State Significant Development
Response to Submissions
Residential development with infill affordable housing, 59-63 Trafalgar Avenue 1A&1B Valley Road Lindfield
Ku-ring-gai
Current Status: Response to Submissions
Interact with the stages for their names
- SEARs
- Prepare EIS
- Exhibition
- Collate Submissions
- Response to Submissions
- Assessment
- Recommendation
- Determination
Want to stay updated on this project?
Residential flat building development with in-fill affordable housing
Attachments & Resources
Notice of Exhibition (1)
Early Consultation (1)
Request for SEARs (1)
SEARs (2)
EIS (35)
Response to Submissions (1)
Agency Advice (6)
Submissions
Showing 101 - 120 of 224 submissions
Madeleine Lee
Object
Madeleine Lee
Object
LINDFIELD
,
New South Wales
Message
My mother is the owner of the property at 30a Middle Harbour Road Avenue in Lindfield, and I wish to object to the proposed State Significant Development (SSD) 79276958 by LANDMARK GROUP AUSTRALIA PTY LTD.
The proposed development is too large and too high, creating overshadowing and loss of privacy. It will directly overlook the backyard of my mother’s property, significantly impacting our ability to enjoy using this space, a place where we often entertain / have friends and family over. The height of the development will also completely block any sunlight to our house, severely impacting our overall quality of life, increasing the likelihood of mould, increasing cost of living through greater heating expenses, and likely damaging the nature / gardens around our property.
Having grown up in this property, a key selling point of the neighbourhood is that it is quiet and safe, with beautiful tree-lined streets. The proposed development would significantly disrupt this, increasing overall noise and traffic (both vehicle and pedestrian), and disrupting the natural landscape. Visually, the proposed development also does not align to the surrounding properties, which are heritage homes. No consideration has been given to integrating the design of the proposed development with the local homes, and it will completely disrupt the look and feel of the neighbourhood.
The proposed development is too large and too high, creating overshadowing and loss of privacy. It will directly overlook the backyard of my mother’s property, significantly impacting our ability to enjoy using this space, a place where we often entertain / have friends and family over. The height of the development will also completely block any sunlight to our house, severely impacting our overall quality of life, increasing the likelihood of mould, increasing cost of living through greater heating expenses, and likely damaging the nature / gardens around our property.
Having grown up in this property, a key selling point of the neighbourhood is that it is quiet and safe, with beautiful tree-lined streets. The proposed development would significantly disrupt this, increasing overall noise and traffic (both vehicle and pedestrian), and disrupting the natural landscape. Visually, the proposed development also does not align to the surrounding properties, which are heritage homes. No consideration has been given to integrating the design of the proposed development with the local homes, and it will completely disrupt the look and feel of the neighbourhood.
Attachments
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
LINDFIELD
,
New South Wales
Message
Dear Jasmine,
I’m writing as the owner of 55 Trafalgar Avenue in Lindfield to object to the State Significant Development (SSD) 79276958 proposal. This proposal is adjacent to my property. The location of the proposed development conflicts with the council’s proposed TOD area. What is being proposed has material detrimental implications on my property. Highlighted below are breaches with SEARS.
Engagement
Community engagement about the proposal involved two online sessions. There was no brochure dropped in my letterbox about this development, only an invitation to the engagement session. There weren’t many people that dialed into the session and not many were aware of it.
The engagement session I attended was scheduled for 1.5 hours and ran for less than 30 minutes. I asked the applicant’s consultant to share the slides with me via email, but they refused.
The applicant documented my comments on the location of the entry and exit point of the proposed development adjacent to my courtyard, and did address it.
There was no direct engagement with me about the significant impacts on my property, including privacy, overshadowing, amenity, environment, noise, and traffic.
Design quality
The design is bulky, too large and high, and not in keeping with the area. This is exacerbated by the location on sloping land and at the top of the hill.
It’s on a slope; my house is lower than where the building starts, this is visible on the drawings. This is a key point when it comes to privacy, overshadowing, and flooding.
The applicant has exceeded the footprint, height, and relying on trees on neighbouring properties, in its design. This does not comply with the design guidelines.
It’s not proportionate to the landscape, to allow for landscaping and noise reduction or privacy considerations.
There is no allowance for landscaping between the access to the site and my boundary fence, leaving an exposed apartment block to the south of the development. The proposed private open space on the top floor behind my courtyard will result in noise traveling and residents staring down on my courtyard.
The applicant is converting a driveway which currently provides access to seven residences to an access point for the apartment block and converting a portion to a walkway. It has no legal right to do so and no consultation with those affected.
No provision for upgrading local infrastructure, like stormwater and sewerage and roads to take on increased demands of the number of new users in the area.
Insufficient parking for visitors will result in visitors parking on an already crowded street during the week.
Built Form and Urban Design
The proposal seeks a variation to exceed the maximum building height and includes breaches inside setbacks, to the boundary of my property. These departures from planning controls impacts my privacy, increases noise and visual dominance in our neighbourhood. The proposed height exceedance, with the building reaching 33.07m in parts.
The upper-level setbacks do not comply with the Apartment Design Guide to reduce bulk and protect privacy and solar access of my property.
The built form sketches show a four-story building next door to the proposed development where my property is located, due to the rapid increase in height and proximity to my fence. This is misleading.
Environmental amenity (privacy and solar)
There is no demonstration of environmental amenities from my property included:
No privacy mitigation measures are included for my property. The open space for residents of the new development backs onto my private open space at the top of the proposed seven-story development. There are no mitigations proposed for the egregious impost on my privacy and the design, and the proposed setback removes my privacy.
The applicant did not provide any landscaping of mature trees at the boundary between my property and the proposed development, exacerbating the impacts. The drawings in Appendix D show multiple apartments will be overlooking my courtyard but assumes there is a four-story next door, which is not the case.
The proposal breaches the overshadowing and solar access requirements of SEARS. The design report confirms in Appendix D that due to the site’s orientation, the applicant is unable to meet the solar access requirements. The time for determining solar access is inconsistent across various documents and in breach of SEARS. The overshadowing is determined based on a multi-story building where my house is located.
The applicant did not acknowledge the solar power system installed on my roof at great cost, and the development will adversely impact my system. I replaced my cooling and heating system to electricity as a result, so the total investment was significant and will have ongoing ramifications as I’ll be unable to recover.
Ku-ring-gai Council required that I increase the permeable area on my property as part of the development approval of the second dwelling on my property. I planted grass 12 months ago to fulfil this planning condition. There is insufficient sunlight for the grass to grow.
My courtyard enjoys full northern sun. It spills into my kitchen and lounge. My cats bake in the sun, and my daughter and I love to sit on the deck and look at the beautiful turpentine tree canopy with abundant bird life next door and the generations of water dragons that hatch during spring. It’s our sanctuary.
It’s unimaginable that the development will destroy and replace it with a bulky nine-story development, that then increases in height as it steps up to Russell Avenue. This starts six meters from my boundary fence, casting a shadow over my once sunny courtyard with people overlooking our every move. There will be consequential impacts on dampness and mould on my property.
Visual impact
The applicant has submitted the largest proposed development under the TOD controls in Lindfield to date. It is of significant scale and will result in significant visual impacts. The applicant focused on the public domain and did not provide perspective from the neighbouring properties. There is no render from the back, and the applicant did not comply with the SEARS.
The applicant’s design puts the proposal adjacent to the side of my property that is a single level on the slope and to my courtyard boundary and the wall of the proposed residential building that is six meters from my boundary fence and nine stories high. This makes my property a key viewpoint. Trafalgar Avenue is the street on which the development will be fronting, and no visual impact assessment was done from my property..
There are no photomontages or perspectives showing the proposed and future development from my courtyard, a breach of the SEARS.
Transport impacts and waste management
The increase in vehicle movements of thirty-nine vehicles per hour in the AM peak and twenty-nine vehicles per hour at the PM peak is significant. The current battle axe was designed to provide access to seven dwellings with neighbouring properties having the right of way. It was not designed to carry a large amount of traffic.
Garbage trucks will enter the battle axe and reverse to collect waste from the 220 apartments. There was no acoustic assessment done to demonstrate impacts.
The additional traffic will result in congestion and adverse impacts on pedestrian safety. Daily users of the train station at Lindfield Park in Trafalgar Avenue find it often difficult to enter the road from my driveway due to visibility constraints.
Noise and vibration
The anticipated increase in traffic and residential density will significantly increase noise levels, both during and after construction. The proposed access to the residential apartments is adjacent to my property and right next to my private open space (courtyard) and restricts planting of established trees to reduce noise and provide privacy.
My property is located on a busy corner at Trafalgar Ave and Middle Harbour, and with the current proposed access, my property will have three public roads adjacent to it. This is unreasonable, and there are no mitigations proposed to reduce impacts. The applicant did not address my request provided during the community consultation that the entry be moved.
Water management
Does not comply with the SEARS, and there is a flood risk, and no FIRA was submitted.
Ku-ring-gai Council required a stormwater assessment for a dual occupancy development application at my property in 2022. This resulted in the redesign of the foundation of the second dwelling and an increase in cost. I will share the flood report through email.
The SSD contains no Flood Impact and Risk Assessment (FIRA) and states there are no flood impacts for the site. It does not address consequential flooding impacts to properties to the south of the proposed development. This is not compliant with SEARS.
The addition of 868 m² of impermeable surface on a downward sloping site will have significant impacts on properties to the south and southeast.
Ground and groundwater conditions.
There are significant biodiversity and riparian land impacts on my property and those of my neighbours. See attached photos. My property is the start of a riparian zone that extends to neighbouring properties along Middle Harbour. No assessment of the impacts on the riparian zone, also as a result of the tree removal, was done.
Tree Removal and Landscaping
The removal of forty-two trees is significant. The applicant is not planting its own trees where indicated and has landscaped trees from neighbouring properties to offset impacts.
There is no landscaping between my fence and the unit, the entrance to the unit, and to consider the impact of private open space at the top of the building.
Kind regards,
I’m writing as the owner of 55 Trafalgar Avenue in Lindfield to object to the State Significant Development (SSD) 79276958 proposal. This proposal is adjacent to my property. The location of the proposed development conflicts with the council’s proposed TOD area. What is being proposed has material detrimental implications on my property. Highlighted below are breaches with SEARS.
Engagement
Community engagement about the proposal involved two online sessions. There was no brochure dropped in my letterbox about this development, only an invitation to the engagement session. There weren’t many people that dialed into the session and not many were aware of it.
The engagement session I attended was scheduled for 1.5 hours and ran for less than 30 minutes. I asked the applicant’s consultant to share the slides with me via email, but they refused.
The applicant documented my comments on the location of the entry and exit point of the proposed development adjacent to my courtyard, and did address it.
There was no direct engagement with me about the significant impacts on my property, including privacy, overshadowing, amenity, environment, noise, and traffic.
Design quality
The design is bulky, too large and high, and not in keeping with the area. This is exacerbated by the location on sloping land and at the top of the hill.
It’s on a slope; my house is lower than where the building starts, this is visible on the drawings. This is a key point when it comes to privacy, overshadowing, and flooding.
The applicant has exceeded the footprint, height, and relying on trees on neighbouring properties, in its design. This does not comply with the design guidelines.
It’s not proportionate to the landscape, to allow for landscaping and noise reduction or privacy considerations.
There is no allowance for landscaping between the access to the site and my boundary fence, leaving an exposed apartment block to the south of the development. The proposed private open space on the top floor behind my courtyard will result in noise traveling and residents staring down on my courtyard.
The applicant is converting a driveway which currently provides access to seven residences to an access point for the apartment block and converting a portion to a walkway. It has no legal right to do so and no consultation with those affected.
No provision for upgrading local infrastructure, like stormwater and sewerage and roads to take on increased demands of the number of new users in the area.
Insufficient parking for visitors will result in visitors parking on an already crowded street during the week.
Built Form and Urban Design
The proposal seeks a variation to exceed the maximum building height and includes breaches inside setbacks, to the boundary of my property. These departures from planning controls impacts my privacy, increases noise and visual dominance in our neighbourhood. The proposed height exceedance, with the building reaching 33.07m in parts.
The upper-level setbacks do not comply with the Apartment Design Guide to reduce bulk and protect privacy and solar access of my property.
The built form sketches show a four-story building next door to the proposed development where my property is located, due to the rapid increase in height and proximity to my fence. This is misleading.
Environmental amenity (privacy and solar)
There is no demonstration of environmental amenities from my property included:
No privacy mitigation measures are included for my property. The open space for residents of the new development backs onto my private open space at the top of the proposed seven-story development. There are no mitigations proposed for the egregious impost on my privacy and the design, and the proposed setback removes my privacy.
The applicant did not provide any landscaping of mature trees at the boundary between my property and the proposed development, exacerbating the impacts. The drawings in Appendix D show multiple apartments will be overlooking my courtyard but assumes there is a four-story next door, which is not the case.
The proposal breaches the overshadowing and solar access requirements of SEARS. The design report confirms in Appendix D that due to the site’s orientation, the applicant is unable to meet the solar access requirements. The time for determining solar access is inconsistent across various documents and in breach of SEARS. The overshadowing is determined based on a multi-story building where my house is located.
The applicant did not acknowledge the solar power system installed on my roof at great cost, and the development will adversely impact my system. I replaced my cooling and heating system to electricity as a result, so the total investment was significant and will have ongoing ramifications as I’ll be unable to recover.
Ku-ring-gai Council required that I increase the permeable area on my property as part of the development approval of the second dwelling on my property. I planted grass 12 months ago to fulfil this planning condition. There is insufficient sunlight for the grass to grow.
My courtyard enjoys full northern sun. It spills into my kitchen and lounge. My cats bake in the sun, and my daughter and I love to sit on the deck and look at the beautiful turpentine tree canopy with abundant bird life next door and the generations of water dragons that hatch during spring. It’s our sanctuary.
It’s unimaginable that the development will destroy and replace it with a bulky nine-story development, that then increases in height as it steps up to Russell Avenue. This starts six meters from my boundary fence, casting a shadow over my once sunny courtyard with people overlooking our every move. There will be consequential impacts on dampness and mould on my property.
Visual impact
The applicant has submitted the largest proposed development under the TOD controls in Lindfield to date. It is of significant scale and will result in significant visual impacts. The applicant focused on the public domain and did not provide perspective from the neighbouring properties. There is no render from the back, and the applicant did not comply with the SEARS.
The applicant’s design puts the proposal adjacent to the side of my property that is a single level on the slope and to my courtyard boundary and the wall of the proposed residential building that is six meters from my boundary fence and nine stories high. This makes my property a key viewpoint. Trafalgar Avenue is the street on which the development will be fronting, and no visual impact assessment was done from my property..
There are no photomontages or perspectives showing the proposed and future development from my courtyard, a breach of the SEARS.
Transport impacts and waste management
The increase in vehicle movements of thirty-nine vehicles per hour in the AM peak and twenty-nine vehicles per hour at the PM peak is significant. The current battle axe was designed to provide access to seven dwellings with neighbouring properties having the right of way. It was not designed to carry a large amount of traffic.
Garbage trucks will enter the battle axe and reverse to collect waste from the 220 apartments. There was no acoustic assessment done to demonstrate impacts.
The additional traffic will result in congestion and adverse impacts on pedestrian safety. Daily users of the train station at Lindfield Park in Trafalgar Avenue find it often difficult to enter the road from my driveway due to visibility constraints.
Noise and vibration
The anticipated increase in traffic and residential density will significantly increase noise levels, both during and after construction. The proposed access to the residential apartments is adjacent to my property and right next to my private open space (courtyard) and restricts planting of established trees to reduce noise and provide privacy.
My property is located on a busy corner at Trafalgar Ave and Middle Harbour, and with the current proposed access, my property will have three public roads adjacent to it. This is unreasonable, and there are no mitigations proposed to reduce impacts. The applicant did not address my request provided during the community consultation that the entry be moved.
Water management
Does not comply with the SEARS, and there is a flood risk, and no FIRA was submitted.
Ku-ring-gai Council required a stormwater assessment for a dual occupancy development application at my property in 2022. This resulted in the redesign of the foundation of the second dwelling and an increase in cost. I will share the flood report through email.
The SSD contains no Flood Impact and Risk Assessment (FIRA) and states there are no flood impacts for the site. It does not address consequential flooding impacts to properties to the south of the proposed development. This is not compliant with SEARS.
The addition of 868 m² of impermeable surface on a downward sloping site will have significant impacts on properties to the south and southeast.
Ground and groundwater conditions.
There are significant biodiversity and riparian land impacts on my property and those of my neighbours. See attached photos. My property is the start of a riparian zone that extends to neighbouring properties along Middle Harbour. No assessment of the impacts on the riparian zone, also as a result of the tree removal, was done.
Tree Removal and Landscaping
The removal of forty-two trees is significant. The applicant is not planting its own trees where indicated and has landscaped trees from neighbouring properties to offset impacts.
There is no landscaping between my fence and the unit, the entrance to the unit, and to consider the impact of private open space at the top of the building.
Kind regards,
Attachments
Toby Matthews
Object
Toby Matthews
Object
LINDFIELD
,
New South Wales
Message
I object to the proposal for the following reasons
1. The height of the development will create significant overshadowing to adjacent residential properties. It will also impact on privacy and overlooking of existing backyards.
2. The adjacent riparian zone alongside Gordon Creek contains flora and fauna including the Powerful Owl whose habitat would be detrimentally and permanently altered and impacted by the development
3. It is not clear that this development resides within the 400m proximity zone which would permit a development of this height
1. The height of the development will create significant overshadowing to adjacent residential properties. It will also impact on privacy and overlooking of existing backyards.
2. The adjacent riparian zone alongside Gordon Creek contains flora and fauna including the Powerful Owl whose habitat would be detrimentally and permanently altered and impacted by the development
3. It is not clear that this development resides within the 400m proximity zone which would permit a development of this height
Henry van der Walt
Object
Henry van der Walt
Object
LINDFIELD
,
New South Wales
Message
1. Our reason why this development should not go through
We dreamed about the day when our daughter and us, would live as neighbours on the same stand for more than 2 decades. My daughter had to buy a property we could add a granny flat for us to live in. Council approval took 3 years to meet all conditions, we moved in end of May 2024. While moving in Landmark’s agents started walking the streets in Lindfield to buy selected stands.
We are retired and our main responsibility is to look after our grand child while my daughter work in the city and I also maintain the garden and do my support in the community.
Life is not always fair and we accept that but to sell at a loss, a lot of my physical labour went in to renovate the courtyard (moving quite a few tuns of clay myself) etc. and to start from scratch to get a place to live in harmony may not be easy and affordable. The strength to do a lot of the physical work again, becomes a problem as I age.
Living among high-rises is not what I dreamt of in my wildest dreams, this becomes more acceptable when you have a beach view!
2. Breaching of Planning and Council rules
2.1 We had to do a flood study and was told to change our foundations and the floor level of the granny flat was raised considerably. How can the developers getaway without a flood study?
2.2 Set backs are set for a reason, this development should also adhere to them.
2.3 Noise and vibration control did not take the neighbours into account with a driveway where all inhabitants with parking will have to pass through as well as the rubbish removal trucks that will have to drive in and reverse with their reverse alarms beeping disturbing the neighbours even out of business hours is not acceptable.
2.4 Traffic will become a problem that will increase hooting and noisy cars with no parking for any visitors left on the roadside in front of our properties and long queuing times at bottlenecks. We have a few places where multiple roads intersect without enough space to move into the traffic queues and a narrow under railway bridge passthrough that will not be easy to widen and will have a significant cost label and cause major disruption.
2.5 Having a rubbish room next to the parking entrance so close to our gardens with rodents from the riparian zone will have a negative effect on the wild life because poison will be required to control the newly created pests.
2.6 Overshadowing and solar access breaches the measuring window set by planning. Even if they follow the planning rules, the overshadowing takes away the prime northern sun from our PV panels when peak power is generated that is used by the main house as well as the granny flat. The overshadowing will even cover the whole granny flat as well because of the height and bulkiness of the development and the gradient down to Middle Harbour Street. Very little sun will reach the granny flat if this development goes on.
We dreamed about the day when our daughter and us, would live as neighbours on the same stand for more than 2 decades. My daughter had to buy a property we could add a granny flat for us to live in. Council approval took 3 years to meet all conditions, we moved in end of May 2024. While moving in Landmark’s agents started walking the streets in Lindfield to buy selected stands.
We are retired and our main responsibility is to look after our grand child while my daughter work in the city and I also maintain the garden and do my support in the community.
Life is not always fair and we accept that but to sell at a loss, a lot of my physical labour went in to renovate the courtyard (moving quite a few tuns of clay myself) etc. and to start from scratch to get a place to live in harmony may not be easy and affordable. The strength to do a lot of the physical work again, becomes a problem as I age.
Living among high-rises is not what I dreamt of in my wildest dreams, this becomes more acceptable when you have a beach view!
2. Breaching of Planning and Council rules
2.1 We had to do a flood study and was told to change our foundations and the floor level of the granny flat was raised considerably. How can the developers getaway without a flood study?
2.2 Set backs are set for a reason, this development should also adhere to them.
2.3 Noise and vibration control did not take the neighbours into account with a driveway where all inhabitants with parking will have to pass through as well as the rubbish removal trucks that will have to drive in and reverse with their reverse alarms beeping disturbing the neighbours even out of business hours is not acceptable.
2.4 Traffic will become a problem that will increase hooting and noisy cars with no parking for any visitors left on the roadside in front of our properties and long queuing times at bottlenecks. We have a few places where multiple roads intersect without enough space to move into the traffic queues and a narrow under railway bridge passthrough that will not be easy to widen and will have a significant cost label and cause major disruption.
2.5 Having a rubbish room next to the parking entrance so close to our gardens with rodents from the riparian zone will have a negative effect on the wild life because poison will be required to control the newly created pests.
2.6 Overshadowing and solar access breaches the measuring window set by planning. Even if they follow the planning rules, the overshadowing takes away the prime northern sun from our PV panels when peak power is generated that is used by the main house as well as the granny flat. The overshadowing will even cover the whole granny flat as well because of the height and bulkiness of the development and the gradient down to Middle Harbour Street. Very little sun will reach the granny flat if this development goes on.
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
Lindfield
,
New South Wales
Message
The heritage properties and houses located at the lowest point of Middle Harbour Rd will be blocked directly sunlight from the north ,east ,west all day by the proposed develop large building (over 30 meters high and over 100 meters wide) located at the north highest point. The reasons why I strongly oppose this development plan are as follows:
1. Non-Compliant Shadow Impacts
Source Document: Clause 4.6 (Appendix P )Report Fig.6 (Solar Study)
Critical Flaw:
a) Analysis only covers June 21 (day before winter solstice), ignoring year-worst scenario (June 22 solar altitude 0.5° lower).
b) Simply mentioning that sunlight reaches the house, deliberately avoiding the regulatory requirement of “direct sunlight between 9am and 3pm on 21st June is to be maintained to the living rooms, primary private open spaces and any communal open spaces”
Quantitative Proof:
Recalculation using developer’s data: Direct sunlight at 34 living rooms drops from 6 hours to less than 1 hour in winter. The main north-facing living space of 55 Trafalgar Ave,30,32,32A Middle Harbour Rd completely loses direct sunlight from 9 am.
Legal Breach：
ⅰ)SEPP (Sustainable Buildings) 2022 Clause 4.3 (3-hour minimum).
ⅱ)Ku-ring-gai Development Control Plan（Hereinafter referred to as“KDCP”） 7A.2 Site Layout ［Controls］10（3-hours minimum）.
2.Non-compliant building setbacks
Source Document: Architecture Plans (Appendix B)
Evidence:
The proposed development is located upslope (the vertical drop exceeds ten meters). In particular, the Ground Floor on the south side of The proposed development is at least 2 meters higher than the Ground Floor of the buildings along Middle Harbor Road, and is adjacent to two Heritage Items (32A & 34 Middle Harbor Road), with a setback of only 9.2 meters.
Legal Breach:
ⅰ)“KDCP” 7A.3 Building Setbacks [Controls] 10 {greater setbacks may be required where the residential flat building is located upslope from a lower density zone (see Figure7A.3-5)}.
ⅱ)“KDCP”19D.2 Setbacks And Building Separation [Controls 1].
ⅲ)“KDCP2024” Figure 19D.2-1
3. Unacceptable Heritage Impacts
Source Document: HIS(Appendix J) &Clause 4.6 (Appendix P )Report Fig.4
Impact Summary:
The entire text of HIS (Appendix J) contains no statement at all about the impact of reducing the impact on Heritage Items 32A (1453) & 34 (1452) Middle Harbor Rd. In fact, the negative impact of the proposed development on the above two Heritage Items is devastating in all aspects. The proposed development deliberately avoids this major impact issue。
Legal Breaches:
ⅰ) KLEP 2015 s5.10(4): "Must consider effect on heritage significance."
ⅱ) Australia ICOMOS Burra Charter 2013 Principle 6: New development must not dominate heritage setting.
ⅲ) “KDCP” 19F.1 LOCAL CHARACTER AND STREETSCAPE [Controls 4”Views”]
ⅳ)“KDCP” 19A.2 Subdivision And Site Consolidation Of a Heritage Item [Objectives 5]
4、A serious violation of the privacy rights of the original residents
Impact Summary:
The minimum clearance height of the proposed development (From ground level) exceeds 30 meters. The proposed development is located upslope (the vertical drop exceeds ten meters), and the building setback does not comply with relevant legal requirements. The proposed development is like a giant lookout overlooking the Neighboring dwellings from an almost vertical perspective. Even tall trees cannot block this almost vertical view. The main living and private spaces of the original residents around the proposed development (including but not limited to living rooms, pools, and bedrooms) can be overlooked by others at any time, and their personal privacy rights have been seriously violated.
5. Structural Damage Risks to Heritage Roofs
Source Document: Clause 4.6（Appendix P） Report Sect.6.1
Evidence:
33m excavation depth on 11.5m sloped land (Scoping Report Sect.4.3.3) with no slope stability report.
Legal Standard:
*AS 2870-2011* requires 3x-depth shoring for adjacent slopes >10° (99m here). Not provided.
Heritage Impact:
Vibrations will damage original tile roofs of heritage item I452 (34 Middle Harbour Rd), breaching Burra Charter 2013 Guideline (vibration limit <5mm/s).
6. Destruction of Protected Blue Gum Trees
Source Document: Landscaping Plan (Appendix L) & Scoping Report Sect.4.3.2
Evidence:
Landscape plan designates "Tree 57 (Eucalyptus saligna – Sydney Blue Gum)" for retention.
Building 3’s foundation (Concept Plan Fig.8) directly overlaps Tree 57, constituting false representation.
Legal Breach:
Removal breaches Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 Schedule 1 and *Ku-ring-gai DCP 2023 C4.3* (prohibits tree removal in conservation zones).
7. Noise Regulation Breaches
Missing Assessment:
No quantification of basement vent (24/7 operation) or waste compactor noise (absent in Scoping Report).
Legal Limit:
Nighttime noise at 34 bedroom windows must not exceed 35 dB(A) (NSW Industrial Noise Policy 2000). Estimated noise ≥60 dB(A) from 15m distance.
8.Lindfield's existing infrastructure simply cannot support the needs of such a high-density community.
All public infrastructure in Lindfield (especially but not limited to water supply, power supply, natural gas supply, sewage treatment, etc.) are constructed in accordance with the R2 low-density area. Without any pre-capacity improvements, the proposed development will overwhelm Lindfield’s public facilities and may even cause related public infrastructure to be damaged due to overloading.
9.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:
21,675m² new impervious area increases runoff to 34 (*Ku-ring-gai Flood Study 2022*).
Law breach
Floodplain Development Manual 2005 "zero impact" principle.8.
10.It is not wise to build a large residential building around the creek. This project will increase the residential population by 500 people, and the pollution to the Gordon creek can be imagined.Located highest develop project digs the ground to build foundations and huge garages, causing hidden dangers and damage to the surrounding properties and heritage houses below the slope and the Gordoncreek.
11.Traffic and parking will become serious problems
The proposed development has 220 units, 238 parking spaces,500 residens and more vehicles will be parked on the roadside. By then, this area will see a large number of cars congesting the streets. Traffic that was originally smooth will become extremely congested.
12. Property Devaluation
Independent Evidence:
CBRE 2024 Study: High-rise developments adjacent to heritage zones cause 12-18% value loss.
Legal Precedent:
Green v Parramatta Council [2020] NSWLEC 115 confirms devaluation is a "material planning consideration."
13. We have right of way access behind our properties as provided under our titles and covenants. Under the proposed development we access will be limited as vehicular access will not be provided from what the developer has submitted. This is not acceptable to us, which we are 30,32,32a,34,34a,in Middle Harbour Rd,anothers affected properties. This lane has been historically been used by all of us and we must insist that any development must maintain vehicular access.
Demanded Actions
1.Reject the proposal under EP&A Act 1979 s4.15(1).
2.Mandate redesign to:
ⅰ) Clear Easement E and preserve Tree 57
ⅱ)Reduce height to R2 zoned limit (9.5m)
ⅲ)Commission independent flood/noise reviews
3.Hold public hearing (EP&A Regulation 2021 s2.23).
* Attached: Real photos of the Heritage property sunlight exposure and notes.
1. Non-Compliant Shadow Impacts
Source Document: Clause 4.6 (Appendix P )Report Fig.6 (Solar Study)
Critical Flaw:
a) Analysis only covers June 21 (day before winter solstice), ignoring year-worst scenario (June 22 solar altitude 0.5° lower).
b) Simply mentioning that sunlight reaches the house, deliberately avoiding the regulatory requirement of “direct sunlight between 9am and 3pm on 21st June is to be maintained to the living rooms, primary private open spaces and any communal open spaces”
Quantitative Proof:
Recalculation using developer’s data: Direct sunlight at 34 living rooms drops from 6 hours to less than 1 hour in winter. The main north-facing living space of 55 Trafalgar Ave,30,32,32A Middle Harbour Rd completely loses direct sunlight from 9 am.
Legal Breach：
ⅰ)SEPP (Sustainable Buildings) 2022 Clause 4.3 (3-hour minimum).
ⅱ)Ku-ring-gai Development Control Plan（Hereinafter referred to as“KDCP”） 7A.2 Site Layout ［Controls］10（3-hours minimum）.
2.Non-compliant building setbacks
Source Document: Architecture Plans (Appendix B)
Evidence:
The proposed development is located upslope (the vertical drop exceeds ten meters). In particular, the Ground Floor on the south side of The proposed development is at least 2 meters higher than the Ground Floor of the buildings along Middle Harbor Road, and is adjacent to two Heritage Items (32A & 34 Middle Harbor Road), with a setback of only 9.2 meters.
Legal Breach:
ⅰ)“KDCP” 7A.3 Building Setbacks [Controls] 10 {greater setbacks may be required where the residential flat building is located upslope from a lower density zone (see Figure7A.3-5)}.
ⅱ)“KDCP”19D.2 Setbacks And Building Separation [Controls 1].
ⅲ)“KDCP2024” Figure 19D.2-1
3. Unacceptable Heritage Impacts
Source Document: HIS(Appendix J) &Clause 4.6 (Appendix P )Report Fig.4
Impact Summary:
The entire text of HIS (Appendix J) contains no statement at all about the impact of reducing the impact on Heritage Items 32A (1453) & 34 (1452) Middle Harbor Rd. In fact, the negative impact of the proposed development on the above two Heritage Items is devastating in all aspects. The proposed development deliberately avoids this major impact issue。
Legal Breaches:
ⅰ) KLEP 2015 s5.10(4): "Must consider effect on heritage significance."
ⅱ) Australia ICOMOS Burra Charter 2013 Principle 6: New development must not dominate heritage setting.
ⅲ) “KDCP” 19F.1 LOCAL CHARACTER AND STREETSCAPE [Controls 4”Views”]
ⅳ)“KDCP” 19A.2 Subdivision And Site Consolidation Of a Heritage Item [Objectives 5]
4、A serious violation of the privacy rights of the original residents
Impact Summary:
The minimum clearance height of the proposed development (From ground level) exceeds 30 meters. The proposed development is located upslope (the vertical drop exceeds ten meters), and the building setback does not comply with relevant legal requirements. The proposed development is like a giant lookout overlooking the Neighboring dwellings from an almost vertical perspective. Even tall trees cannot block this almost vertical view. The main living and private spaces of the original residents around the proposed development (including but not limited to living rooms, pools, and bedrooms) can be overlooked by others at any time, and their personal privacy rights have been seriously violated.
5. Structural Damage Risks to Heritage Roofs
Source Document: Clause 4.6（Appendix P） Report Sect.6.1
Evidence:
33m excavation depth on 11.5m sloped land (Scoping Report Sect.4.3.3) with no slope stability report.
Legal Standard:
*AS 2870-2011* requires 3x-depth shoring for adjacent slopes >10° (99m here). Not provided.
Heritage Impact:
Vibrations will damage original tile roofs of heritage item I452 (34 Middle Harbour Rd), breaching Burra Charter 2013 Guideline (vibration limit <5mm/s).
6. Destruction of Protected Blue Gum Trees
Source Document: Landscaping Plan (Appendix L) & Scoping Report Sect.4.3.2
Evidence:
Landscape plan designates "Tree 57 (Eucalyptus saligna – Sydney Blue Gum)" for retention.
Building 3’s foundation (Concept Plan Fig.8) directly overlaps Tree 57, constituting false representation.
Legal Breach:
Removal breaches Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 Schedule 1 and *Ku-ring-gai DCP 2023 C4.3* (prohibits tree removal in conservation zones).
7. Noise Regulation Breaches
Missing Assessment:
No quantification of basement vent (24/7 operation) or waste compactor noise (absent in Scoping Report).
Legal Limit:
Nighttime noise at 34 bedroom windows must not exceed 35 dB(A) (NSW Industrial Noise Policy 2000). Estimated noise ≥60 dB(A) from 15m distance.
8.Lindfield's existing infrastructure simply cannot support the needs of such a high-density community.
All public infrastructure in Lindfield (especially but not limited to water supply, power supply, natural gas supply, sewage treatment, etc.) are constructed in accordance with the R2 low-density area. Without any pre-capacity improvements, the proposed development will overwhelm Lindfield’s public facilities and may even cause related public infrastructure to be damaged due to overloading.
9.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:
21,675m² new impervious area increases runoff to 34 (*Ku-ring-gai Flood Study 2022*).
Law breach
Floodplain Development Manual 2005 "zero impact" principle.8.
10.It is not wise to build a large residential building around the creek. This project will increase the residential population by 500 people, and the pollution to the Gordon creek can be imagined.Located highest develop project digs the ground to build foundations and huge garages, causing hidden dangers and damage to the surrounding properties and heritage houses below the slope and the Gordoncreek.
11.Traffic and parking will become serious problems
The proposed development has 220 units, 238 parking spaces,500 residens and more vehicles will be parked on the roadside. By then, this area will see a large number of cars congesting the streets. Traffic that was originally smooth will become extremely congested.
12. Property Devaluation
Independent Evidence:
CBRE 2024 Study: High-rise developments adjacent to heritage zones cause 12-18% value loss.
Legal Precedent:
Green v Parramatta Council [2020] NSWLEC 115 confirms devaluation is a "material planning consideration."
13. We have right of way access behind our properties as provided under our titles and covenants. Under the proposed development we access will be limited as vehicular access will not be provided from what the developer has submitted. This is not acceptable to us, which we are 30,32,32a,34,34a,in Middle Harbour Rd,anothers affected properties. This lane has been historically been used by all of us and we must insist that any development must maintain vehicular access.
Demanded Actions
1.Reject the proposal under EP&A Act 1979 s4.15(1).
2.Mandate redesign to:
ⅰ) Clear Easement E and preserve Tree 57
ⅱ)Reduce height to R2 zoned limit (9.5m)
ⅲ)Commission independent flood/noise reviews
3.Hold public hearing (EP&A Regulation 2021 s2.23).
* Attached: Real photos of the Heritage property sunlight exposure and notes.
Attachments
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
LINDFIELD
,
New South Wales
Message
The Transport Oriented Development clearly stipulates a development within 400m of the station will have a maximum height of 22m.
This is public knowledge.
I vehemently object on several grounds:
1)The proposed development proposes a building with a very large footprint that will exceed the maximum permissible height by 11m, at 33m instead of 22m.
2) The fact that the development will be at about the highest point in Lindfield on this side of the station has not been acounted for.
3) This government has effectively shown its true colours in so many ways. Be it the issues with rail workers, the healthcare workers, and now developments. No willingness to consult with the people, who they are meant to represent. No honesty, when a development of this scale is allowed to get to this stage, breaching the rules on both distance from the station, and height. This potentially is indicative of a shift to a governmental style that seems to forget that they represent us, the people. Instead, we seem to be moving to an autocratic style of government by stealth. This is not what we, as a nation, should choose to accept. if indeed, Mr Minns, and the government he is meant to lead, are allowed to act with such a wanton disregard for the rules, then they have no place in our political landscape. So, I ask of Mr Minns and his government, can you be trusted to uphold the law? It is clearly stated in the TOD. So, uphold it, or be accountable to the fact that the public has been fed a lie.
4) Our concern is the wildlife that surrounds our area. The owls, echidnas, possums and birds will have their habitats disrupted. We are in close proximity to Seven Little Australians Park, where these animals live. Traffic, construction noises, pollution, sewerage, rain run-off , lights will all affect the local wildlife.
This is public knowledge.
I vehemently object on several grounds:
1)The proposed development proposes a building with a very large footprint that will exceed the maximum permissible height by 11m, at 33m instead of 22m.
2) The fact that the development will be at about the highest point in Lindfield on this side of the station has not been acounted for.
3) This government has effectively shown its true colours in so many ways. Be it the issues with rail workers, the healthcare workers, and now developments. No willingness to consult with the people, who they are meant to represent. No honesty, when a development of this scale is allowed to get to this stage, breaching the rules on both distance from the station, and height. This potentially is indicative of a shift to a governmental style that seems to forget that they represent us, the people. Instead, we seem to be moving to an autocratic style of government by stealth. This is not what we, as a nation, should choose to accept. if indeed, Mr Minns, and the government he is meant to lead, are allowed to act with such a wanton disregard for the rules, then they have no place in our political landscape. So, I ask of Mr Minns and his government, can you be trusted to uphold the law? It is clearly stated in the TOD. So, uphold it, or be accountable to the fact that the public has been fed a lie.
4) Our concern is the wildlife that surrounds our area. The owls, echidnas, possums and birds will have their habitats disrupted. We are in close proximity to Seven Little Australians Park, where these animals live. Traffic, construction noises, pollution, sewerage, rain run-off , lights will all affect the local wildlife.
Attachments
BIN SU
Object
BIN SU
Object
Lindfield
,
New South Wales
Message
The heritage properties and houses located at the lowest point of Middle Harbour Rd will be blocked directly sunlight from the north ,east ,west all day by the proposed develop large building (over 30 meters high and over 100 meters wide) located at the north highest point. The reasons why I strongly oppose this development plan are as follows:
1. Non-Compliant Shadow Impacts
Source Document: Clause 4.6 (Appendix P )Report Fig.6 (Solar Study)
Critical Flaw:
a) Analysis only covers June 21 (day before winter solstice), ignoring year-worst scenario (June 22 solar altitude 0.5° lower).
b) Simply mentioning that sunlight reaches the house, deliberately avoiding the regulatory requirement of “direct sunlight between 9am and 3pm on 21st June is to be maintained to the living rooms, primary private open spaces and any communal open spaces”
Quantitative Proof:
Recalculation using developer’s data: Direct sunlight at 34 living rooms drops from 6 hours to less than 1 hour in winter. The main north-facing living space of 55 Trafalgar Ave,30,32,32A Middle Harbour Rd completely loses direct sunlight from 9 am.
Legal Breach：
ⅰ)SEPP (Sustainable Buildings) 2022 Clause 4.3 (3-hour minimum).
ⅱ)Ku-ring-gai Development Control Plan（Hereinafter referred to as“KDCP”） 7A.2 Site Layout ［Controls］10（3-hours minimum）.
2.Non-compliant building setbacks
Source Document: Architecture Plans (Appendix B)
Evidence:
The proposed development is located upslope (the vertical drop exceeds ten meters). In particular, the Ground Floor on the south side of The proposed development is at least 2 meters higher than the Ground Floor of the buildings along Middle Harbor Road, and is adjacent to two Heritage Items (32A & 34 Middle Harbor Road), with a setback of only 9.2 meters.
Legal Breach:
ⅰ)“KDCP” 7A.3 Building Setbacks [Controls] 10 {greater setbacks may be required where the residential flat building is located upslope from a lower density zone (see Figure7A.3-5)}.
ⅱ)“KDCP”19D.2 Setbacks And Building Separation [Controls 1].
ⅲ)“KDCP2024” Figure 19D.2-1
3. Unacceptable Heritage Impacts
Source Document: HIS(Appendix J) &Clause 4.6 (Appendix P )Report Fig.4
Impact Summary:
The entire text of HIS (Appendix J) contains no statement at all about the impact of reducing the impact on Heritage Items 32A (1453) & 34 (1452) Middle Harbor Rd. In fact, the negative impact of the proposed development on the above two Heritage Items is devastating in all aspects. The proposed development deliberately avoids this major impact issue。
Legal Breaches:
ⅰ) KLEP 2015 s5.10(4): "Must consider effect on heritage significance."
ⅱ) Australia ICOMOS Burra Charter 2013 Principle 6: New development must not dominate heritage setting.
ⅲ) “KDCP” 19F.1 LOCAL CHARACTER AND STREETSCAPE [Controls 4”Views”]
ⅳ)“KDCP” 19A.2 Subdivision And Site Consolidation Of a Heritage Item [Objectives 5]
4、A serious violation of the privacy rights of the original residents
Impact Summary:
The minimum clearance height of the proposed development (From ground level) exceeds 30 meters. The proposed development is located upslope (the vertical drop exceeds ten meters), and the building setback does not comply with relevant legal requirements. The proposed development is like a giant lookout overlooking the Neighboring dwellings from an almost vertical perspective. Even tall trees cannot block this almost vertical view. The main living and private spaces of the original residents around the proposed development (including but not limited to living rooms, pools, and bedrooms) can be overlooked by others at any time, and their personal privacy rights have been seriously violated.
5. Structural Damage Risks to Heritage Roofs
Source Document: Clause 4.6（Appendix P） Report Sect.6.1
Evidence:
33m excavation depth on 11.5m sloped land (Scoping Report Sect.4.3.3) with no slope stability report.
Legal Standard:
*AS 2870-2011* requires 3x-depth shoring for adjacent slopes >10° (99m here). Not provided.
Heritage Impact:
Vibrations will damage original tile roofs of heritage item I452 (34 Middle Harbour Rd), breaching Burra Charter 2013 Guideline (vibration limit <5mm/s).
6. Destruction of Protected Blue Gum Trees
Source Document: Landscaping Plan (Appendix L) & Scoping Report Sect.4.3.2
Evidence:
Landscape plan designates "Tree 57 (Eucalyptus saligna – Sydney Blue Gum)" for retention.
Building 3’s foundation (Concept Plan Fig.8) directly overlaps Tree 57, constituting false representation.
Legal Breach:
Removal breaches Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 Schedule 1 and *Ku-ring-gai DCP 2023 C4.3* (prohibits tree removal in conservation zones).
7. Noise Regulation Breaches
Missing Assessment:
No quantification of basement vent (24/7 operation) or waste compactor noise (absent in Scoping Report).
Legal Limit:
Nighttime noise at 34 bedroom windows must not exceed 35 dB(A) (NSW Industrial Noise Policy 2000). Estimated noise ≥60 dB(A) from 15m distance.
8.Lindfield's existing infrastructure simply cannot support the needs of such a high-density community.
All public infrastructure in Lindfield (especially but not limited to water supply, power supply, natural gas supply, sewage treatment, etc.) are constructed in accordance with the R2 low-density area. Without any pre-capacity improvements, the proposed development will overwhelm Lindfield’s public facilities and may even cause related public infrastructure to be damaged due to overloading.
9.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:
21,675m² new impervious area increases runoff to 34 (*Ku-ring-gai Flood Study 2022*).
Law breach
Floodplain Development Manual 2005 "zero impact" principle.8.
10.It is not wise to build a large residential building around the creek. This project will increase the residential population by 500 people, and the pollution to the Gordon creek can be imagined.Located highest develop project digs the ground to build foundations and huge garages, causing hidden dangers and damage to the surrounding properties and heritage houses below the slope and the Gordoncreek.
11.Traffic and parking will become serious problems
The proposed development has 220 units, 238 parking spaces,500 residens and more vehicles will be parked on the roadside. By then, this area will see a large number of cars congesting the streets. Traffic that was originally smooth will become extremely congested.
12. Property Devaluation
Independent Evidence:
CBRE 2024 Study: High-rise developments adjacent to heritage zones cause 12-18% value loss.
Legal Precedent:
Green v Parramatta Council [2020] NSWLEC 115 confirms devaluation is a "material planning consideration."
13. We have right of way access behind our properties as provided under our titles and covenants. Under the proposed development we access will be limited as vehicular access will not be provided from what the developer has submitted. This is not acceptable to us, which we are 30,32,32a,34,34a,in Middle Harbour Rd,anothers affected properties. This lane has been historically been used by all of us and we must insist that any development must maintain vehicular access.
Demanded Actions
1.Reject the proposal under EP&A Act 1979 s4.15(1).
2.Mandate redesign to:
ⅰ) Clear Easement E and preserve Tree 57
ⅱ)Reduce height to R2 zoned limit (9.5m)
ⅲ)Commission independent flood/noise reviews
3.Hold public hearing (EP&A Regulation 2021 s2.23).
* Attached: Real photos of the Heritage property sunlight exposure and notes.
1. Non-Compliant Shadow Impacts
Source Document: Clause 4.6 (Appendix P )Report Fig.6 (Solar Study)
Critical Flaw:
a) Analysis only covers June 21 (day before winter solstice), ignoring year-worst scenario (June 22 solar altitude 0.5° lower).
b) Simply mentioning that sunlight reaches the house, deliberately avoiding the regulatory requirement of “direct sunlight between 9am and 3pm on 21st June is to be maintained to the living rooms, primary private open spaces and any communal open spaces”
Quantitative Proof:
Recalculation using developer’s data: Direct sunlight at 34 living rooms drops from 6 hours to less than 1 hour in winter. The main north-facing living space of 55 Trafalgar Ave,30,32,32A Middle Harbour Rd completely loses direct sunlight from 9 am.
Legal Breach：
ⅰ)SEPP (Sustainable Buildings) 2022 Clause 4.3 (3-hour minimum).
ⅱ)Ku-ring-gai Development Control Plan（Hereinafter referred to as“KDCP”） 7A.2 Site Layout ［Controls］10（3-hours minimum）.
2.Non-compliant building setbacks
Source Document: Architecture Plans (Appendix B)
Evidence:
The proposed development is located upslope (the vertical drop exceeds ten meters). In particular, the Ground Floor on the south side of The proposed development is at least 2 meters higher than the Ground Floor of the buildings along Middle Harbor Road, and is adjacent to two Heritage Items (32A & 34 Middle Harbor Road), with a setback of only 9.2 meters.
Legal Breach:
ⅰ)“KDCP” 7A.3 Building Setbacks [Controls] 10 {greater setbacks may be required where the residential flat building is located upslope from a lower density zone (see Figure7A.3-5)}.
ⅱ)“KDCP”19D.2 Setbacks And Building Separation [Controls 1].
ⅲ)“KDCP2024” Figure 19D.2-1
3. Unacceptable Heritage Impacts
Source Document: HIS(Appendix J) &Clause 4.6 (Appendix P )Report Fig.4
Impact Summary:
The entire text of HIS (Appendix J) contains no statement at all about the impact of reducing the impact on Heritage Items 32A (1453) & 34 (1452) Middle Harbor Rd. In fact, the negative impact of the proposed development on the above two Heritage Items is devastating in all aspects. The proposed development deliberately avoids this major impact issue。
Legal Breaches:
ⅰ) KLEP 2015 s5.10(4): "Must consider effect on heritage significance."
ⅱ) Australia ICOMOS Burra Charter 2013 Principle 6: New development must not dominate heritage setting.
ⅲ) “KDCP” 19F.1 LOCAL CHARACTER AND STREETSCAPE [Controls 4”Views”]
ⅳ)“KDCP” 19A.2 Subdivision And Site Consolidation Of a Heritage Item [Objectives 5]
4、A serious violation of the privacy rights of the original residents
Impact Summary:
The minimum clearance height of the proposed development (From ground level) exceeds 30 meters. The proposed development is located upslope (the vertical drop exceeds ten meters), and the building setback does not comply with relevant legal requirements. The proposed development is like a giant lookout overlooking the Neighboring dwellings from an almost vertical perspective. Even tall trees cannot block this almost vertical view. The main living and private spaces of the original residents around the proposed development (including but not limited to living rooms, pools, and bedrooms) can be overlooked by others at any time, and their personal privacy rights have been seriously violated.
5. Structural Damage Risks to Heritage Roofs
Source Document: Clause 4.6（Appendix P） Report Sect.6.1
Evidence:
33m excavation depth on 11.5m sloped land (Scoping Report Sect.4.3.3) with no slope stability report.
Legal Standard:
*AS 2870-2011* requires 3x-depth shoring for adjacent slopes >10° (99m here). Not provided.
Heritage Impact:
Vibrations will damage original tile roofs of heritage item I452 (34 Middle Harbour Rd), breaching Burra Charter 2013 Guideline (vibration limit <5mm/s).
6. Destruction of Protected Blue Gum Trees
Source Document: Landscaping Plan (Appendix L) & Scoping Report Sect.4.3.2
Evidence:
Landscape plan designates "Tree 57 (Eucalyptus saligna – Sydney Blue Gum)" for retention.
Building 3’s foundation (Concept Plan Fig.8) directly overlaps Tree 57, constituting false representation.
Legal Breach:
Removal breaches Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 Schedule 1 and *Ku-ring-gai DCP 2023 C4.3* (prohibits tree removal in conservation zones).
7. Noise Regulation Breaches
Missing Assessment:
No quantification of basement vent (24/7 operation) or waste compactor noise (absent in Scoping Report).
Legal Limit:
Nighttime noise at 34 bedroom windows must not exceed 35 dB(A) (NSW Industrial Noise Policy 2000). Estimated noise ≥60 dB(A) from 15m distance.
8.Lindfield's existing infrastructure simply cannot support the needs of such a high-density community.
All public infrastructure in Lindfield (especially but not limited to water supply, power supply, natural gas supply, sewage treatment, etc.) are constructed in accordance with the R2 low-density area. Without any pre-capacity improvements, the proposed development will overwhelm Lindfield’s public facilities and may even cause related public infrastructure to be damaged due to overloading.
9.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:
21,675m² new impervious area increases runoff to 34 (*Ku-ring-gai Flood Study 2022*).
Law breach
Floodplain Development Manual 2005 "zero impact" principle.8.
10.It is not wise to build a large residential building around the creek. This project will increase the residential population by 500 people, and the pollution to the Gordon creek can be imagined.Located highest develop project digs the ground to build foundations and huge garages, causing hidden dangers and damage to the surrounding properties and heritage houses below the slope and the Gordoncreek.
11.Traffic and parking will become serious problems
The proposed development has 220 units, 238 parking spaces,500 residens and more vehicles will be parked on the roadside. By then, this area will see a large number of cars congesting the streets. Traffic that was originally smooth will become extremely congested.
12. Property Devaluation
Independent Evidence:
CBRE 2024 Study: High-rise developments adjacent to heritage zones cause 12-18% value loss.
Legal Precedent:
Green v Parramatta Council [2020] NSWLEC 115 confirms devaluation is a "material planning consideration."
13. We have right of way access behind our properties as provided under our titles and covenants. Under the proposed development we access will be limited as vehicular access will not be provided from what the developer has submitted. This is not acceptable to us, which we are 30,32,32a,34,34a,in Middle Harbour Rd,anothers affected properties. This lane has been historically been used by all of us and we must insist that any development must maintain vehicular access.
Demanded Actions
1.Reject the proposal under EP&A Act 1979 s4.15(1).
2.Mandate redesign to:
ⅰ) Clear Easement E and preserve Tree 57
ⅱ)Reduce height to R2 zoned limit (9.5m)
ⅲ)Commission independent flood/noise reviews
3.Hold public hearing (EP&A Regulation 2021 s2.23).
* Attached: Real photos of the Heritage property sunlight exposure and notes.
Attachments
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
ROSEVILLE
,
New South Wales
Message
I strongly object to the proposed State Significant Development (SSD-79276958) as it is not in the public interest, inappropriate for the Lindfield location and conflicts with the Council and Community Preferred Alternative to the Transport Oriented Development (TOD).
I urge the rejection of this proposal in favour of Ku-ring-gai Council’s Preferred Alternative Scenario, which was developed after extensive community consultation and meets affordable housing requirements while minimizing adverse impacts on the local community.
I urge the rejection of this proposal in favour of Ku-ring-gai Council’s Preferred Alternative Scenario, which was developed after extensive community consultation and meets affordable housing requirements while minimizing adverse impacts on the local community.
Attachments
Rebecca Packman
Object
Rebecca Packman
Object
LINDFIELD
,
New South Wales
Message
Dear Sir/Madam,
I am writing to formally lodge a submission in response to the development application SUB-85366960, 59-63 Trafalgar Ave 1A & 1B Valley Rd, Lindfield. As a local resident directly affected by the proposed development, I raise the following serious concerns for your urgent attention and consideration:
1. Outside of SEPP area - Whilst the applicants have been stating that this proposed location is within 400 metres of Lindfield Station entry, this is a misrepresentation as it is more than 500 metres and therefore outside of the target area of the SEPP. This development should not be going ahead due to this significant change in the SEPP area.
2. Infrastructure Shadow Diagrams - Breach of Secretary's Environmental Assessment Requirements (SEARs) - SEARs require that shadow impacts be assessed between the hours of 9am and 3pm. However, the applicant has submitted diagrams that span from 9am to 5pm. This misrepresentation is misleading and unacceptable, and materially impacts the assessment of overshadowing on adjacent properties. The application should not proceed without revised diagrams that adhere to the required standards.
3. Reduced access of solar access for neighboring properties - Whilst my property is not at risk of this from the applicants 9 story proposal there are many direct neighbours who will not have access to their solar panels as they do now. The proposed build states that it has "...been designed to generally, comply with height and setback controls, ensuring the neighbours solar access, privacy and views are maintained." This is incorrect and needs to be addressed.
4. Design of property by applicant is not in keeping with unique characteristics of the area - The applicant's proposed design is inconsistent with the distinctive character of the area. It fails to respect the existing built environment, including heritage values and architectural context of neighbouring properties. This approach risks further eroding the area's cultural and historical significance, not withstanding the impact on the existing infrastructure and services.
5. Traffic and Parking Safety on Trafalgar Ave - The proposed development significantly increases traffic and driveway usage on Trafalgar Ave, a street already facing considerable traffic flow and parking congestion. There is a particularly dangerous blind corner where Russell Ave turns right onto Trafalgar Ave, which is located within close proximity to the proposed driveway. This blind spot is even more treacherous when there are cars parked on Trafalgar Ave, which is all the time. The increased vehicle movements at this location will pose a risk to drivers and pedestrians, increasing the likelihood of traffic blockages and accidents. This safety concern should be formally addressed within the traffic impact assessment which currently appears inadequate.
6. Flooding Risk and Infrastructure Concerns - There is substantial concern regarding the risk of flooding, particularly at the bottom of Trafalgar Ave and Middle Harbour Rd, including properties situated along Middle Harbour Rd. It is standard planning procedure that flood studies and assessments be completed for any significant development, yet no evidence has been provided regarding the sewerage and stormwater capacity required to accommodate a development of this scale. This is a major oversight that raises questions about the overall safety and environmental sustainability of the project.
7. Lack of Community Consultation - There has been a complete absence of consultation with directly affected properties, including mine. No attempt was made by the applicant to engage with me, either in person or by phone, regarding the visual impact or scale of the proposed development.
Whilst there were two community meetings, one that went for less than one third of the time it was scheduled to go for, this was not individual nor a forum where I or other individuals were comfortable to raise issues, nor opportunities for us to do so with barely any time offered for questions.
Information has not been made accessible for the community, nor disseminated in a fair and accessible way for all community members. Translations should have been available in Chinese and Korean at the very least.
None of the above can be called adequate community consultation by any means and this limited and inaccessible consultation breaches the NSW Governments Community Participation Plan 2019.
8. Flawed Visual Impact Assessment - Private Properties Ignored - In Section 8 of the application regarding "Key Viewing Points," the applicant has limited the analysis to public domain views only. This completely overlooks the impact on private property views, which are directly affected by the development's scale and bulk. This is a glaring omission and undermines the validity of the visual impact assessment provided. A comprehensive and compliant assessment must be conducted that includes private properties in the immediate visual catchment.
The applicant appears to have assessed visual impacts only from public roads looking own onto the site, rather than from nearby private residential properties. This is a significant failure to comply with SEARs requirements, which call for detailed analysis of visual impacts from all key viewpoints, including private residences.
9. As a parent and resident living in close proximity to the proposed development, I am deeply concerned about the direct impact this will have on the daily safety and well being of my family. My children regularly ride their bikes and walk our dog along Trafalgar Ave, a route that already experiences visibility issues and inconsistent traffic behaviour. The proposed increase in traffic and driveway use creates an unacceptable dangerous environment for children and pedestrians. I should not have to fear for my children's safety while they engage in normal, healthy activities in their own neighborhood. The potential for serious accidents will only increase if this development proceeds.
In light of the above, I strongly urge the Department to:
-Require the applicant to re submit documentation that complies with SEARs
-Mandate a full flood and infrastructure capacity assessment
-Demand proper community consultation with affected residents
-Halt any further consideration of this application
Thank you for considering this submission. I would appreciate confirmation of its receipt and response to this.
Yours Sincerely,
Rebecca
I am writing to formally lodge a submission in response to the development application SUB-85366960, 59-63 Trafalgar Ave 1A & 1B Valley Rd, Lindfield. As a local resident directly affected by the proposed development, I raise the following serious concerns for your urgent attention and consideration:
1. Outside of SEPP area - Whilst the applicants have been stating that this proposed location is within 400 metres of Lindfield Station entry, this is a misrepresentation as it is more than 500 metres and therefore outside of the target area of the SEPP. This development should not be going ahead due to this significant change in the SEPP area.
2. Infrastructure Shadow Diagrams - Breach of Secretary's Environmental Assessment Requirements (SEARs) - SEARs require that shadow impacts be assessed between the hours of 9am and 3pm. However, the applicant has submitted diagrams that span from 9am to 5pm. This misrepresentation is misleading and unacceptable, and materially impacts the assessment of overshadowing on adjacent properties. The application should not proceed without revised diagrams that adhere to the required standards.
3. Reduced access of solar access for neighboring properties - Whilst my property is not at risk of this from the applicants 9 story proposal there are many direct neighbours who will not have access to their solar panels as they do now. The proposed build states that it has "...been designed to generally, comply with height and setback controls, ensuring the neighbours solar access, privacy and views are maintained." This is incorrect and needs to be addressed.
4. Design of property by applicant is not in keeping with unique characteristics of the area - The applicant's proposed design is inconsistent with the distinctive character of the area. It fails to respect the existing built environment, including heritage values and architectural context of neighbouring properties. This approach risks further eroding the area's cultural and historical significance, not withstanding the impact on the existing infrastructure and services.
5. Traffic and Parking Safety on Trafalgar Ave - The proposed development significantly increases traffic and driveway usage on Trafalgar Ave, a street already facing considerable traffic flow and parking congestion. There is a particularly dangerous blind corner where Russell Ave turns right onto Trafalgar Ave, which is located within close proximity to the proposed driveway. This blind spot is even more treacherous when there are cars parked on Trafalgar Ave, which is all the time. The increased vehicle movements at this location will pose a risk to drivers and pedestrians, increasing the likelihood of traffic blockages and accidents. This safety concern should be formally addressed within the traffic impact assessment which currently appears inadequate.
6. Flooding Risk and Infrastructure Concerns - There is substantial concern regarding the risk of flooding, particularly at the bottom of Trafalgar Ave and Middle Harbour Rd, including properties situated along Middle Harbour Rd. It is standard planning procedure that flood studies and assessments be completed for any significant development, yet no evidence has been provided regarding the sewerage and stormwater capacity required to accommodate a development of this scale. This is a major oversight that raises questions about the overall safety and environmental sustainability of the project.
7. Lack of Community Consultation - There has been a complete absence of consultation with directly affected properties, including mine. No attempt was made by the applicant to engage with me, either in person or by phone, regarding the visual impact or scale of the proposed development.
Whilst there were two community meetings, one that went for less than one third of the time it was scheduled to go for, this was not individual nor a forum where I or other individuals were comfortable to raise issues, nor opportunities for us to do so with barely any time offered for questions.
Information has not been made accessible for the community, nor disseminated in a fair and accessible way for all community members. Translations should have been available in Chinese and Korean at the very least.
None of the above can be called adequate community consultation by any means and this limited and inaccessible consultation breaches the NSW Governments Community Participation Plan 2019.
8. Flawed Visual Impact Assessment - Private Properties Ignored - In Section 8 of the application regarding "Key Viewing Points," the applicant has limited the analysis to public domain views only. This completely overlooks the impact on private property views, which are directly affected by the development's scale and bulk. This is a glaring omission and undermines the validity of the visual impact assessment provided. A comprehensive and compliant assessment must be conducted that includes private properties in the immediate visual catchment.
The applicant appears to have assessed visual impacts only from public roads looking own onto the site, rather than from nearby private residential properties. This is a significant failure to comply with SEARs requirements, which call for detailed analysis of visual impacts from all key viewpoints, including private residences.
9. As a parent and resident living in close proximity to the proposed development, I am deeply concerned about the direct impact this will have on the daily safety and well being of my family. My children regularly ride their bikes and walk our dog along Trafalgar Ave, a route that already experiences visibility issues and inconsistent traffic behaviour. The proposed increase in traffic and driveway use creates an unacceptable dangerous environment for children and pedestrians. I should not have to fear for my children's safety while they engage in normal, healthy activities in their own neighborhood. The potential for serious accidents will only increase if this development proceeds.
In light of the above, I strongly urge the Department to:
-Require the applicant to re submit documentation that complies with SEARs
-Mandate a full flood and infrastructure capacity assessment
-Demand proper community consultation with affected residents
-Halt any further consideration of this application
Thank you for considering this submission. I would appreciate confirmation of its receipt and response to this.
Yours Sincerely,
Rebecca
ISABEL GRAM
Object
ISABEL GRAM
Object
LINDFIELD
,
New South Wales
Message
My comments are included in the attached document
Attachments
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
Lindfield
,
New South Wales
Message
I am a resident of Lindfield and live fairly close to the proposed site - # 1A & 1B Valley Road Lindfield. I have gone to school and grown up in Ku-ring-gai and have recently returned to the area after a period overseas.
I believe that the proposed development will not only change the skyline of this part of Lindfield, but also significantly increase vehicular traffic and congestion in the surrounding roads, e.g. Valley Rd., accompanied by noise and pollution.
Having reviewed the Ku-ring-gai Strategic Plan and separately provided feedback, I feel such large scale developments undermine the planning efforts of the council, place significant pressure on the infrastructure, and increase density at an unsustainable pace.
I believe that the proposed development will not only change the skyline of this part of Lindfield, but also significantly increase vehicular traffic and congestion in the surrounding roads, e.g. Valley Rd., accompanied by noise and pollution.
Having reviewed the Ku-ring-gai Strategic Plan and separately provided feedback, I feel such large scale developments undermine the planning efforts of the council, place significant pressure on the infrastructure, and increase density at an unsustainable pace.
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
DUNDAS
,
New South Wales
Message
I don't like the idea of a nine-storey building in a beautiful part of Lindfield. I think the heritage areas will be compromised and the lovely openness of the area swamped with people and cars without the infrastructure to support this. Why would the ruination of this area ever be considered an option?
Natasha Huon
Object
Natasha Huon
Object
ROSEVILLE
,
New South Wales
Message
The proposed project is HUGE and at the boundary limit of the TOD border. It does not consider many things including;
- transition to low density housing
- impacts on the adjacent heritage conservation zone
- narrow streets and lack of infrastructure in this old suburb/suburban street
- huge increase in traffic for all streets in the area, minimal access to main roads - eg only traffic light access to pacific highway on 2 streets for the whole of Lindfield and Roseville residents which are already congested and take much time to exit the suburb
- OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THE COUNCIL'S PREFERRED DEVELOPMENT SCENARIO. THE COUNCIL IS IN A BETTER POSITION THAN STATE GOVERNMENT TO UNDERSTAND THE LOCAL ISSUES WITH MASS DEVELOPMENT AND WHERE IT CAN BE MANAGED APPROPRIATELY INTO THE LOCAL AREA.
- ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT. Extensive reduction in vegetation and tree canopy coverage, destruction of mature trees and habitat for native birds and marsupials
- Absolute conflict in design from surrounding local neighbourhood character and streetscape.
- Loss of historic conserved society of the early 20th century never to be rebuilt.
- Lack of schools and public hospitals in the area to support massive population increases
I STRONGLY OBJECT
- transition to low density housing
- impacts on the adjacent heritage conservation zone
- narrow streets and lack of infrastructure in this old suburb/suburban street
- huge increase in traffic for all streets in the area, minimal access to main roads - eg only traffic light access to pacific highway on 2 streets for the whole of Lindfield and Roseville residents which are already congested and take much time to exit the suburb
- OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THE COUNCIL'S PREFERRED DEVELOPMENT SCENARIO. THE COUNCIL IS IN A BETTER POSITION THAN STATE GOVERNMENT TO UNDERSTAND THE LOCAL ISSUES WITH MASS DEVELOPMENT AND WHERE IT CAN BE MANAGED APPROPRIATELY INTO THE LOCAL AREA.
- ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT. Extensive reduction in vegetation and tree canopy coverage, destruction of mature trees and habitat for native birds and marsupials
- Absolute conflict in design from surrounding local neighbourhood character and streetscape.
- Loss of historic conserved society of the early 20th century never to be rebuilt.
- Lack of schools and public hospitals in the area to support massive population increases
I STRONGLY OBJECT
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
Dulwich Hill
,
New South Wales
Message
Objection letter attached
Attachments
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
Lindfield
,
New South Wales
Message
The development is an overdevelopment of the site in terms of height and bulk. There is no proper transition to adjoining low density residential. There will be a significant adverse impact on traffic and parking in an area which is already too busy in terms of traffic and parking. The development conflicts with the character of the neighbourhood and heritage conservation aspects.
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
ROSEVILLE
,
New South Wales
Message
I state my objections to the SSD -79276958 development application and their EIS as follows:
1. SSD vs Ku-ring-gai (KRG) planning process
a. The process of this SDD is to bypass KRG planning and democratic community consultation possess. The only legitimate reason for the SSD to override the Councils planning scenario is the SSD project value and not the typical State Significance, as outlined in the purpose of SSDs on the NSW Government website. The application does not propose extraordinary public benefit nor strategic merit. SDDs typically are of State significance and include large scale industrial, infrastructure and mining developments and do not include stand-alone residential developments.
b. The KRG “Preferred Scenario” delivers greater housing numbers than the State TOD and aligns with local infrastructure capacity, environmental and heritage conservation, and has consulted the community. The preferred scenario concentrates development on the ridgeline of the Pacific Hwy and is not intrusive to the heritage and environmentally sensitive Conservation Residential Area (CRA) on Trafalgar Road Lindfield.
c. The Council process remains under consideration utilising consultative and democratic process. The local process should be able to reach its conclusion and not be autocratically bypassed by the State Planning Minister.
d. The SSD is proposed within a KRG CRA where individual households have been approached by developers. Good planning would see high rise development on the transport corridor at the Pacific Hwy and as illustrated in the preferred scenario proposed by KRG. Poor planning would see development amongst single residential lots like this consolidated SSD site. The transport corridor has existing walk-up residential strata developments which comprise multiple owners. The only possible outcome to approach individual East side residences in the SSD is to generate division amongst neighbours and provide an easier consolidation of sites for the developers.
e. We note there are multiple out of area submissions to other proposed SSDs in the KRG area. How is this possible that people outside of our area know about the submission and we have only found out via our community-based group opposing poor planning.
f. There has been significant consultation between the developers and the State Govt prior to any consultation with the KRG nor its residents. Therefore, the State Govt priorities are dictatory, misleading and illustrate an autocratic response and not a democratic planning process.
g. It is apparent that the authoritative way the SSDs are being forced upon our suburb is in reaction to the Federal Govts bribe of additional funding to States to provide additional housing – at any cost. There is a real cost and loss of amenity to the existing local community and environment. Once these heritage homes and trees are demolished there is no turning back and the amenity of the area, due to poor and lazy planning, will be lost forever.
h. As the infill affordable housing proponent of the SSD is not permanent, the overall significance of the development is not in line with usual SSDs. The use of “infill affordable housing” is therefore not transparent, is grossly misleading and is only used by The State Government to the bypass KRG preferred scenario.
i. When considering an increase in population and density, good planning should ensure that that community is granted additional services like schools, transport, hospitals etc. Not considering this is counter intuitive to the assessment of a SSD whereby the impact of local community, including environment both natural and built and the social and economic impacts need to be considered.
2. Dispute of Developer’s application and EIS
a. Poor Urban Design Principles
• The development is on the outer edge of the TOD 400m zone and is amongst single level and heritage homes.
• The building is above the maximum height limit and is seeking approval for 33m in height.
• The sheer bulk of the development against the interface of single level dwelling is poor planning and going for maximum profit over good design and planning.
• The visual impact will be horrendous as a huge bulk of height and poor design overshadowing the western aspect of the single level homes to the East.
• Huge impact on the Heritage Conservation Area of Lindfield.
• The EIS does not reflect a high standard under the SSD section 5.3. It does not provide justification and evaluation of the project having regard to economic, environmental, and social impact nor illustrate the principles of an ecologically sustainable development.
• The application does not contain technically robust assessment of the impacts of the project and therefore is not accurate. The EIS and application should accurately provide data collection, feasibility of mitigation measures or adaptive management, illustrating methods used to project impacts and criteria for evaluating the acceptability of the impacts.
• The proposed development illustrates poor design interface by enabling 30+ metres buildings against single level residences. Good urban planning principle would have adequate regard for the interface zone between multi story development and single dwellings.
• The proposed development is set against heritage homes along Middle Harbour Road and Valley Road illustrates poor planning.
• The proposed building material to be used for cladding of the upper residential towers is not in keeping with the Lindfield surroundings. A white cladding looks cheap and too contemporary to blend into the heritage residences that surround the development.
• The large white building at the rear of the site will overshadow the Western aspect of homes in Valley Road and Middle Harbour Road and will render them dark and wet.
• There will be privacy issues for the single level homes that surround the development and those within the hoes will lose their amenity and residential value.
• The development does not lie within the KRG preferred scenario as it is not a well-considered option for high planning and design.
b. 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.
The affordable Housing element is not permanent and therefore does not truly represent affordable Housing. The Affordable Housing is only used to claim SSD status and to bypass the KRG planning process. This does not represent true affordable housing over the long term.
Conclusion The application SSD-79276958 should not be approved.
• The KRG preferred scenario provides a better outcome in terms of housing numbers and would not have a development of the scale and bulk in a sensitive and Local CRA.
• The preferred scenario must occur before any SSD projects are considered. It is not acceptable to consider both SSDs plus the preferred scenario.
• There has been a failure in process with a lack of community consultation.
• The destruction of any mature trees is unacceptable.
• The basis of the design on affordable housing is not permanent and therefore misleading and not really the true and honest basis of the SSD – infill affordable housing.
• The pushing through of an SSD over local preferred scenarios can only be concluded to benefit developers and not the local community.
• There will be significant increase in traffic congestion.
• The use of SSD for this approval undermines public confidence in fair, democratic and transparent planning processes.
• The development lies outside of the preferred scenario as it is not in an appropriate area for such high bulk and residential towers.
1. SSD vs Ku-ring-gai (KRG) planning process
a. The process of this SDD is to bypass KRG planning and democratic community consultation possess. The only legitimate reason for the SSD to override the Councils planning scenario is the SSD project value and not the typical State Significance, as outlined in the purpose of SSDs on the NSW Government website. The application does not propose extraordinary public benefit nor strategic merit. SDDs typically are of State significance and include large scale industrial, infrastructure and mining developments and do not include stand-alone residential developments.
b. The KRG “Preferred Scenario” delivers greater housing numbers than the State TOD and aligns with local infrastructure capacity, environmental and heritage conservation, and has consulted the community. The preferred scenario concentrates development on the ridgeline of the Pacific Hwy and is not intrusive to the heritage and environmentally sensitive Conservation Residential Area (CRA) on Trafalgar Road Lindfield.
c. The Council process remains under consideration utilising consultative and democratic process. The local process should be able to reach its conclusion and not be autocratically bypassed by the State Planning Minister.
d. The SSD is proposed within a KRG CRA where individual households have been approached by developers. Good planning would see high rise development on the transport corridor at the Pacific Hwy and as illustrated in the preferred scenario proposed by KRG. Poor planning would see development amongst single residential lots like this consolidated SSD site. The transport corridor has existing walk-up residential strata developments which comprise multiple owners. The only possible outcome to approach individual East side residences in the SSD is to generate division amongst neighbours and provide an easier consolidation of sites for the developers.
e. We note there are multiple out of area submissions to other proposed SSDs in the KRG area. How is this possible that people outside of our area know about the submission and we have only found out via our community-based group opposing poor planning.
f. There has been significant consultation between the developers and the State Govt prior to any consultation with the KRG nor its residents. Therefore, the State Govt priorities are dictatory, misleading and illustrate an autocratic response and not a democratic planning process.
g. It is apparent that the authoritative way the SSDs are being forced upon our suburb is in reaction to the Federal Govts bribe of additional funding to States to provide additional housing – at any cost. There is a real cost and loss of amenity to the existing local community and environment. Once these heritage homes and trees are demolished there is no turning back and the amenity of the area, due to poor and lazy planning, will be lost forever.
h. As the infill affordable housing proponent of the SSD is not permanent, the overall significance of the development is not in line with usual SSDs. The use of “infill affordable housing” is therefore not transparent, is grossly misleading and is only used by The State Government to the bypass KRG preferred scenario.
i. When considering an increase in population and density, good planning should ensure that that community is granted additional services like schools, transport, hospitals etc. Not considering this is counter intuitive to the assessment of a SSD whereby the impact of local community, including environment both natural and built and the social and economic impacts need to be considered.
2. Dispute of Developer’s application and EIS
a. Poor Urban Design Principles
• The development is on the outer edge of the TOD 400m zone and is amongst single level and heritage homes.
• The building is above the maximum height limit and is seeking approval for 33m in height.
• The sheer bulk of the development against the interface of single level dwelling is poor planning and going for maximum profit over good design and planning.
• The visual impact will be horrendous as a huge bulk of height and poor design overshadowing the western aspect of the single level homes to the East.
• Huge impact on the Heritage Conservation Area of Lindfield.
• The EIS does not reflect a high standard under the SSD section 5.3. It does not provide justification and evaluation of the project having regard to economic, environmental, and social impact nor illustrate the principles of an ecologically sustainable development.
• The application does not contain technically robust assessment of the impacts of the project and therefore is not accurate. The EIS and application should accurately provide data collection, feasibility of mitigation measures or adaptive management, illustrating methods used to project impacts and criteria for evaluating the acceptability of the impacts.
• The proposed development illustrates poor design interface by enabling 30+ metres buildings against single level residences. Good urban planning principle would have adequate regard for the interface zone between multi story development and single dwellings.
• The proposed development is set against heritage homes along Middle Harbour Road and Valley Road illustrates poor planning.
• The proposed building material to be used for cladding of the upper residential towers is not in keeping with the Lindfield surroundings. A white cladding looks cheap and too contemporary to blend into the heritage residences that surround the development.
• The large white building at the rear of the site will overshadow the Western aspect of homes in Valley Road and Middle Harbour Road and will render them dark and wet.
• There will be privacy issues for the single level homes that surround the development and those within the hoes will lose their amenity and residential value.
• The development does not lie within the KRG preferred scenario as it is not a well-considered option for high planning and design.
b. 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.
The affordable Housing element is not permanent and therefore does not truly represent affordable Housing. The Affordable Housing is only used to claim SSD status and to bypass the KRG planning process. This does not represent true affordable housing over the long term.
Conclusion The application SSD-79276958 should not be approved.
• The KRG preferred scenario provides a better outcome in terms of housing numbers and would not have a development of the scale and bulk in a sensitive and Local CRA.
• The preferred scenario must occur before any SSD projects are considered. It is not acceptable to consider both SSDs plus the preferred scenario.
• There has been a failure in process with a lack of community consultation.
• The destruction of any mature trees is unacceptable.
• The basis of the design on affordable housing is not permanent and therefore misleading and not really the true and honest basis of the SSD – infill affordable housing.
• The pushing through of an SSD over local preferred scenarios can only be concluded to benefit developers and not the local community.
• There will be significant increase in traffic congestion.
• The use of SSD for this approval undermines public confidence in fair, democratic and transparent planning processes.
• The development lies outside of the preferred scenario as it is not in an appropriate area for such high bulk and residential towers.
Jean-Pierre Halpern
Object
Jean-Pierre Halpern
Object
KILLARA
,
New South Wales
Message
We are owners of 24 Arnold Street in Killara and have lived in the Ku-ring-gai Council area since the 1980s. We are supportive of the NSW State Government’s objective of increasing housing in Sydney, but we object to the proposed development based on significant concerns regarding the scale, loss of amenity, and heritage and environmental impacts of this project on the broader community. The State Government’s objectives to increase housing can be better achieved by Ku-ring-Gai Council’s alternative TOD proposal, which would not see developments made in this Heritage Conservation Area, right on the outer edge of TOD border with no transition to lower density housing which surrounds it on all sides.
Some of the key reasons for our objection to the proposal are:
• Scale and Density: The proposed development is a nine-storey building in an area currently characterised by low-density one and two storey houses. The introduction of such a large-scale structure is out of keeping with the established character of Lindfield and neighbouring suburbs like Killara, which are valued for their leafy, suburban environment and heritage streetscapes. There are better places to develop the proposed scale and density to achieve increased housing in the area, closer to the stations and in the areas proposed in Ku-ring-Gai Council’s alternative TOD proposal (which do not include the site of this proposed development)
• Overshadowing and Privacy: The height of the building will result in substantial overshadowing of neighbouring properties and loss of light and privacy, particularly for those living in one and two storey houses surrounding the development. This is inconsistent with the expectations of residents in suburbs like Lindfield and Killara, who have chosen the part of the suburb further away from the train station for its open, private, and green environment
• Severe impacts to views: The Visual Impact Assessment notes that the development will have a severe impact on views from neighbouring properties. The scale of the proposed development will dominate the skyline, reducing visual amenity for residents in adjacent areas
• Heritage: The proposed development is within the Middle Harbour Road, Lindfield Conservation Area and adjacent to a number of heritage listed residences. This seems to be largely dismissed in the Heritage Impact Statement which doesn’t address how demolishing multiple houses and replacing them with a high-rise building undermines the integrity of the conservation area, adjacent low rise heritage buildings and the broader heritage values of the region, which are shared by adjacent suburbs
• Impact on tree canopy: The development will result in the removal of 42 trees, with only partial replacement through landscaping. This loss of mature tree canopy will have a negative impact on the environment
• Precedent for further high-density development: Approval of this project will set a precedent for similar high-rise developments in adjacent suburbs with a complete disregard for surrounding housing density, heritage and environment, accelerating the loss of local character and making no attempt to balance the heritage and natural environment which are a feature of Lindfield, Killara and surrounding suburbs.
• Lack of substantive consultation: The Consultation Outcomes Report notes significant community concern regarding the height, density, traffic, loss of character, heritage impacts, and amenity impacts of the proposal. These concerns do not seem to be addressed by the proposed development. It appears that there has been cursory consultation with immediately impacted local residents and little if any broader consultation for surrounding areas directly affected by the development.
The Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure should reject this proposed development. It completely disregards key issues relating to scale, character, amenity, heritage and the environment of Lindfield, Killara, and surrounding suburbs. There are other sites in Ku-ring-Gai with excellent access to public transport which can deliver better outcomes and meet housing objectives as evidenced by Ku-ring-gai’s alternative TOD proposal.
Some of the key reasons for our objection to the proposal are:
• Scale and Density: The proposed development is a nine-storey building in an area currently characterised by low-density one and two storey houses. The introduction of such a large-scale structure is out of keeping with the established character of Lindfield and neighbouring suburbs like Killara, which are valued for their leafy, suburban environment and heritage streetscapes. There are better places to develop the proposed scale and density to achieve increased housing in the area, closer to the stations and in the areas proposed in Ku-ring-Gai Council’s alternative TOD proposal (which do not include the site of this proposed development)
• Overshadowing and Privacy: The height of the building will result in substantial overshadowing of neighbouring properties and loss of light and privacy, particularly for those living in one and two storey houses surrounding the development. This is inconsistent with the expectations of residents in suburbs like Lindfield and Killara, who have chosen the part of the suburb further away from the train station for its open, private, and green environment
• Severe impacts to views: The Visual Impact Assessment notes that the development will have a severe impact on views from neighbouring properties. The scale of the proposed development will dominate the skyline, reducing visual amenity for residents in adjacent areas
• Heritage: The proposed development is within the Middle Harbour Road, Lindfield Conservation Area and adjacent to a number of heritage listed residences. This seems to be largely dismissed in the Heritage Impact Statement which doesn’t address how demolishing multiple houses and replacing them with a high-rise building undermines the integrity of the conservation area, adjacent low rise heritage buildings and the broader heritage values of the region, which are shared by adjacent suburbs
• Impact on tree canopy: The development will result in the removal of 42 trees, with only partial replacement through landscaping. This loss of mature tree canopy will have a negative impact on the environment
• Precedent for further high-density development: Approval of this project will set a precedent for similar high-rise developments in adjacent suburbs with a complete disregard for surrounding housing density, heritage and environment, accelerating the loss of local character and making no attempt to balance the heritage and natural environment which are a feature of Lindfield, Killara and surrounding suburbs.
• Lack of substantive consultation: The Consultation Outcomes Report notes significant community concern regarding the height, density, traffic, loss of character, heritage impacts, and amenity impacts of the proposal. These concerns do not seem to be addressed by the proposed development. It appears that there has been cursory consultation with immediately impacted local residents and little if any broader consultation for surrounding areas directly affected by the development.
The Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure should reject this proposed development. It completely disregards key issues relating to scale, character, amenity, heritage and the environment of Lindfield, Killara, and surrounding suburbs. There are other sites in Ku-ring-Gai with excellent access to public transport which can deliver better outcomes and meet housing objectives as evidenced by Ku-ring-gai’s alternative TOD proposal.
Vicki Storey
Object
Vicki Storey
Object
LINDFIELD
,
New South Wales
Message
Please see attached file for my objections to the project
Attachments
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
ROSEVILLE
,
New South Wales
Message
The current infrastructure does not support such an abrupt increase in population in the area. We try so hard to maintain the current conservation area and yet this project is drafted. It is just unfair to all residents. Strongly object
David D'Cruz
Object
David D'Cruz
Object