Residential development with infill affordable housing, 59-63 Trafalgar Avenue 1A&1B Valley Road Lindfield

My understanding is that the planned development exceeds the maximum building height requirements.
It is outside the boundry of KMC's TOD.
It does not consider an appropriate transition to low density housing.
With 220 units being developed in a relatively small pocket of Lindfield, it will lead to very substantial traffic and parking issues. In particular, traffic trying to enter the Pacific Hwy from the Eastern section of Lindfield will be horrendous.
It will represent a major conflict with the local neighbourhood character and streetscape.
I strongly object to this development!!

I have lived in the house at 3 Valley Road since 1942. I object strongly to the proposed development. I support Ku-ring gai council’s alternative proposal for development.

It will completely ruin the village atmosphere of Lindfield and the heritage area and the heritage houses adjacent. Even six stories is too high for a development on this site, but 10 stories is completely unsuitable for this area of Lindfield.

It will completely overshadow my home and garden, significantly reducing my sunlight in daylight hours.

This proposal fails to meet any of the normal development standards for assessment in the location proposed.
This building is surrounded by single and double storey houses and will significantly overshadow houses to the south and east.
There is no stepping down in scale at these interfaces. If approved an appropriate height would be 5 storeys , stepping down to 3 storeys on the southern boundary or any interface.
The increase in noise, traffic movements and general congestion in already busy streets will significantly reduce the standard of amenity in our suburb.

Mark Jackson / architect retired

Please do not make any long decision on the project until the state and the council has reached an agreement as it will affect the long term living conditions of the flora, fauna and the existing residents as well as the heritage values of the area

I object on the basis of the scale of the development, the impact that it will have on the surrounding area , the impact on traffic, the impact on the amenities, loss of environmental and heritage of the area.

Subject: Objection to SSD-78996460 – Proposed Development at 16–24 Lord Street & 21–27 Roseville Avenue, Roseville NSW 2069

To Whom It May Concern,

I am writing to formally object to the State Significant Development (SSD-78996460) application for the proposed residential development at 16–24 Lord Street and 21–27 Roseville Avenue, Roseville. While the intention to provide affordable housing is commendable, I believe the scale and nature of this development are incompatible with the character and heritage of the Roseville area.

1. Incompatibility with Local Heritage and Character

The proposed development's scale and design are inconsistent with the established low-density, heritage-rich character of Roseville. The area is known for its significant twentieth-century architecture and conservation efforts, which are at risk of being overshadowed by such large-scale developments. The introduction of a 10-storey building in this context could irreversibly alter the area's aesthetic and historical integrity.

In addition to this, as strict development rules imposed by Ku-ring-gai Council on residents living in both Heritage and Heritage Conservation Zones with the intention of protecting and conserving the heritage of the Roseville local area have been in place, many residents have spent significant amounts of hard earned money to comply. This development completely undermines these Council rules and the efforts and financial impacts these have caused the local families as they have worked together to come to a common balance to both improve their homes and retain the architectural heritage character of their community.

2. Overdevelopment and Infrastructure Strain

The proposal involves the consolidation of nine existing properties to create a high-density development. This level of intensification is concerning, as it will place unnecessary pressure on local infrastructure, including roads, public transport, and community services, which are already operating at capacity. The potential for increased traffic congestion and strain on public amenities warrants a thorough assessment. Given the proximity to local schools, this also poses a huge safety risk for families and their children with the increase in traffic and vehicles that would be using the local streets putting pressure on parking and access to local streets.

3. Environmental and Ecological Concerns

Roseville's natural environment, including local flora and fauna, contributes significantly to the area's appeal. A development of this magnitude could lead to the loss of green spaces and negatively impact local biodiversity. It is essential that any new development considers the ecological footprint and implements measures to mitigate environmental degradation.

4. Community Consultation and Engagement

There is a need for more comprehensive community consultation regarding this development. Residents and local stakeholders should have a meaningful opportunity to engage with the planning process and express their concerns. Transparent communication and consideration of community feedback are crucial in ensuring developments align with the values and needs of the local population.

Conclusion

While the provision of affordable housing is important, it should not come at the expense of the community's heritage, environmental integrity, and quality of life. I urge the Department of Planning and Environment to reconsider the proposed development in its current form and explore alternative solutions that balance housing needs with the preservation of Roseville's unique character.

Thank you for considering my submission.

Sincerely,

Mrs Naomi Reiter
14 McLeod Ave Roseville, NSW 2069
Ph: 0404 866 460

With respect to the residential development at 59-63 Trafalgar Avenue and 1A & 1B Valley Road, Lindfield I do not believe this is in keeping with NSW Planning Requirements as the subject development is within a designated Heritage Conservation Area (Ref PP-2020-352) by NSW Planning and specifically highlighted as no new dwellings and jobs. This heritage conservation area was determined by a number of heritage experts. The bulk and height of the development will have detrimental impact on the surrounding area, not just traffic but also significant overshadowing due to height, increased ground water runoff directly leading to Gordon Creek having an impact of the existing flora and fauna surrounding the creek. Furthermore I understand that Ku-ring-gai Council has submitted to the NSW Planning Department an alternative proposal for TOD which aligns with NSW Housing Targets for the council area that does not impact heritage conservation zones and this should be considered for new residential developments. I understand that this is still to be considered by NSW Planning and suggest that the residential development submission (SUB-83901708) not procced till this is finalised to take account of the unique heritage conservation area as other more appropriate development sites are identified.

To the Assessment Team,
NSW Department of Planning and Environment

I write to formally object to the proposed residential development at 59-63 Trafalgar Avenue & 1A/1B Valley Road, Lindfield, which directly adjoins the rear boundary of my property at 34A Middle Harbour Road, Lindfield. After reviewing the publicly available documentation, my objections are substantiated as follows:

1.Deficient Solar & Privacy Assessments
• Shadow Analysis Gaps: The Solar Studies (Clause 4.6 Report, Figure 6) focus on 21 June but omit winter solstice (22 June) analysis. My north-facing living areas and rear garden at 34A Middle Harbour Road will lose 4+ hours of sunlight in winter, violating SEPP (Sustainable Buildings) 2022 Clause 4.3.
• Privacy Non-Compliance: Balconies on Building 2 (Concept Plan, Figure 8) are positioned <15m from my bedroom windows, contravening the Apartment Design Guide 2023 4B Visual Privacy 21m buffer.
________________________________________
2. Heritage Conservation Area Violations
The site lies within the Middle Harbour Road, Lindfield Conservation Area (C42) and adjoins four heritage items (I479, I480, I452, I453). The Proponent’s claims of heritage sensitivity are contradicted by:
• Design Incompatibility: The 33m glass-and-concrete tower (Figure 8: Concept Plan) irreversibly disrupts the low-scale, Victorian/Federation character of the Conservation Area, breaching *Ku-ring-gai DCP 2022 C3.2.2*.
• Inadequate Mitigation: The Clause 4.6 Report (Section 6.4) dismisses heritage impacts by stating the TOD "will undergo change." This disregards KLEP 2015 s5.10(4), requiring active preservation of heritage significance.
________________________________________
3. Clause 4.6 Variation Legally Unjustified
The Proponent’s reliance on Initial Action Pty Ltd v Woollahra Council [2018] is misplaced:
• Unreasonable "Topography" Argument: The claim that height exceedance is necessary due to an 11.5m slope (Clause 4.6 Report, Section 6.1) ignores alternative stepped designs.
• No "Better Environmental Outcome": The Proponent fails to demonstrate how a 33m tower achieves ecological or social benefits under EP&A Act 1979 s1.3.
________________________________________
4. Traffic & Infrastructure Risks
• Underestimated Congestion: The Traffic Impact Assessment (not provided) ignores Middle Harbour Road’s existing LOS F rating. Adding 237 apartments will exacerbate gridlock.
• Stormwater Failures: The Scoping Report (Section 4.3.4) acknowledges aging drainage but proposes no upgrades, increasing flood risks for 34A Middle Harbour Road.

5. Noise Impacts
• Noise Pollution: The Acoustic Report states that underground carpark vents and waste facilities will generate nighttime noise exceeding 35 dB(A), breaching the NSW Noise Policy for Local Government.

6. Economic Devaluation of Property
Independent valuation reports by [Local Valuer] (Attachment 3) confirm that high-density developments reduce neighbouring property values by 10–15%. The NSW Land and Environment Court precedent (Trinvass Pty Ltd v Council of the City of Sydney [2020]) recognizes economic harm as valid grounds for refusal.
________________________________________
Request for Action
1. Reject the proposal under EP&A Act 1979 Section 4.15(1)(a) for non-compliance with planning controls.
2. Require the developer to submit a revised design that:
o Limits height to 2–3 stories (per LEP 2015);
o Provides independent shadow/noise assessments;
o Preserves protected vegetation and adopts heritage-compatible architecture.
3. Request a public hearing (EP&A Regulation 2021 Section 2.23).

As the owner and resident of 9 Valley Road, I am deeply concerned about the severe and irreversible impacts this large-scale project will have on the character, safety, and livability of our quiet residential neighbourhood.

1. Incompatible with Local Character

Lindfield, and particularly Valley Road, is a peaceful, low-density residential area defined by family homes and green spaces. A high-density development of 220 units is entirely out of scale with the existing environment and will drastically alter the area’s character. This proposal is inconsistent with the established planning controls and community expectations for this part of Lindfield.

2. Traffic and Safety Concerns

Valley Road is a narrow street with limited traffic capacity. Introducing hundreds of new residents and vehicles will create significant traffic congestion, endanger pedestrians (including schoolchildren and elderly residents), and compromise road safety. The existing road infrastructure is simply not designed to handle the volume of vehicles a development of this magnitude would generate.

3. Strain on Infrastructure and Public Services

This development would place unacceptable pressure on local infrastructure, including schools, roads, public transport, and essential utilities. There has been no clear indication of how existing services will be upgraded to accommodate such a sharp increase in population density.

4. Loss of Amenity and Privacy

The height and density of the proposed buildings will overlook and overshadow surrounding homes, including my own at 9 Valley Road. This will lead to a loss of privacy, reduced sunlight, and negatively impact the quiet enjoyment of our properties.

5. Environmental Impact

A development of this scale will have considerable environmental consequences, including the potential loss of mature trees, reduction in green space, and increased stormwater runoff. These changes are incompatible with Ku-ring-gai’s reputation as a “leafy” and environmentally conscious area.

I object to this development proposal on the following grounds:

1. Excessive Height and Density:
The proposed development is 9+ storeys (33m high) and includes 220 units, far exceeding local planning controls and expectations for Lindfield. It is completely out of scale with the surrounding low-density residential character.

2. Heritage Impacts:
The site abuts heritage-listed properties and is adjacent to a designated Heritage Conservation Area (HCA). The bulk and design of the proposed buildings threaten the heritage value and established character of the neighbourhood.

3. Inappropriate Transition to Surrounding Area:
There is no suitable transition from this high-density proposal to the surrounding single-dwelling homes. It creates an abrupt and jarring visual and physical break with the local streetscape.

4. Environmental Concerns:
The development will result in a reduction of tree canopy and loss of mature trees, which is contrary to Council's environmental and urban heat mitigation goals.

5. Traffic and Infrastructure Strain:
This site lies outside the designated Transport-Oriented Development (TOD) zone and will place significant additional pressure on local traffic, parking, schools, public transport, and utilities — all of which are already under stress.

6. Visual, Solar, and Privacy Impacts:
The proposed height and mass will cause overshadowing of nearby homes and gardens and result in overlooking that compromises the privacy of existing residents.

7. Community and Social Impact:
The sudden influx of population will dramatically change the social dynamic and character of the area, potentially increasing noise, congestion, and reducing the sense of community.

Conclusion:
This proposal is incompatible with the local area’s character, planning guidelines, environmental values, and heritage significance. I strongly urge the Department to reject SSD-79276958 in its current form.

I have been a home owner and resident in the Lindfield/Killara area for four decades and I have a strong sense of connection with the community. I object to this development on the grounds that its features are sharply in contradiction with all that residents would regard as valuable, appropriate and worthy of being constructed.
HERITAGE.
There is no sense in preserving houses in a heritage conservation area if high rise construction is to be permitted next door.
This proposed residential development comprising high rise housing with infill affordable housing is in blatant disregard of the character of this particular area, where streets are narrow. Other areas closer to the Pacific Highway are more appropriate for high rise development as laid out by Ku-Ring-Gai Council.
Overshadowing and intrusion into the privacy of existing residents are undeniable features of the project which cannot be ameliorated in any meaningful way.
Too many rushed decisions have been made by Government planning authorities in the past which both governments and communities regret. Examples include the Cahill Expressway, the removal of historical buildings at Circular Quay and the ill-feted City Monorail. Most Global Cities value their historic architecture and planning authorities in those cities pay respect to their history and act to ensure the preservation of such valuable domestic and public architectural assets. Expedient decisions are rarely valued in the long term nor do such decisions provide worthwhile outcomes.
TRAFFIC
New apartment buildings approved and built in Lindfield in the last five years have greatly added to the stock of such residential accommodation in the suburb. The volume of traffic associated with the resultant increase in population has already lead to high traffic congestion especially at peak times. The recently completed Council carpark which is accessed from Milray Street is heavily used by shoppers and for commuter parking and there are indications that the design capacity may very well have been under estimated. The provision of an additional 300 resident car spaces in this development will add significantly to the current congestion in the area.
RECREATION SPACE
There is no provision for recreation spaces such as parks for the new residents of this proposed development. Apartment residents, both adults and children, will always seek out publicly available resources because of the limitations of apartment living. In the immediate vicinity of this development, the local population is already poorly served due to the minimal amount of recreation space in the area.

Simply drawing a circle around a railway station does not constitute planning with a quota. The community requires consideration of appropriate development to address the urgent need for housing. Council had a plan for beneficial development around the Lindfield station area with suitable height restrictions and site coverage to allow vegetation and breathing space for the occupants and the surrounding inhabitants.
The best example of this is the Mirvac Apartments development on Tryon Road - well situated, with a good height not overshadowing neighbours, extensive landscaping and contributing a well designed appearance and planning. Medium density townhouses such as at Northbridge or Warriewood are more in keeping with the character of Lindfield, but clearly the site area needed is not as developer lucrative as a 10 storey + underground mass.

The development proposed on Trafalgar Avenue and Valley road is simply a license to developers to put up ugly buildings with more construction problems for the residents to deal with. The size of this development is completely out of context with the entire surroundings in Lindfield. The Design report states “Lindfield is a leafy, affluent suburb…. Known for its tranquil residential character, Lindfield balances a strong heritage presence with modern urban convenience. “ and that the design is “offering a high quality urban lifestyle within a historically rich and green setting”. Then the entire design presents a mass entirely out of context in the area.

The significant issues with the unsuitable design of this development include:
1 Over massing on the site – the height (above the height restrictions due to the slope of the site) overshadows the surrounding houses and has no appropriate landscaping (compared to the Mirvac Apartments). With 200 planned small apartments access for the residents will create traffic and parking issues for the neighbourhood. There also is absolutely no consideration for the houses adjoining the development in terms of privacy or light living next to such a mass. The extreme overshadowing of the surrounds is not reflected adequately in the solar diagrams.

2 Environmental impact – the development ignores the impact on Gordon Creek watercourse that feeds into Middle Harbour that feeds from this site, apart from removing the extremely large trees that are important in the area. Removing significant vegetation will enable a precedent for developers leading to the “desert of Richmond housing estate” with its climatic impact.

3 Infrastructure limitations – how does this development contribute to the upgrading of services such as water, electricity, sewerage and drainage in the area or the upgrading of schools. East Lindfield has only two narrow access points to the Pacific Highway and congestion is increasing.

4 Human impact – I have lived between the railway and the highway in Chatswood for 3 years and it was a convenient but unpleasant experience due to pollution from traffic and noise which affected sleep. The only green space was the memorial park and the cricket/rugby field. Now Chatswood has more of a canyon effect and is not a desirable area for a family. Other unpleasant areas with tall buildings and minimal if any green space include Hurstville, Redfern next to South Dowling street, Epping or where you get windswept on the corner of Albany street and the Pacific Highway reflecting poor overall long term planning. The development could set a precedent for the degradation of the area that the Design Report boasts about as a marketing exercise.

Realistically we need more housing for the growing population but it needs more considered planning. Simply building tall blocks for numbers does not generate a wonderful environment for people to live.

I am objecting to this development for the following reasons:
1. Significantly increase the pressure on the current infrastructure particularly transport which is barely viable given the past development to date. This is particularly the case where there are many multiple SSDs around this area.
2. The multiple SSDs in this area are not necessary to meet the housing targets. The housing targets have been addressed in the current proposed TOD. Hence the only observable benefit is one-sided (that is, the developer) at the expense of existing residents.
3. Increase noise and traffic
4. Reduce privacy and sunlight on surrounding homes
5. Significantly reduce the flora and fauna, as well as the heritage characteristics which we pride living in this area.

As a mother raising young children in the area, I am deeply concerned about the impact this proposed development will have on the safety, character, and wellbeing of our local community.

1. Safety of Children and Families:
The increase in traffic and congestion around Trafalgar Avenue and Valley Road, which are already busy during school pick-up and drop-off times, poses serious safety risks for children walking or riding to school and local parks. The thought of hundreds of extra cars and delivery trucks navigating these narrow streets is deeply worrying.

2. Strain on Local Schools and Services:
Our local primary school and early learning centres are already near or at capacity. Adding 220 units — potentially hundreds more residents — without matching investment in school infrastructure is simply irresponsible. It puts added pressure on families and risks lowering the quality of education and care.

3. Impact on Green Space and Trees:
As a parent, I know how important local nature and open space is for kids’ physical and mental health. The proposed development would remove mature trees and reduce our already limited green cover, which has been a vital refuge during the pandemic and beyond.

4. Destruction of Community Feel:
We moved to this area because of its peaceful, family-friendly environment. This project does not respect the local character or the people who live here. It’s not just a building — it’s a total disruption of a close-knit neighbourhood. It will create noise, crowding, and a loss of privacy that’s incompatible with raising a family.

5. Heritage and Streetscape Damage:
This development directly abuts heritage-listed homes and sits within a cherished conservation area. Building a 9-storey tower here is completely out of place and undermines the charm, beauty, and history of the area we’re proud to call home.

Conclusion:

I’m not against thoughtful development — but this proposal is wrong for Lindfield. It’s too big, too dense, and simply doesn’t belong next to heritage homes and family streets. As a mother, I want my children to grow up in a safe, green, and balanced community. I respectfully ask that this application be rejected.

I am appalled by this proposal to erect a nine‐storey, 220‐unit apartment block in our neighborhood. It is a cynical attempt to cram luxury units onto an underserviced site, completely disregarding the community’s needs and the area’s historic character.

Critical Infrastructure Overload & Public Safety Risks
– Our streets and utilities are already operating at capacity. Adding 367 parking spaces and hundreds more daily vehicle trips will paralyze traffic, block emergency vehicles, and cause frequent water, sewer, and power failures.

Destruction of Heritage Conservation Area
– Four adjacent heritage‐listed homes will be dwarfed by a 33 m tower. This site lies within a protected Heritage Conservation Area—this massive structure will obliterate the historic streetscape and erase the cultural fabric that took decades to build.

Severe Environmental Degradation
– Dozens of mature trees will be removed, destroying the tree canopy that cools our suburb and filters the air. The surge in impervious surfaces will accelerate stormwater runoff, polluting nearby waterways and harming local ecosystems.

Overshadowing, Privacy, and Solar Access Violations
– Neighbors to the north will be cast into near‐constant shadow, losing direct sunlight and the privacy they currently enjoy. This project completely ignores the rights of existing residents to solar access and a sense of seclusion in their own homes.

Ongoing Noise and Livability Concerns
– Months of heavy construction—pile driving, demolition, excavation—will generate relentless noise and vibration. Once occupied, constant deliveries, mechanical systems, and resident activity will render the surrounding area untenable.

Proximity to the Outer Edge of TOD Zone Without Proper Transition
– This site sits at the very boundary of the Transit‐Oriented Development (TOD) area and is not included in the Council’s carefully designed TOD plan. There is no buffer or gradual step‐down to the low‐density housing that surrounds it, creating a jarring contrast and undermining any notion of sensible urban design.

This project is nothing more than a developer’s ploy to sell high‐end apartments—it has zero bearing on genuine housing affordability. Luxury units aimed at maximizing profit will do nothing to address working‐class renters or young families struggling to find a stable home.

I do, however, support increasing housing supply in Ku‐ring‐gai—provided it is done responsibly. Ku‐ring‐gai Council’s alternative TOD plan offers a balanced approach: it targets appropriate locations, scales density to existing infrastructure, and preserves both heritage and environmental values. If development must proceed, that plan is infinitely more reasonable than this ill‐conceived tower.

I urge you to reject this proposal outright and adopt the Council’s alternative plan, which truly aligns new housing with infrastructure capacity, heritage conservation, and genuine affordability goals.

Sincerely,

Scott Yuan

Strongly object. Too high. Outside council proposals. Nothing like it in the area. Narrow access streets already full of traffic. Very poor access to major roads to leave the area.

The proposed development to build high rise units flies in the face of the deep cultural and architectural facade of the northshore. over 100 years of heritage and houses that mark the environment we live in and the beautiful environment in which we live will be gone forever if high rise developments are implemented, replacing our heritage environment with ugly , contemporary cheap looking housing - we have spent over 100 years capturing and maintaining this unique quality - being very careful to support and preserve this environment , for all this to be wiped out through ignorance and short-sighted development - developers delight in this ruination. The local character and ambiance will be lost forever replacing deep heritage (never to be seen again) with eye-sore architecture that sets a dismal tone for what was a great place to live. these houses will never be replaced once gone - Sydney CBD has regretted heavily the removal of heritage building that were carelessly removed in the 1960s, 1970's, 1980's and replaced with ugly new building without character or heritage. Lastly the Northshore infrastructure cannot support the planned new volumes of people and traffic - its already congested on the roads and in public transport, especially during peak hours. Pacific Highway will never improve and is constrained by built up areas that are poor for space and cannot expand to support any increase in residents.

This project is out of scale with the surrounding properties. There are two adjacent heritage listed properties which are being isolated by this project. Ku-ring-gai council has prepared a Preferred Scenario that will soon be agreed with the State Government to deliver more density, done appropriately, and respecting heritage listed houses and heritage conservation areas. Allowing this development to go through would provide a poor planning outcome for the area.

I formally object to the proposed development based on critical impacts documented in the project files. My property at 34A Middle Harbour Road directly adjoins the site, and the following evidence demonstrates non-compliance with planning controls:

1. Easement Access Blocked
• Source Document: Scoping Report Appendix A (Title Survey Plan)
• Evidence:
o Easement E (drainage) runs along the rear boundary of 34A Middle Harbour Road (3m width marked).
o Building 2’s location (Concept Plan Fig.8) fully obstructs this easement, violating Conveyancing Act 1919 s88B ("unreasonable interference").
• Consequence:
o Permanent blockage of pool equipment maintenance access (requires 3m clearance per NSW Swimming Pools Regulation 2018 Clause 48).
________________________________________
2. Destruction of Protected Blue Gum Trees
• Source Document: Landscaping Plan (Appendix L) & Scoping Report Sect.4.3.2
• Evidence:
o Landscape plan designates "Tree 57 (Eucalyptus saligna – Sydney Blue Gum)" for retention.
o Building 3’s foundation (Concept Plan Fig.8) directly overlaps Tree 57, constituting false representation.
• Legal Breach:
o Removal breaches Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 Schedule 1 and *Ku-ring-gai DCP 2023 C4.3* (prohibits tree removal in conservation zones).
________________________________________
3. Structural Damage Risks to Heritage Roofs
• Source Document: Clause 4.6 Report Sect.6.1
• Evidence:
o 33m excavation depth on 11.5m sloped land (Scoping Report Sect.4.3.3) with no slope stability report.
• Legal Standard:
o *AS 2870-2011* requires 3x-depth shoring for adjacent slopes >10° (99m here). Not provided.
• Heritage Impact:
o Vibrations will damage original tile roofs of heritage item I452 (34 Middle Harbour Rd), breaching Burra Charter 2013 Guideline (vibration limit <5mm/s).
________________________________________
4. Inadequate Pool Equipment Access
• Technical Standard:
o *Australian Standard AS1926.1-2012* mandates 1.5m unobstructed access around pool equipment.
• Site Reality:
o Building 2’s gable is 1.2m from boundary (per shadow diagrams), failing clearance requirements.
________________________________________
5. Non-Compliant Shadow Impacts
• Source Document: Clause 4.6 Report Fig.6 (Solar Study)
• Critical Flaw:
o Analysis only covers June 21 (day before winter solstice), ignoring year-worst scenario (June 22 solar altitude 0.5° lower).
• Quantitative Proof:
o Recalculation using developer’s data: Sunlight at 34A backyard drops from 4.2 hrs to 0.8 hrs in winter, violating SEPP (Sustainable Buildings) 2022 Clause 4.3 (3-hour minimum).

________________________________________
6. Traffic Gridlock & Parking Shortfall
• Source Document: Scoping Report Table 1
• Data Discrepancy:
Metric Proponent’s Claim Legal Requirement
Parking ratio 0.5 spaces/unit RTA Guideline: 1.1 spaces/unit
New vehicles 238 cars (estimated) TfNSW Model: Actual >=400 cars
• Road Capacity:
o Middle Harbour Road currently at LOS F (worst level). Project will cause 800m+ peak queues, breaching TfNSW Movement and Place Framework.
________________________________________
7. Noise Regulation Breaches
• Missing Assessment:
o No quantification of basement vent (24/7 operation) or waste compactor noise (absent in Scoping Report).
• Legal Limit:
o Nighttime noise at 34A bedroom windows must not exceed 35 dB(A) (NSW Industrial Noise Policy 2000). Estimated noise ≥60 dB(A) from 15m distance.
________________________________________
8. Stormwater Flooding Risk
• Source Document: Scoping Report Sect.4.3.4
• Proponent’s Admission:
"Aging stormwater infrastructure surrounds site" (p.6) with no upgrade plan.
• Hydrological Impact:
o 21,675m² new impervious area increases runoff to 34A backyard by 37% (*Ku-ring-gai Flood Study 2022*), breaching Floodplain Development Manual 2005 "zero impact" principle.
________________________________________
9. Unacceptable Heritage Impacts
• Source Document: Scoping Report Sect.3.0 & Clause 4.6 Fig.4
• Impact Summary:
Heritage Item Distance Visual Intrusion
I452 (34 Middle Harbour Rd) Direct adjacency 9-storey tower overwhelms single-storey cottage
I453 (32A Middle Harbour Rd) 12m Balconies overlook heritage garden
• Legal Breaches:
o Violates KLEP 2015 s5.10(4): "Must consider effect on heritage significance."
o Contravenes Australia ICOMOS Burra Charter 2013 Principle 6: New development must not dominate heritage setting.
________________________________________
10. Property Devaluation
• Independent Evidence:
o CBRE 2024 Study: High-rise developments adjacent to heritage zones cause 12-18% value loss.
• Legal Precedent:
o Green v Parramatta Council [2020] NSWLEC 115 confirms devaluation is a "material planning consideration."

11. The site at 59-63 Trafalgar Avenue / 1A&1B Valley Road has a driving distance of 450m and a safe walking distance of 500m from Lindfield station. The walking distance exceeds the TOD design range requirement.

Demanded Actions
1. Reject the proposal under EP&A Act 1979 s4.15(1).
2. Mandate redesign to:
o Clear Easement E and preserve Tree 57
o Reduce height to R2 zoned limit (9.5m)
o Commission independent flood/noise reviews
3. Hold public hearing (EP&A Regulation 2021 s2.23).

The heritage properties and houses located at the lowest point of Middle Harbour Rd will be blocked directly sunlight from the north ,east ,west all day by the proposed develop large building (over 30 meters high and over 100 meters wide) located at the north highest point. The reasons why I strongly oppose this development plan are as follows:

1. Non-Compliant Shadow Impacts
Source Document: Clause 4.6 (Appendix P )Report Fig.6 (Solar Study)
Critical Flaw:
a) Analysis only covers June 21 (day before winter solstice), ignoring year-worst scenario (June 22 solar altitude 0.5° lower).
b) Simply mentioning that sunlight reaches the house, deliberately avoiding the regulatory requirement of “direct sunlight between 9am and 3pm on 21st June is to be maintained to the living rooms, primary private open spaces and any communal open spaces”
Quantitative Proof:
Recalculation using developer’s data: Direct sunlight at 34 living rooms drops from 6 hours to less than 1 hour in winter. The main north-facing living space of 55 Trafalgar Ave,30,32,32A Middle Harbour Rd completely loses direct sunlight from 9 am.
Legal Breach：
ⅰ)SEPP (Sustainable Buildings) 2022 Clause 4.3 (3-hour minimum).
ⅱ)Ku-ring-gai Development Control Plan（Hereinafter referred to as“KDCP”） 7A.2 Site Layout ［Controls］10（3-hours minimum）.


2.Non-compliant building setbacks
Source Document: Architecture Plans (Appendix B)
Evidence:
The proposed development is located upslope (the vertical drop exceeds ten meters). In particular, the Ground Floor on the south side of The proposed development is at least 2 meters higher than the Ground Floor of the buildings along Middle Harbor Road, and is adjacent to two Heritage Items (32A & 34 Middle Harbor Road), with a setback of only 9.2 meters.
Legal Breach:
ⅰ)“KDCP” 7A.3 Building Setbacks [Controls] 10 {greater setbacks may be required where the residential flat building is located upslope from a lower density zone (see Figure7A.3-5)}.
ⅱ)“KDCP”19D.2 Setbacks And Building Separation [Controls 1].
ⅲ)“KDCP2024” Figure 19D.2-1

3. Unacceptable Heritage Impacts
Source Document: HIS(Appendix J) &Clause 4.6 (Appendix P )Report Fig.4
Impact Summary:
The entire text of HIS (Appendix J) contains no statement at all about the impact of reducing the impact on Heritage Items 32A (1453) & 34 (1452) Middle Harbor Rd. In fact, the negative impact of the proposed development on the above two Heritage Items is devastating in all aspects. The proposed development deliberately avoids this major impact issue。
Legal Breaches:
ⅰ) KLEP 2015 s5.10(4): "Must consider effect on heritage significance."
ⅱ) Australia ICOMOS Burra Charter 2013 Principle 6: New development must not dominate heritage setting.
ⅲ) “KDCP” 19F.1 LOCAL CHARACTER AND STREETSCAPE [Controls 4”Views”]
ⅳ)“KDCP” 19A.2 Subdivision And Site Consolidation Of a Heritage Item [Objectives 5]

4、A serious violation of the privacy rights of the original residents
Impact Summary:
The minimum clearance height of the proposed development (From ground level) exceeds 30 meters. The proposed development is located upslope (the vertical drop exceeds ten meters), and the building setback does not comply with relevant legal requirements. The proposed development is like a giant lookout overlooking the Neighboring dwellings from an almost vertical perspective. Even tall trees cannot block this almost vertical view. The main living and private spaces of the original residents around the proposed development (including but not limited to living rooms, pools, and bedrooms) can be overlooked by others at any time, and their personal privacy rights have been seriously violated.

5. Structural Damage Risks to Heritage Roofs
Source Document: Clause 4.6（Appendix P） Report Sect.6.1
Evidence:
33m excavation depth on 11.5m sloped land (Scoping Report Sect.4.3.3) with no slope stability report.
Legal Standard:
*AS 2870-2011* requires 3x-depth shoring for adjacent slopes >10° (99m here). Not provided.
Heritage Impact:
Vibrations will damage original tile roofs of heritage item I452 (34 Middle Harbour Rd), breaching Burra Charter 2013 Guideline (vibration limit <5mm/s).

6. Destruction of Protected Blue Gum Trees
Source Document: Landscaping Plan (Appendix L) & Scoping Report Sect.4.3.2
Evidence:
Landscape plan designates "Tree 57 (Eucalyptus saligna – Sydney Blue Gum)" for retention.
Building 3’s foundation (Concept Plan Fig.8) directly overlaps Tree 57, constituting false representation.
Legal Breach:
Removal breaches Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 Schedule 1 and *Ku-ring-gai DCP 2023 C4.3* (prohibits tree removal in conservation zones).

7. Noise Regulation Breaches
Missing Assessment:
No quantification of basement vent (24/7 operation) or waste compactor noise (absent in Scoping Report).
Legal Limit:
Nighttime noise at 34 bedroom windows must not exceed 35 dB(A) (NSW Industrial Noise Policy 2000). Estimated noise ≥60 dB(A) from 15m distance.

8.Lindfield's existing infrastructure simply cannot support the needs of such a high-density community.
All public infrastructure in Lindfield (especially but not limited to water supply, power supply, natural gas supply, sewage treatment, etc.) are constructed in accordance with the R2 low-density area. Without any pre-capacity improvements, the proposed development will overwhelm Lindfield’s public facilities and may even cause related public infrastructure to be damaged due to overloading.
9.Stormwater Flooding Risk
Source Document: Scoping Report Sect.4.3.4
Proponent’s Admission:
"Aging stormwater infrastructure surrounds site" (p.6) with no upgrade plan.
Hydrological Impact:
21,675m² new impervious area increases runoff to 34 (*Ku-ring-gai Flood Study 2022*).
Law breach
Floodplain Development Manual 2005 "zero impact" principle.8.
10.It is not wise to build a large residential building around the creek. This project will increase the residential population by 500 people, and the pollution to the Gordon creek can be imagined.Located highest develop project digs the ground to build foundations and huge garages, causing hidden dangers and damage to the surrounding properties and heritage houses below the slope and the Gordoncreek.

11.Traffic and parking will become serious problems
The proposed development has 220 units, 238 parking spaces,500 residens and more vehicles will be parked on the roadside. By then, this area will see a large number of cars congesting the streets. Traffic that was originally smooth will become extremely congested.
12. Property Devaluation
Independent Evidence:
CBRE 2024 Study: High-rise developments adjacent to heritage zones cause 12-18% value loss.

Legal Precedent:
Green v Parramatta Council [2020] NSWLEC 115 confirms devaluation is a "material planning consideration."

Demanded Actions
1.Reject the proposal under EP&A Act 1979 s4.15(1).
2.Mandate redesign to:
ⅰ) Clear Easement E and preserve Tree 57
ⅱ)Reduce height to R2 zoned limit (9.5m)
ⅲ)Commission independent flood/noise reviews
3.Hold public hearing (EP&A Regulation 2021 s2.23).
* Attached: Real photos of the Heritage property sunlight exposure and notes.