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

Objection attached

Please see the attached document in objection to SSD-79276958 Trafalgar Ave and Valley Rd Lindfield

Dear Planning Department,

I am writing to formally object to the proposed residential development located at 59-63 Trafalgar Avenue and 1A and 1B Valley Road Lidfield. While I understand the need for growth and housing, I have significant concerns regarding the impact this project will have on the character of our community, local traffic conditions, and the scale of the proposed construction.

Community Character:
The design and scale of the development appear out of alignment with the existing neighborhood’s character. The proposed buildings are significantly larger and denser than surrounding homes, which will disrupt the architectural harmony and reduce the open, community-oriented feel that defines the Roseville and Lindfield residential areas.

Traffic Impact:
The addition of numerous residential units will inevitably increase traffic congestion on already busy local roads. This raises concerns about road safety for pedestrians, cyclists, and residents, as well as potential delays during peak hours. The current infrastructure does not seem adequate to handle this added pressure.

Construction Size:
The large footprint of the proposed buildings and the intensity of the development risk overwhelming local resources and amenities. This overdevelopment may lead to strain on utilities, parking, and public services, reducing quality of life for current residents.

For these reasons, I urge the Planning Department to reconsider approval of this project as currently proposed. I request that any future proposals be more in keeping with Roseville’s community values, ensuring that growth is managed sustainably and respectfully.

My name is Chris Haynes, I live within two kilometres of the proposed development site in Trafalgar Ave, Lindfield. I STRONGLY OBJECT to this development going through.
While I am supportive of development of new housing in Ku-ring-gai and Ku-ring-gai Council’s alternative plan for TOD, I am NOT SUPPORTIVE of what is proposed for this location for the following reasons:

- The Significant height density and bulk: 220 units in nine stories and 33m, which is above maximum building height is tottally in appropriate for the blocks and neighbours
- This has no regard for planning or neghobours and is at the very outer edge of TOD border (and outside of development in Ku-ring-gai Council’s alternative TOD plan); no transition to lower density housing which surrounds it on all sides
- heritage impact is significant (including four adjacent heritage properties) and in a Heritage Conservation Area (HCA)
- Significant overshadowing / privacy / solar access issues
- Significant acoustic issues due to location of site and scale of development
- Massive reduction of tree canopy and mature trees
- Massive traffic and parking issues (represented by the 367 parking spaces in building)

My objection to this project is largely on the size, and the fact that it will necessitate demolition of a beautiful Federation heritage home. Whilst acknowledging the need for housing, I believe this project is manifestly oversize - to quote the developer's flyer - "220 units, 9+ storeys, 33m above maximum building height limits". This smacks of blatant opportunism on the part of the developers. There are numerous unit blocks in the Tryon Road, Milray Street and Havilah Avenue precinct which I believe are all under 8 storeys. Other than shops and businesses on the Pacific Highway, and on one side of Lindfield Avenue between Havilah Ave and Tryon Road, this area predominantly made up of free standing, residential properties. To have 9+ storey will overshadow and impact the privacy of neighbouring homes, and undoubtedly increase noise levels. Increase in traffic levels should also be given consideration. The streets in this area are always heavily parked out with commuter vehicles during working hours. There are already two other nearby SSDs in place, for 1-5 Nelson Road , with a plan for approximately 200 apartments plus basement parking , and 27-29 Tryon Road. Tryon Road is ALWAYS busy, so the thought of not only extra construction traffic during the development phase of these 3 projects, resident traffic afterwards is quite disturbing.
I urge your department to give serious consideration to limiting the size of these projects and keeping them at 6 storeys or less.

We are horrified to learn that a development of this scale is being contemplated for this site.

Our understanding is that it is an SSD which is bypassing Council planning and
approval. This is an absolutely ridiculous situation which we find totally inappropriate.

While we understand the necessity to address the housing crisis in Sydney we
do not believe that developments like these are a solution to the problem.
In fact long term they will be a disaster.

Firstly there is not the infrastructure in Lindfield to support a large
scale development eg, roads, schools, preschools,
doctors, transport, parking etc.

Secondly the nature of the development is completely at odds with the
surrounding area.

Lastly it is very unlikely that young Australians who are most impacted by
the housing crisis will be able to afford these units when considering the
cost of units that have recently sold in Lindfield.

Kind regards
Cathryn and Daniel Cronin

I am writing to object to the development SSD-79276958 59-63 Trafalgar Avenue 1A&1B Valley Road Lindfield. I have lived in Roseville for the last 9 years and I live 200m from the proposed development. While I am supportive of development of new housing in the Ku-ring-gai area and Ku-ring-gai’s alternative plan for TOD, I am not supportive of what is being proposed for this location.

The main reasons behind my objection are:
1) Roseville and Lindfield roads are already at saturation point as there are limited exit points to main roads
2) There has been no community engagement on this project despite the developer claiming there has been
3) There is no consideration that this development is the middle of a heritage area and a 9 story building is completely out of character with the buildings in the surrounding streets
4) The development is not very close to mainstream supermarkets – people will need cars to go shopping creating significant extra traffic
5) There will be significant reduction of tree canopy and mature trees
6) This development is at the very outer edge of the TOD border (and outside of development in Ku-ring-gai Council’s alterative TOD plan) – there is no transition to lower density housing which surrounds it on all sides
7) There will be significant overshadowing and solar access issues
Refer to attached word doucment for additional detail

As a resident of the area for some 30 years, I wish to note my objection to this project.

If approved, this will be the largest development in all of Lindfield. It sets a precedent and as such requires appropriate scrutiny and consideration. It butts directly onto low density heritage listed & heritage conservation area houses, and it will have major impacts for all residents of the Lindfield Station East area into the future.

I am generally supportive of development of new housing in Ku-ring-gai and Ku-ring-gai Council’s alternative Preferred Scenario plan for TOD, but not what is proposed for this location.

Specifically,
- Significant height density and bulk: 220 units in nine stories and 33m, which is above maximum building height
- At the very outer edge of TOD border (and outside of development in Ku-ring-gai Council’s alternative TOD plan); no transition to lower density housing which surrounds it on all sides
- Significant impacts on heritage (including four adjacent heritage properties) and in a Heritage Conservation Area (HCA)
- Significant overshadowing / privacy / solar access issues
- Significant acoustic issues due to location of site and scale of development
- Significant reduction of tree canopy and mature trees
- Significant traffic and parking issues (represented by the 367 parking spaces in building)

In addition, it undermines the Court-mediated Agreement that Council and the NSW Government entered into; and it undermines the extensive community engagement process that we participated in.

The NSW Govt SEPP plan has been forced on local residents of affected areas. No effective consultation or discussion about effects on existing heritage designations , impact on surrounding infrastructure and amenities.
With regard to this particular submission, you propose a development of in excess of 200 residences in an area currently occupied by a few free standing houses included in a heritage designated area.
Surrounding houses will be impacted by the overwhelming density & height of the development - significantly exceeding current restrictions. There is no attempt to moderate the impact on surrounding homes by restricting height & density near boundaries.
Details of off street parking for residents of the development aren't specified. Unless mandated off street parking match the 237 apartments we conclude there will be a substantial increase in on - street parking in the area. Streets are already congested with cars parked for station access. Traffic congestion in Trafalgar Avenue will be increased substantially beyond previous levels as it appears this will provide access for all of the high density area.
Council has very effectively supported established mature trees in the Lindfield area. In one fell swoop this SEPP plan will result in a clear fell of all trees on the impacted area.
Has the impact of sewerage & water connections to this significantly larger number of dwellings been taken into account? What provisions have been made?
Homes in the area have been required to build retention tanks to protect against excessive water run off during storms. What provisions will be made at this development considering the substantially larger roof area?
In summary we believe this proposal is significantly out of character in the area & poses major problems for local residents.
Big brother gone mad.
We await your consideration of these issues & confirmation that the development will be significantly scaled back to better fit the environment.

I am supportive in-principle of increasing population density in Ku-ring-gai through targeted medium density housing (inc affordable housing), where (i) infrastructure (schools, hospitals, parks roads) fully supports the population uplift in full; (ii) existing heritage & conservation controls are observed; and (iii) existing environmental and sustainability controls are observed.

However, and in accordance with above, I strongly object to the proposed development at 59-63 Trafalgar Avenue 1A&1B Valley Road Lindfield, due to -
(i) lack of infrastructure - local roads, schools and green spaces simple cannot cope with densification on this scale, unless this densification is preceded by a significant increase in infrastructure to allow for rapid population growth
(ii) height - nine storeys on the outer edge of TOD border is excessive; surrounding houses will be significantly overlooked, losing their privacy
(iv) heritage - the size and scale of this development will impact on the neighbouring Heritage Conservation Area and heritage items, destroying the character of the community and reducing the value of local properties

The result of the above is that the local community will be significantly negatively impacted, and will have their property values and quality of living significantly reduced.

I strongly urge the NSW Government to halt this development, or significantly reduce the scale of this development to a reasonable and sustainable level.

Thank you

Thank you for considering my comments and objection.
If approved, this will be the largest development in all of Lindfield. It sets a precedent and as such requires appropriate scrutiny and consideration. It butts directly onto low density heritage listed & heritage conservation area houses, and it will have major impacts for all residents of the Lindfield Station East area into the future.
I am generally supportive of development of new housing in Ku-ring-gai and Ku-ring-gai Council’s alternative plan for TOD, but not what is proposed for this location.
Specifically,
- Significant height density and bulk: 220 units in nine stories and 33m, which is above maximum building height
- At the very outer edge of TOD border (and outside of development in Ku-ring-gai Council’s alternative TOD plan); no transition to lower density housing which surrounds it on all sides
- Significant impacts on heritage (including four adjacent heritage properties) and in a Heritage Conservation Area (HCA)
- Significant overshadowing / privacy / solar access issues
- Significant acoustic issues due to location of site and scale of development
- Significant reduction of tree canopy and mature trees
- Significant traffic and parking issues (represented by the 367 parking spaces in building)
In addition, it undermines the Court-mediated Agreement that Council and the NSW Government entered into; and it undermines the extensive community engagement process that we participated in.
Thank you.

I reject the above affordable housing project on the grounds that it will not fulfil its desired intentions, whilst at the same time destroying the character of the suburb and cause major problems for all local residents. Council have put forward a far more sensible proposal to help with the governments desired outcomes.

FYI Hyecorp are building a complex on the highway at Roseville above the old Memorial Club. The prices are advertised from $900,000 for a 1 bedroom to $4,500,000 for a 4 bedroom. They have a proposal to build a similar complex in Roseville under the guise of affordable housing. These are not affordable to the vast majority of Australians.

The government needs to state what price is affordable and who gets to buy the few "affordable" properties offered. Will they be friends of the developers who get to buy the affordable ones, and how long will they last under the "affordable" definition before someone makes a nice profit on them.

Under these present TODs, all that will happen, is the suburbs will be ruined for no added value. There are heritage houses in the middle of this proposed development which will lose all heritage significance.

The only way forward is through the government adopting council proposals and discussions with council (who have had discussions with locals). There has been no discussions with locals by the government or the developers, despite allegations to the contrary.

Regards
Ann Meagher

I strongly object to this proposal proceeding in any form based on:
- It needs to be assessed within Ku-ring-gai councils preferred planning scenario which has been developed after wide community consultation
- Its sheer size and bulk will be detrimental to the residents of the area that will need to contend with its negative impacts; privacy; overshadowing; acoustics; reduction in tree canopy
- It will result in significant traffic and parking issues
- It will irreparable impact the heritage of the area
I’m supportive of high-density residential development within Ku-ring-gai, but on the basis that it is part of an overarching policy developed in consultation with the community.

Please see letter of objection attached.

This project should not be considered for approval until the Preferred Scenario has been passed by the local council. I believe they are in the final stages of the process, being a court-mediated Agreement that the Council and the NSW Government entered into. The Preferred Scenario is a result of a comprehensive process of engaging with the community and should now be upheld. Any effort to exploit this delay by a private developer is entirely inappropriate and the NSW Government needs to act accordingly.

Once the Preferred Scenario has been passed, I have no concern about future devlopment proposals being lodged.

While I acknowledge the importance of providing affordable housing within our community, I have serious concerns regarding the suitability of this location for such a development, and the limited community consultation that has taken place.

Privacy and Amenity:
The proposed development would directly overlook into my property and surrounding residences, severely impacting the privacy of existing homeowners. This is particularly concerning given the positioning and height of the proposed housing development.

Neighbourhood Character:
The proposed density is inconsistent with the existing character of our neighbourhood, which is primarily single-storey detached homes/low-density family residences. This development would significantly alter the established streetscape and feel of the area.

Site Constraints and Drainage:
The site slopes downwards, raising concerns about potential stormwater runoff issues and adverse impacts on neighbouring properties.

Traffic and Infrastructure Impact:
Our neighbourhood is already experiencing significant traffic congestion, especially during peak periods. Having lived in Lindfield for the last 20 years, I have seen how much strain residential and commercial developments have put on traffic over time. It currently takes me 10-12 minutes in peak hour to drive from my house in Lindfield to Lady Game Drive Killara (3 km distance), due to the bottleneck at the traffic lights and the people trying to park their cars to avail Harris Farm, Lindfield Station and other amenities. To add further context, I can complete a trip to Glenwood which is in Western Sydney (30 km distance) in ~33 minutes so in effect I spend 30% of my travel time just getting out of Lindfield. Furthermore, several apartment developments are already underway around the station precinct, and this additional proposal would only compound the existing traffic problems without any clear plan for infrastructure upgrades to manage the increased vehicle movements.

Lack of Adequate Community Consultation:
Many local residents, including myself, feel that notification about this proposal has been inadequate. The scale and potential impacts of this development warrant thorough, transparent, and proactive engagement with the community.

Request for Review:
I respectfully request that the State Government and relevant planning authorities reconsider the location and design of this proposed development, taking into account the cumulative impacts on traffic, infrastructure, amenity, and neighbourhood character. I also urge the authorities to engage with local residents in a more open and comprehensive manner before proceeding further.

I would appreciate being kept informed of any updates or meetings regarding this proposal.

I strongly object to the proposal for building 220 units at 59-63 Trafalgar Ave and 1a-1b Valley Roads Lindfield.
This project will significantly add issues to the problem of lack of parking. Trafalgar Ave, Russell Ave and Middle Harbour Roads are currently very congested and it is extremely difficult to access any parking. The addition of 220 units which will add approx 320 cars, parking and moving through the area (using 2021 census data to establish how many cars per unit). Will increase parking and congestion in a small area and create major bottlenecks necks accessing pacific highway at either Strickland Ave or Havilah Road.
2. The height of the units blocking sun, causing major shadowing on surrounding properties
3. The height of this development will be approx 30 meters above the maximum building height allowed for the area.

As resident of Lindfield, I am deeply concerned about the severe and irreversible impacts this large-scale project will have on the character, safety, and livability of our quiet residential neighborhood.

1. Incompatible with Local Character

Lindfield, and particularly Valley Road, is a peaceful, low-density residential area defined by family homes and green spaces. A high-density development of 220 units is entirely out of scale with the existing environment and will drastically alter the area’s character. This proposal is inconsistent with the established planning controls and community expectations for this part of Lindfield.

2. Traffic and Safety Concerns

Valley Road is a narrow street with limited traffic capacity. Introducing hundreds of new residents and vehicles will create significant traffic congestion, endanger pedestrians (including schoolchildren and elderly residents), and compromise road safety. The existing road infrastructure is simply not designed to handle the volume of vehicles a development of this magnitude would generate.

3. Strain on Infrastructure and Public Services

This development would place unacceptable pressure on local infrastructure, including schools, roads, public transport, and essential utilities. There has been no clear indication of how existing services will be upgraded to accommodate such a sharp increase in population density.

4. Loss of Amenity and Privacy

The height and density of the proposed buildings will overlook and overshadow surrounding homes. This will lead to a loss of privacy, reduced sunlight, and negatively impact the quiet enjoyment of our properties.

5. Environmental Impact

A development of this scale will have considerable environmental consequences, including the potential loss of mature trees, reduction in green space, and increased stormwater runoff. These changes are incompatible with Ku-ring-gai’s reputation as a “leafy” and environmentally conscious area.

The project does not suit the area

OBJECTION – State Significant Development Application for Residential Development with Infill Affordable Housing at 59-63 Trafalgar Avenue and 1A & 1B Valley Road, Lindfield

I am writing to formally object to the proposed State Significant Development Application for the residential development with infill affordable housing at 59-63 Trafalgar Avenue and 1A & 1B Valley Road, Lindfield.

As a concerned stakeholder in the Ku-ring-gai area, I wish to preface my objection by stating that I am broadly supportive of the development of new housing within Ku-ring-gai and acknowledge the objectives of the Transport Oriented Development (TOD) program.

Furthermore, I support Ku-ring-gai Council’s considered alternative plan for TOD, which seeks to integrate housing growth with the preservation of local character and amenity. However, the current proposal for this specific location at 59-63 Trafalgar Avenue and 1A & 1B Valley Road is fundamentally inconsistent with these principles and is therefore unacceptable.

My objections are detailed as follows:

1. Excessive Height, Density, and Bulk – Exceeding Planning Controls and Context:

Unacceptable Scale: The proposal for 220 units within a 9-storey building, reaching a height of 33 metres, represents an egregious overdevelopment of the site. This height is unequivocally above the maximum building height controls for the area and is significantly out of character with the established residential fabric of Lindfield.

Disproportionate Density: The proposed density of 220 units is profoundly disproportionate to the site's context and the surrounding low-density residential areas. This scale of development will create an unmanageable demand on local infrastructure and services that are not equipped to handle such an increase.

Overbearing Bulk: The sheer bulk of the proposed development will be visually dominant and overbearing, creating an oppressive presence within the streetscape and fundamentally altering the valued open and leafy character of Lindfield.

2. Inappropriate Location at TOD Border – Lack of Transition and Integration:

Outer Edge of TOD Boundary: This site is situated at the very outer edge of the designated TOD border. Crucially, it falls outside the areas earmarked for higher density development in Ku-ring-gai Council’s alternative TOD plan, which seeks to strategically locate such developments to ensure appropriate integration.

Abrupt Transition: The proposed development fails entirely to provide any form of sympathetic transition to the lower density housing that surrounds it on all sides. This abrupt shift in scale will create an incongruous and jarring urban environment, eroding the established residential amenity of the neighbourhood.

3. Significant Impacts on Heritage – Degradation of Heritage Conservation Area:

Direct Heritage Impact: The proposed development will have significant and detrimental impacts on heritage. This includes its immediate proximity to, and visual impact on, four (4) adjacent heritage properties.
Erosion of HCA Integrity: The site is located within a Heritage Conservation Area (HCA). The proposed scale, height, and modern design are fundamentally incompatible with the historical and architectural character of the HCA. Approval of this development would severely degrade the historical value and integrity of the Heritage Conservation Area, setting a damaging precedent for future development within sensitive heritage landscapes.

4. Amenity Impacts – Overshadowing, Privacy, Solar Access, and Acoustic Issues:

Severe Overshadowing and Loss of Solar Access: The significant height and bulk of the proposed building will result in severe overshadowing of neighbouring residential properties, particularly those to the north, east, and west, leading to a substantial loss of solar access for existing homes and private open spaces.
Compromised Privacy: The sheer number of units and the proposed building configuration will lead to significant privacy impacts on adjacent properties, with increased overlooking into private gardens and living areas.
Unacceptable Acoustic Issues: Given the scale and location of the development, coupled with its proximity to existing residences, there are significant concerns regarding acoustic impacts during both construction and operation. Increased noise from residents, traffic, and communal facilities will detrimentally affect the residential amenity of the surrounding area.

5. Environmental Impacts – Reduction of Tree Canopy and Mature Trees:

Loss of Green Infrastructure: The development as proposed will result in a significant reduction of existing tree canopy and the removal of mature trees on the site. This represents an unacceptable loss of valuable green infrastructure, impacting local biodiversity, reducing urban cooling benefits, and diminishing the leafy character that is a hallmark of Lindfield.

6. Traffic and Parking Congestion – Unsustainable Infrastructure Burden:

Exacerbated Local Traffic: The proposed 367 parking spaces within the building clearly indicate the significant increase in vehicle movements anticipated for this development. This substantial increase will place an unsustainable burden on already congested local roads, leading to increased traffic volume, delays, and frustrated commuters.

Parking Overflow and Safety Concerns: Despite the provision of on-site parking, large developments often lead to overflow parking onto surrounding residential streets, particularly by visitors and service vehicles. This will exacerbate existing parking pressures and can compromise pedestrian safety and accessibility within the neighbourhood.
Lack of Public Transport Capacity: While being near a station, the scale of this development will place undue pressure on existing public transport services, which may not have the capacity to absorb such a significant increase in patronage during peak hours.

In conclusion, while I support the principle of increasing housing supply in Ku-ring-gai, the proposed development at 59-63 Trafalgar Avenue and 1A & 1B Valley Road, Lindfield, is fundamentally flawed. It represents an over-scaled, inappropriately located, and environmentally destructive proposal that will have unacceptable impacts on local heritage, amenity, and infrastructure. It explicitly contravenes the principles of appropriate development and undermines the integrity of the Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan and the Council's considered alternative TOD strategy.

I strongly urge the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure to reject this proposal in its current form. A development of this nature would cause irreparable harm to the character, environment, and liveability of Lindfield.