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

This proposed development is way too massive and too high for the area. As the land slopes down to the south the nine story development will appear even higher and above the natural tree line and the single (or double) story houses that surround it. The development extends beyond the boundary of Council's proposed TOD and is only just within the outer edge of the 400 metre TOD border. The development will be completely out of kilter with all surrounding houses and townhouses. The development, if it is to happen, should consider a more sympathetic transition to low density town houses rather than replacing five older heritage quality houses with 220 units in the middle of a rare spot surrounded by trees and old Federation homes (many of which have been recently renovated). Developments of this size and scale might make sense on blocks of land adjoining train stations but not on blocks of land that do not, particularly when those blocks are renowned for their unique (and limited) Federation style houses and their quiet leafy surrounds. The top floors of this development will have expansive views being considerably higher than everything around it creating shading and privacy issues for many current dwellings. The development clashes with the local neighourhood character and streetscape. If allowed it will have a flow on effect that will have leafy Lindfield eventually looking more like high rise Chatswood - that should be avoided as Lindfield (with Roseville and Killara) has a rather unique heritage and character that developments of this size and scale will permanently destroy.

Environmental and Heritage Conservation Concerns

I strongly object to the proposed State Significant Development (SSD) near Lindfield Station East on the basis of its unacceptable environmental and heritage impacts. The proposed scale of the development — at 220 units and up to 33 metres in height — is not only excessive but also incompatible with the surrounding low-density, heritage-listed, and heritage conservation area homes.

This project risks irreversible damage to the character and integrity of the Heritage Conservation Area (HCA) through:
- Significant tree canopy and habitat loss, which will reduce local biodiversity and undermine efforts to combat the urban heat island effect.
- Overshadowing and privacy intrusion for adjacent heritage properties, diminishing the amenity and liveability of the area.
- Visual bulk and scale that conflicts directly with the established streetscape, leading to a permanent erosion of Lindfield’s unique character.

The proposal appears to be driven by yield maximisation rather than sensitive urban planning. It fails to meet the fundamental principles of contextual design and environmental stewardship and should therefore be rejected in its current form.

I object to this Development Application on the following grounds. There is too much bulk and density with the proposed 220 units and the height of 33m exceeds maximum building height limits. The site is outside the Council's proposed TOD boundary and is on the outer edge of the 400m TOD border. There is no transition to low density houses and it will have an impact on surrounding heritage and Heritage Conservation areas. The narrow two-way Russell Lane leads into the narrow one way Tryon Lane which is a blind turn. This is dangerous with the proposed traffic entering & exiting the complex. There will be significant loss of tree canopy and vegetation with impact on native animals and increased heat in the immediate local area. The visual scale of the development will have a significant negative impact on the amenity of the neighbouring properties as well as significant shadowing through the day onto the surrounding properties. A less bulky and dense development may be acceptable but really this is the wrong site for a development of this size which would be better suited closer to the station at Lindfield.

As a resident of Lindfield I object Development SSD-84877961 for a number of reasons
1. Private development of flats does not meet the definition of 'State Significant Development' and therefore cannot legally be summited under a SSD or SEPP
2. Neither the NSW Government nor Ku Ring Gai council have made meaningful investigations or conclusions regarding impacts on traffic, parking, amenity to existing surrounding residents, solar access, infrastructure impacts or public transportation of this development or all other TOD/SEPP/Alternative Ku Ring Gai medium density rezoning
3. There is a clear conflict of duty with Ku Ring Gai councillors in their proposed medium density rezoning that needs to be investigated by ICAC before the damage is done
4. There is prima facie oversupply of units in Lindfield already, with over 500 currently for sale compared to 100 houses, so development of more units, rather than a more considered approach to sustainable and liveable medium density housing, such as townhouses and dual occupancy, must be undertaken and legislated
5. The NSW Government is at risk of destroying the very essence of liveability in Sydney, in addition to houses that are over a century old, by rushing through ill considered and deeply unappealing housing
6. Excessive profiteering is occurring to rezoned properties and developers with no recompense to existing residents through improved green space, transport or traffic management

I am writing to object to the State Significant Development Application for Residential Development with In-Fill Affordable Housing at 59–63 Trafalgar Avenue and 1A & 1B Valley Road, Lindfield (Submission ID: SUB-84854477).

This proposal is entirely out of step with the character, planning controls, and community expectations for the Lindfield area. Most significantly:
• The development dwarfs and severely undermines nearby heritage-listed and contributory homes, particularly 1 Valley Road, an important part of the suburb’s heritage streetscape.
• If there is one issue that Ku-Ring-Gai residents are most united on, it is that new developments must not bulk over the top of existing heritage properties. This application does precisely that, showing no respect for the historic built form or the community’s consistent feedback.
• The proposed height and bulk exceed all relevant controls, including both local and state guidelines. There is no transition to lower-rise surrounding homes, resulting in a jarring and overbearing built form.
• The lack of adequate deep soil zones along the boundaries ensures minimal opportunity for mature tree planting, offering no meaningful visual or environmental buffer for neighbours. The result is a bare concrete structure imposed on a leafy residential area.

While I support the creation of affordable housing, it must be done with sensitivity, respect for context, and adherence to planning principles. This proposal fails to achieve any of those goals.

I urge the Department to reject the application and request a revised scheme that complies with established controls, respects local heritage, and provides proper scale transitions and deep soil buffers to protect neighbouring properties.

I am writing to formally object to the proposed State Significant Development at 59–63 Trafalgar Avenue and 1A–1B Valley Road, Lindfield, currently on exhibition until 3 June 2025.

As a resident of 43 Middle Harbour Road, I am deeply concerned about the potential adverse impacts this development may have on the character, infrastructure, and livability of our neighborhood. My specific objections are as follows:

1. Excessive Density and Height
The proposal for a multi-storey residential flat building with infill affordable housing significantly exceeds the prevailing building heights and densities in the area. Such a development is incongruent with the established low-density residential character of Lindfield, particularly in areas like Middle Harbour Road.

2. Traffic and Parking Concerns
The scale of the proposed development is likely to lead to a substantial increase in local traffic, particularly along Trafalgar Avenue, Valley Road, and connecting streets such as Middle Harbour Road. These roads are already experiencing congestion during peak hours, and additional vehicular movements could exacerbate safety risks for pedestrians and cyclists. Furthermore, the development's parking provisions may be insufficient, leading to overflow parking in adjacent residential streets.

3. Impact on Residential Amenity
The height and bulk of the proposed buildings may result in overshadowing and loss of privacy for neighboring properties, including those on Middle Harbour Road. The construction phase is also expected to generate significant noise and disruption, adversely affecting the quality of life for nearby residents.

4. Environmental and Heritage Considerations
The development site includes mature trees and green spaces that contribute to the area's ecological value and aesthetic appeal. The removal of such vegetation would not only diminish local biodiversity but also alter the visual character of the neighborhood. Additionally, any impact on heritage-listed properties or conservation areas must be carefully assessed and mitigated.

5. Inadequate Community Consultation
Given the scale and potential impact of this development, there appears to have been insufficient engagement with the local community. Meaningful consultation is essential to ensure that the concerns of residents are adequately addressed and that the development aligns with the community's vision for the area.

In light of these concerns, I urge the Council and the NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure to reject or significantly revise the current proposal to ensure it aligns with the Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan (LEP), Development Control Plan (DCP), and the expectations of the local community.

This is an inappropriate development for this area.
It conflicts with and is outside of boundary of Council's proposed master plan for the TOD.
The proposal acknowledges the conflict this development poses in terms of encroaching on HCA, and adverse affects on biodiversity and tree canopy and suggests it will seek to minimise this. But in ways not specified and impossible to achieve with such a dominating, 9 storey proposed development. There is no transition to surrounding low level residential housing including those in the designated adjacent HCA.
It totally conflicts with local character and streetscape.
There is already a surplus of available "luxury" apartments in the area.
Domain list 692 properties for sale in Lindfield and surrounding areas and 340 rental properties.
This development is not warranted. Most likely purchasers would be foreign nationals wishing to park their money; like so many others in this area. It will do nothing to address the housing, as opposed to the apartment, shortage facing residents of Sydney. Families are looking for houses, not apartments. So why destroy them?

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.

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.

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

Stop the over developlment you are killing all our native flora and fauna, building million dollar properties does NOT fix the housing crisis stop folling everyone. The whole of the upper north shore is becoming a concrete jungle with no trees, no shade, just concrete boxes. Shame on councils and State Gov on approving these developments

I strongly object to the proposal “Residential development with infill affordable housing, 59-63 Trafalgar Avenue 1A&1B Valley Road Lindfield: on the following:


1.Destruction of Historic Buildings and the compromise of the Middle Harbour Road, Lindfield Conservation Area
The Historical Conservation Area has been designated to protect not just single heritage items, but an area recognised of great architectural importance to Sydney. The proposal seeks to eradicate the fundamental purpose of the HCA by recommending the demolition of all 5 dwellings and landscapes within a protected area. No retention of any historic fabric is proposed.
I disagree with the conclusions stated within the Heritage Impact Statement that argue alterations to properties justify their demolition. All buildings are subject to change and adaptation over time. The buildings within the HCA, whilst not individually listed, still form a consistent architectural language to their context in terms of scale, external form, materials/finishes, detailing and most of original period of construction. These principles are what the HCA seeks to achieve within its guidelines.

Alternatively, the proposal seeks to remove the entirety of the urban fabric, rendering the HCA irrelevant. The Historical Impact Statement has been written in a bias manner to justify the developers intent, dictated by commercial imperatives and being inconsistent with the goals of the HCA.

Fundamentally, the proposal does not retain or enhance the character of the Middle Harbour Road, Lindfield Conservation Area, nor does it ensure any environmental heritage will be conserved. The approval of such demolition within a protected area will set an adverse precedent for all HCAs across NSW. On this basis, and for the future protection of heritage across our state, the proposal should be refused.

2.Inconsistency with Ku-ring-gai Council’s Preferred Scenario

Ku Ring Gai council has worked on proposing alternative schemes to the Governments TOD proposal. These alternatives seeks to protect the remaining HCAs and concentrate development to areas deemed of less significance. The proposal is therefore inconsistent with Ku-ring-gai Council’s Preferred Scenario which provides new housing without sacrificing significant heritage fabric that is currently protected. Uplift should not be allowed in HCAs before proper master planning is finalised. Furthermore, the proposal will sit out of context to the remaining area if approved and therefore should be refused.


I submit my objection similar to another SSD in Roseville HCA being SSD-78996460. Personally I am not a resident of Lindfield, but frequent the area often. I recognise the HCAs significance to the story of Sydney and its abundance of rich architectural fabric and landscapes. I too am a young individual grabbling within the housing market of Sydney, but in no way wish to see protected areas of Sydney be lost to the greed of developers. HCAs have been carefully considered and protected for many decades, and should continue to be so.

I therefore strongly object to this proposal.

Object SSD-79276958

The reasons：

Ⅰ、“The proposal” is located exactly in the center and at the highest point of the two Conservation Areas. The land where “The proposal” is located a steep slope. The slopes down from northwest to southeast with a maximum drop of 11.5 meters. “The proposal” has formed a huge visual contrast with the existing community buildings (usually two-story independent housing). In fact，“The proposal” is on outer edge of 400 meter Transport Orientated Development (hereafter referred to as “TOD”) , and outside of boundary of Ku-ring-gai Council‘s Proposed TOD. “The proposal” completely does not consider transition to low density houses.

Ⅱ、The planning and design of “The proposal” does not comply with relevant regulations and has caused all-round and devastating negative impacts on surrounding residents, HCAs and Heritage Items.
1、“The proposal” is too high to meet the standards, seriously damaging the sunlight rights of surrounding residents.
“ The proposal" is like a huge sunshade wall of more than 30 meters, completely blocking the direct sunlight to the main north-facing spaces (including but not limited to the living rooms, primary private open spaces and any communal open spaces) of the main buildings of the owners.
2 “The proposal” deliberately confuses the essential differences between “Direct Sunlight” irradiating different spatial locations and the corresponding sunshine time standards, and seriously violates the direct sunlight irradiation standard requirements of the Ku-ring-gai Development Control Plan (hereinafter referred to as “KDCP”)
The“KDCP”clearly defines the location of direct sunlight, namely: Between 9am and 3pm on 21st June, direct sunlight for the main living space shall not be less than 3 hours, and direct sunlight for solar collectors and solar hot water shall not be less than 4 hours.
The scope of application of “a minimum of 2 hours direct sunlight” is only for apartments like “The proposal”, not the low-density housings around “The proposal”. And the direct sunlight is limited to “living rooms and private open spaces”. Therefore, the “EIS” of “The proposal” is completely intentional to confuse the sunlight standards of apartments and housing, two buildings of fundamentally different natures.

Ⅲ、 “The proposal” does not meet the “KDCP's” Building Setback criteria
1、"The proposal" is located upslope (vertical drop of more than ten meters). In particular, the Ground Floor on the south side of the land of "The proposal" is at least 2 meters higher than the Ground Floor of the buildings along Middle Harbour Road. Therefore, "The proposal" should have been designed with a greater setback in accordance with the provisions of " KDCP 7A.3 [Controls] 10 iii)", and this setback should be as shown in "Figure7A.3-5": starting from Level 2, the setback is gradually reduced. However, "The proposal" only setback 9.2 meters on the south side. "
2、 Except for the street on the west side (Tarfalgar Avenue), the other three sides of "The proposal" are adjacent to the Heritage Item. "The proposal" does not comply with the building setbacks demonstrated in Figure 19D.2-1 of "KDCP" at all.

Ⅳ、“The proposal” seriously damages the privacy rights of surrounding property owners and residents
As stated in Item I of this article, the minimum clearance height (from ground level) of "The proposal" is more than 30 meters. "The proposal" is located upslope (vertical drop of more than ten meters), and the building setback does not comply with relevant regulations. "The proposal" is like a huge observation tower, looking down at neighboring dwellings almost vertically. Even planting tall trees cannot block this almost vertical overlooking view. The residents around "The proposal" are in a state of being looked down upon by others at any time, and the original private space will be exposed at a glance. The legal privacy rights will face the bad situation of wanton infringement, which is absolutely unacceptable to any normal person who respects privacy and advocates freedom and equality!

Ⅴ、Whether from the perspective of visual effects, architectural style matching, or environmental harmony, "The proposal" will cause irreparable damage to the Middle Harbour Road Conservation Area.
1、 The location of "The proposal" is very inappropriate. The location of "The proposal" is in the most essential and most protected core area of the Middle Harbour Road Conservation Area. "The proposal" has caused serious damage to the original architectural style and surrounding environment of the above-mentioned historical heritage buildings. "The proposal" is like a huge concrete stone wall 30-40 meters high and 80-90 meters wide, covering the entire Middle Harbour Road Conservation Area .

2、In fact, "The proposal" completely ignores any characteristics of Middle Harbour Road Conservation Area and the existing buildings on the land. We can't find any similarities between "The proposal" and Middle Harbour Road Conservation Area and the existing buildings on the land, whether in terms of architectural style, materials, height, color, etc. On the contrary, the cruel fact we can see is that "The proposal" is incompatible with Middle Harbour Road Conservation Area and the existing buildings on the land.
3、"The proposal", it is a giant tower about 30-40 meters high and 80-90 meters wide formed by adjacent connected buildings and a "concrete stone wall". I would like to ask, apart from "The proposal", is there such a "small village" in Australia? !
4、It is particularly important to point out that the two Heritage Items (32A & 34 Middle Harbour Road) located to the south of the proposal and most affected by the shadowing (because the proposal is located upslope) are not mentioned in the entire “EIS” Appendix J-Heritage impact statement. We cannot accept this erroneous report and conclusion that deliberately avoids the significant adverse impact on the Heritage Items and does not have any remedial measures.
5、We believe that due to the huge height, bulk and scale of “The Proposal”, even if tall and mature trees (such trees are usually only more than ten meters tall) are planted, these trees will definitely not have any shielding effect on “The Proposal”, let alone maintain the original HCAs streetscape and tree canopy.
6、It must be emphasized again that "The proposal" is located on the right boundary of the "TOD Plan" Lindfield area. The north, east and south boundaries of "The proposal" are adjacent to Heritage items, and are surrounded by R2 low-density residential areas (all single-story or two-story housing). Therefore, from a visual point of view, "The proposal" (9-story building) and surrounding buildings (two-story housing) will form an extreme contrast effect of a height transition threshold of 1:4.5. These neighboring properties are like small houses under a tall and vertical cliff. Obviously, a nine-storey building next to a two-storey dwelling (1:4.5) would create an imbalance and be deemed inappropriate.
7、“The proposal” should be articulated to respond to the significance of Heritage Items to achieve an appropriate transition in height, bulk and scale. However, “The proposal” clearly does not consider breaking down in bulk and scale to minimise dominance over the Heritage Item.。

Ⅵ、 Other significant negative impacts of “the proposal” on all residents of the Lindfield Station East area
1、Traffic and parking will become a serious problem
2、Lindfield's infrastructure could collapse due to overload
3、 Devastating damage to the green environment of HCAs
4、The proposal will also bring a series of negative impacts on society and public safety。
Ⅶ、Conclusion and Recommendations
1、Conclusion
"The proposal" completely ignores the connection and harmonious coexistence between the development project and the existing surrounding environment and cultural history. "The proposal" will cause lasting and irreversible destructive damage to the surrounding environment, historical culture, streetscape, greening, and various legal rights and interests of the surrounding owners of the entire Middle Harbour Road Conservation Area. The Proposal completely disregards the protection and respect for HCAs and Heritage Items. There is no doubt that the height, bulk and scale of "The Proposal" are seriously exceeded. This huge 9-story building (composed of 3 buildings connected together) is actually not compatible with the existing architectural style and beautiful environment of HCAs. It is no exaggeration to say that "The Proposal" is like a huge wedge, abruptly embedded in the highest point of the center of two historic protection blocks in an extremely rough and barbaric way. It has caused devastating damage to the historical architectural style and environment of Middle Harbour Road Conservation Area . Therefore, we can only and must resolutely object "The Proposal" that purely pursues maximum profit..
2、Recommendations
a) We believe that the most ideal way is to suspend the approval of “The proposal” until the NSW government and Ku-ring-gai Council reach a consensus on “The Preferred Scenario” before making a decision.
b) Reduce the building height and FSR of "The proposal". "The proposal" meets the Setback standard. A four-story apartment building will be a reasonable construction plan that can take into account the interests of all parties and the surrounding environment.

I strongly object to this proposal, it should not go ahead

This development is in a very busy commuter parking area and would contribute to significant traffic issues already experienced in the area.
Number 1 Valley rd is a significant building for our local area and surrounds other significant heritage homes.
Parking is one major issue in the area and the roads such as Tryon are narrow and dangerous for passing vehicles.
It is already an issue gaining road access to the Pacific highway, particularly in peak times.

Unlike lots of kurringgai, I support the TOD proposal. However I do not support residential flat buildings of this scale and size (9+ storeys/33m high) due to privacy, overshadowing and visual amenity disruption to the local area.. I support flats up to the TOD limit of 6 storeys and 20m.

Dear NSW Major Projects Team,

I am writing to formally object to the proposed development application for 59-63 Trafalgar avenue 1 A & 1B Valley Road Lindfield, which seeks to construct 220 residential units in a building exceeding 9 stories and 33 meters in height. My objections are based on the following grounds:

1) Height, Density, and Bulk: The proposed development significantly exceeds the maximum building height limits established by the council. The height and density of 220 units in a structure of this scale are not in alignment with the surrounding low-density residential character.
2) Transport Oriented Development (TOD) Compliance: The development is located on the outer edge of the 400-meter TOD border and falls outside the boundary of the council's proposed TOD. This raises concerns about its appropriateness in relation to public transport accessibility and urban planning principles.
3) Transition to Low-Density Housing: The proposed development does not adequately consider the necessary transition to the existing low-density housing in the area. This abrupt change in scale could disrupt the neighborhood's character and livability.
4) Traffic and Parking: The increase in population density will lead to significant traffic congestion and parking shortages in the area. The current infrastructure is not equipped to handle the additional burden, which could compromise safety and accessibility.
5) Visual and View Impacts: The height and bulk of the proposed development will obstruct views and alter the visual landscape of the neighborhood, negatively impacting the aesthetic value of the area.
6) Overshadowing, Privacy, and Solar Access: The proposed building will overshadow neighboring properties, infringing on their privacy and access to natural light. This is particularly concerning for residents who rely on solar access for energy efficiency and quality of life.
7) Heritage and Heritage Conservation Area (HCA) Impacts: The development poses a threat to the integrity of the nearby heritage sites and the Heritage Conservation Area. It is essential to preserve the historical and cultural significance of our community.
8) Environmental Concerns: The proposed development will lead to a reduction in tree canopy and the removal of mature trees, which are vital for maintaining local biodiversity and environmental health.
9) Local Neighbourhood Character and Streetscape: The scale and design of the proposed development conflict with the established local neighborhood character and streetscape, which is predominantly low-rise and residential.
10) Infrastructure Impacts: The existing infrastructure, including water, sewage, and public services, may not be able to support the increased demand resulting from this development.
11) Social and Public Impacts: The proposed development could lead to social strain within the community, as the influx of new residents may not be adequately supported by local amenities and services.
In light of these concerns, I urge the council to reconsider the approval of this development application. It is crucial to prioritize the well-being of the existing community and ensure that any new developments align with the established planning frameworks and community values.

Thank you for considering my objection. I look forward to your response.

This project proposal is completely excessive in terms of bulk, height and density for the area. Overall there are a number of concerns i have with this project.
- Building height is excessive at 9+ stories (33m).
- On the outer edge of the 400m TOD border and has absolutely no consideration for the transition to low density houses, given the issue i raised in the previous point.
- Impacts on the environment and tree canopy are significant and will have significant visual impacts on the area.
- Limited consideration for social and public impacts

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.

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).