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

To whom it may concern
I have attached my submission to this document as I could not access the Planning Portal during the Day.
I spoke with Chantelle and Jasmine Tranquille who reached out by leaving a message this afternoon and sending this link to me to complete.
I have attached 5 Documents that form all of my Submission (Including the Covering Letter for the Proposed Development SSD-79276958 at 59-63 Trafalgar Avenue and 1A 8 1 8 Valley Road, LINDFIELD NSW 2070.

I am writing to formally object to the proposed infill housing development planned for the site diagonally behind my property at 2 Nelson Road, Lindfield.

I have been a resident of Lindfield for over 20 years, and it saddens me to see development proposals being brought forward without clear regard for the very real and worsening traffic congestion issues in the area.

Over the years, significant development has already placed a strain on our local infrastructure. A 5 minute walk to Pacific Highway, Lindfield, now regularly takes up to 12 minutes in the car during peak periods due to traffic congestion. Additionally, it takes me 20 minutes just to get out of Lindfield in the morning on my commute. It’s difficult to imagine how the road network will cope with additional high-density housing especially since it all seems to be concentrated around Lindfield Station. There are other parts of Lindfield in both the West and East which are quiet and untouched in terms of development and I think careful thought needs to be put into the viability of these areas instead of having everything in the one hub.

My primary concerns are:
1). Traffic Congestion

2). Safety & Character: The increase in traffic poses risks for pedestrians, including children and elderly residents (of which Lindfield has a significant portion) and takes away from the quiet, safe residential character of the neighbourhood that it is known and loved for.

3). Lack of Community Engagement: The ongoing approval of multiple developments without proactively engaging residents who will be directly impacted by it, is unfair on the local community.

I urge the planning authority to seriously consider the impact of this development in the proposed location in Lindfield and to give local residents the opportunity to be informed about such proposals going forward.

Several serious concerns for the existing community:
1. Loss of Family Privacy
The proposed height and scale of the building will severely compromise the privacy of surrounding residents. Homes that currently enjoy a degree of privacy will be directly overlooked by multiple apartment units, affecting the comfort and wellbeing of families living nearby.
2. Increased Traffic Congestion
The additional number of residents and vehicles introduced by this development will place significant pressure on local roads and intersections. The area is already experiencing congestion during peak hours, and this project will only worsen the situation, increasing travel delays and raising the risk of accidents.
3.Excessive Building Height
The proposed height is not in keeping with the character of the neighborhood, which consists mainly of low-rise family homes. A reduction in height would help the development blend more appropriately with its surroundings and reduce the impact on sunlight and skyline views for nearby properties.
4.Safety Concerns
With increased density comes increased risk. A large-scale development can contribute to overcrowding, strain on public services, and greater foot and vehicle traffic, which may impact the safety and sense of security for residents, particularly children and the elderly.
Many thanks in advance and kind regards, Sherry

see my submission letter

This project is disproportionately large for the area and will directly impact the surrounding neighborhood, particularly through reduced privacy and diminished access to sunlight. Moreover, it will contribute to increased traffic congestion.

I am writing to object to the proposed apartment development. While I support the need for new housing in Ku-ring-gai and endorse Ku-ring-gai Council’s alternative Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) plan, this proposal is unsuitable for this location due to its excessive scale and adverse impacts.

1. Excessive Scale and Height
The proposal includes 220 units across nine storeys (33m), well above the permitted building height. The density and bulk are completely out of scale with the surrounding low-density housing.

2. Poorly Located at Edge of TOD Zone
The site sits at the outer edge of the TOD boundary and outside the areas identified in Council’s alternative plan. There is no appropriate transition to the surrounding detached homes.

3. Negative Heritage Impacts
The development sits within a Heritage Conservation Area and next to four heritage-listed properties. The scale and design are incompatible with the area’s heritage character.

4. Amenity and Environmental Impacts
The proposal will cause significant overshadowing, loss of privacy, and solar access for neighbouring homes. It also involves the loss of mature trees and tree canopy, harming local environmental values.

5. Noise, Traffic, and Parking Issues
The scale of development will increase traffic, noise, and congestion on streets not designed for this intensity of use.

In summary, this proposal is inconsistent with good planning principles for this location and should not proceed in its current form.

To: Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure
Re: Objection to SSD-79276958 – Trafalgar Avenue and Valley Road, Lindfield
Date: [Insert Date]
Dear Assessing Officer,
I write to lodge a strong objection to the proposed State Significant Development application SSD-79276958 for 59–63 Trafalgar Avenue and 1A & 1B Valley Road, Lindfield. This proposal is inappropriate for its site and local context and should be refused for the following reasons:
________________________________________
1. Inconsistency with Ministerial Statements and Policy Frameworks
This proposal contradicts both public representations by government and established planning definitions:
• The NSW Planning Minister’s media release (21 February 2025) states that the Low and Mid-Rise Housing Policy aims to “fill the missing middle” with buildings generally 3–6 storeys in height.
• The NSW Planning Portal similarly defines “mid-rise” as “generally 3–6 storeys.”
• The proposed development is 10 storeys (33 metres)—more than double the typical “mid-rise” height—aligning it with high-rise typology.
• The misuse of the term “mid-rise” to justify this scale misleads the public and risks undermining administrative legality, consistent with Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v SZSSJ [2016] HCA 29 and Plaintiff M61/2010E v Commonwealth [2010] HCA 41.
• Accurate and honest government communication is essential to uphold procedural fairness and community trust.
________________________________________
2. Overdevelopment and Breach of Statutory Planning Controls
• The site is zoned R2 Low-Density Residential under the Ku-ring-gai LEP 2015, with a 9.5m height limit.
• Even with TOD incentives, the maximum allowable uplift is 30%, equating to a maximum height of approximately 26.8m.
• The proposed 33m height represents a 52% increase over the TOD uplift and an unprecedented breach of planning controls.
• The scale is inconsistent with the established built form of Lindfield and incompatible with the Middle Harbour Road Heritage Conservation Area.
• This clearly contravenes Section 4.15(1)(a)(i) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, which mandates compliance with planning instruments.
________________________________________
3. Misuse of the SSD Pathway and Lack of Strategic Merit
This application:
• Pre-empts the finalisation of the Ku-ring-gai Lindfield TOD Framework, which is still under consideration by Council and the Department of Planning;
• Ignores Ku-ring-gai Council’s draft TOD Scenario 3B, which retains the site’s R2 zoning and 9.5m height limit;
• Bypasses community consultation and statutory plan-making processes;
• Fails to demonstrate extraordinary public benefit or strategic merit;
• If approved and constructed will becomeg a planning anomaly, driven by political expediency rather than good planning as any future development applications on or in the same block as the subject site will be limited to 9.5m height .
________________________________________
4. Inadequate Clause 4.6 Justification
The applicant's request to vary the height standard under Clause 4.6 of the Housing SEPP is unsubstantiated:
• Economic feasibility and site slope are not sufficient grounds for breaching planning controls.
• The site could accommodate a compliant development within the TOD height envelope while still delivering affordable housing.
• The Wehbe v Pittwater Council (2007) LGERA 446 tests are misapplied:
a) Misuse of the First Wehbe Test
• The claim that the development satisfies the objectives of clause 15A (facilitating affordable housing) simply by delivering units ignores the need to meet height limits that shape appropriate urban scale.
• There is no evidence that affordable housing could not be delivered within the 28.6m TOD limit.
b) Failure to Identify the Underlying Objective
• The applicant does not engage with the purpose of height controls: to ensure built form respects its context. Instead, the submission claims irrelevance, contrary to the legal tests under Wehbe.
c) Mischaracterisation of Site Constraints
• The site’s slope is a known constraint. A well-designed, compliant development that steps with the terrain is achievable and common.
• No analysis is provided to show that affordable yield cannot be maintained in a compliant scheme.
d) Public Interest is Not Served
• A 33m height (exceeding the TOD height by over 52%) is not in the public interest, and no justification exists for such a deviation.
________________________________________
5. Failure to Satisfy Chapter 5 Housing SEPP Aims
The applicant misapplies Section 150 of the Housing SEPP:
• s150(a): Increased density can be achieved within the 28.6m height—no need to exceed it.
• s150(b)(i): “Well-designed mid-rise buildings” must still meet planning controls.
• s150(b)(ii): The development fails the requirement for “appropriate bulk and scale.”
• s150(b)(iii): Amenity is not height-dependent and can be preserved within compliant form.
• s150(c): Only 17% of floor area is allocated to affordable housing—not exceptional, and certainly not enough to justify breaching planning controls.
________________________________________
6. Poor Urban Design and Amenity Impacts
• The proposed form is incongruous with the surrounding low-rise residential neighbourhood.
• It creates significant impacts in terms of overshadowing, overlooking, and privacy loss.
• Upper storey levels exceed acceptable mid-rise proportions and are unjustified.
• BCA compliance issues are also evident.
________________________________________
7. Environmental Degradation and Tree Canopy Loss
• The development would remove mature, endangered trees that form part of Ku-ring-gai’s urban forest canopy.
• This contradicts the Ku-ring-gai Urban Forest Policy and Biodiversity Strategy 2030.
• The loss will reduce biodiversity, increase heat island effects, and weaken environmental resilience.
________________________________________
8. Heritage Impacts
The proposal fails to meet the heritage protection requirements of Ku-ring-gai DCP Part 19 – Heritage and Clause 5.10 of the LEP 2015:
Key Failures
• No substantial Heritage Impact Assessment has been provided.
• The development disregards:
o Curtilage and setting of listed heritage properties;
o Middle Harbour Road Conservation Area;
o Federation-era streetscapes and adjoining heritage-listed properties at 1 and 3 Valley Road;
o Potential design alternatives that could mitigate these impacts.
1 and 3 Valley Road: Contextual Damage
• 1 Valley Road is a fine example of the Federation Arts and Crafts style, with a mature garden and picket fence contributing to its historic character. The development would overwhelm it and destroy its curtilage.
• 3 Valley Road holds cultural, architectural, and municipal value and is critical to Valley Road’s rhythm. A 10-storey building nearby would erase its spatial context and compromise its integrity.
• No assessment or mitigation has been attempted.
This is a clear breach of planning law and policy. On heritage grounds alone, the application should be refused.
________________________________________
9. Administrative Law and Good Governance
• Government must act lawfully and transparently.
• The manipulation of planning language to justify non-compliant development is contrary to the principles in Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Teoh (1995) 183 CLR 273.
• The strong objection by Ku-ring-gai Council must be afforded due weight, per the Local Government Act 1993 and principles of participatory planning.
________________________________________
Conclusion
This application exemplifies planning overreach, marked by:
• Premature application of an unfinished TOD framework;
• Unjustified breaches of planning, environmental, and heritage controls;
• Irreversible harm to local character, tree canopy, and community amenity;
• Misuse of State Significant Development powers in the absence of compelling public interest.
For the sake of procedural integrity, environmental protection, and community trust, this application should be refused in its entirety.

Please see my objection attached.

To whom it may concern,

Re: Formal objection to SSD-79276958 Proposed Residential Development at 59-63 Trafalgar Avenue and 1A & 1B Valley Road Lindfield

I am writing to formally express my objection to the proposed high-rise residential development located at 59-63 Trafalgar Avenue and 1A and 1B Valley Road Lindfield which is currently under consideration by the Department of Planning.

This development poses a number of significant concerns for the local community, particularly in relation to the heritage, environmental character, and architectural consistency of the area.

Firstly, Lindfield is a suburb of notable historical and cultural significance. Many homes in the area reflect architectural styles dating back to federation, forming a cohesive and valued heritage landscape. Introducing a high-rise structure in this setting would disrupt the established streetscape and diminish the suburb’s unique historical identity, which is an asset that should be preserved, not compromised.

Secondly, the suburb is characterised by its abundance of mature trees, green spaces, and a generally low-density residential layout that supports community wellbeing and environmental sustainability. A development of this scale threatens the existing greenery and the ecological balance of the area, with the potential loss of tree canopy.

Lastly, the proposed development is entirely out of scale and character with the surrounding built environment. The existing neighbourhood consists primarily of single and double-storey dwellings. The proposed high-rise not only fails to harmonise with the architectural fabric of the community but also raises concerns about increased traffic and overshadowing of surrounding properties.

For these reasons, I respectfully urge the Department to rethink the current proposal in its present form. Any future development within Lindfield should be approached with sensitivity to the area’s heritage, environment, and community values.

Thank you for considering this submission.

Yours sincerely,
Leafy Lindfield resident

To whom it may concern,
I object to the planned development at 59-63 Trafalgar Avenue 1A&1B Valley Road Lindfield. This proposed development is within a heritage conservation area and totally out of keeping with the local environment. Ku-Ring-Gai council has proposed a Preferred Scenario that will provide the required number of new homes while protecting the heritage and natural environment and beauty of this area and any decision on this proposed development should not be made until the council's Preferred Scenario has been resolved.
Thank you.

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

I have lived in Roseville, Killara or Gordon for 35 years.

I planned for, worked towards and committed to buying a home in Roseville for my young family and I.

I specifically chose a heritage house in a Heritage Conservation Area (HCA) attracted to the 1-2 storey garden settings and heritage. I was conscious of and attracted to the protections in place for conservation of the heritage significance of the area including fabric, settings and views.

Following stringent Council requirements, I sought and obtained Development Application (DA) approval for restoration of my home in accordance with heritage controls. This allows for renewal of the place for a new generation and the saving of the embodied energy in the place.

It is not an unreasonable expectation, and is a requirement for you to consider, that development in the HCA conserves the environmental heritage and heritage significance of items and areas and this includes fabric, settings and views.

The public interest in not undoing that in that is heightened by reflection on the fact that time and expense and effort have been, for a long time, expended by the community in furtherance of a legislative mechanism to conserve the heritage of the area.

It is against the public interest and the objects of the planning legislation for this development to proceed.

This particular development is inconsistent with and not sensitive to and does not preserve or enhance the HCA.

I note further below that Ku-ring-gai Council’s Preferred Scenario should be allowed to proceed under which housing exceeding the Government’s targets will be permitted. This will allow for more people to enjoy the area while preserving the very thing that makes the area attractive.

The proposed development should be rejected because it is against the public interest and for the reasons set out below.

1. Heritage Impacts

I object to the proposed development which involves the demolition of houses that contribute to these Heritage Conservation Areas (HCAs). This is contrary to the position of the Minister and the Department that have stated that contributory items must not be demolished and contrary to this, the proposed development requires the demolition of these contributory items.

At a height of 33 metres this would be by far the tallest structure on the east side of Lindfield and Roseville and not only would this impact on overshadowing / solar access / privacy to the 1-2 storey heritage homes that surround it but also on views of these remaining contributory items (including 4 adjacent heritage homes).

The Local Environment Plan (LEP) which is not turned off by the TOD states that views to and from heritage items must also be maintained and, contrary to that position, the views to and from heritage items on Trafalgar Avenue would not be preserved at all. Current views of extensive mature tree canopy and the rooflines of 1-2 storey heritage homes would be replaced with views of a 9 storey development surrounded by a stark treeless skyline.

With its proposed 220 apartments and 367 car spaces which would be located next to and opposite beautiful heritage homes and within HCAs where houses are 1-2 storeys high is not only completely inconsistent with the
heritage architecture and historical values of these HCAS in Lindfield and Roseville but it is contrary to clause 5.10 of the LEP as it does not preserve or protect its buildings, its trees or the setting and views of the areas.

The HCA and Ku-ring-gai as a whole are of national, state and local historical and heritage aesthetic significance as an area of Federation style housing. Volume 48 (2023) of the Historian, the official journal of the Ku-ring-gai Historical Society Inc. includes history of the area. Relevant history can also be found in the hundreds of heritage impact statements the planning legislation has required applicants to lodge with DAs in this area.

The Minister and the Department have explicitly said that any development in a HCA (as well as not involving removal of contributory items) needs to improve and enhance the heritage values of the location.

The proposed development does nothing to address these values.

New infill buildings and designs must:

1. be no higher than neighbouring heritage buildings; and

2. recognise the predominant scale of the setting and respond sympathetically.

These are from the Government’s own guidelines (Design Guide for Heritage and Design in context: Guidelines for development in the historic environment).

The impact of an inappropriately scaled building cannot be compensated for by building form, design or detailing." (page 19, Design in context: Guidelines for infill development in the historic environment (nsw.gov.au). Contrary to that requirement, the proposed plans do nothing to demonstrate and reflect the garden settings of the 1- 2 storey heritage homes surrounding it.

The effect of the proposed development is that it will effectively be an isolated island of an enormous modern tower surrounded by streets of 1-2 storey heritage homes.

2. Environmental Impacts

What also makes Ku-ring-gai and Lindfield / Roseville unique and special, in addition to its built heritage is its bird life, gardens, expansive tree canopy ( ‘urban forest’ ) and green space. 690 fauna species live in Ku-ring-gai. The destruction of greenspace here means green space will need to be found elsewhere. That is duplicative and unproductive and that wastage is against the public interest.

We have many Kookaburras frequent our home each day.

This proposed development threatens this with clearing of mature trees and plants to make way for 220 apartments.

This will in turn destroy many bird and animal habitats and also create large areas of hard surfaces which will significantly contribute to the ‘heat island effect’ increasing the heat related impacts of climate change, making increased temperatures and extreme hot weather events more severe. This would be absolutely devastating for this HCA, streets which are famous in Lindfield / Roseville and the State for their large significant mature trees which line these streets and which are also contained in its beautiful established gardens. The creation of large hard surfaces results in more heat, fewer trees and more water runoff and ignores existing infrastructure and overland flow limitations. Can the overland flow areas be built on without adversely impacting “downstream” lots? Hard surfaces associated with new roads, footpaths, roofs, driveways andurban infill and reduced vegetation cover would stop rain soaking into the ground causing extra water to run across the ground as overland flow, leading to greater runoff being generated posing
a flood risk.

The property of the proposed development is located at the very end of the 400 m Transport Oriented Development (TOD) zone around Lindfield station. The maximum building height for residential flat buildings in this zone translates to 6 storeys. The proposed development exceeds the maximum number of storeys by 50%. The maximum height in the adjacent 800 m Transport Oriented Development zone translates to a maximum of 4 storeys. The proposed development has no “step down” transition in storeys to the neighbouring properties. It will cause excessive over-shadowing, reduced access to sunlight, and reduced privacy for all the existing surrounding dwellings, and any proposed TOD in the 800 m zone.
The 9 storeys of the proposed development is completely out of scale with all other apartment developments in Lindfield. The developers state that “all efforts will be made to ensure equitable amenity to the 48 affordable housing units proportional to the 189 market units”. Few, if any developments from Chatswood to Wahroonga have been able to achieve that. Why will this be any different? Once approved in principle the developer will reduce the number of affordable housing units. Nobody has defined “affordable”.
The site is served by narrow suburban streets used for commuter parking and a lane. The increased traffic from the proposed development with 237 apartments (and the vehicles that accompany them) will add to congestion in these streets and the surrounding area. Already Lindfield has very poor accessibility to the major arterial roads – Pacific Highway and Archbold Road. This development will exacerbate the traffic, parking and congestion problems of Lindfield.
The land area of the proposed development contains a number of decades-old established mature trees. These are home to birdlife, and are part of the green character of the middle north shore. This green character is an integral part of the heritage, and the Middle Harbour Road Lindfield Heritage Conservation area, which is of local significance bordering on the original Archbold Estate.
As has been the case in Chatswood, in Lindfield, in Gordon and in Warrawee there are social and public impacts on the local schools, which struggle to accommodate extra students. Access to parks and green space is limited in the Lindfield town centre to the very small Village Green. Public infrastructure in the form of increased train services, improved roads and traffic management, and hospitals and medical centres have not accompanied the significant increase in density in these suburbs.
This development should not be approved. The development must be significantly scaled down in number of storeys, the number of apartments, and in the size of the built footprint.

Residential development with infill affordable housing, 59-63 Trafalgar Avenue 1A&1B Valley Road Lindfield (SSD-79276958)

Lived in the community/current address: 16 years
Distance to proposed development: 500m (radius)

Objection: I am writing to object to the proposed development (SSD-79276958)

In Summary: The application made by Landmark under the TOD scheme, should NOT in the public interest, be further progressed or determined until Council’s preferred scenario is resolved. I support the Council’s Preferred Scenario which recognizes the unique and historical character of Lindfield, is sympathetic to the existing built form in the area and has community support. The lodging of this SSD application – prior to the adoption of Councils preferred scenario - undermines the Court-mediated Agreement that Council and the NSW Government entered into; and it undermines the extensive community engagement process that we all participated in.

Please see below points regarding my objection:

LACK OF COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
• There has been no consultation or engagement by Landmark and I have not had an opportunity to provide any feedback. There has been no transparency about this proposed development.
• I received no flyer or information about this development from Landmark. It was only bought to my attention by concerned local community members.

DISPROPORTIONATE HEIGHT & DENSITY
• The proposed height density and bulk is above maximum building limits (220 units, 9+ stories, 33m)
• This development is completely out of character with the surrounding dwellings (1-2 storey houses) plus not in alignment with Council’s preferred scenario (remaining 1-2 storey houses).
• The impacts of the height of this development are profound including overshadowing and privacy, along with a complete change in streetscape and character.
• There are no transitions (step downs) to lower density housing which surrounds the proposed development on all sides
• Significant acoustic issues due to location of site and scale of development
• Significant reduction of tree canopy and mature trees

IMPACT TO HERITAGE
• The proposed Landmark development has significant impacts on heritage (including four adjacent heritage properties) and in a Heritage Conservation Area (HCA)
• The development will abut directly onto low density heritage listed and heritage conservation area houses
• Beauty matters and retaining heritage is meaningful to the city of Sydney and the suburb of Roseville. Once demolished, this history and heritage is lost forever.

INADEQUATE & TEMPORARY AFFORDABLE HOUSING
• The Landmark development claims of affordable housing appear inauthentic and over-stated (effectively acting as ‘smokescreen’) to claim this is a Significant State Development SSD.

**Environmental and Waterway Concerns**
This massive development poses significant environmental risks due to its proximity to the open creek system that flows into Middle Harbour Creek. The construction and operation of 220 units will likely increase stormwater runoff, erosion, and pollution entering this sensitive waterway ecosystem. The substantial reduction in permeable surfaces and tree canopy will exacerbate flooding risks and degrade water quality in Middle Harbour Creek, which supports important marine habitats and biodiversity.

**Scale and Overdevelopment**
This massive 220-unit, 9+ storey development at 33m height significantly exceeds maximum building height limits for the area. It represents overdevelopment that's completely out of scale with Lindfield's character and will set a dangerous precedent for future developments.

**Heritage and Character Destruction**
The development directly abuts heritage-listed properties and sits within a Heritage Conservation Area, threatening the historic character that defines Lindfield. It conflicts with local neighbourhood character and streetscape, potentially irreversibly damaging the area's heritage values.

**Transport and Infrastructure Strain**
Located on the edge of a 400-metre Transport Oriented Development border, this development will overwhelm local infrastructure. The high density will generate significant traffic congestion and parking issues without adequate consideration of the strain on existing transport networks.

**Environmental Impact**
The development will cause substantial reduction in tree canopy and mature vegetation, impacting local environmental values. There are serious concerns about overshadowing effects on neighbouring properties, reducing solar access and privacy for existing residents.

**Planning Process Concerns**
The development sits outside the boundary of Council's Proposed Transport Oriented Development area, suggesting it doesn't align with proper strategic planning. There's insufficient consideration of how this high-density development transitions to the surrounding low-density housing.

**Community Impact**
As potentially the largest development in Lindfield's history, it will have major social and public impacts on the established residential community. The development doesn't adequately address infrastructure impacts or consider the cumulative effect on local services and amenities.

**Visual and Amenity Impacts**
The building's height and bulk will create significant visual impact and privacy concerns for surrounding residents, fundamentally altering the area's residential amenity and character.

See attached.

**Scale and Overdevelopment**
This massive 220-unit, 9+ storey development at 33m height significantly exceeds maximum building height limits for the area. It represents overdevelopment that's completely out of scale with Lindfield's character and will set a dangerous precedent for future developments.

**Heritage and Character Destruction**
The development directly abuts heritage-listed properties and sits within a Heritage Conservation Area, threatening the historic character that defines Lindfield. It conflicts with local neighbourhood character and streetscape, potentially irreversibly damaging the area's heritage values.

**Transport and Infrastructure Strain**
Located on the edge of a 400-metre Transport Oriented Development border, this development will overwhelm local infrastructure. The high density will generate significant traffic congestion and parking issues without adequate consideration of the strain on existing transport networks.

**Environmental Impact**
The development will cause substantial reduction in tree canopy and mature vegetation, impacting local environmental values. There are serious concerns about overshadowing effects on neighbouring properties, reducing solar access and privacy for existing residents.

**Planning Process Concerns**
The development sits outside the boundary of Council's Proposed Transport Oriented Development area, suggesting it doesn't align with proper strategic planning. There's insufficient consideration of how this high-density development transitions to the surrounding low-density housing.

**Community Impact**
As potentially the largest development in Lindfield's history, it will have major social and public impacts on the established residential community. The development doesn't adequately address infrastructure impacts or consider the cumulative effect on local services and amenities.

**Visual and Amenity Impacts**
The building's height and bulk will create significant visual impact and privacy concerns for surrounding residents, fundamentally altering the area's residential amenity and character.

The development appears to prioritize developer profits over community needs and proper planning principles.

I am writing to object to the above application by the developer, Landmark. My reasons are as follows:

• The proposed development, on the very edge of the TOD and on the crest of a hill, will significantly overshadow and overlook the houses zoned for much lower density;
• Ku-ring-gai Council has prepared its own “Preferred Scenario” in consultation with the community, which in this suburb allows for its housing and affordable housing targets to be met whilst preserving as much of the heritage character of the area as possible. Under the Preferred Scenario, this would be a prohibited development.
• The development is excessively high and bulky, causing significant overshadowing and loss of privacy to the surrounding houses, most of whom will forever remain lower density.
• The development will have very substantial impact on heritage, including the 4 adjacent heritage properties, and is also in a Heritage Conservation Area.
• The development will lead to a significant loss of tree canopy and mature trees – a major consideration given our climate emergency.
• There will be significant acoustic issues given the positioning of the development and its scale on the crest of a hill on the houses below on Valley Road and Trafalgar Ave.
• The 367 parking spaces will add to existing traffic and parking issues, noting that the area is popular with train commuters from outside Lindfield.
• The building itself is (to my mind) ugly and has no connection to the surrounding landscape. It makes no attempt to transition down to the low density houses outside the TOD.
Please take these submission into account when considering the application.

Subject: Formal Objection to State Significant Development Application SSD-79276958 – 59–63 Trafalgar Avenue & 1A–1B Valley Road, Lindfield
Dear Assessment Officer,
I write to formally object to the proposed State Significant Development (SSD) Application SSD-79276958 for residential development with infill affordable housing at 59–63 Trafalgar Avenue and 1A–1B Valley Road, Lindfield.
This objection is grounded in a broad and serious set of concerns relating to non-compliance with planning controls, misuse of the SSD pathway, inappropriate scale and design, environmental degradation, heritage impacts, and a lack of procedural fairness. The proposal, as submitted, fails the public interest test and must not proceed in its current form.
1. Premature Use of the SSD Pathway and Lack of Strategic Merit
The proposal pre-empts the finalisation of Ku-ring-gai Council and the NSW Department of Planning’s Transport Oriented Development (TOD) framework for Lindfield. At present, the site is zoned R2 Low Density Residential under the Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan (KLEP). Under Ku-ring-gai’s revised scenario 3B, the subject site will retain its R2 zoning and will remain with a 9.5m height limit. This development proposes buildings of over 33 metres — more than three times the current height limit — creating an isolated, intrusive structure wholly incompatible with its surrounds.
Lodging this application through the SSD pathway undermines local planning controls and democratic consultation, particularly given the lack of exceptional public benefit or strategic justification. It deprives residents of genuine input into the future of their suburb, and circumvents both local oversight and reasonable expectations for transparency.
2. Clause 4.6 Request – Unjustified Departure from Height Controls
The applicant’s Clause 4.6 submission under the Housing SEPP clause 18(2) fails to demonstrate that strict compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary, as required by law. In particular:
• The Third Test (Wehbe v Pittwater Council) requires the applicant to show that the height standard’s objective — to deliver infill affordable housing — would be defeated or thwarted by requiring compliance. The application fails to provide convincing evidence that 26 affordable units could not be delivered within the generous 28.6m height limit.
• The assertion that compliance would be economically or structurally difficult is not valid justification. It is entirely feasible to design a building within the height controls using good design practice, and cost considerations are not a legal basis to override planning controls.
Consequently, the Clause 4.6 request fails to meet the requirements under both the Housing SEPP and legal precedent. Consent cannot lawfully be granted under these terms.
3. Failure of Urban Design Principles and Amenity Impacts
The scale, massing and form of the proposed development are entirely out of character with Lindfield’s established built form, topography, and heritage context. Key failures include:
• Overshadowing, overlooking and privacy loss to surrounding dwellings.
• Non-compliant setbacks that exacerbate visual bulk.
• The proposal deviates from acceptable standards under the Building Code of Australia (BCA) and the Apartment Design Guide (ADG).
• Its incongruous scale will degrade streetscape character and residential amenity for existing residents.
The claim that the development is “well designed” is not a substitute for genuine local compatibility or amenity preservation.

4. Environmental Impacts and Loss of Tree Canopy
The development undermines Council’s long-term ecological planning and:
• Destroys habitat for protected fauna;
• Contributes to urban heat island effects;
• Reduces stormwater absorption and cooling capacity;
• Diminishes the environmental resilience of the local ecosystem.
Such loss is irreversible and inconsistent with the region’s planning priorities.
5. Heritage Impacts and Failure to Address DCP Part 19
The proposal makes no serious effort to engage with the heritage protections outlined in Part 19 of the Ku-ring-gai DCP. It assumes the TOD designation overrides:
• Protection of heritage curtilage and setting;
• Heritage items “in the vicinity” (including 1 and 3 Valley Road);
• Views to and from heritage items and conservation areas;
• The broader setting of the Middle Harbour Road Conservation Area.
1 Valley Road, for instance, is a locally listed Federation Arts and Crafts residence with historical and aesthetic value, mature gardens and original fencing that contribute strongly to the area’s character. 3 Valley Road also has recognised cultural and architectural significance.
The proposed 33m structure will isolate these heritage assets, undermining their integrity and relationship to the surrounding landscape.
Notably, the proponent has failed to conduct a proper Heritage Impact Assessment. The resulting oversights are inexcusable for a project of this scale. The development’s bulk, scale, and form are irreconcilable with surrounding interrelated heritage values. Any future proposal would require substantial redesign to reduce impact, particularly in height, mass and visual dominance.
Conclusion
This proposal is fundamentally incompatible with the site’s planning controls, character, environmental constraints and heritage context. It seeks to bypass community input and established planning frameworks using a premature and inappropriate SSD pathway. It represents a failure of urban, environmental and heritage planning principles and must be rejected.
I respectfully urge the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure to refuse SSD-79276958 in its current form and require any future development to fully comply with the relevant statutory planning instruments and proper community consultation.
Yours sincerely,

I strongly object to the proposed development for several reasons. First, the lack of transparency in notifying local residents is deeply concerning. Despite living within 100 meters of the site and being directly affected by the development, the first notice I received was a flier distributed during the last weekend of May—just days before submissions closed. This timing suggests an attempt to push the proposal forward without adequate community engagement.

Second, the development’s impact on local traffic has not been properly addressed. The addition of 300+ car parks will significantly strain the existing road network, which is already congested on weekdays, reducing roads to a single lane due to parked cars. What measures have been planned to mitigate this issue?

While I acknowledge the broader vision of the NSW government’s plan to increase housing near train stations, it is questionable why this initiative is starting at the very edge of the designated boundary. A development of this scale should only proceed once the local infrastructure has been appropriately upgraded to support such expansion. Additionally, with the local council’s counterproposal regarding the TOD boundaries still under review by the State Government—and this site currently zoned as low-density—any decision at this stage would be premature.

Environmental concerns also need to be considered. This site sits just above Gordon Creek, which feeds into Garigal National Park. What safeguards will be put in place to manage runoff and potential contaminants during and after construction?

Lastly, the proximity of this development to two heritage-listed buildings is deeply troubling. The proposed structure would overshadow both historic sites, undermining their significance and failing to demonstrate the supposed benefits of the TOD strategy.

Given these concerns, I urge decision-makers to reconsider this proposal and ensure that adequate community consultation, infrastructure planning, and environmental protections are prioritized before moving forward.

Dear Jasmine,

I am writing to express my strong objection to this proposed development which would be entirely non-compliant under the Preferred Scenario. No doubt, these fast-tracked applications seek to bypass Councils' legitimate processes, thus undermining the Court-Mediated Agreement between Council and the NSW Government. Unlike the TOD, Council's Preferred Scenario was the result of a lengthy community engagement process which locals were afforded the opportunity to participate in.

I am supportive of development in Ku-ring-gai which duly conforms with Council's Preferred Scenario.

I note other points specific to this proposed development as well.

The height density is significant - proposal for 9 storeys, 220 units and 33 metres in height (which I note is above the maximum building height).

There will be significant impacts to heritage, with 4 neighbouring heritage properties, and the proposed development site being contained in a Heritage Conservation Area.

Current infrastructure is not adequate to account for the increased density, especially the local roads infrastructure. There are already significant parking and traffic congestion issues in the area, and this will only be exacerbated with the addition of 367 car spaces.

Thank you.