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

To whom it may concern,

I am writing to strongly object to the proposed State Significant Development (SSD) at 59-63 Trafalgar Avenue and 1A-1B Valley Road, Lindfield.

While supportive of new housing development initiatives within Ku-ring-gai, this specific proposal is inappropriate for its designated location. It starkly contradicts the Ku-ring-gai Council’s carefully considered and widely supported Transport Oriented Development (TOD) plans, which recommend this site remain within a lower-density, two-story residential zoning.

Key objections to this proposal are:

Excessive Scale and Density:
The proposal for 220 units, reaching over 9 stories (33m height), significantly exceeds the established maximum building height for this location.
This substantial increase in density is starkly inconsistent with the surrounding low-density residential environment.

Misalignment with Local Planning and Community Engagement:
This development is outside the Ku-ring-gai Council’s designated TOD boundary.
Approval would undermine the court-mediated agreement between Ku-ring-gai Council and the NSW Government, reflecting extensive community consultation and careful urban planning.

Impact on Heritage:
The proposed development directly abuts four heritage-listed properties and a designated Heritage Conservation Area (HCA).
The significant scale of the building would severely compromise the heritage values and integrity of these sites.
Adverse Environmental and Streetscape Impacts:
A significant loss of mature trees and substantial reduction in the local tree canopy would occur, negatively affecting biodiversity and local environmental quality.
The substantial visual bulk would severely disrupt the existing neighbourhood character and streetscape.

Overshadowing, Privacy, and Solar Access:
The height and bulk of the proposed building would cause significant overshadowing to adjacent properties, negatively affecting privacy and reducing solar access for surrounding residents.

Traffic, Acoustic and Infrastructure Concerns:
The planned 367 parking spaces clearly indicate significant increased local traffic congestion and parking issues.

Noise levels would considerably rise due to the scale of the development, impacting residential amenity.
Existing local infrastructure is inadequate to support such a substantial development without significant detriment to local services and community welfare.

Given these points, this proposed SSD development is entirely incompatible with the established and envisioned character of Lindfield's residential precincts. Approval of this proposal would set a troubling precedent that disregards both strategic urban planning and community involvement, fundamentally undermining the character and livability of our neighbourhood.

We urge rejection of this proposal and instead support the sustainable and strategically planned alternatives provided by Ku-ring-gai Council, ensuring balanced growth aligned with community and environmental values.

Yours sincerely,

Chris Pemberton 46 Trafalgar Avenue, Lindfield

I would like to express an objection to the proposed development SSD – 79276958 in Lindfield.

I am not opposed to the construction of apartments and the need to build higher density dwellings across Kur-ing-gai. I understand the need to provide affordable housing to many in our community who deserve this. I live in an apartment in Killara which is 3 levels and is of a scale, height and design which is suitable in Kur-ing-gai and works well with the street scape.

The proposed development is of a height (9 stories and 33 metres high), bulk and scale which are completely inappropriate for the area. It does not need to be this way, and we can build higher density without sacrificing everything that is so wonderful across Kur-ing-gai and Lindfield. There are a multitude of examples of good design which blend so well in Lindfield such as the Mirvac development on Tryon Road.

The council has developed an alternative to the TOD which carefully considers where to build higher density buildings with thoughtful transitioning, respect of the heritage, streetscapes and beautiful tree canopies which are a jewel of Sydney. I ask that the Department of Planning reject the proposed development in its current form as it will create a monstrosity which will devastate the local area and many residents who adjoin the proposed site.

I would like to express an objection to the proposed development SSD – 79276958 in Lindfield.

I am not opposed to the construction of apartments and the need to build higher density dwellings across Kur-ing-gai. I understand the need to provide affordable housing to many in our community who deserve this. I live in an apartment in Killara which is 3 levels and is of a scale, height and design which is suitable in Kur-ing-gai and works well with the street scape.

The proposed development is of a height (9 stories and 33 metres high), bulk and scale which are completely inappropriate for the area. It does not need to be this way, and we can build higher density without sacrificing everything that is so wonderful across Kur-ing-gai and Lindfield. There are a multitude of examples of good design which blend so well in Lindfield such as the Mirvac development on Tryon Road.

The council has developed an alternative to the TOD which carefully considers where to build higher density buildings with thoughtful transitioning, respect of the heritage, streetscapes and beautiful tree canopies which are a jewel of Sydney. I ask that the Department of Planning reject the proposed development in its current form as it will create a monstrosity which will devastate the local area and many residents who adjoin the proposed site.

I live on Middle Harbour Road, Lindfield approximately 60m from the proposed development site. I support the concept of higher than single storey and sensibly planned density living near transport options, and have not opposed the development of any of the larger scale buildings near Lindfield station to date . However I strongly object to this proposed development as the application and development site in question does not meet numerous requirements under SEARS and contains significant misleading errors.
In particular, I will demonstrate that the EIS for 59-61 Travalgar Avenue, 1A & 1B Valley Road, Lindfield does not meet the Planning Secretary’s Environmental Assessment (SEARs) Requirements of the Following
1. Statutory Context
7. Environmental Amenity
8. Visual Impact
14. Trees and Landscape
16. Biodiversity
22. Environmental Heritage
The application for this State Significant Development should not progress because of the compounded non-compliance to the SEARs, and potential breaches of Federal and State laws beyond the scope of the NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure.
Please find attached my letter with full details of my response to the SSD-79276958 submission.

Good afternoon,

Please see attached Council's objection to the proposal.

Kind regards

Luke Donovan

I strongly object to this development. It is non- compliant with Ku-ring-gai Council's Preferred Scenario which is due to be submitted to the NSW State Government imminently. I am supportive of new housing in Ku-ring-gai as per Council's Preferred Scenario, however I am not supportive of this development in this location. Developments such as this one should NOT be approved because they have been "fast-tracked" through in a low attempt to try to "beat" Ku-ring-gai Council's Preferred Scenario which has been devised to deliver housing with a strategic planning approach and after seeking input from residents in the local community. Developments such as this one completely disrespect the Court-mediated Agreement that Ku-ring-gai Council and the NSW Government entered into for Ku-ring- gai Council to deliver the required housing with a strategic, collaborative planning approach. More specifically, other reasons this development should be rejected are as follows;

1. Height, density and bulk. It is above the maximum building height limits
2. It is on the outer edge of the 400m TOD border and not even in Ku-ring-gai Council's Preferred Scenario border
3. Significant reduction in tree canopy and mature trees leading to adverse environmental impacts
4. Adverse effect on heritage conservation area (HCA)
5. Traffic congestion (represented by the 367 parking spaces in building) and parking issues from the overflow of resident's vehicles to street kerbside parking
6. Adverse visual impact - completely out of scale with local area
7. Adverse infrastructure impact
8. Adverse social impacts -especially on neighbours
9. Does not consider transition to low density houses right next door
10. Conflicts with local neighbourhood character and streetscape
11. Significant overshadowing / privacy / solar access issues
No SSDs in Ku-ring-gai should be approved until Ku-ring-gai Council's Preferred Scenario is approved which is imminent. This will be much better for the local area, as their Preferred Scenario reflects a much more strategic, long-term, collaborative planning approach, in stark contrast to ad-hoc developments such as this one.

Submission to Dept of Planning

The height density and bulk of this project with 220 units, 9+stories,33m are above the maximum building height limits.
Outside of boundary of Council's Proposed TOD
Back in yr 2000 it took us 15 minutes to drive our young children to school at Lindfield Primary School and with this develpment there will be likely 220 CARS minimum EXTRA on the roads with NO INFRASTRUCTURE in place to accommodate the EXTREME VOLUME of extra traffic! The OVERSHADOW/privacy/solar access to the local neighbourhood will severely impact the quality of life now enjoyed.

I object to the proposed State Significant Development (SSD-79276958). It is not in the public interest, it is inappropriate for the Lindfield location and conflicts with the Council and Community Preferred Alternative to the Transport Oriented Development (TOD).
I urge the rejection of this proposal in favour of Ku-ring-gai Council’s Preferred Alternative Scenario, which was progressed after extensive community consultation and meets affordable housing requirements while minimizing adverse impacts on the local community.

I object to this project as it raises a number of concerns which will detrimentally impact the quality of living conditions in the general vicinity of the location both during and post construction. This site is outside of the Council's proposed Transport Oriented Development border. This area is already heavily impacted by mid-week parking issues as commuters use the surrounding streets to park in the absence of a commuter car park at Lindfield Station, with many cars parking illegally across driveways and creating access issues for those living in the area. To accommodate the building site workers parking needs and the construction site vehicle traffic will result in even more frustration and illegal behaviour and likely result in substantial access and changed traffic condition delays when trying to leave or enter the area by car. These type of developments never provide adequate parking for the occupants and the surrounding streets will become the locale for the overflow parking. This is already the situation on Tryon Road and will be further exacerbated by this proposal. To squeeze a building of this size, in terms of height which is above the maximum building height limits, density and bulk, onto a site which currently accommodates 5 houses and abuts a Heritage Conservation Area will block the natural light currently available to the surrounding low density sites and street scapes, creating an unpleasant micro climate, and turning the existing sun and light filled area into an unpleasant cold, damp and dark place where the houses will feel like prison buildings and the yards will become unusable. The structure, perched at the top of a hill, will be a blight on the skyline, as it looms over the neighbourhood and any remaining tree canopy. There will be a significant loss of privacy for those whose homes directly abut the proposed site, particularly as the proposed structure will extend to the very edge of the boundary. The size of the proposed structure will also detrimentally impact the general environment with the removal of mature tress and a reduction in the tree canopy. I have grave concerns for the environmental impact on the local wildlife, which includes many native bird species, brush turkeys, possums and water dragons, and the implications for the nearby Gordon Creek the source of which is downhill from the site. The design of the building is not sympathetic to the surrounding dwellings, conflicting with local neighbourhood streetscapes, and there would seem to be little to no green spaces for the occupants to enjoy. The number of dwellings and therefore, occupants will overburden the existing infrastructure, including public transport which has recently suffered a substantial reduction in train services. I would also like to think there could be a compromise between this proposal and an alternative which better addresses the transition from low to high density particularly as this site is on the outer edge of the 400 metre Transport Oriented Development border.

Submission attached

I strongly object to the proposed development. It is an eyesore and absolute disgrace and should not be allowed to poceed.

It is the absolute opposite aesthetic to our historic local area, neighbourhood and streetscapes
it is outside the local councils proposed TOD boundary.
It is on the edge of the 400m TOD border. Why not develop on the highway?! Why destroy a beautiful area?
It impacts local heritage and Heritage Conservation Areas
9 stories & 220 units is ridiculous and not in keeping with any of the neighbouring houses.
It is 3 stories over the council’s maximum building height.
It destroys neighbouring homes privacy, sun (including solar power) and resale value.
There is no consideration for the visual impact – no ‘step-down’ to blend in with current homes. It is completely out of character with the area – people come to Lindfield because of the tree canopy and the beautiful homes. Not one person bought or rented a property in Lindfield thinking “oh I’d love to live next to a ghetto-like apartment building”. I grew up on Middle Harbour Rd and it is heartbreaking to think that this beautiful streetscape can be reduced to trash just to make money for the government and developers.
The current tree canopy will be destroyed impacting the environment. Current residents have always had to apply for permission to cut any trees – but now the government waves a wand and developers can do what they like?
The proposed building is over a natural underground creek system – how will building an underground carpark effect the local ecosystem?
Lindfield does not have infrastructure to support this development – the shops are already crowded, Lindfield public school is at capacity, the roads are narrow and there is already limited parking.
Traffic and parking in the surrounding streets will be impossible – not only during construction, but after completion.

I strongly object to this proposal based on the following SEAR categories:
I have lived in Lindfield for 11 years and am very familiar with the area that this development sits in. It is a small residential pocket with all low rise residential houses. The Lindfield area, without proper infrastructure planning will not be able to cope with the cumulative affect of the additional residents from all SSD’s in the Ku-ring-gai area, currently before government. Rather than provide high quality housing for those in need, this development will provide poor quality that destroys the context and feel of the local area.
SEAR #1: Statutory Context
Under Ku-ring-gai Council’s alternative Preferred Scenario, this area is meant to stay R2 to match the local surroundings. This development’s height is above anything nearby and the TOD rules. The development is also not within the 400m Transport-Oriented Development (TOD) boundary—it’s 500m from the station, so it should be considered Low-Medium Residential (LMR).
SEAR #5: Design Excellence.
Nearly one in five apartments will have no access to solar during daylight hours. A lot of these units are affordable/liveable units, this is not providing high quality apartments for people.
SEAR #6: Built Form & Urban Design
The design, bulk and form of this development doesn’t fit the area at all. Most of the neighbourhood consists of low-rise houses, some of which are heritage listed. The developer has not allowed for any transitions between the surrounding residential houses. There are no other building of this nature in the surrounding area. The form and design are out-of-place and will overshadow, block privacy, and cast shade on neighbouring homes.
SEAR #8: Visual Impact
See SEAR #6 above. The project doesn’t match the look or feel of the community. It’s much taller than other buildings nearby, meaning no chance for canopy growth to help create privacy for the low rise surrounding homes.
SEAR #9: Transport The 2021 census stats show that car ownership in Ku-ring-gai is high. Based on those numbers, this development will add around 350 more cars to local roads, making traffic worse. Lindfield is already super congested, and this project will just add to the mess. The plan also lets cars exit onto Valley Road—a tiny, narrow residential street—which is unsafe for residents, especially kids. It will discourage walking and force more cars onto the streets.
SEAR #14: Trees & Landscaping
This proposal means chopping down 38 trees, which are a huge part of the area’s character and crucial for the environment, especially with climate change getting worse. A lack of tree cover results in increased temperatures for residents. Any trees planted will take years to mature
SEAR #18: Social Impact
There are no plans to improve local infrastructure along side this SSD. Schools in the area are full, the roads are congested, drainage will need to be upgrade for the additional residents. Since none of these have been provided for, there will be a significant negative impact on residents.
SEAR #22: Environmental Heritage This project is right next to heritage-listed properties and doesn’t fit the area at all. Its massive size and bulk will dominate the surroundings and reduce both aesthetic and financial value of nearby heritage homes. Lindfield’s character is worth protecting, and this development disrespects the historical integrity of the area.

1. Height, density and bulk of the proposed development is excessive and above maximum building limits.
2. Traffic and parking - Current space and accessibility is limited at the existing population level and there is no evidence of any plans by the developer to manage additional traffic and vehicle load with parking areas and spaces.
3. Streetscape - the bulk and scale of the proposed development is not complementary and does not have any consideration of transitioning to lower density housing, particularly the parcel of land around 1A and 1B Valley Road and 59 Trafalgar Av.

The proposed development is 33M. Above maximum building height limits. It’s outside the boundary of councils proposed TOD. It does not consider transition to low density houses. There are going to be severe traffic and parking issues. There are going to be a lot of issues in terms of provisions of services ( infrastructure). There are visual impacts to the surrounding neighbourhood and issues with housing around the proposed development in terms of views and access to sunlight. There is a huge impact on heritage homes and theheritage conservation area. This neighbourhood has historically been a neighbourhood full of heritage listed Homes and a development like this is baatardising the area. This development will cause a massive issue in terms of the streetscape to the area not to mention the reduction in tree canopy and mature trees. As residence of the area for 50 years we’ve always had to have council permission to cut trees down… So how can a development like this go ahead with cutting down so many trees to make a room for the multilevel development?
This is a disgrace and should not be approved.

I have stood in front of 9-10 storey apartment buildings in Sydney and taken in their height and scale adjacent to existing lower multi storey buildings and regular suburban homes. The proposal to place this scale of building next door to 1-2 storey houses lacks all degree of sensibility and sensitivity for the existing residents. I believe the current proposal exceeds maximum building heights limits for the area and sits on the outer edge of 400m TOD boundary; and should be rejected on these grounds alone. Why is there not a graduated approach where 3-4 storey apartment buildings provide the buffer between existing houses and higher buildings which are already positioned closer to the train station and existing commercial amenities? This measured development idea seems like a more realistic approach to growing the population in the suburb.
The plan to include infill affordable housing within the project to gain an extra 30% of height for 15 years is highly dubious. What controls will be put in place by the Council or State Govt? I have found no definition of affordable housing in any document. How can this one factor lead to an additional 30% building height without defining what affordable means. Will these apartments be sold at a significant discount as the other apartments will be priced significantly higher than the average apartment price in Sydney? Or will these apartments be rented out for 15 years, then the tenants removed, the units renovated and sold on the open market. If this is the accepted strategy, then there won't be any affordable housing in the area after 15 years.
The corner of Russell and Trafalgar Ave and surrounds is currently the preferred parking for about 40 train commuters four days a week, together with about 10-15 residents who park their car on the street. A building of this scale (220 units) will bring approx. 500 residents to the immediate area and there are not sufficient car spaces being offered. The commuter parker will be pushed further away from the station, which then does not incentivise them to use public transport. The streets will become more heavily congested and Trafalgar Ave is on the school bus route. This fact does not even begin to address the multiple new DA's in the system for Middle Harbour Rd (the next street over from Russell) and the obvious calamity of congestion that awaits the local streets if all the DA's are approved. I guess that's another problem for another day.
KMC has a long held environmental policy around tree removal and most importantly, the protection of mature character defining trees in the area. I note the appearance of seven trees reaching up to the third storey on the development brochure. Will this detail of tree maturity be followed through in the final build? Where is the green space for these 500 new residents to enjoy being outside their unit. The relatively new Lindfield square has been provided for massive apartment buildings in Lindfield Ave (x2) and Milray Ave (x4), a total of over 400 units and 1000 residents, so this area could not be considered in a new DA scenario. In other words a new green space should be created within the complex or next door at a site that is currently a vacant block.
The PR arm of the developer held a zoom information talk recently with Q & A where they emphasized the building would have a style that was in tune with the brick and sandstone housing of the area. This has not materialised in the plans submitted in the DA which is a huge conflict to the large surrounding heritage conservation area.
In summary, I object to the enormous scale of the proposed 9 storey building and its undeniable massive congestion impact on the surrounding streets and residents within 200 metres of the site.
Thank you for considering my submission, this is the first time I have ever felt strongly enough to provide feedback to the council on a DA.

I have lived in Lindfield for 11.5 years. We moved there due to the green tree'd environment. The area is characterised with quiet residential streets and low rise buildings. Recent apartments that have been build have been mostly 5 and 6 stories. Developers have ensured that they have maintained sufficient tree canopy and the apartments are therefore sympathetic to the local area, whilst providing higher density living. The retained tree canopy and lower heights ensure that the environment is protected as is the privacy of remaining residents. This proposed development will be an individual eyesore on the surrounding area. It is opportunistic and will be highly detrimental to many of the residents of the apartments and all neighbouring houses.
I object to this proposal under the following SEAR categories:
SEAR #1: Statutory Context
Under Ku-ring-ai Council’s alternative Preferred Scenario’, this area is zoned as R2 in keeping with the local area.
The height of the development exceeds any zoned heights in the surrounding area.
The development is not in the 400m State Government TOD boundary, being 500m from the station and therefore in LMR.

SEAR #5: Design Excellence
18% of apartments in the development get no solar. Many of these are affordable and liveable apartments. This does not give a high quality of living.

SEAR #6: Built Form & Urban Design
The height, bulk and scale are completely out of character for the area which comprises low rise housing. Under Ku-ring-gai’s alternative solution, this area is not R4 zoned and therefore this will be completely out of character with the surrounding area.
The development borders low raise heritage buildings. There is no discernible transition into the surrounding buildings.
Privacy for neighbours has been completely removed, and they will be looked on from above. Additionally, shading for neighbours will be a significant issue.

SEAR #8: Visual Impact
See SEAR #6 issue above. The proposed development is completely out of character with the surrounding area. It is not visually appealing and exceeds the height requirement thereby precluding canopy growth to provide some privacy to low rise dwellings below. The development should be limited to 5 or 6 stories at most, which is consistent with other apartment buildings in Lindfield.

SEAR #9: Transport
Based on the statistics of car ownership in Ku-ring-gai from the 2021 census, the development will add approximately 350 additional cars on the road. This needs to be considered alongside other SSD lodgement as the cumulative effect will be significant.
Lindfield’s roads a already highly congested and this development will add detrimentally. Additionally, the proposed development releases cars into Valley Road, a very small narrow residential road. This will potentially lead to a reduction in safety for local residents, especially children and will force more cars on the road as residents stop walking around the area.

SEARS #14 Trees and Landscaping
The development will result in the removal of 38 trees. The tree canopy is part of the visual makeup of the area and of significant environmental importance due to global warming etc. Whilst the developer has included the planting some trees, this will not be sufficient to replace those removed. I

SEARS #22. Environmental Heritage
The development is adjacent to heritage listed property. The development is contrary to the context of the area. The size and bulk will dominate the area and dimmish the value both aesthetically and in financial terms of surrounding heritage items.

Re: 59-63 Trafalgar Avenue and 1A and 1B Valley Road, Lindfield (Project number 79276958)
I live at 40 Middle Harbour Road Lindfield with the rest of my family. Our property is approximately 30m from the eastern boundary of the Development.
I strongly object to the proposed development for the following reasons:
1: Destruction and interruption of local fauna wildlife
Throughout my time living in this suburb, I have witnessed many native Australian fauna peacefully make their way around our property, including the endangered Powerful Owl, which we can spot in the trees at night and their feathers in the morning. I have identified at least 2 Powerful Owls based on the following evidence:
Photos of an owl at 37 Middle Harbour Road (Attachment 1).
This owl, unlike many of the species of owl that reside in Australia, doesn’t have the distinctive heart-shaped ring outlining its face, as seen in the Sooty Owl, Masked Owl, Tasmanian Masked Owl, Barn Owl, Cave Owl, or Grass Owl. This owl also doesn’t have the pointed, protruding face of the various Frogmouth owl species, nor the small size and “eagle-like” face of various other owl species such as the Spotted Owl, a few of the smaller Boobook Owl species, or Barking Owl. The only owl that resides in this part of Australia (unlike the Rufous Owl) and fits its description is the Powerful Owl. The owl in the photos still has the fluffy down feathers from its fledgling period, which it will lose as it grows into maturity. In the photos, the wingspan, yellow iris, and brown-white pattern matches up with an immature Powerful Owl.
A photo of a large owl on our balcony (Attachment 2).
This Owl appears to be fully grown based on its size, and so large it eliminates all other owl species that it could be.
I have also witnessed a very large owl with an extremely large wingspan completely silently taking flight from our balcony.
Powerful Owls have already been pushed out of many of their natural hunting grounds and have taken refuge in the pockets of wilderness in suburbs such as Lindfield. The development of a 9+ storey apartment complex would make this area no longer a suitable habitat. This would be due to the undeniable light pollution and destruction of trees. Appendix 1 of the Biodiversity Development Assessment Report states that the Powerful Owl is a “Threatened species assessed as not on site.” This incorrect statement casts reasonable doubt on other assertions in the report.
The area in and around the proposed development site is rife with other native Australian wildlife, such as multiple Pacific Black ducks seen swimming in Gordon creek, Australian King Parrots, Yellow-Crested Cockatoos, Rainbow Lorikeets, Kookaburras (the last few listed all in Attachment 3), Whip-birds (audible in Attachment 4), Eagles (probably the Wedge-Tailed Eagle in Attachment 5), and the Echidna (Attachment 6)
All the birds mentioned would have the additional danger of navigating the bird strike danger of the tall building. Furthermore, the flooding risk increases in Gordon Creek because of the heightened rain run-off from the building.
None of the impacts I have previously outlined touches the vast negative impact a surge in population would have on the wildlife. The construction litter would most likely be washed down the Gordon Creek, and this problem would inevitably persist once the construction is finished.
2: Destruction of local flora wildlife
The area 15 meters from the proposed development site contains a unique and precious remnant pocket of old-growth forest located along the Gordon Creek Catchment area. This forest includes a significant number of endangered Turpentine trees, and additionally there is a rich variety of other mature trees present in the area. The leaf-litter under-canopy is an important component of the forest ecosystem, and dead trees should be intentionally left standing to support biodiversity and the habitat of the local fauna, rather than being cut down. The forest provides a dark habitat with minimal noise and light pollution, which is essential to the ecosystem.
Project 79276958 would permanently alter this ecosystem, both during and after the development phase. During the development phase, the negative effects on the flora includes:
The clearing of trees would cut away the remnants of this old-growth forest, and diminish this pocket of wilderness where native animals take refuge in.
The soil structure would be diminished and eroded, which negatively affects the ancient tree root systems. This effect would most likely be a result of the excavation process and heavy machinery in general.
The construction would almost inevitably result in an increase of chemical pollution, which would kill local fauna and perhaps run-off into Gordon Creek.
After development, we can expect negative environmental effects such as:
Increased roof run-off, which would reduce natural water infiltration of the forest floor and simultaneously increase the flooding risk of Gordon Creek, due to the artificial interference with the water pathways.
The existence of the building would chip away at the forest canopy and isolate what is left of the old-growth forest, which makes it significantly more difficult for native species to grow and regenerate.
The building would block the afternoon sun from many native flora species, affecting their ability to photosynthesize and grow.
Chemical pollution is likely to persist and leech into the natural soil and water systems due to an increase in population.
3: Detrimental impact on our neighbourhood and property
The proposed nine-storey development on top of the hill is entirely out of scale and character with the surrounding area, which includes many heritage homes. The height would make it highly visible from kilometres away, and therefore overwhelming the streetscape.
The design has absolutely no transition from the tall apartment complex to the adjacent single-family homes. To contrast, the existing three-storey unit blocks closer to Lindfield station provide a far better model for higher-density housing, as it is set back, appropriately scaled, and landscaped to integrate with the area.
The development would significantly affect neighbouring homes, particularly those on the southern side of the hill, which are already constrained by riparian setbacks. These homes are likely to lose sunlight due to the imposing southern wall of the development.
Our own property, just 30 metres from the site, will also be directly impacted. Currently surrounded by greenery and privacy, we will face direct balcony oversight into our backyard, upper bedrooms, and family living spaces. The development will also block valuable winter sunlight. Line of sight from apartments should not rise above the existing tree canopy, particularly for homes downhill as that will negatively affect privacy.
This proposal exceeds the purported 22-metre height limit under TOD and SEPP guidelines significantly. Even if it was below 22 meters, the placement on top of the hill would cause it to visually dominate the surrounding homes, which would compromise privacy, reduce airflow and sunlight, and increase noise and light pollution. These effects will reach far beyond the immediate neighbours, including properties in the Middle Harbour Heritage Zone.
The development includes 220 dwellings and 367 car spaces, inevitably worsening traffic in an area already struggling with narrow roads and speeding. If the aim is to promote public transport use, the volume of parking is inconsistent and unjustified.
The assumption that impact is minimal because no heritage-listed properties lie within the development footprint is misleading. Surrounding properties—heritage-listed or not—will suffer from its visual dominance, traffic impacts, and privacy loss. The National Trust’s submission to NSW Planning outlines similar consequences of TOD developments.
This proposal threatens the unique character of our community. Sydney’s appeal lies in its diverse village-style suburbs, each with distinct identities shaped by their architecture, history, and community fabric. Preserving this diversity should be a priority.
While increasing housing supply is vital, relying on profit-driven developers, limiting council input, and bypassing local voices does not produce thoughtful, long-term solutions. Without addressing vacant homes, unregulated short-term rentals, or ensuring true affordability, developments like this one risk destroying the very character that makes our neighbourhoods liveable.
This proposal, as it stands, will cause permanent damage to our area’s character, amenity, and liveability. We urge serious reconsideration in favour of a development that better respects its context and community.

I am writing as a concerned local resident in relation to the proposed residential development at 59-63 Trafalgar Avenue and 1A & 1B Valley Road, Lindfield. I strongly object to the proposal on the grounds of its excessive scale, inappropriate location, and significant adverse impacts on the surrounding neighbourhood, environment, and local community. While I understand the importance of affordable housing, this specific development, in its current form, raises serious planning, social, environmental, and infrastructural concerns that warrant careful reconsideration. 1. "Excessive Height, Density, and Bulk" One of the most striking issues with this proposal is the proposed scale: approximately 220 residential units in buildings of 9+ storeys, reaching approximately 33 metres, which is well above the maximum building height limits applicable to this area. This level of density and height is not only inconsistent with the current local planning controls but also entirely out of character with the surrounding low-rise residential neighbourhood. The proposal represents a significant overdevelopment of the site, particularly given its location on the outer edge of the 400-metre transport-oriented development (TOD) zone. It is important to highlight that the site falls outside the formal boundary of the council’s proposed TOD area. As such, applying the justification of proximity to transport infrastructure for this density is inappropriate and misleading. 2. "Lack of Transition to Low-Density Residential Area" The proposal does not provide a meaningful or respectful transition in scale to the neighbouring low-density detached housing. The abrupt shift from 9-storey apartment blocks to single-storey and two-storey homes is visually jarring and inconsistent with good urban planning practices, which typically require a graduated transition in building height and bulk. 3. "Traffic and Parking Impacts" The addition of over 200 residential units will inevitably result in a significant increase in local traffic volumes and pressure on already limited parking resources. Local roads such as Trafalgar Avenue and Valley Road are not designed to accommodate this level of traffic intensity, and the impacts on road safety, congestion, and pedestrian access, particularly for school children and elderly residents, must not be underestimated. Given that many children attend nearby schools, the increase in traffic during peak school hours presents a real and immediate safety risk, in addition to being a source of ongoing disruption to the quiet residential nature of the area. 4. “Visual Impact and View Loss” The proposed height and scale will severely obstruct existing views for many neighbouring residents, significantly altering the visual amenity of the area. The bulk and massing of the buildings will dominate the local skyline, creating a visual barrier that impacts residents' enjoyment of their homes and community.5. “Privacy, Overshadowing, and Solar Access” The construction of high-rise apartments in close proximity to single-dwelling homes will result in overlooking into private backyards and living areas, leading to a serious loss of privacy. The increased building height will also result in overshadowing of neighbouring properties, reducing access to natural sunlight, particularly during winter months, which will negatively impact both residential amenity and energy efficiency.6. “Environmental and Heritage Impacts” The proposed development threatens a significant reduction in tree canopy and the removal of mature trees, which provide essential environmental services such as air quality improvement, cooling, and habitat for native species. The loss of green cover also undermines council objectives for urban sustainability and climate resilience. Additionally, the site lies adjacent to or within proximity to Heritage Conservation Areas (HCA). The development fails to adequately consider the heritage context and the potential to undermine the historical character and streetscape of the area. Developments of this scale are inconsistent with the preservation of local heritage and should be more sensitively integrated.
7. “Incompatibility with Local Character” The proposal is entirely out of step with the existing neighbourhood character, which is typified by low-density, leafy, residential streets with consistent building scale and generous setbacks. Introducing a high-rise, high-density development into this setting would fundamentally alter the character of the area and erode the sense of community that residents value deeply. The scale and intensity of this development would set a concerning precedent for future overdevelopment, encouraging further high-rise incursions into low-density suburbs. 8. “Social and Educational Impacts” Construction noise and disruption from a development of this magnitude will significantly affect the daily lives of residents, particularly children who are studying or attending school in the area. Excessive noise, dust, and disturbance during construction will create an unsuitable environment for learning and concentration, undermining the wellbeing of young students. Furthermore, the long-term increase in population density without corresponding upgrades to local schools, healthcare, transport, and community services will place undue pressure on infrastructure that is already stretched, thereby reducing quality of life for both current and future residents. 9. “Inadequate Justification within Broader Planning Framework” The justification for this development appears to be largely based on the need for affordable housing and proximity to public transport. While these are valid considerations, affordable housing must not come at the expense of proper planning controls, community amenity, and environmental sustainability. This proposal represents an overreach in density and scale that is not warranted by the site’s location or planning context. There are more suitable locations for developments of this magnitude — namely within the core TOD zones, not at their outer fringe or beyond their boundary. In summary, I respectfully request that this development proposal be refused or substantially modified to better align with local planning controls, community expectations, and environmental and heritage considerations. There is a clear need for more appropriate urban infill development that balances housing needs with the preservation of neighbourhood character and amenity. However, the current proposal is excessive, poorly located, and detrimental to the wellbeing of existing residents and the long-term sustainability of the Lindfield community.

I am writing to formally object to the proposed development at 59-63 Trafalgar Avenue & 1A & 1B Valley Road, Lindfield. This proposal raises significant concerns regarding its height, density, traffic impact, heritage considerations, and its incompatibility with the existing neighborhood character.