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

I strongly object for the reasons outlined in the attached submission.

Excessive Height, Density, and Bulk – The proposed development consists of over 200 units across more than nine stories, reaching approximately 33 meters in height, exceeding the maximum allowable building height limit. This excessive scale would have a substantial negative impact on the surrounding area by introducing an overwhelmingly dense built form that disrupts the existing residential balance.

Lack of Transition to Low-Density Housing – The proposal fails to consider a gradual transition between high-density residential blocks and the adjacent low-density housing. Without a proper buffer, this development would create a stark contrast that is detrimental to the established suburban environment.

Traffic Congestion and Parking Limitations – An influx of residents from this high-density development will significantly increase traffic congestion on local roads. Parking availability, already strained, will become even more limited, impacting current residents and visitors. The proposal does not provide adequate mitigation strategies for these concerns.

Overshadowing, Privacy, and Solar Access Issues – The proposed building’s scale would overshadow nearby low-rise residences, reducing sunlight access and affecting residents’ solar energy use. Additionally, privacy concerns arise as upper floors will have direct sightlines into neighboring homes, significantly diminishing residential amenity.

Negative Impacts on Heritage and Conservation Areas – The proposed development is in proximity to heritage-listed properties and conservation zones. Its modern, high-density design does not complement the area’s historical value and will disrupt the visual integrity of the neighbourhood’s heritage sites.

Conflict with Local Neighbourhood Character and Streetscape – Lindfield’s streetscape is defined by a cohesive blend of suburban housing and green spaces, which this development disregards. The proposed bulk and scale starkly contrast with the existing character, creating visual disharmony and undermining the identity of the area.

Submission by Lindfield Middle Harbour Road Resident, 30m from Development Site – 03 June, 2025
59-63 Trafalgar Avenue and 1A and 1B Valley Road, Lindfield (Project number 79276958)
I strongly object to this proposed development, and believe firmly that it is underthought and deeply flawed.

My primary concern is that there will undeniably be a significant negative impact on the environment in and around the development site. The Biodiversity Development Assessment Report for this filed under the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 has notable flaws that overlook certain key elements of habitat requirements for this development to proceed. Just 15 meters from the development site lies an ancient turpentine forest running through our backyard. Gordon creek starts there on our property, with the development site directly upstream, which introduces the potential for significant pollution of the soil, water, and air. The construction phase would especially pollute this surrounding area, but the years of high-density living would leave lasting destruction on the land. Permeable ground plays a crucial role in the natural water cycle, quite significant here given Gordon creek begins just downstream. This development would deprive the land of a significant amount of permeable ground, which is widely recognised to deplete groundwater recharge, water quality, and overall ecosystem health. The most significant consequence of the impermeable hard surfaces in this development would be an increase in floods. With excess surface-runoff directly upstream, us and countless other residents would likely have flash flooding in the middle of our backyards. With continuous high volumes of water flowing through the creek, we would inevitably see eroded riverbanks and the slow destruction of this integral part of the ecosystem.
The Powerful Owl (Ninox strenua), or the Great Scrub Owl is a dwindling population of vulnerable native Australian fauna, and at least one juvenile has been sighted in close proximity to the development site. Owls are highly sensitive to light pollution, which would inevitably be introduced by the uninvited 9-floor building. One of the trees marked for destruction harbours a specific hollow which is likely an integral part of the owls’ habitat. In addition to the Powerful Owl, other native fauna depend on the turpentine forest for their habitat. These include but are definitely not limited to echidna, frogs, ducks (seasonal), water dragons, king parrots, cockatoos, lorikeets, kookaburras, whip birds, and eagles. These birds specifically would also be at risk of fatal bird-strike dangers from the 9 storeys of glass windows. Driving native animals out of their habitats like this is a dangerous game of biodiversity destruction, for which there are always unforeseen consequences to humanity’s established lifestyle.

The consideration of personal impact from this development has been very myopic. Despite our home being a short 30m away from the Eastern boundary of the development site, we have received no formal notice of this application, and have relied on word of mouth. This lack of consideration completely overlooks the fact that many more houses would be affected than were actually notified, and severely limits our ability to protect the natural environment we all tend. The beautiful natural skyline would be disrupted, which we often appreciate for great lengths of time to quiet our souls. The disruption of the surrounding natural environment would cause emotional distress for every piece of pollutant litter and plastic that floats downstream. Environmental distress aside, our privacy would inherently be invaded by balconies overlooking our garden, back deck, and directly into upper bedrooms. Pretending that people living in these apartments would never willingly observe us without our consent is laughable and naïve. There would be no consequences to such, and the power over our right to privacy would no longer lie in our own hands. Additionally, the loss of sun on our garden during key growing times would jeopardize the perpetuation of our garden. Our garden isn’t an exercise in vanity, it is filled with valuable native Australian flora which would be deeply affected by this, as mentioned in the previous paragraph.

In conclusion, the ancient turpentine forest on our property harbours rich biodiversity, and as the custodians of this valuable patch of ecosystem, we have a firm obligation to protect this land from further degradation. This proposed development would undeniably be a destructive force on the local environment. I also recognise that affordable high-density housing is very important, but the negative impact of this shortsighted plan is undeniable. The surrounding neighbourhood, and more importantly the local biodiversity, are held hostage in the face of this substandard planning.

Attached is:
- Video of the juvenile Powerful Owl at 37 Middle Harbour Rd
- Photo of a large Powerful Owl from our backyard
- Video of an echidna 30m from development site
- Whip bird calls in audio from the Turpentine forest

I strongly object to the proposed development at 59-63 Trafalgar Avenue 1A & 1B Valley Road Lindfield (Proposed Development), for all the reasons set out in the attachment. In summary, the Proposed Development:
• is above maximum building height limits
• does not consider the transition to low density houses
• has terrible impacts on traffic and parking in the area
• has very poor visual/view impacts
• overshadows other houses and has negative impact on privacy and solar access - for example, the entire development “wraps around” the house at 1 Valley Road Lindfield in a way that is very unfair on the owners of that property and is completely inconsistent with the character of that and other houses in the area
• has negative impacts on heritage and Heritage Conservation Area (HCA)
• reduces the tree canopy and mature trees
• conflicts with local neighbourhood character/streetscape
etc, etc, etc.
For more details, please refer to the attachment which outlines the reasons for objection in greater detail.

I strongly object to the proposed apartment development at 59-63 Trafalgar Avenue and 1A-1B Valley Road, Lindfield, due to its detrimental impact on the existing community and environment. The project poses a significant risk to the integrity of the heritage facade within the heritage conservation area, undermining the visual character and historical value of the neighbourhood. Additionally, the excessive scale of the development would overshadow pre-existing homes, compromising residents' privacy and access to natural light. Such a high-density project is inconsistent with the established neighbourhood character, disrupting the area's cohesive and low-rise nature. Furthermore, the strain on local infrastructure—including roads, public amenities, and essential services—would lead to overcrowding and reduced quality of life for existing residents. For these reasons, this development should not proceed.

I am a property owner and resident of Lindfield and have been living in my home, which is approx. 6 blocks away from the proposed development, for the past 10 years. I commute from Lindfield station and therefore walk near the development site twice a day and have done so for the past 10 years. My children attend weekly dance lessons near Russell Ave around the corner from the site and therefore I am very familiar with the site for this reason.
I object to this proposed development on the following grounds:
1) Design quality (SEARs requirement 5): the development cannot be categorised as a “good design” when it does not take into consideration the surrounding properties, the majority of which are single storey federation style heritage homes. The design should be more sympathetic to the locality and incorporate federation elements including the use of timberwork and gabled roofs.
2) Built form and urban design (SEARs requirement 6): the height and scale of the development does not fit with the current area as at nine storeys it will be higher than the existing developments closer to the station at five and six storeys and it will not be consistent with the gradual fall of building height away from the station which currently exists. The current proposal at 33m is well above maximum building height limits, particularly as the site is locate don the outer edge of the 400m TOD zone so this does not allow for gradual transitions to the low to mid rise policy which will apply from 400m to 800m.
3) Visual impact (SEARs requirement 8): This proposed development will be of such a height and bulk that it will significantly impinge on the current tree lined view from Russell Ave. I would like to see this proposed development incorporate some mature trees to replace the ones that will be removed and there should be a requirement that the trees need to survive for at least 10 years so that the development incorporates the deep soil requirements to make this possible.
4) Traffic and transport concerns (SEARs requirement 9): the traffic on Lindfield Ave is already extremely congested during peak hours, especially morning and afternoon school drop off and pick up times, and it is dangerous for pedestrians as there is no designated street crossing on Tyron Rd near the Lindfield Ave intersection. This development will directly impact the number of cars on Russell Ave and Tryon Rd and poses a risk to future residents who will be crossing the road to access the train station. Russell Ave is currently parked out Monday to Friday with commuters accessing the train station. There is no capacity for additional on-street parking for future residents of the development.
5) Trees and landscaping (SEARs requirement 14): as previously identified the significant loss of trees and natural canopy with this proposal is a concern and should be rectified with the requirement for the developer to plant mature trees with appropriate deep soil requirements and ensure the survival of these trees for at least a period of ten years.

Cities are about buildings. Cities require regular renewal and growth to meet demand. But successful cities plan for medium term outcomes that contribute to their environment. Would this development be tolerated in Belgravia in London or in the North End of Boston? The Council may have dropped the ball by historically having not embraced as much growth as the State would have liked. But now it has shown how the State's growth aspirations can be satisfied without inappropriate development. This proposal doesn't fit, either now or into the future. It is a stark illustration of what you get if you allow developers to set their own rules. If it were to proceed, it would be a permanent stain on the legacy of this Government and its leadership.

Ian Smith

Having seen the plans for a nine story complex of home units planned to be built in an unaccessible area in Lindfield . the area being considered 59-63 Trafalgar Ave and 1a-1bValley Rd.
Apart from the obvious inaccessibility to the proposed unit site for this complex to be built in such a confined space , and so out of sympathy with the surrounding homes in the immediate and surrounding homes and surrounding area , which would restrict access and livability to those who would be directly or indirectly affected by such a complex. it is estimated that 300 cars would be added to the already overburdened streets in the immediate area for the reasons described above I am submitting these comments for your careful consideration .

This project is totally opposed to the value of the suburb and street. Middle Harbour rd has always been a street with lots of history and many heritage houses - whether listed or not. The street has never had apartments built on it and by doing so I believe you are ruining the street for the people who live there - people who have worked tremendously hard to be able to afford property in that street, people who uphold the values of the area and the homes built in the area.

The size of the development is horrendous for the amenity of this neighbourhood and will cause traffic chaos

Dear Ms Tranquille,
I own and live at 35 Middle Harbour Road, approximately 60 metres due south from the proposed development. I have resided at this address for 13 years, raising a family in this lovely community. I would like to make it very clear that I am not against sensible and well-planned development in our area and understand the urgent need for additional affordable housing in the North Shore and Lindfield.

However, I object in the strongest terms to the proposed development SSD – 79276958. The proposed development's height, bulk and scale are completely unsuitable for the area. Critically the applicant’s submission does not comply with SEARs and other planning and legislative requirements.

I would like to put on record that we have not been afforded sufficient time to review 35 highly technical documents included in the applicant’s submission. I received the letter from the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure after the exhibition commenced on the 7th of May 2025 so have had only 3 weeks to review the materials and respond by the 3rd of June 2025. This is unfair given the applicant has had many months to prepare their submission and I and other residents have not been afforded appropriate time to consider such a significant proposed development and over 35 documents provided by the applicant.

My attached letter outlines the reasons for my objection.

In summary, the SSD application fails to meet all the SEARs requirements with a significant number of adverse effects on adjoining properties to the south and adjoining and nearby heritage houses. These include a substantial increase in overshadowing, adverse overlooking, visual and streetscape impacts due to the bulk, scale and height of the proposed development. Furthermore, the assessments by the applicant fail to respond to flooding risk, the cumulative effect of other proposed developments with respect to traffic and parking as well the negative environment effects to native flora and fauna.

The proposed development is not within 400 metres of Lindfield Station which is a pre-requisite for the SSD application to proceed. Kur-rin-gai Council’s revised Preferred Alternative TOD Scenario must be considered with respect to this proposed development. When these amendments are considered, the proposed development in its current form would not proceed.

Should you require further information or have any questions relating to my objection please do not hesitate to contact me.

Whilst I can appreciate that increasing housing density across Sydney, and an increase in the overall number of residential developers, is required in the longer term, the current rate of development outstrips supply of critical government infrastructure that needs to be built BEFORE any further residential properties are built in the area.

The current nearby state schools remain over capacity, many with "temporary", though now entrenched, demountable buildings that are not fit for purpose. This is particularly the case for Lindfield Public School, which is in a state of disrepair. The addition of extra dwellings, with the children that will come with it, will only overburden the current schools -- redevelopment of the current campuses, or creation of new schools (though ?? where) are essential to maintain CURRENT basic community services. Until the school situation is addressed, planning for future population growth is premature, and will only result in further deterioration of the current inadequate service.

Health care is stretched already in NSW, and particularly in Sydney. The closest tertiary hospital to the proposed campus, RNSH, is at critical capacity and has lost the room for further expansion of its campus due to the sale of sites adjacent to it for commercial interests. Whilst the RNSH building itself was rebuilt a decade ago, the actual bed capacity for the hospital has not significantly expanded in decades, despite the existing population growth that has occurred along this corridor. There is an imminent need for major investment in expanding the current hospital & critical care infrastructure just to cope with the _current_ local population. Hornsby Hospital is further away, and is going to be challenged itself by the population growth within the high density development around the station. As above, until the local public hospital system has been rectified for current needs, planning for future population growth in Lindfield, and in particular at Trafalgar Street, is premature, and will only result in further deterioration of the current inadequate government service.

The proposed TOD corridor alongside Lindfield railway station is also highly problematic from a traffic perspective. The CURRENT traffic situation is already very challenging, due to throttle points at the two access points onto the Pacific Highway - a railway bridge on Strickland avenue and a narrow tunnel on Balfour avenue. These two routes, particularly through the tunnel, have been "choke points" for _decades_. previous creation of the currently built apartments, combine with the commercial redevelopment, has created a large increase in traffic to the point that local passage along that route can be almost non-workable in peak periods. Increasing residential density along this Lindfield avenue corridor, which the current 59-63 Trafalgar Ave proposal would create, will only add to the burden the current population faces. No thought has seemingly been had to fixed the traffic issue - before any construction of higher density dwellings can start a longer term traffic solution is required.

Lastly, there is a lack of appreciation for the cultural significance of the buildings along this precinct. Unlike Europe and the UK, Australia would seem to have little appreciation for its heritage, and is very quick to demolish buildings with character and history, which one destroyed cannot be replaced. The construction of high density dwellings out-of-character with the area will tarnish the entire Heritage Conservation Area that exists within the area.

I have lived on Middle Harbour Road, Lindfield, to the South East of the Proposed Development site, for my whole life.
I appreciate the need for new and affordable dwellings in Lindfield, however I object to this proposal for the following reasons:
1. The Proposed Development is both inappropriate and unnecessary. The Proposed Development site is located in a Heritage Conservation Area, and borders 4 Heritage Items. It is located at the very edge of the State Government's TOD zone, and outside of the Council's Preferred Alternative TOD zone. The State Government's target for new and affordable dwellings can be met within Council's alternative TOD zone, closer to Lindfield Station.
2. The Proposed Development site borders at least 4 properties on MHR through which flow part of Gordon Creek, which is protected by a Riparian Zone. The Design Report does not consider the part of Gordon Creek that flows through properties on Middle Harbour Road (MHR) and the associated Riparian Zone, and therefore any conclusions relating to site hydrology and based on proximity to the Riparian Zone cannot be relied upon.
3. While the proposal describes the Proposed Development as 3 interconnected buildings, the Architectural and perspective drawings show that it is in fact one enormous building which in my opinion is totally out of character with the 1-2 storey single dwelling properties which surround it. If approved, the Proposed Development will be the largest development on the Eastern side of Lindfield Station, located in an elevated position, and will dominate the skyline. At 33.07 metres in height, the proposed development will exceed the maximum permissible height by 15.6%, which in my opinion is not justified.
4. The Proposed Development allows for only 46 affordable dwellings out of a total of 220, and none of the affordable dwellings have more than 2 bedrooms, making them unsuitable for most families. All of the affordable dwellings are located in the part of the building which will receive very little to no sunlight.
5. In my opinion, the design measures taken will be insufficient to reduce the very significant overshadowing which properties on MHR to the South and Southeast of the Proposed Development will experience as a result of the Proposed Development.
6. The Proposed Development, with its Community Open Spaces 9 levels above the ground, in addition to numerous balconies, will overlook properties to the South and East and North of the site, greatly reducing visual privacy for existing residents.
7. The Proposed Development, including the removal of trees from the site, will, in my opinion, significantly impact views of the open sky and the tree canopy from both public and private viewpoints.
8. The Proposed Development will increase traffic on local streets which are already congested by commuters parking near Lindfield Station.
9. The discharge of excess stormwater from the proposed development site to an additional pit on Trafalgar Avenue will increase the volume of water flowing in Gordon Creek through the properties south and southeast of the site on MHR, which will affect the flora and fauna that make it their home, including frogs and water dragons.
10. In my opinion, due to the presence of the creek, the Riparian Zone and the Heritage Items, it is highly unlikely that the future character of the immediate area to the South and East of the Proposed Development will be the highly developed contemporary character envisioned by the EIS, and therefore the Proposed Development will not be in line with the future character of the immediate area.

Dear Sirs,
We object the proposed residential development at 59-63 Trafalgar Avenue, 1A &1B Valley Road Lindfield development due to the following reasons:
- Ku-ring-gai Council’s alternative plan for TOD should be taken into consideration rather than a "Government imposed plan"
- proposed development is largely out of scale compared to the existing, within Heritage Conservation Area" properties
- 220 units up to 9 stories high is far too bulky given it is located within Heritage Conservation Area"
- additional residents resulting from 220 units will impose significat, unsustainable strain onto existing infrastructure like traffic, schools, parking, ...
- proposed development is located at the very outer edge of TOD border (and outside of development in Ku-ring-gai Council’s alternative TOD plan); no transition to lower density housing which surrounds it on all sides
- Major impacts on Heritage Conservation Area which has successfully been preserved by council
- Overshadowing / privacy / solar access issues
- significant acoustic issues due to location of site and scale of development
- Deletion of tree canopy and death of many mature trees
- significant traffic and parking issues by the 367 parking spaces in building
- serious impact on storm water in an already often flooded area
- serious and irrevocable visual impact (a "giant" sticking out of 1 storey houses)
We expect that this development (and many other similar proposals) are being withheld until at least the councils alternative proposal has been assessed.
Greedy developers should not be able to benefit from grey areas resulting from Government slow action and consideration of it's residents and councils.
Thank you.
Kind regards,
GH

I am very disappointed that the government is not waiting for the TOD plan proposed by the Kuring-gai Council to be reviewed. This sort of development will be perfect in the areas proposed by the council. As someone who was involved in the community consultation we proposed developments like this and larger ones close to or along the highway, helping to alleviate evening peak hour traffic and create needed and affordable housing. The council came up with a proposal offering more houses than the government planned for.

We would rather see larger developments on the highway and the western side of the highway instead of developments like this that restrict future development. If you're interested in increasing housing long term, it is a far better plan to start high, 15-20 stories near the station and on the other side of the highway and do it properly, slowly creeping out, than making a visual and environmental mess like this.

These appartments are not going to be affordable, already one bedrooms are selling at $1,050,000 in Lindfield. Other appartments similar to this have been bought out by foreign investors and sit empty or have their university student children living in them- throwing piles of newish furniture out on the street for the trash pickup. These appartments are not going to do much to help our housing affordability issues, especially if they are not built properly and are going to cost owners hundreds of thousands of dollars to rectify shoddy building, like many others built in the area experience already.

I don't think you are doing the state a service by building developments like this that are not well built and will end up like ghettos in 20 years time. its much easier to buy housing blocks than buy 220 units or appartments to rebuild on in 30 years time. PLEASE listen to our KRG council.

The two access roads into this development are small, especially Trafalgar and Russel Ave that are full of commuter and residents cars. This is going to cause access problems for local traffic.

This is a ridiculous proposal, near Bluegum high trees and a creek one block down from this development. The run off is going to be terrible. The area experienced flooding two years ago, damaging property and houses. It is going to cause irreversible environmental damage to bushland and animal habitat. The trees in this area predate white settlement, you can't seriously consider destroying this natural environment by placing this development one block up causing draining and environmental issues. I am really disappointed at the loss of habitat and environment for the native fauna that has already occurred.

I object to the proposed SSD for 59-63 Trafalgar Av & 1A-1B Valley Rd Lindfield proposal for the following reasons:
1. The proposal is over any height limit for any TOD, being 9+ stories & 33m in the proposal, significantly higher than the limits allowed
2. Its outside the boundaries of the Ku-ring-gai Councils Proposed TOD
3. Its on the edge of the 400m TOD which does not consider any transition to low density housing, a totally unfair planning proposal for the 1-2 storey neighbours.
4. There will be significant increased to traffic & parking for an area already jammed by commuters looking to utilise the train. Just try to park locally now or even get onto a train or metro in peak hour, or in and out of the pacific highway... its already chaos.
5. This is a huge impact to the heritage conservation area, bulldozing our heritage of Sydney.
6. Has a huge impact on the environment of Lindfield, destroying mature trees.
7. It will destroy the local landscape and streetscape which has been so beautifully preserved by council & local residents.

People have significantly invested in the area when purchasing their properties buying into the area. It is totally unfair to have an unnecessary huge negative financial, mental and wellbeing impact on so many people. The state government should embrace the Ku-ring-gai council TOD modified plans, which are supported by the community, help to maximise homes (to their targets) whilst preserving the heritage areas, trees and local areas for the majority and minimising impact on the community . Please approach development in a more 'democratic way' than this state governments dictatorial/communistic approach.
The State Government and NSW department of planning should respect its communities, its councils and its beautiful city and not accept any SSDs that are not in Ku-ring-gai Councils plan. This only results negative impacts for everyone excpet the money hungry developers who try to bend every rule to make an extra dollar wherever they can.

I reside at 40 Middle Harbour Road Lindfield, with my wife and three daughters. Our property is approximately 30m from the eastern boundary of the Development.
I strongly object to the proposed development for the following reasons:
1. Detrimental impact on the environment

• At least one endangered powerful owl lives in the close vicinity of the development site. I and other members of my family have witnessed on occasions at least one powerful owl at or near our home.
• My conclusion that the sightings were of the endangered powerful owl are based on:
o Size – powerful owls can reach up to 60cm in length
o Face markings – unlike many other owls, powerful owls do not have the heart-shaped rings around their eyes (The only other owl with similar face markings are not found in eastern and southeastern Australia)
• While not all owl sightings have been captured on camera, I have attached:
o a video of what appears to be a powerful owl taken at 37 Middle Harbour Road (Attachment 1)
o a photo of a powerful owl perched over our back deck (Attachment 2). Moments after this photo was taken, we saw it silently fly away, revealing its impressive wingspan
• Owls are sensitive to light pollution, which will be inevitable with a 9-storey, 220-unit development. I fear that the development will drive owls out of their habitat. Further, a neighbour pointed out one of the trees earmarked for removal appears to have a hollow, which owls typically inhabit.
• The Development is within 15 metres of the endangered turpentine forest which runs through our back yard – as does Gordon Creek. The area abounds with fauna including an echidna (Attachment 3), water dragons, frogs, ducks (seasonal) and a variety of bird life: king parrots, cockatoos, lorikeets, kookaburras, whip birds (audible in Attachment 4) and eagles (Attachment 5 and Attachment 6)
• Two additional concerns arise:
o 33m / 9 floors of glass windows will create a (potentially fatal) bird strike danger; and
o Having read Appendix S of the Development proposal, it is not clear to me that the Development will not have a detrimental impact on Gordon Creek. My concerns relate to both the quality of the water (and impacts on biodiversity) and volume (risk of flooding).
• My personal observations of the powerful owl contradict the conclusion in Appendix 1 of the Biodiversity Development Assessment Report, namely that the powerful owl is a “Threatened species assessed as not on site.” This brings into question the reliability of other assertions in the 81-page report.

2. Detrimental impact on our neighbourhood and community

• The scale and siting of the 33m high, 9-floor Development on the top of the hill is inappropriate and unsympathetic with surrounding Trafalgar Ave, Middle Harbour Road and Valley Road precinct, with many heritage homes and abundant mature trees. The Development will be visible from kilometres away and will dominate the neighbourhood.
• The proposal appears to maximise site coverage with minimal set-back and no apparent attempt to transition from the high-density are near the station to the single-family dwellings beyond the TOD boundaries. The 3-level unit blocks on Tryon Ave – in fact, closer to Lindfield Station – provide a better model for high density living at the fringe of the TOD zone. This development is set back and with appealing landscaping.
• While our home environment will be adversely affected by the Development (see 3 below), I am most sympathetic to our neighbours at 30A to 34 Middle Harbour Road. They will most likely be deprived of direct sunlight, being on the south side of a hill close to the 9-storey south wall of the Development (these houses are set to the back the block due to the riparian zone).
• It is difficult to imagine the impact of additional traffic from 220 units, combined with the impact of other planned developments in the immediate vicinity.
• The only positive aspect of the Development is how it has drawn our neighbourhood together in unified opposition to it.

3. Detrimental impact on our property and family living environment

• The 33m, 9-story Development is only 30 metres our property. Positioned high on the hill, it will present a jarring contrast from our currently green and private outlook. We will suffer oversight, with the balconies overlooking our back yard, rear deck and upper bedrooms.
• With siting of the Development to the NNW, we are likely to lose the winter sun during the afternoon.

4. Lack of process

• I only became aware of this Development through word of mouth in our neighbourhood. I was told that some adjacent properties received notice from the developers. However, due to the massive scale of the Development, there is a much wider radius of affected properties.
• I find it surprising that a Development so consequential upon our lives would not be required to provide us notice directly. Due to these circumstances, I have had only 2 days to review the proposed development and respond.

5. Conclusion

• As described in 1) above, our property includes remnants of the old turpentine forest and abounds in wildlife. We feel privileged to have such proximity to the natural environment and feel a strong obligation, as current custodians of one small portion of this forest, to protect it from degradation. This Development in its current form poses such a threat.
• The Biodiversity Development Assessment Report appears to be flawed.
• The Development pushes the boundaries. It is so massive and inappropriate in its scale, it has all the hallmarks of being an ambit claim with a de-scaled (but still over-sized) version to be presented as a compromise. If so, such tactics should not be rewarded.
• I recognise the legitimate policy objectives in creating higher density and affordable housing close to the transport hub. However, this should be done in a manner more harmonious with the natural environment and surrounding neighbourhood.
• This Development, if allowed, will be a grotesque, 33m monument to poor urban planning for decades to come.
Peter Girdis

Dear Jasmine,

Please find attached my Submission in objection to the proposed development.

Please also find attached my accompanying Curriculum Vitae.

Kind regards,

Tony Moody

I am a long-term resident and property owner in Lindfield, having been a member of the local community for over a decade. Myself, my wife and children are active members of the community participating in local sporting clubs (Lindfield FC, KWP Rugby Club, Lindfield Cricket), shopping and eating local as often as we can and enjoying local walks (e.g. Two Creeks Track). Given this involvement in the local community we are regularly walking around the suburb, particularly between our home on the northern side of Lindfield and the town centre in and around the train station – this is for the purposes of commuting, going to school, shopping, eating and walking the dog.
The proposed development is within 1km of our home. The outcome of this development will have a significant impact on our family, particularly our children given the increased traffic and congestion in an area they must use to get to and from school.
I wish to raise numerous objections to the development proposal as currently submitted. I am more than happy to engage in a conversation with NSW Planning or the Developer regarding the concerns outlined below:

1) Insufficient local road infrastructure to handle more residents (Transport concerns SEARs 9). The increased number of residents the suburb will need to accommodate has not been appropriately planned for or addressed by this proposal. Traffic congestion is already a major local issue during peak periods, it is very difficult to access the station and surrounding area from all sides east of the highway in the morning and mid afternoon, as well as at times over the weekend. This will be exacerbated. Local road choke points create danger for local pedestrians trying to cross roads in heavy congestion, particularly school children who typically use the trains and attend school around the peak times for road use. There are currently few zebra crossings, traffic lights or other traffic management tools that would help make pedestrians safer despite the fact that more cars will be on the road. While I understand there may be an argument that proximity to public transport negates the need to drive, this is a unrealistic claim as local rail infrastructure offers no solution for residents seeking to travel east or west from Lindfield, only north/south.

2) Visual impact (SEARs 8) and Design Quality (SEARs 5): The large size of this proposed development, both the street frontage and height (220 unites, 9+ storey at 33m), will create an eyesore in a local area characterised by many single storey homes, including some built in the federation style. In addition, today nearly all residents have significant mature greenery and trees surrounding their properties or within the boundaries of their properties. There are no clear plans to plant a reasonable number of mature or large trees within a close proximity of this development, which will simply result in a large box shape structure being erected next to some beautiful older homes – the proposal cannot be categorised as being a good design when it does not consider the existing visual aspects of the community. I note that greenery will actually be destroyed to accommodate the building. The visual site of this proposed development is therefore is not in keeping with the local area.

3) Built form and urban design (SEARs 6): The sheer size and volume (height and street frontage) of the proposed development gives no consideration to transition to low density houses which is unreasonable for a development that sits on the far outer edge of the 400m TOD border. At nine storeys this development will significantly exceed the height of existing buildings closer to the station, which are five to six storeys, and disrupt the current, and highly logical pattern, of gradually decreasing building heights moving away from the station.

4) Trees and landscaping (SEARs 14): The proposal put forward by the developer will remove mature trees, greenery and gardens, and substantially increase the proportion of land occupied by hard surfaces. It should be a requirement for the developer to not juts install a token garden on the site, but to use mature native trees that will be in keeping with what is already maintained by the hundreds of residents throughout the suburb. The developer in this instance should not be excluded from maintaining trees and landscaping that is in keeping with what is expected of other local residents.

5) Environmental Amenity (SEARs 7). There is currently very limited usable, open green space around the Lindfield town centre, and Lindfield more broadly from the east side of the train line across to Archibold Road. The addition of Lindfield green near the station and shops is the only site within 400m of the proposed development, however this is not flat ground, has no play equipment for children and as a very small area the opportunities to use the space are very limited. Outside of this site no other green spaces are available for public use within a long distance of the site.

6) On street parking (Transport SEARs 9). As previously noted, residents in Lindfield today rely heavily on cars for transportation. Although the train is an excellent piece of infrastructure, it travels to a very limited number of locations – particularly on weekends when families are not travelling to or through the city. On that basis, every resident will need access to a car and families will likely require two cars. This will increase local traffic congestion and put pressure on local streets where parking is already challenging in some areas. I refer to my previous comments about the large number of school aged children who regularly use the route adjacent to this proposed development to access the train and Lindfield town centre/shops. The risk of danger to a child walking out onto a road between cars (particularly SUVs) is significantly higher than in circumstances where there is no vehicle blocking visibility of the curb. With few pedestrian crossings, lights or other pedestrian infrastructure in the vicinity of the proposed development, children will increasingly have to cross the road by walking out between cars which creates, in my opinion, an unacceptable and unnecessary risk that could be mitigated by requiring the developer to allocate two parking spaces per unit.

Objection to Residential Development with affordable housing 59-63 Trafalgar Avenue & 1A & 1B Valley Road Lindfield (SSD-79276958) hereafter referred to as “the Proposal” or the “proposed development”
I firmly and strongly object to “the proposal”. It does not adequately address the Planning Secretary’s environmental assessment requirements (SEARs). Section 7 Assessment of Impacts in the proposal in particular does not provide accurate representations of the impacts of the proposal.
I categorically refute the statement that “This EIS confirms that the environmental impacts of the proposed development are positive, reasonable in the circumstances or can be appropriately managed.” Nor does the proposal provide a net positive outcome for the site or surrounding area. Enclosed in Attachment 1 is my submission of objection.