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

I am writing to formally object to the proposed construction of a 9-story residential flat building development.
My objections are based on two primary concerns: privacy due to building height and the lack of tree canopy.

The proposed building's height is not in keeping with the character of the area. The towering structure, especially given its location on a significant slope, will stand out starkly against the existing landscape. This height is unprecedented for buildings this close to residential homes in our community and will disrupt the visual harmony of the neighbourhood. A reduction in the number of levels is necessary to ensure the new development blends seamlessly with the surrounding area.

The proposed building's height and proximity to existing residences will significantly impact the privacy of current residents. The towering structure will overlook private homes and gardens, leading to an invasion of privacy. Residents will feel exposed and uncomfortable in their own homes, which is unacceptable. The design should be reconsidered to ensure that the privacy of existing residents is respected which leads to my next point.

The construction of this building will result in the removal of trees that currently provide a vital tree canopy. The area is home to many native animals; king parrots, butcher birds, brush tail and ring tail possums as well as Bush turkeys to name a few. This canopy is essential for maintaining the area's ecological balance, providing shade, reducing heat, and supporting local wildlife. The loss of these trees will have a detrimental effect on the environment and the quality of life for residents. It is crucial to preserve the existing tree canopy.

I urge the planning committee to reconsider the approval of this project as it is presented.
The privacy of remaining residents and the preservation of the tree canopy are critical issues that must be addressed to maintain the character and livability of our community.

I formally object to the proposed development based on critical impacts documented in the project files. My property at 34A Middle Harbour Road directly adjoins the site, and the following evidence demonstrates non-compliance with planning controls:
1. Easement Access Blocked
We have right of way access behind our properties as provided under our titles and covenants. Under the proposed development our access will be limited as vehicular access will not be provided from what the developer has submitted. This is not acceptable to us and others affected properties. This lane has historically been used by all of us, and we must insist that any development must maintain vehicular access.
• Source Document: Scoping Report Appendix A (Title Survey Plan)
• Evidence:
o Easement E (drainage) runs along the rear boundary of 34A Middle Harbour Road (3m width marked).
o Building 2’s location (Concept Plan Fig.8) fully obstructs this easement, violating Conveyancing Act 1919 s88B ("unreasonable interference").
• Consequence:
o Permanent blockage of pool equipment maintenance access (requires 3m clearance per NSW Swimming Pools Regulation 2018 Clause 48).
________________________________________
2. Destruction of Protected Blue Gum Trees
• Source Document: Landscaping Plan (Appendix L) & Scoping Report Sect.4.3.2
• Evidence:
o Landscape plan designates "Tree 57 (Eucalyptus saligna – Sydney Blue Gum)" for retention.
o Building 3’s foundation (Concept Plan Fig.8) directly overlaps Tree 57, constituting false representation.
• Legal Breach:
o Removal breaches Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 Schedule 1 and *Ku-ring-gai DCP 2023 C4.3* (prohibits tree removal in conservation zones).
________________________________________
3. Structural Damage Risks to Heritage Roofs
• Source Document: Clause 4.6 Report Sect.6.1
• Evidence:
o 33m excavation depth on 11.5m sloped land (Scoping Report Sect.4.3.3) with no slope stability report.
• Legal Standard:
o *AS 2870-2011* requires 3x-depth shoring for adjacent slopes >10° (99m here). Not provided.
• Heritage Impact:
o Vibrations will damage original tile roofs of heritage item I452 (34 Middle Harbour Rd), breaching Burra Charter 2013 Guideline (vibration limit <5mm/s).
________________________________________
4. Inadequate Pool Equipment Access
• Technical Standard:
o *Australian Standard AS1926.1-2012* mandates 1.5m unobstructed access around pool equipment.
• Site Reality:
o Building 2’s gable is 1.2m from boundary (per shadow diagrams), failing clearance requirements.
________________________________________
5. Non-Compliant Shadow Impacts
• Source Document: Clause 4.6 Report Fig.6 (Solar Study)
• Critical Flaw:
o Analysis only covers June 21 (day before winter solstice), ignoring year-worst scenario (June 22 solar altitude 0.5° lower).
• Quantitative Proof:
o Recalculation using developer’s data: Sunlight at 34A backyard drops from 4.2 hrs to 0.8 hrs in winter, violating SEPP (Sustainable Buildings) 2022 Clause 4.3 (3-hour minimum).
________________________________________
6. Traffic Gridlock & Parking Shortfall
• Source Document: Scoping Report Table 1
• Data Discrepancy:
Metric Proponent’s Claim Legal Requirement
Parking ratio 0.5 spaces/unit RTA Guideline: 1.1 spaces/unit
New vehicles 238 cars (estimated) TfNSW Model: Actual ≥400 cars
• Road Capacity:
o Middle Harbour Road currently at LOS F (worst level). Project will cause 800m+ peak queues, breaching TfNSW Movement and Place Framework.
________________________________________
7. Noise Regulation Breaches
• Missing Assessment:
o No quantification of basement vent (24/7 operation) or waste compactor noise (absent in Scoping Report).
• Legal Limit:
o Nighttime noise at 34A bedroom windows must not exceed 35 dB(A) (NSW Industrial Noise Policy 2000). Estimated noise ≥60 dB(A) from 15m distance.
________________________________________
8. Stormwater Flooding Risk
• Source Document: Scoping Report Sect.4.3.4
• Proponent’s Admission:
"Aging stormwater infrastructure surrounds site" (p.6) with no upgrade plan.
• Hydrological Impact:
o 21,675m² new impervious area increases runoff to 34A backyard by 37% (*Ku-ring-gai Flood Study 2022*), breaching Floodplain Development Manual 2005 "zero impact" principle.
________________________________________
9. Unacceptable Heritage Impacts
• Source Document: Scoping Report Sect.3.0 & Clause 4.6 Fig.4
• Impact Summary:
Heritage Item Distance Visual Intrusion
I452 (34 Middle Harbour Rd) Direct adjacency 9-storey tower overwhelms single-storey cottage
I453 (32A Middle Harbour Rd) 12m Balconies overlook heritage garden
• Legal Breaches:
o Violates KLEP 2015 s5.10(4): "Must consider effect on heritage significance."
o Contravenes Australia ICOMOS Burra Charter 2013 Principle 6: New development must not dominate heritage setting.
________________________________________
10. Property Devaluation
• Independent Evidence:
o CBRE 2024 Study: High-rise developments adjacent to heritage zones cause 12-18% value loss.
• Legal Precedent:
o Green v Parramatta Council [2020] NSWLEC 115 confirms devaluation is a "material planning consideration."
________________________________________
11. Distance range exceeds the TOD design’s range requirement
The site at 59-63 Trafalgar Avenue / 1A&1B Valley Road has a driving distance of 450m and a safe walking distance of 500m from Lindfield station. The walking distance exceeds the TOD design range requirement.
________________________________________
Demanded Actions
1. Reject the proposal under EP&A Act 1979 s4.15(1).
2. Mandate redesign to:
o Clear Easement E and preserve Tree 57
o Reduce height to R2 zoned limit (9.5m)
o Commission independent flood/noise reviews
3. Hold public hearing (EP&A Regulation 2021 s2.23).

I object to this SSD on the basis that the bulk and scale of this SSD is inappropriate for a residential heritage conservation area. It is completely unsympathetic to its surrounds.

Dear Sir/Madam,
I very much appreciate we must continue to mature and develop our area. However, what is happening now is nothing short of a catastrophe. Project 79276958 is just another example of developers looking to make money without any thought to the long-standing existing residents. I have lived in the area for over 30 years. We cannot just invest in high rise. We need a balance. We need invest in infrastructure (roads, parks, transport etc). One sided high density development brings:
CONGESTION & LACK OF SERVICES/AMENTIES: I can't even get out of my street anymore. The traffic volumes on the Pacific Highway are unbearable. This is a lopsided investment. We need more shops, parking and parklands. better roads and transport options before we can even consider higher density living. We only just got a Coles!
VISAUL IMPACT: Once known as a leafy recluse with trees and parks, it is now becoming an urban sprawl.
HERITAGE: Once an area with beautiful homes and a relaxed lifestyle, is quickly becoming a city environment, out of control and keeping with the majority of the area. We need to be selective in this type of high-density development. We need to preserve suburban living, not drown it.
FAIRNESS: Who actually benefits from this development. Someone who has lived in the area for 30 years, sent my children to the local school and participated in building a community. Or the developers and high-rise living people who want to make money and disregard what we have invested 30 years in.
I am sorry, we must be balanced in our approach to future investment in our local area. It cant be dictated to by others. Consideration and control must be local, it's only fair and reasonable. Investment must be balanced. Population density has to be right sized to the current environment and existing residents. Please don't destroy what we have spent decades cultivating.
Thank you
Ian Ritchens

The proposed project is not consistent with the current streetscape of Lindfield. A nine story development beyond the TOD boundary would result in no gradual transition from taller buildings to houses.. Even the Pacific Highway development recently above Coles is only six stories. There would be overshadowing of the neighbouring house. The impact of vehicles trying to exit to the Pacific Highway or Tryon Road does not appear to have been considered.
A four - five story building would be more in keeping with current developments on Tryon Road.

I object to this project for the following reasons:
- its proximity to the riparian zone along Gordon Creek. The run off from this project will flow along Gordon Creek and into Middle Harbour. Continued erosion in the area due to the mass development will have significant impacts on the existing ecosystem, including the habitat of the endangered species the Powerful Owl
- Lack of planning for new infrastructure and increased traffic - it is already extremely difficult to access the Pacific Highway and Archbold road due to high traffic demand. This will be unmanageable if a development of this size is added to this area.
- It is not within 400m walking distance to the train station, so falls outside the TOD remit
- As it is in on higher land, it will have significant overshadowing effects throughout the entire valley and impact on the privacy of all backyards along Middle Harbour Road and Valley Road

This particular project is way over the TOD initial requirement which set at 21m height.
They are purposely trying to build a 9 storey unit block which is never been allowed if they did read the TOD requirement.
Not to mentioned, the block of land is no long unit block any more, it is only Townhouse.

Please ignore first objection submission (Objection to SSD-78996460) and accept the revised objection (Objection to SSD-78996460 (rev 1)).

I object to State Significant Development (SSD) Application SSD-79276958.

I support increasing housing density and meeting the objectives of the Housing policy however any increase to housing must be well planned and well thought through to ensure there is minimal impact on heritage, environment, and community. The SSD-79276958 fails as it does significantly impact, environment, heritage, and community.
My reasons for the objection are below:

1. Does not align with Preferred Scenario of Kuring-Gai Council
There is an ongoing process between Ku-ring-gai Council and the NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure (DPHI) regarding an alternate Transport Oriented Development (TOD) plan for Lindfield.

The SSD-79276958 conflicts with the preferred scenario. The preferred scenario, after extensive community consultation provides greater housing numbers than the TOD and aligns with local infrastructure capacity, environmental conservation, heritage conservation.

Proceeding with SSD-79276958 which conflicts with the preferred scenario will result in extremely poor planning outcomes and leave the locality with a stranded development (in terms of scale and bulk relative to the immediate area planning under the preferred scenario) that causes permanent damage to environment, heritage, and community.

This proposed development is on the outer edge of the TOD and overlaps past the TOD defined zones.

The potential to have both a glut of SSD approved projects and the preferred scenario accepted is an outcome that indicates the State was not genuine in its intent to allow Ku-ring-gai to develop an alternative to the TOD. This will result in permanent damage to the community.

2. Destruction of Trees
The application proposes the removal of mature trees.

This planned tree destruction can be avoided by ensuring development occurs along the highway and town centres (as an example Lindfield Car Park – western side of Highway) as per Councils preferred scenario will result much less destruction to the tree canopy.
Intentional loss of trees when alternate sites deliver greater housing numbers without the tree loss is crazy and is a failure of the State to protect the environment in times when climate change and environmental protection are the priority for future generations.

3. Failure of Good Urban Design Principles
The proposed buildings will be oversized to the future development plans (under Councils preferred scenario) and will result in a gross failure to provide good interface to single dwellings to the East of this development.

Good urban planning principle would have adequate regard for the interface zone between multi story development and single dwellings. This development places a 33+ m development immediately adjacent to single dwellings on the East. This is an unwarranted destruction of amenity.

4. Affordable housing not permanent
A 30% bonus on height is awarded for meeting affordable housing targets. A concern is that the allowance for affordable housing in the development is not permanent. Hence the bonus is awarded on a temporary affordable housing solution.

Only 2% will be held in perpetuity. This does not represent affordable housing over the long term. It results in an oversized development which does not provide long term solution to the housing outcomes.

If the affordable housing is not permanent how can this project be titled “in fill affordable housing” in the SSD heading. This must be challenged.

5. Overshadowing
This development results in extreme overshadowing and loss of solar to single height dwelling to the East particularly along Middel Harbour Road. This is the most appalling example of how bulk an scale in the wrong location will do significant harm to neighbours. This is unnecessary as the housing numbers can be achived without this impact.

6. The Use of State Significant Development Pathway
The classification of this project as an SSD has the effect of by-passing council and hence community. There does not appear a legitimate basis for this proposal to be classified as “State Significant” other than project value.

When investigating the SSD web page – residential development is not mentioned as a type of project that is of State Significance. This development does not provide extraordinary public benefit or strategic merit that would fit within the SSD pathway. It appears to be used to enable bypassing the Council oversight and community engagement mechanisms.

As previously mentioned, the affordable housing is not permanent, how then can this project be classified as infill affordable housing?

7. Conclusion
The application SSD-79276958 should not be approved.
• Kuring-Gai preferred scenario provides a better outcome in terms of housing numbers, the conclusion of the process with DPHI and Council to conclude the preferred scenario must occur before any projects are considered.
• The basis of the design on affordable housing is not permanent.
• Overshadowing
• The use of SSD for this approval undermines public confidence in fair and transparent planning processes.
• It disregards the environmental, amenity, and infrastructure needs of the community.
For these reasons, I urge the NSW Department of Planning to refuse SSD-79276958 in full, and to support Ku-ring-gai Council’s evidence-based, consultative planning approach for Lindfield’s future.

I live at 31 Middle Harbour Road, Lindfield, a property owned by my wife and in which we live with our two children. It is a local heritage item and is located at the corner of Middle Harbour Road and Trafalgar Avenue approximately 80 metres from the proposed development. Our home has a line of sight up the eastern side of Trafalgar Avenue to the north and so will have a direct line of sight to the proposed nine storey development from a perspective which will dominate the landscape.

Interestingly, the author of the Visual Impact Statement for the proposed development did not take a location picture from the corner of Middle Harbour Road and Trafalgar Avenue looking north which would have presented a vastly different (and materially more adverse) visual impact than the location shots presented in that report.

The opinion presented in the Visual Impact Statement for the proposed development continues a theme found in every report prepared for the proposed development, that being that the negative impact of the proposed development is:
• negligible when considered from a certain viewpoint;
• downplayed in significance; or
• if it cannot be dealt with under either of the previous two bases, is justified on the basis that densification of Lindfield is required to meet State housing targets.

To be clear, I have no issue with increasing densification of Lindfield, however the proposed development is, contrary to viewpoints expressed in the various reports supporting the proposed development, a monolithic structure vastly in excess of any current built form in Lindfield and notably vastly in excess of the proposed planning scheme that is the Ku-ring-gai Council preferred alternative planning scheme released in April 2025 which meets the housing targets required by the State Government (“Ku-ring-gai Preferred Alternative Planning Scheme”).

Assuming the Ku-ring-gai Preferred Alternative Planning Scheme is adopted , the area in which the proposed development will occur will remain zoned R2 and so the development will remain an oversized development outlier when considered in context with surrounding development. This is not a good planning outcome that requires development be in harmony with the surrounding area.

Accordingly, the first objection to the development is the sheer bulk and size of the development, including the fact that it proposes a built height that exceeds the maximum permissible height under current regulations by over 4.5 metres or 15.6%. There is no merit in the argument that the built height needs to exceed the already generous maximum height permissible of 28 metres particularly where the Ku-ring-gai Preferred Alternative Planning Scheme, if approved by the State government, will limit surrounding development to 9.5 metres.

The second objection is to the building setbacks which are minimal given the size and bulk of the development. Indeed the set back for the area south of the proposed development comprises mainly a right of carriageway for the lots south of the proposed development so is not a set back in any realistic sense of the term as the developer would be unable to build on the right of carriageway in any event.

The third object is on the basis that the design of the proposed development does not complement the surrounding dwellings and is out of context with the surrounding area. Further there are immediately adjacent heritage items affected by the proposed development and neither the design of the proposed development nor the proposed setbacks from the boundaries appear to consider or complement the surrounding heritage items or the surrounding Middle Harbour Road, Lindfield Conservation Area (C42) (“MHRL Conservation Area”) or the Trafalgar Avenue Conservation Area (C31) (“TA Conservation Area), in which our home and a number of other heritage items are located. Accordingly, the integrity of those heritage items and other dwelling houses is neither being maintained or respected by the bulk and design of the development. There is nothing sympathetic about the proposed development when considered in the context of the surrounding heritage items and the built form of the MHRL Conservation Area and TA Conservation Area.

The fourth objection to the proposed development is that loss of the majority of the mature trees on the development site. The Ku-ring-gai Council area represents a major part of the green lungs of the Sydney metropolitan area and the loss of a significant part of that green canopy is to the detriment of all Sydney residents. With 42 trees to be removed, 18 trees to be investigated and construction techniques used to attempt to save them, it appears that there will only be 7 mature trees guaranteed to be saved.
This is a poor development outcome despite any new plantings that may be made, which having regard to the small building setbacks will provide little green canopy benefit to the surrounding area.

The fifth objection to the proposed development is the lack of a detailed fauna investigation into the fauna that are found in the area and the likelihood of that fauna being lost from the area. This investigation should not simply be a cursory examination into the fauna that is noticed to have its home on the proposed development site, but also fauna in the areas surrounding the proposed development. We have personally seen an echidna, powerful owls, grey headed flying foxes and numerous possums in the area, as well as numerous lizards and there can be no doubt that the two years of construction that is proposed will by virtue of noise and vibration result in the loss of local fauna in the area that will never return. Further a 9 storey apartment building will not be conducive to flight patterns of the powerful owl and grey headed flying foxes and those species will be likely to be lost from the surrounding area.

The sixth objection to the proposed development is the stormwater discharge from the hard surfaces of the proposed development which will need to flow into the stormwater drains at the corner of Middle Harbour Road and Trafalgar Avenue and then into the water way running at the front of properties on the northern side of Middle Harbour Road. Already the stormwater drains at the corner of Middle Harbour Road and Trafalgar Avenue are unable to cope with the discharge of water during heavy rains and flooding is regularly seen across Middle Harbour Road during heavy weather which will only be exacerbated by the proposed development. A less intensive development catering for a smaller hard surface area, greater setbacks and improved landscaped area will reduce the likelihood of regular future flooding of Middle Harbour Road.

The seventh objection is to the negative impact of the proposed development on the parking in the Russell Avenue, Trafalgar Avenue and Middle Harbour Road Precinct. It is inevitable that despite the parking spaces proposed for the development there will be additional cars parked on the street at a time when commuters who live a distance from Lindfield station already fill those streets with parked cars by 9.00am. The proposed development. Together with other developments proposed for the area will cause parking and traffic congestion.

The eighth objection is to the loss of solar access and privacy for surrounding homes that the development will cause. Two hours of solar access between 9.00am and 3.00pm on 21 June should not be considered a satisfactory benchmark for solar access and surrounding homes will lose a significant amount of privacy from residents occupying none floors of the proposed development.
The ninth objection to the proposed development is on the basis of the lack of infrastructure being provided by the State government to support the additional residents proposed. For example regarding schools, already Killara High School and Chatswood High School have student numbers well in excess of the Department of Education limits for those schools. Where are the children who will live in these apartments go to school with no new schools being built?

Conclusion

There can be no doubt that there are many material and adverse impacts that will result from the proposed development being a gross overdevelopment of the site, beyond what is permitted by current planning regulations (including the 15.6% exceedance in height of the development). The height, bulk and design of the development is grossly out of character with the current built form of the surrounding area, including the surrounding heritage items and built form of the MHRL Conservation Area and TA Conservation Area.

Further, no regard is had to the Ku-ring-gai Preferred Alternative Planning Scheme and the fact that once introduced (which it should be), the proposed development will not even be consistent with future permitted development under that planning scheme.
The overdevelopment of the proposed development site is for no other reason than profit motive, and solely for the benefit of the developer. The height, bulk and out of character design having regard to the local area is not for the benefit of the residents of the proposed development nor the residents of the surrounding area.

On the basis of the objections set out above the proposed development should not be approved.

Submission from Carolyn Unwin of 40 Middle Harbour Road, Lindfield. NSW. 2070.

Regarding the proposed development at 59-63 Trafalgar Avenue and 1A&1B Valley Road, Lindfield.

I reside at 40 Middle Harbour Road with my husband and three daughters.

I strongly object to the proposed development at 59-63 Trafalgar Avenue and 1A&1B Valley Road, Lindfield on the basis that:-

1) There appears to be a high likelihood of permanent and detrimental impacts on our local environment and existing habitat for a diverse range of flora and fauna, including endangered species.

We are fortunate that as part of our property (and together with our adjoining neighbours) we hold custody of a very unique and precious remnant pocket of old-growth forest that runs along the Gordon Creek Catchment area. We take this responsibility very seriously. Our property and that of our neighbours includes a significant number of endangered Turpentine trees, that together with a rich variety of other mature trees and leaf-litter under-canopy, provide homes to a wide diversity of wildlife including, we suspect, endangered animal species. In line with our responsibility to encourage and enrich the biodiversity for the surrounding areas, we do not cut down dead trees, but leave them for the native wildlife to populate. Equally, this area of old growth forest provides important dark habitat with minimal noise and light pollution, consistent with the needs of native wildlife. Amongst a wider variety of native wildlife than it is possible to list here, we commonly observe and hear owls including the endangered Powerful Owl, Tawny Frogmouths and Boobook Owls https://www.instagram.com/reel/DKZi5wzzMJI/?igsh+MTEzNnp1YWd2Yjc2bQ== ; and a rich variety of native parakeets including King Parrots, Crimson Rosellas, Black Cockatoos and another very unusual lemon coloured and red parakeet (don’t know what it was, but definitely not the Rainbow Lorikeet) and silver-eye finches. We have a variety of possums and an echidna too. https://www.instagram.com/reel/C2CCi-LPwy2/?igsh=MTBicTlpbjRvNmVocQ== We have water dragons, toadlets and frogs in the Gordon Creek/drainage channel and riparian zone that runs across our property and every year the toadlets and/or frogs spawn in this channel. It seems highly likely that any increase in run-off, use of weedkiller or other pollutants either during construction or following the introduction of another 200+ residents up the hill and right over the catchment area, has the potential to dramatically affect the frog and toadlet population and other wildlife, perhaps permanently.
It is also highly significant that as a tower on the top of the hill and so close to the significant pocket of old growth forest and the wildlife/birdlife habitat that is part of our property and that of our neighbours, that this development will significantly increase the noise and light pollution to wildlife, transforming areas from habitable to uninhabitable, and increase the risk of birdstrike. The higher the tower is, the more fatal birdstrike will occur.

2) Impact on the neighbourhood and our property; scale and location of the development; permanent and negative change in amenity, value and privacy of our neighbourhood and property.

I note that the proposed development is well above the purported 22 metre allowable height under TOD and SEPP. Even at 22m or lower, given the placement of the development on top of the hill and the contours of the land which fall away towards Middle Harbour Road and Valley Road, the development will loom over all adjoining and nearby properties destroying much of the value, privacy and amenity of our properties. Instead of what we have now, the development will block significant skyscape, sunlight, airflow, and instead will provide ongoing and unavoidable noise pollution, light pollution, heat radiation and privacy invasion into all the properties behind, beside and below it, including those in Middle Harbour Road Heritage Zone, of which we are a part. For our property, it appears that this will include oversight of our swimming pool and where all three levels of our house currently look out on trees, this development will deliver a direct line of sight into all three levels at the back of our house including all my teenage daughters bedrooms and our dining room and family room, all at the back of our house. We should not have to close ourselves in for privacy to eat dinner and live as a family in our major living area, when we do not have to do so now. For all properties downhill from the development, line of sight from all the apartments should not go above the existing tree canopy or into our properties.

With 220 proposed dwellings and 367 proposed car parking spaces, the development will also dramatically increase local traffic when there are already significant problems with speeding and variable width for two-way traffic along Middle Harbour Road. For example, we have a single car in our family and no off-street parking. Our side mirrors have been clipped off by passing traffic multiple times. If the intention of this development is to increase usage of public transport, then why are so many car parking spaces required?

I note that the developers acknowledge that the development directly borders properties that are included in the Middle Harbour Heritage Area. The development materials state “Heritage advice will be undertaken and consultation sought during the design process to ensure the integrity of the heritage conservation area is maintained and respected. The proposal’s interfaces with adjoining lots that have heritage items will be well considered” while concurrently inferring that in the longer-term, any heritage concerns are not really going to be that important anyway because “it can be reasonably anticipated that the conservation area will undergo change in context as higher density residential buildings are delivered in alignment with the TOD program.” Given these contradictory statements, it can reasonably be expected that the development will pay short-term lip service to any heritage or neighbourhood amenity concerns, rather than taking them seriously and working to achieve acceptable long-term solutions. The materials also seem to be inferring that because no properties within the development footprint are currently listed as significant heritage properties, that this development can be built without significant impact. This is a false and self-serving assumption, and fails to recognise that all adjoining properties (whether heritage or not) and surrounding properties will be dramatically impacted. The National Trust submission to NSW Planning provides an example in their description of the impact of TOD-enabled developments on Eryldene House in Gordon. https://www.nationaltrust.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/NT-Housing-submission.pdf And beyond this example, given the location, size (with multiple impacts including on local traffic) and height of the proposed development, everyone in the neighbourhood and everyone who has a line of sight to this development is going to be significantly and negatively impacted.

3) It will permanently damage the character and amenity of our neighbourhood.

To me, the appeal of Sydney lies in the fact that we have so many different villages with different streetscapes, styles, corresponding lifestyles, heritage backgrounds, and unique flavours. Not every area needs to or should look the same. Instead, it is my strong opinion that the individual flavour of our existing suburbs and communities needs to be maintained and enhanced. The great cities and neighbourhoods of the world lean into their unique qualities; the unique ways and reasons they evolved; they protect, appreciate and enhance these differences. They do not homogenise them and neither should we. While I recognise that increasing the housing stock and affordability is a critical issue for Sydney and well beyond, failing to address the significant numbers of vacant housing and short-term rentals; delivering affordable housing through finite periods of rent reduction (after which time, the properties revert to full commercial yields); leaving the solution so much in the hands of profit-incentivised developers; barring the local councils from significant involvement through mandatory non-refusals, despite their detailed and long-term knowledge of the local areas and their heritage, and; requiring individuals like me to negotiate directly with the State of NSW, does not deliver solutions that concurrently maintain the unique and irreplaceable characters of our neighbourhoods, streetscapes, villages and local communities.

I strongly object to this development and will continue to oppose it and other equally destructive developments listed under TOD, as the process continues.


Carolyn Unwin.

I would like to express my strong objections to the proposed development on 59-63 Trafalgar Avenue 1A&1B Valley Road Lindfield (SSD-79276958)

Complete Lack of Community Consultation
Landmark Group had to intention of engaging in any meaningful community consultation. For a development application with 220 apartments, only 94 letterbox drop flyers were distributed. This is with stark contrast to a nearby SSDA at 2-4 Woodside Ave, Lindfield where 88 apartments were proposed and yet 1450 flyers were distributed to neighbours within 400m radius, A webinar session was held where “a Q&A in which attendees could submit questions and feedback via the chat function. Questions were answered ‘live’ by the project team during the session. “ It is apparent that the participants were not given any opportunity to have direct dialogue with the developer, rather, the Q&A session was designed to screen out sensitive/confronting questions so Landmark appeared to have “engaged” the community. No genuine effort was made to take in any community feedback.

Destruction of Heritage value
As the site is situated within the Middle Harbour Conservation Area, the surrounding neighbourhood shares the essence of being a conservation area through harmonious architectural style of buildings, fences, trees and gardens.

It is apparent that the sole rationale for the justification of demolishing all the properties on site was that external alterations had taken place which diminishes the heritage value. A large number of photographs were presented in the report to substantiate this argument. However, these photographs demonstrated an incredible amount of original features being retained and well-maintained by the owners which add to the heritage significance of these properties. Urbis followed the line of argument that as long as a property is not in its ORIGINAL format or has had alternation, it bears no heritage value. This method of analysis failed to recognise what encapsulates a conservation area. No.3 Valley Rd is a heritage listed item adjoint to the site and best demonstrates how external alteration does not diminish heritage value and that heritage value does not rest solely on the house, it also includes the garden, trees and fences. It is stated in the NSW State Inventory that “The property has historic significance as part of the early residential development of the suburb of Lindfield when the subdivision of the large holdings in the area was at its peak. Although having undergone some modifications to the original building, the house has aesthetic significance for the age and largely intact original Federation Arts and Craft stylistic detailing. The mature gardens at the front of the house and the complimentary picket fence contribute to this early twentieth century residence. The item is of local heritage significance in terms of its historical, aesthetic and representative value.”


Given most of the properties were constructed in the early 1990s, it is reasonable to expect alternations/extensions being carried out even just for general upkeep purpose. Modern extension at rear is an acceptable approach to accommodate practical living requirements and is consistent with local controls within HCAs. It is evident from all the photographs in the report that efforts have been made to improve the appearance of these properties. However, all the properties have unquestionably retained the original fabric/characteristic of inter-war bungalows.

There is no logical justification for Urbis to conclude that “The demolition of the existing structures present on the subject site will not result in adverse impacts to the character of the local HCA.” Urbis acknowledged in the report that the form, scale and design of the development are all at odds with the existing surrounding environment and yet their justification is that it is in line with anticipated future redevelopment within the area. This is quite a presumptuous argument to justify today’s proposal based on unfounded future scenarios. Not to mention the contemporary form and design of this development is violates all the design guidelines and principles set by Ku-Ring-Gai Council. Unless all the future developments are determined via the State Significant Development process, this type of design would not be supported by Council therefore Urbis’s argument that “The development would be in line with the planned future character of this area” is not valid.

It is worth noting that Urbis has taken a “template” approach in producing the Heritage Impact Statement. On page 3 of the report, it stated “The proposal is for the construction of a residential development with an affordable housing component within 400m of Roseville train station”. This mistake was made was Urbis also produced a Heritage Impact Statement for a SSDA on Lord St in Roseville in a similar timeframe. It is questionable how much analysis was site specific and how much was a copy and paste exercise.

Loss of Privacy and Sunlight
As the site is on the fringe of the TOD zone, it is highly probably that this will be the ONLY building of this bulk, height and scale within the Middle Harbour Conservation Area. It will tower over all the neighbouring 1-2 storey houses resulting in substantial loss of privacy. The shadow diagram clearly shows how properties directly adjoint to the site will lose a substantial amount to sunlight as well as being overshadowed throughout the day. This deprivation of sunlight poses serious health and wellbeing concerns. Landmark Group does not seem to have any mitigation strategy.

Build Form Inconsistent with the environment
The design, materials and bulk and scale are in complete contrast to the characteristics of a heritage conservation area. No attempt was made to soften the impact of this development by choosing materials such as sandstone or bricks that are compatible with the surrounding properties. Landmark’s justification is that it will be compatible with future street scape. This is not an accurate assessment as the site is adjoined by four heritage properties where TOD does not apply and only low to medium density housing is permitted under the TOD within 800m from the town centre. Not a single aspect the design is harmonious with the immediate environment.

Conclusion
There have been 12 SSDAs lodged in Lindfield in the past couple of months, all in the name of affordable housing. The number of apartments proposed have far exceeded what the local infrastructure can cope on various fronts such as traffic, storm water, and schools. This development proposal does not make any meaningful contribution to affordable housing and yet it stands to destroy the heritage value of three conservation areas and the quality of life for all the neighbouring residents. It is for this reason that I urge the State Government to reject this proposal.

Please find attached the submission from Friends of Ku-ring-gai Environment Inc.

I support additional housing supply in principle, but I oppose the proposed development, which is not suitable for the site on which it is proposed. My key reasons for opposing the development include:
• its height, bulk and density;
• its adverse impact in terms of overshadowing and loss of solar access and privacy on adjacent and other neighbouring properties;
• the lack of transition, in terms of height and density, to the neighbouring residential properties;
• the loss of tree canopy and biodiversity that will result;
• its likely adverse impact from a heritage perspective on adjacent heritage items and properties in the Middle Harbour Heritage Conservation Area (HCA), of which the site forms part, and on properties in the Trafalgar Avenue HCA;
• conflict with the character and streetscape of the neighbourhood, including the adverse visual impacts of such large, angular and dense buildings being located in that neighbourhood;
• its likely adverse impact on traffic and parking in surrounding streets;
• its likely adverse impact on infrastructure including local roads; and
• it is inconsistent with a good planning outcome and in conflict with the alternative planning scheme proposed by Kuring-Gai Council (Council), which Council has reported has widespread community support.
I expand on some of these objections as follows.
The proposed development would not be a good planning outcome:
• The State Significant Development Application (SSDA) has been lodged to take advantage of the Transport-Oriented Development SEPP (TOD). The Council has (and many local residents share) significant concerns about the TOD, including as it applies in Lindfield, and has proposed an alternative planning scheme (TOD Alternate Preferred Scenario).
• The site is on the very edge of the TOD zone, and outside the area covered by the TOD Alternate Preferred Scenario.
• If approved this development would be entirely inconsistent with the TOD Alternate Preferred Scenario and with the key objectives of Council that underpin the TOD Alternate Preferred Scenario. The TOD Alternate Preferred Scenario has been the subject of extensive community consultation and very careful consideration by Council (and I understand that Council staff have in developing the TOD Alternate Preferred Scenario consulted with NSW Planning staff). In particular, the proposed development is contrary to the following principles, which I endorse:
o there should be a graduated shift down in height as buildings radiate out from the train station (not a ‘donut’ effect);
o impact on heritage items should be minimised;
o transition impacts should be managed effectively, with zoning/density changes that are ‘mid-block’ or along property boundaries avoided and an acceptable interface between areas of different density;
o building heights should be appropriate; and
o impact on tree canopy should be minimised.
The proposed development would undermine achievement by Council of these objectives and, on the site for which it is proposed, be a very poor planning outcome.

Height, bulk and density; consequential overshadowing, loss of solar access and loss of privacy:
• The heights and bulk proposed are in my view entirely inappropriate for this location. The maximum number of storeys is 11 – this on a site where the TOD currently provides for 6 and which is outside the area covered by the TOD Alternate Preferred Scenario (which, once implemented, would have the result that the site would be covered by the Low and Mid Rise Housing Policy (LMR)).
• The proposal says that the proposed development has a maximum height of 33.07m at its highest point, exceeding the maximum building height by 4.47m (15.6%). No variation should be approved to permit the proposed height. The application says that ‘No habitable floor space is located above the permitted height’. That is not relevant. The proposed additional height would, whatever is inside it, exacerbate the adverse effects the development would have even without the additional height. It would exacerbate overshadowing and contribute to a mass and bulk that is entirely inappropriate for the location and its elevation. The elevation of, and the slope on, the site should not be a reason for building height that exceeds the relevant TOD planning controls.
• The three dimensional diagrams that appear in one of the documents on exhibition demonstrate the grossly disproportionate size of the development relative to the existing surrounding properties. The size (height, bulk and density) is also grossly disproportionate relative to the zoning under the LMR that applies to adjacent properties, and is disproportionate even relative to the R4 zoning for properties on the other side of Trafalgar Avenue that is proposed in the TOD Alternate Preferred Scenario.
• The shadow diagrams that are included in the proposal indicate a degree of shadowing that is unacceptable, particularly for adjacent properties in Middle Harbour Road which the shadow diagrams indicate would start to lose the sun on their northern aspect from 9 am and would be essentially completely overshadowed by noon, which overshadowing would continue and become deeper over the rest of the day.
• Neighbouring properties that were overlooked by the buildings would suffer a substantial loss of privacy.
• The solar access for apartments in the development is in my view sub-standard - 39 apartments with no solar access is unacceptable. Many of these are the ‘affordable housing’ apartments. It is not a good social outcome to provide ‘affordable’ housing with no solar access.
• The site is among the highest elevations in Lindfield east of the railway line, particularly at the Russell Lane end. The proposed buildings would dominate the neighbourhood and the skyline. They would be visible from many directions and from some distance.

Adverse Impact on Heritage Items and HCAs:
• The Site is adjacent to 4 heritage items.
• It is essential that heritage items are not stranded. Leaving them stranded and largely surrounded by development, as would be the case for 1 Valley Road, would materially diminish the heritage value.
• If the development was to proceed:
o the heritage value of all the adjacent heritage items would be substantially diminished;
o the amenity of those living in the heritage items would be substantially reduced; and
o the financial value of the heritage items would be adversely affected, which would be inequitable to the owners of those properties.
• The site, and the properties in Valley Road and Middle Harbour Road that are adjacent to the site, are all in the Middle Harbour HCA. The properties on the other side of Trafalgar Road from the site are all in the Trafalgar Avenue HCA. The heritage value of those two HCAs will effectively be undermined and substantially diminished if the development proceeds.

Loss of tree canopy and biodiversity; inadequate new planting:
• Many mature trees will be removed if the application is approved. Boundary and other planting will take many years to grow, and will not be an effective substitute for the trees removed. Given the shadow from the buildings, planting on the southern side of the development, in particular, is highly unlikely to thrive.
• Boundary planting will not hide the stark facades of the buildings, nor attract the bird and other wildlife that the current tree canopy on the site attracts.
• The overshadowing to the south of the development is likely adversely to affect the plants and trees in the backyards of the properties on Middle Harbour Road adjacent to the development.

This should not be approved until the Ku-Ring-Gai council's proposed scenario has been voted on.

SSD's should not be approved until Council's proposed scenario has been dealt with and voted on.

I STRONGLY object to this project for the following reasons:
1. Traffic. This development is located on the corner of Trafalgar Ave and Russell Ave. This is a very busy route for local residents, with limited visibility of oncoming traffic, and many people park their cars along here in order to catch the train. Having 220 units would increase both the pedestrian and traffic loads, which would pose a serious safety risk.
2. Character of the area and inappropriateness of the size of the development. Having a 9+ storey building at this location is incongruous with the surrounding heritage and heritage conservation area buildings. This development will be located at a high point in the area, and so will be visible from many vantage points, detrimentally changing the streetscapes of beautiful Lindfield and Roseville. Surely there is a significant environmental impact with the removal of trees and green space, and replacing the low density housing with such a large number of units. I completely understand that we need to have more housing close to transport hubs, but the size of this apartment development at the outer edge of the TOD border and above maximum building height limits is completely at odds with the character of the suburb.
3. Infrastructure. Lindfield is a very busy hub. During peak hours, and even outside these hours, the roads are congested with local traffic accessing the train station, shops and Pacific Highway. Increasing the amount of residences by this huge and inappropriate number will put further strain on the infrastructure, and as I have said previously, will reduce safety for cars and pedestrians. Not sure if the local schools will be able to cope with such a huge influx of residents.

I feel this proposal is completely at odds with the graciousness and character of our local area. I would prefer developments to be limited to Council's proposed TOD.

I completely understand the need for higher density living near train stations, but the leafy environment that is currently here cannot be undervalued. This project would undoubtably disrupt the wildlife that lives in the greenspace both within and surrounding the proposed site.
Building this project would result in construction waste through Gordon Creek, which is a home for many animals, including but not limited to water dragons, blue-tongued lizards, frogs, and ducks. Once it is finished, the area would suffer from light pollution that would drive out the nocturnal birds. In particular, some of the endangered Powerful Owls live here and needless to say they should not be robbed of their home here.
The EIS report massively diminishes the effect that this project will have on the surrounding area, and does not outline in clear words how it plans to conserve the flora and fauna here. This leads me to suspect that the preservation of the environment is not as much as a concern for this project as it is something to try and bypass with lip service.
A building of the size currently proposed would also dominate the entire area. The proposal details a building of 30-40 metres, which greatly surpasses the 22m height limit for residential flat buildings for the Transport Oriented Development program. The effect of this height is exacerbated since this building will be on a hill, too. Units that overlook into homes will be incredibly invasive for existing residents, and a building of this height will also block the direct sunlight that the neighbours receive.
Additionally, nearby where this project would take place are quite a few heritage homes. The EIS report does not mention the ones to the south in its “Appendix J-Heritage impact statement”, even though those are the houses that will be put in the shadow of this massive building. Therefore, I am once again led to suspect that this project is trying to bypass certain issues about conservation of beauty. I hope I will be proven wrong.

Concerns Regarding Height, Density, Bulk, and Impact on Local Community

I wish to formally oppose the proposed SSD development plan for 220 units spanning 9+ stories and reaching a height of 33 metres. The development, in its current form, is non-compliant with Council’s Preferred Scenario which the Council is due to deliver imminently, after much spirited community consultation. It is dispiriting that developers have seized the opportunity to create a project which destroys the future character and amenity of Lindfield.
Below, I outline the key concerns:

Height, Density, and Bulk
The proposed development exceeds the maximum allowable building height limits for the area. At 33 metres, it towers above neighbouring structures and disrupts the intended skyline transition to the surrounding low-density housing. Situated on the outer edge of the 400-metre Transport-Oriented Development (TOD) border, the project lies outside the boundary of Council’s Proposed TOD—an area carefully planned to balance density, accessibility, and community needs.
This excessive bulk and density fail to respect the gradual transition from higher-density zones to low-density residential housing, creating a discordant visual and physical impact on the neighbourhood.

Traffic and Parking
The influx of 220 units will exacerbate traffic congestion in an area already strained by vehicular flow. Parking availability, a persistent issue, will deteriorate further, negatively affecting both future residents and the existing community. Already drivers have to back up for larger vehicles because of parking on both sides of the road. The development lacks adequate provisions to address these critical infrastructure challenges.

Visual and View Impact
The scale of the proposed building will intrude upon the visual harmony of the area, casting long shadows over adjacent properties. The development will obstruct views and reduce the sense of openness, particularly for residents accustomed to the low-rise nature of the locality.

Overshadowing, Privacy, and Solar Access
The height and bulk of the development will result in significant overshadowing of nearby properties, reducing sunlight access and negatively affecting solar panel efficiency where installed. Privacy concerns are heightened by the sheer number of units, as the multi-story structure overlooks neighbouring homes and gardens, disrupting the established sense of seclusion and peace.

Heritage and Heritage Conservation Area (HCA)
The proposed design fails to account for the sensitive heritage character of the area. It clashes with surrounding Federation homes and conflicts with the established Heritage Conservation Area, undermining efforts to preserve the cultural and architectural significance of the neighbourhood. The development risks setting a harmful precedent for future projects that may disregard heritage considerations.

Environmental Concerns
The development proposes a significant reduction in the tree canopy and the removal of mature trees, which are essential for ecological balance, biodiversity, and urban cooling. Such environmental degradation is unacceptable and conflicts with Council’s sustainability goals and community expectations for green spaces. It sits above a creek that runs after rain that will be impacted by the increased hard surfaces.

Conflict with Local Neighbourhood Character and Streetscape
The project is incongruent with the existing neighbourhood character, introducing an imposing structure that clashes with the streetscape’s harmonious aesthetic. This development ignores the unique identity and architectural balance that the locality has cultivated over the years.
Infrastructure Impacts
The local infrastructure is ill-equipped to handle the increased demands resulting from a high-density development of this scale. Strain on water supply, sewage systems, public transport, and other municipal services will detract from the quality of life for current and future residents.

Social and Public Impacts
The development poses a risk of disrupting the social fabric of the community by introducing a project that prioritizes density over liveability. Public spaces, community engagement areas, and local amenities will experience overcrowding, diminishing their accessibility to existing residents.

Conclusion
In conclusion, this SSD proposal is fundamentally at odds with the Preferred Scenario articulated by Council and the broader interests of the community. It exceeds height limits, fails to integrate into the TOD framework, (being on the edge of it) and disregards essential considerations for heritage, environment, and local character. The future character of Lindfield is in peril.
I urge the State Planning Authority to reject this development in favour of projects that recognise the extensive community engagement our local community participated in. I speak as a local who has run up the Trafalgar Ave hill daily for many years and ask that the matter be put aside until the Preferred Scenario has been presented. This will comply with established guidelines and preserve the integrity, sustainability, and liveability of our community.

I write to express my strong resistance to the development proposed at 59-63 Trafalgar Ave and 1A-1B Valley Rd, Lindfield. We are concerned that this development will produce significant strain on the surrounding infrastracture and create undesirable changes to the character of the suburb. The location of this proposed development is a suburban landscape without any high rises. It is a leafyarea which the residence and council have worked hard to maintain. There will be many houses remaining in the area which would be dwarfed by this proposed development. It would no longer be a quiet, beautiful area but be interrupted by disturbances from this high density building. More residents also mean more cars and more of a strain to the surrounding services. Local cafes and restaurants are already full, although comfortably so. Parking is already limited. The surrounding services and built environment is not adequate to private for a number of new residents. We hope that you will move to block this project. It is strongly proposed by myself and many local residents.