have not been properly addressed or in fact violated. Therefore, I urge the Department to protect the character, amenity, and livability of Lindfield for current and future generations and require significant changes. This developer it appears is rushing through many of these in the area and trying to maximise profit not help increase housing in a sustainable way!!!
Finally, given how many SSD’s are being proposed can you please review this and the others and assess their cumulative impact. (Nelson Road, Tryon Road, Stanhope Road – given this woodside/Lindfield ave area is one or only two ways to Killara from Lindfield on the east side of the station)
Recommendation
The property should be 6 storeys at most and have an appropriate transition to properties that are only 1-2 stories (eg 3 stories as the first setback off the street). The lower height and density would also help alleviate many of the above mentioned issues
• Traffic congestion and flow
• Pedestrian safety and complete foot paths adjoining Lindfield avenue and Woodside avenue
• Increase onsite parking as the local streets have not more space.
• Flood risk – the roundabout areas gets flooded regularly already.
• Trees loss or damage. Please keep at least some of the important tree on the property. (also take into account the 2 >50m high trees that adjoin the property and that would be at high risk of dieing given the deep underground built.
• Environmental heritage impact given this is so close to a HCA. I am not expert here but surely the visual harsh impact of over 30m and above any tree line is not in keeping with a HCA area.

Thank you for considering my submission.

To whom it may concern,

When the NSW Government announced the TOD program for the 31 designated TOD precincts in the days before the Christmas break in 2023, it proposed “Maximum building height 21m (approx. 6 storeys)” within 400m of the TOD train stations. (see page 8 here - https://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/sites/default/files/2023-12/transport-oriented-development-program.pdf).

No mention was made of the subsequently gazetted 30% uplift for SSDs that provided for low cost housing. As a 20 year resident of Lindfield, I braced myself for such development in our area on the naive assumption that it would be in keeping with the area akin to the 5 storey apartment building fronting Woodside and Reid Street.

I could never have imagined that this would pave the way for 16 (to date) applications for SSDs within Ku-Ring-Gai all seeking a 30% (or greater) uplift in height.

9 storey buildings over 30m in height is a massive is 43% taller than Premier Minns announced!

The impact of this level of development is material in many respects. I will focus the remainder of this submission on just some of these impacts with respect to the proposed SSD noted above. Please see attachment

I am a property owner and resident of Lindfield and have been living in my home, which is two streets away from the proposed development, for the past 10 years. I commute from Lindfield station and therefore walk past the development site twice a day and have done so for the past 10 years. I am very familiar with the site for this reason.
I object to this proposed development on the following grounds:
1) Disingenuous community consultation: I never received the alleged mailbox flyer advising of the community consultation session and neither did any of my neighbours despite the assertion that more than 1000 flyers were delivered to local mailboxes. This meant I did not get the opportunity to engage with the developers and ask further questions about the proposal.
2) Design quality (SEARs requirement 5): the development cannot be categorised as a “good design” when it does not take into consideration the surrounding properties, the majority of which are single storey federation style heritage homes. The design should be more sympathetic to the locality and incorporate federation elements including the use of timberwork and gabled roofs.
3) Built form and urban design (SEARs requirement 6): the height and scale of the development does not fit with the current area as at nine storeys it will be higher than the existing developments closer to the station at five and six storeys and it will not be consistent with the gradual fall of building height away from the station which currently exists.
4) Visual impact (SEARs requirement 8): from the back of my property, which is all glass, I can see trees in the distance and the skyline. This proposed development will be of such a height and bulk that it will significantly impinge on my views, and I will lose the tree lined view that I currently enjoy. I would like to see this proposed development incorporate some mature trees to replace the ones that will be removed and there should be a requirement that the trees need to survive for at least 10 years so that the development incorporates the deep soil requirements to make this possible.
5) Traffic and transport concerns (SEARs requirement 9): the intersection at Lindfield Ave and Woodside Ave is already extremely congested during peak hours, especially morning and afternoon school drop off and pick up times, and it is dangerous for pedestrians as there is no designated street crossing on Woodside Ave. This development will directly impact the number of cars on Woodside Ave and poses a risk to future residents who will be crossing the road to access the train station. Woodside Ave, High Gate Rd and Reid St are currently parked out Monday to Friday with commuters accessing the train station. There is no capacity for additional on-street parking for future residents of the development.
6) Water management (SEARs requirement 11): the storm water drains on Woodside Ave already flood during heavy rains and the water pools and covers the street adding to the risk for pedestrians trying to cross to access the train station. The current drainage system is clearly at capacity and needs to be addressed before any construction is undertaken in this area.
7) Trees and landscaping (SEARs requirement 14): as previously identified the significant loss of trees and natural canopy with this proposal is a concern and should be rectified with the requirement for the developer to plant mature trees with appropriate deep soil requirements and ensure the survival of these trees for at least a period of ten years.
8) The footpath beside the proposed development on Lindfield Ave is currently inadequate and the proposed development should address this for residents attempting to access the train station by walking down the hill towards the station.

This request is threefold (i) that the maximum number of roof top solar panels be installed on this development, preferably with orientations facing east and especially west when demands for power are high. (ii) that at least some garages be equipped with a 32 A circuit in preparation for a charger for an electric vehicle. This is much cheaper than retrofitting a circuit later. (iii) the development should make provision for a battery with a minimum capacity to power the body corporate lights, stairwells, etc.
For the record, the writer is a long term resident of Lindfield.

Will cause further overloading of services including local schools as well as medical and other health services.
Will decrease the heritage value of the area which has been nurtured for generations to keep this place a special place for families to grow and form a unique community.
The local climate during summer will increase in temperature due to the well established trees and gardens being decimated.

The intersection of Woodside Avenue and Lindfield Avenue is already heavily congested and it is already a nightmare at the best of times driving down Woodside Avenue and Lindfield Avenue and trying to turn right onto the Pacific Highway. This project, in conjunction with the proposed project on 2-8 Highgate Road, will add over 170 new dwellings at the intersection of Woodside Avenue and Lindfield Avenue - exacerbating the existing congestion and causing that intersection to be dangerous for drivers and pedestrians. In addition, the development of a 9 storey apartment block at the site will destroy the neighbourhood character and streetscape. It is inconsistent with the existing development - the proposed apartment block will be much taller than the one across the road at 5-7 Woodside Avenue.

Dear Sir/Madam,

As a resident of Woodside Avenue Lindfield and significantly affected by the proposed development, I am writing to formally object to the proposed State Significant Development (SSD-79261463) – Reid Street and Woodside Ave, Lindfield. The application for a Residential Flat Building with in-fill affordable housing is, in my view, ill-conceived and inadequately planned. It does not align with existing planning guidelines, disregards the character of the local area, and fails to consider current infrastructure capacity or the feedback of the local community.

Below are the primary areas of concern:

1. Traffic Congestion and Insufficient Parking
Our community is already experiencing severe traffic congestion and limited on-street parking. The proposed development includes 89 new dwellings, primarily suited for families due to only having 5 one-bedroom units in the development. According to the 2021 Census, the average number of vehicles per household in the area is 1.8, with over 55.1% of households owning two or more vehicles. This suggests a potential increase of approximately 160 vehicles (89 x 1.8), exacerbating traffic on already-congested roads such as Lindfield Avenue, Woodside Avenue, Balfour Street, and Havilah Road.

The current parking allocation of 108 residential spaces is inadequate, potentially displacing 52 vehicles onto local streets, further straining on-street parking. Residents frequently report illegal parking blocking driveways and creating safety hazards. Streets such as Highgate Road, Reid Street, Woodside Ave and Kenilworth Road already experience pressure from limited parking availability.

The Traffic and Parking Assessment Report provided is brief, lacks detailed explanation, and contains factual errors—for example, repeated references to a non-existent "Lindfield Road." The traffic survey data is based on a few hours on a Thursday and fails to account for weekend and lunchtime peaks. The conclusion that peak hour traffic will only increase by 28 vehicles per hour (vph) in the morning and 20 vph in the evening, up from 5.4 and 6.2 vph respectively, is not adequately supported. A 300–500% increase in vph should not be considered negligible without further evidence. A comprehensive, multi-day traffic survey is essential before proceeding with any approval.

Additionally, the proposed relocation of a speed hump 30 metres northwest along Woodside Avenue undermines its current function, ie, slowing vehicles entering Lindfield Avenue, a critical pedestrian zone near schools. This relocation compromises safety and encourages speeding through a residential area. The development should instead shift its driveway access to Reid Street, reducing pressure on the roundabout and major thoroughfares, and maintaining the safety intent of existing traffic-calming measures.

2. Incompatible Transition Between Housing Densities
The surrounding area consists primarily of single-family homes and low-rise apartments with generous setbacks and significant tree cover. These features contribute to the character and livability of Lindfield. The proposed Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of 3.25:1 is more than double the 1.8:1 recommended in Ku-ring-gai Council’s Alternative Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Plan.

Introducing such density without corresponding investment in infrastructure will lead to overcrowding, noise, overstretched public services, reduced green space, and weakened community cohesion. The likely influx of families will place additional pressure on local schools (Lindfield and Killara Public Schools), many of which are already at capacity.

High-density development, when not carefully integrated, also tends to produce higher pollution, noise, urban heat, and social fragmentation. Proper planning and gradual density transitions are essential to preserve neighbourhood amenity.

3. Excessive Building Heights
The proposed 9-storey (30.35m) development is grossly out of scale with the surrounding 1–2 storey dwellings. This abrupt approximate 22m height disparity imposes several problems:

- Overshadowing of adjacent properties (residences along Highgate Road, Woodside Avenue, and Reid Street)
- Loss of privacy for nearby homes and gardens
- Reduced sunlight and diminished residential amenity
- Visual dominance and erosion of the area’s character

Such vertical intrusion undermines the visual cohesion and human scale of the neighbourhood. A maximum height of 4–5 storeys would provide a more appropriate and respectful interface with the existing built environment.

4. Inadequate Setbacks and Inconsistent Documentation
According to the architectural plans, ground-level setbacks on the western side of the site are listed as 6 metres, while accompanying reports inconsistently cite 9 metres. Such discrepancies raise serious concerns about the accuracy and reliability of the submission materials. Minimal setbacks for a structure of this scale are visually disruptive and out of character with neighbouring properties. A minimum 12-metre setback should be required to maintain consistency with existing developments and protect residential amenity.

5. Proximity to Heritage Conservation Areas
The proposed development is located adjacent to heritage-listed homes and conservation streetscapes. Introducing a high-density, multi-residential building in such close proximity threatens to:

- Undermine the visual cohesion and historic character of the area.
- Cast shadows over private gardens and living spaces.
- Reduce resident privacy through overlooking.
- Increase noise, traffic, and parking pressure.
- Eliminate buffer zones vital to preserving heritage values.

Protecting heritage areas requires careful planning and transition zones. This proposal fails to deliver either.

6. Environmental Impacts and Loss of Tree Canopy
The project poses significant environmental risks:

- Loss of green space and mature trees reduces biodiversity and contributes to the urban heat island effect.
- Increased hard surfaces lead to greater runoff, flooding risk, and water pollution.
- The cumulative impact of density, traffic, and vegetation loss will diminish air quality and public health.

New developments should integrate green infrastructure such as rooftop gardens, permeable surfaces, and tree preservation strategies. Developers must be held accountable for replacing lost trees with suitable native species and maintaining tree canopy targets.

7. Concerns About Developer Capacity and Community Engagement
There is a growing concern within the local community about the recent influx of SSD proposals the past few months, nine in Ku-ring-gai alone, five of which are from the developer CPDM. While I support the need for increased housing, it must not come at the expense of quality, safety, or community engagement.

CPDM's handling of this development has been deeply concerning. Communication was opaque; the initial brochure contained no information (deliberately omitted) about the developer, architect, or planners. The community consultation was superficial and poorly conducted, with representatives (Michael Gee from CPDM) unable to answer basic questions and unfamiliar with their own design or the proposed development. Documentation uploaded to the planning portal was incomplete, riddled with errors, and included outdated maps and generic imagery from the internet.

Such conduct does not inspire public confidence. A development of this scale, with a reported project cost exceeding $80 million, demands professionalism, transparency, and respect for local residents. The apparent lack of due diligence raises serious doubts about the developer’s capability to execute a high-quality, compliant project.

The pattern of error-ridden submissions and superficial engagement is alarming. If a developer cannot deliver a clear and accurate application, how can residents trust them to build responsibly? The risk of future structural or compliance issues, similar to those experienced in developments like Opal Tower (Sydney Olympic Park), is too high to ignore.

Recommendation and Conclusion
In light of the above concerns, I respectfully request that the Department:

- Reject the current proposal in its present form
- Reconsider this proposal to be inline with Ku-ring-gai Council’s TOD Alternative Plan, which accommodates 24,500 new dwellings, ie, well above the State’s 22,580 target, through responsible and community-sensitive planning

Specific Recommendations:
1. Reduce building height from 9 storeys to a maximum of 4–5 storeys
2. Reduce FSR from 3.25:1 to 1.8:1 in line with the Council’s TOD Alternative plan
3. Increase setbacks to a minimum of 12 metres from all site boundaries, consistent with neighbouring developments.
4. Relocate vehicle access to Reid Street to alleviate congestion and safety risks on Lindfield and Woodside Avenues
5. Reassess the Traffic and Parking Report through a multi-day survey to better capture actual conditions.

These adjustments would create a more balanced and contextual development that supports future growth without compromising community character and quality of life.

Thank you for considering this submission. I trust the Department will uphold its commitment to responsible, inclusive, and place-sensitive planning.

Yours sincerely,
Resident of Lindfield
22st May 2025

Dear Madam/Sir,
I submit my comments in point form to assist you in efficiency of reading:
- I have lived in Kuringai LGA my entire life, including the at Lindfield address for the past 25 years
- I understand the TOD process, and have understood the Kuringai proposal for focusing density in some areas and not others
- All LGA's, including Kuringai should be supporting the chronic shortage of housing supply, and this development appears to tastefully and respectfully go towards meeting that moral committment
- The bulk and scale is sensible in this instance, as the longest boundary borders Lindfield Avenue and across from it the Train Line, therefore seeks to minimise impact on surrounds
- The solar access appears to have been carefully thought out such that neighbouring properties (including mine) will have minimal solar impact (I note I have only seen winter solstice diagrams - I couldn't see the summer solstice ones, but working on the basis that it will be better than the winter angles). The impact appears primarily between 1-2pm, and is otherwise allowing solar access
- On the basis of my solar access comments, I am supportive of the proposed height
- The setback minimums appear to be compliant and reasonable, and I encourage those to continue to be honoured in the DA
- Vehicular access is of potential concern on Woodside avenue, which could create further bottlenecks, but if appropriately done, then ok. Perhaps consider having dual access from both Woodside Ave and Reid Street.
- The proposed relocation of the speed hump is sensible, and will be more practical for the buses that turn right at the roundabout into Woodside from Lindfield Ave
- My principal comment, which would be consistent with all new developments in recent times, is to ensure that the building has architectural features and is aesthetically beautiful, and in keeping with the general aesthetic of the area. Too often, there have been instances of developments that put up rectangular boxes with minimal design aesthetic, that end up looking dated very soon after completion. Provided that something visually beautiful and uniquely "Lindfield" in character can be created, then I am supportive of proceeding.
- Further to my comments on being consistent with Lindfield character, I strongly encourage the landscaping and gardening elements of the DA to be upheld to the highest standards. In particular this specific area of Lindfield (Woodside, Blenheim, Nelson, Lindfield Ave, and surrounding streets) are the natural mature hedges that have long been planted and create a unique and beautiful visual for the area. I would strongly encourage Hedges and greenery to be incorporated into the garden landscaping around the perimeter of the property, which would both provide privacy for the proposed development residents, but also maintain the green nature of the surrounding streets. This would be a good compromise between the bulk of the building (generally at height), while maintaining an otherwise neutral impact at street level view.
I am happy to be contacted should the need arise, and I support this development.

Objections to DAs for REID street, HIGHGATE rd. and Woodside Avenue.
We all know we need more housing but placing a nine-storey edifice in the middle of a suburban street will create more problems than it solves. It is inappropriate to place the tallest building in Lindfield at the furthest point allowed from the station. (400m).

1. SAFETY
Car Safety.
The roads around this proposed development are not currently coping with the increase in cars due to the development of the shops on East side of Lindfield station. There are common traffic jams and many accidents and near misses at the roundabout and the intersection that leads under the railway bridge.
With an increase of 127 parking spaces from SSD-79261463 and 131 parking spaces from SSD-78493518, the safety of the residents and general community will be at risk.
There has been no provision for improvement to or widening of these roads. How is the state government going to mitigate these risks it if allows a development of this size to go ahead with such little thought. It is not the community’s responsibility to pay for this.
The corner of Woodside Avenue and Lindfield Ave is a blind corner, and the corner of Reid Street and Lindfield Avenue is also a blind corner. This development will further impede our ability to see to be able to join the traffic on Lindfield Avenue safely and make this problem worse. Will the state government be responsible for the increase in injuries and deaths?
NO DEVELOPMENT OF THIS SITE CAN GO AHEAD WITHOUT ADDRESSING THESE VERY REAL SAFETY CONCERNS

Pedestrian safety:
The increase in the number of residents will also increase the foot traffic around these roads. There will be children and the elderly trying to navigate their way to schools, shops and the railway. The developers should be made to make provisions for these necessary changes.
At the very least there needs to be significant widening to the footpath that runs along Lindfield Ave and the development. At present it is only 1/2 metre wide. It can hardly accommodate one person at the moment. People are constantly needing to step out into the road.
NO DEVELOPMENT OF THIS SITE CAN GO AHEAD WITHOUT ADDRESSING THESE VERY REAL SAFETY CONCERNS


2. SIZE and SCALE
There are no buildings greater than 7 stories in Lindfield, Roseville or Killara. The 7 storey apartments are appropriately at the station. Placing a nine-storey building at the 400-metre limit will look out of place It is surrounded on 2 sides by single or double storey family residences. This will loom over and devalue surrounding property. This will impact privacy and increase noise.
The apartments built in Woodside to Havilah Road are only 5 storeys. They have a 10-metre setback, and this has allowed them to be planted well with large trees that hide the development with trees. This development although large aims to blend with the surrounding structures and preserves the trees and canopy.



3. Not adequate setback
A 6-metre setback is entirely inadequate for a development of this size.
There is not adequate room for planting of trees to hide the bulk of the building. There will be significant reduction in privacy for the surrounding residents. KMC policy is for a 10-metre set back from all boundaries. Why does everyone else need to follow the rules but not this development. The rules have been created for safety and amenity for the community. The state government has not tried to work with council to create developments that do not destroy the ambience and nature of our neighbourhood.

4. Green space inadequate
Where are the 400 or so people living in these apartments meant to go?
There are limited areas provided on site. To get outside and those provided are either right outside another person’s apartment or up on the 8th storey where they will be fried by the westerly sun or blown off the Highgate apartment communal area is overlooked by the residence of the Reid Street apartments. The nearest park is over 2km away in all directions.

5. Shadowing
The houses opposite the development in Highgate Road will have significant overshadowing. This will affect their lives, ability to utilise solar power and devalue their properties.
Thank you
Caroline Downing
6 Reid Street Lindfield
0425203187

I strongly support his proposal and have some commentary to provide.

1. I support this proposal as it is close to public transportation and shops. We need more housing supply as we are in a housing crisis.
2. The documents prepared seem to suggest that the selection of what type of energy source for cook-tops and hot water heating has not been finalised due to the need to liaise with Ausgrid. The " Building Services Report" provides options A & B where A is electrical and B is gas, I suggest that option A (the electrical source) should be what is selected subject to infrastructure provision being available.

1. 9 storey buildings without a transition to lower height buildings is an anathma for any Town Planner or Civic designer. There are to be residences adjacent which are essentially single storey of circa 1930's along Blenheim Road which will be overshadowed by such developments. Heights should be restricted so as not to impinge on these properties, albeit 3-4 storeys?
2. Parking and traffic at the intersection and along of Woodside Avenue and Highgate Street to Lindfield Avenue is currently full. The intersection to the Balfour Street under the tunnel is currently impossible during peak periods and to a lesser extent in off-peak times.
3. Any development unless developed with a view to provide some element of a heritage design is out of keeping with the HCA which it is currently.
4. The Neighbourhood will change drastically.
5 Access to the train station is still quiet a hike leaving illegal parking to be a problem as limited station parking available
6. Any construction traffic in this narrow street will be a nightmare.
7. It is not in the public interest to have such a development in this quaint area of Lindfield. There will be a loss of trees and limited sebacks not idol and to Council Standards.

CPDM Pty Ltd is not compliant with SEARS. The developer wants approval before Council can submit their alternate scheme.
Affordable housing is not affordable . Low cost housing should be perpetual not 15 years.
The bulk and size is poor design with no front or side setback, minimal building separation, poor internal amenities.
The development will cause overshadowing, reduce our solar, privacy ,change the streetscape, affect the heritage and traffic will be so congested. Traffic assessment must be done
Water assessment needed as natural water course under development.

Generally, I am supportive in-principle of increasing housing density in Lindfield (and Kuringgai more broadly) through the introduction of medium to high density housing (inc affordable housing), oriented around transport hubs, where:
(i) existing or in-development infrastructure (schools, hospitals, parks, transport) supports the population uplift in full;
(ii) existing heritage & conservation controls are observed; and
(iii) existing environmental and sustainability controls are observed

However, and in accordance with above, I strongly object to SUB-83964211, SSD-79261463 and SSD-78493518, primarily for three reasons:
(i) traffic - local infrastructure simply cannot cope with a total additional 173 dwellings on this site. At present, local traffic on Lindfield Avenue and Havilah Road regularly block and back up onto surrounding streets, at both peak and off-peak times. Adding traffic for 173 dwellings will exacerbate an already highly congested and 'broken' traffic flow
(ii) height as it relates to neighbourhood character - nine storeys is in excess of local planning rules and even the height limitations of TOD plan; a maximum four storeys would be reasonable and in-keeping with other local developments and character of the local surrounds
(iii) over-shadowing & privacy - surrounding houses will be significantly overlooked, losing their privacy

The result of the above is that the local community will be significantly negatively impacted, and immediately surrounding houses will have their property values and quality-of-living significantly reduced.

I strongly urge the NSW Government to enforce a reduction of scale, and specifically the height, for this development to a reasonable and sustainable level.

Thank you

That is too much density and bulk for Lindfield Village atmosphere.
After IGA and Harris Farm appeared in Lindfield Ave, there are lots of traffic congestion while attempting to drive through, parking and customers stopping for a coffee pickup. More units will only compound the congestion.
On a work day, cars are fully parked in Highgate Road for commuters catching the train. Imagine adding 50 more cars onto Highgate Road.
I have lived on Kenilworth Rd for over 20 years. My neighbours and I experience low water pressure in our taps. With additional units, we can only see even lower water pressure.
The current infrastructure is already struggling to cope.

Please don’t make any long term property development decisions before the outcome of the negotiations between the council and the state for the best interest of the residents of the community.

My wife and I live in and own one of the properties incorporated in this project. Like most of the residents in this block (now covered by this SSD application and a second application SSD-78493518 ) we have lived in the house for over 40 years and raised our family here. In our block of over 8,000 square metres there are only 16 people living in 8 residences of which only one houses a family with school age children. The majority of us are over 70. We live between 250 and 400 metres walk to one of the best-serviced railway stations in Sydney. This clearly is not sustainable on any grounds.

This critical land currently identified for TOD was subdivided for development in 1911. Here we are 114 years later living on the same 8 residential lots with a local Council still resisting any attempts to subdivide or otherwise densify much of the land close to railway stations. It has resulted in an unhappy situation where young families cannot to afford to purchase properties like ours that are close to schools, rail transport, and shops. This resistance has continued against a backdrop of increasing population in Sydney and dramatic increases of traffic through our suburb. The developments in the two SSD applications that are proposed for this block, and the TOD scheme more generally, are the only solution to these ongoing problems.

Supporting the TOD program where additional housing provision is much needed near Lindfield station. The project is within 400m to Lindfield station and is within 2 stations to Chatswood Interchange Hub providing access to Bus, Metro, Train and will relieve cars on the pacific hwy which is already highly congested. The development is along the railway line without casting shadows to any nearby properties.

Dear Sir/Madam,
I am writing as a long-standing Lindfield resident to formally object to the proposed development at 2–4 Woodside Avenue and 1–3 Reid Street, Lindfield, lodged as SSD SUB 831418958. While I recognise the NSW Government’s objective to deliver housing close to public transport, I believe this proposal—due to its excessive scale, environmental cost, and disconnect from local character—should be refused or significantly amended.
1. Excessive Height and Density – Incompatible with Local Context
The proposed 9-storey residential apartment building far exceeds the 6-storey (22m) TOD height guidance for this site. While the inclusion of affordable housing units activates SEPP incentives for additional height, the proposed 30m height represents a gross overdevelopment relative to the surrounding built form. The surrounding streets are typified by 1–2 storey homes with heritage character and generous gardens.
This is not a town centre block or highway frontage; it is a quiet, tree-lined pocket on a slope. The height and bulk of the proposed building will tower over the existing streetscape, leading to a jarring visual impact, increased overshadowing, and a loss of residential privacy. It contravenes both the Zone R4 objectives under the Ku-ring-gai LEP and the planning principle of contextual design embedded in the EP&A Act s4.15.
2. Character and Heritage Impact
This development sits in a part of Lindfield formerly protected by a Heritage Conservation Area (HCA) and still surrounded by homes that contribute significantly to the suburb’s historical garden suburb identity. While the site itself is no longer under formal heritage controls, the abrupt transition from bungalow homes to a monolithic high-rise apartment block represents a clear break from the area’s established character and sets a poor precedent.
The scale and architectural language proposed do not respect the fine-grain, low-rise feel of the neighbourhood. Ku-ring-gai has long embraced character-led planning, and this SSD overrides that by introducing a form alien to the suburb's traditional rhythm and built environment. This is not sensitive infill—it’s a transformation of neighbourhood identity by stealth.
3. Loss of Tree Canopy – Irreversible Environmental Harm
Ku-ring-gai is renowned for its tree canopy, which provides shade, supports biodiversity, and is essential in combating the urban heat island effect. The subject site contains numerous mature canopy trees, many of which will be removed to accommodate the basement footprint and built form.
The proposal appears to remove nearly all existing trees and deep soil areas, replacing them with hard surfaces and token landscaping. This contradicts Council’s Urban Forest Strategy, the Biodiversity Conservation Act, and planning controls that prioritise tree retention. No amount of replanting can immediately replace the ecological and climate regulation function of these trees. The loss of mature canopy will also displace native wildlife, including lorikeets, kookaburras, and tawny frogmouths, frequently seen in the area.
In a suburb known for green space and native habitat, this proposal feels like ecological vandalism.
4. Flooding and Drainage Risks
The site sits at the base of a slope and is part of an identified overland flow path, according to Council’s flood studies. Hard surfacing the site through development will increase stormwater runoff, placing surrounding properties—many of which are lower-lying—at greater flood risk.
Without major drainage upgrades, or rigorous engineering controls backed by independent review, this proposal risks worsening local flood events, particularly with climate change increasing storm intensity. Basement garages, in particular, are vulnerable and must meet strict waterproofing and pump-out requirements.
Development on this site must prove, with evidence, that post-development runoff will not exceed pre-development levels. Anything less puts existing homes and infrastructure at risk.
5. Traffic and Safety Concerns
This proposal will introduce at least 100 vehicles onto narrow residential streets—Woodside Avenue and Reid Street—that were never designed for such traffic volume. These streets lack adequate turning circles, formal pedestrian crossings, and have limited visibility at corners.
Traffic impact from this and adjacent proposals (such as the 84-unit Highgate Rd SSD) will double congestion, especially during school and peak commute times. Children walk these streets daily to Lindfield Public School. With no road upgrades proposed, this will significantly degrade pedestrian safety and liveability.
The design must be re-evaluated with a view to traffic calming, safe crossings, and driveway safety. Without this, the risks to children and residents are unacceptable.
________________________________________
6. Infrastructure and School Capacity
The proposed 89 units—along with several others now in the pipeline in Lindfield—will introduce hundreds of new residents to a suburb where infrastructure is already under pressure. Lindfield Public School and Killara High are both highly utilised, with growing enrolments and limited land to expand.
Similarly, local parks, public toilets, roads, and other amenities will see added strain. There are no guarantees or timelines for infrastructure funding to support this rapid density increase. This creates a shortfall between population growth and public service capacity, a planning failure with social consequences.
The community deserves clarity on:
• What Section 7.11 contributions will be made;
• Where those funds will go;
• Whether State agencies have committed to school or park expansions to accommodate the growth this development brings.
7. Loss of Amenity – Overshadowing, Overlooking, and Noise
A 9-storey block at this location will cast significant shadows across neighbouring properties, particularly during winter. The rear yards and living areas of adjacent homes will be impacted, undermining amenity and solar access.
In addition, the upper-storey apartments will have clear sightlines into the backyards and windows of nearby properties, destroying privacy. Noise from balconies, HVAC systems, and vehicle movements will add further disruption to a formerly quiet and peaceful area.
The cumulative impact of this is a material reduction in amenity for surrounding residents—something clearly considered under EP&A Act s4.15.
8. Questionable Use of SSD Pathway
This is not a hospital, university, or significant infrastructure asset—it is a speculative apartment development using the State Significant Development mechanism to override community, council, and heritage controls.
By bypassing Ku-ring-gai Council’s consent authority, the SSD pathway undermines local democracy and planning principles of subsidiarity and contextual sensitivity. Residents are denied a fair process when projects of this nature are fast-tracked through state override.
The SSD mechanism should not be used to shoehorn scale into inappropriate sites for convenience or profitability. This approach erodes public trust and undermines planning system integrity.
9. Alternative, Context-Appropriate Development is Possible
No one is saying “no housing” or “no change.” But this level of change—abrupt, uncompromising, and environmentally expensive—is not the only way. A 4–5 storey development, with greater retention of trees and deeper setbacks, could deliver housing while respecting the community fabric. This is what good planning aims for: balance.
The community is not asking for exemption from growth—we’re asking for better growth: sustainable, contextual, and in step with infrastructure and ecology.
________________________________________
Conclusion and Request
This development breaches too many key planning principles to be approved in its current form. It fails:
• Contextual compatibility with local character (KLEP, R4 zoning objectives);
• Environmental sustainability, particularly around tree protection and stormwater;
• Public interest and amenity for neighbours and pedestrians;
• Infrastructure alignment, especially school and road capacity.
If approved, it will set a dangerous precedent—not just for Lindfield but across all TOD precincts on the North Shore.
I respectfully urge the Department to:
• Refuse this proposal in its current form;
• Or significantly reduce the height and density;
• Preserve existing canopy trees wherever possible;
• Mandate upgraded drainage, road safety, and community infrastructure;
• Reinstate local consultation processes for future stages.
Thank you for considering my submission.
Sincerely,
Alex Boden