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

The size of the development will create traffic and commuter chaos. There is a need to review the public infrastructure, school system ability to intake such a large ingestion of students without the proper resources. Lastly, health infrastructure of GP’s in the area is at breaking point

I do not support the project.
- It is in direct contradiction to the Kuringgai Council's alternative scenario, to which I myself gave my support in April and which promises to provide for an adequate increase in numbers of dwellings in Lindfield within 400 metres from the station, in varying densities and heights (near the station up to 18 stories) that step down in an orderly fashion towards the peripheries of the high to medium density area. Therefore, as the project in consideration lies outside the boundary of the alternative LEP put forward by council, as a resident of Lindfield I would find it most vexing if this particular proposal were to be supported by the DPHI , especially considering the work and consultation that the council has done in order to produce an alternative scenario in accordance with requirements of the DPHI.
Not only is the proposal outside the alternative scenario boundary , it is also in flagrant contradiction to the future built form of the western side of Trafalgar Road, opposite - ie., in which there is to be a a prescribed height of 18.5 metres (5 storeys?) and an FSR 1.3:1 (in accordance with the stepped down principle already mentioned above) , and which is also to include sufficient deep soil planting that respects the requirements of canopy protection, thus aiding in the much needed cooling of the environment in the light of future climate change and accompanying heating of the environment in which we already live.
The proposal on the other hand, outside the (alternative) LEP boundary and with a proposed height of at least 29 metres and its particular FSR, would be far more appropriate in closer proximity to the station rather than being beyond the preferred periphery, as it is at its present location, east side of Trafalgar Ave, and sticking out like a sore thumb. . Additionally, there is no significant deep soil planting of enough appropriate trees that could contribute to a canopy and therefore seriously contribute to mitigating the effects of the present heating environment in which we all appear to be living at the moment. If anything, the applicant's suggested tree plantings seem to be more cosmetic effect in order to visually complement the presented architectural design, rather than aiding the environment in which we live.
In summary:
The proposal is not within the future proposed LEP.
It is too high and dense (ie FSR) for its present location and its surroundings, present and future.
It does not contribute to the environment (insufficient deep soil plantings)
The one size fits all approach of the TOD leads to inappropriate development as in this particular case, resulting in no benefit to the community present or future or to the environment, on which we all depend. It will be a blight on its context, both visually and environmentally.

Application for 220 Units at 59-63 Trafalgar Avenue & 1A/1B Valley Road Lindfield
Application Number – 79276958
Dear Sir/Madam
We wish to express our significant concerns at the proposed development of 220 Units at 59-63 Trafalgar Avenue & 1A/1B Valley Road, Lindfield 2070
If approved this proposed development will be the largest development in all of Lindfield – located in a part of the suburb which is particularly unsuitable for constructions of this size and scope.
It should be noted that we, like many residents of Lindfield are supportive of the principles of State Government initiatives to increase the supply of housing in Kuringai – and indeed also in Lindfield.
There are a number of areas within Lindfield that would be suitable for larger size building development – the proposed Trafalgar Avenue/Valley Road site most definitely is not.
Our concerns are set out in more detail below
• The siting of such a large building on the outer perimeter of the 400 Metre Transport Oriented Development (TOD) Border makes no attempt to consider the overall form, character and public utilisation of the Lindfield Town Centre. In fact, this building will far exceed in height and bulk the majority of buildings in the centre of the Lindfield TOD 400m Zone.

• The site is highly unsuitable for major public-works style construction activities
o Valley Road is narrow with a sharp 90 degree corner at Number 1A/1B. It is an important thoroughfare for Lindfield residents but is regularly blocked when delivery drivers double park. It would be dangerous to local residents and highly disruptive to use Valley Road in any way to support demotion and construction activities.
o Trafalgar Avenue is steeply sloping at the proposed sites of construction, and again an important thoroughfare for local residents. Whilst wider than Valley Road, the movement of significant numbers of heavy construction vehicles would create new dangers for local drivers and pedestrians.
o The only connection between Trafalgar Ave and Valley Rd is Tryon Lane, which is one lane and one way – so again totally unsuitable for heavy construction traffic.
o Moreover, the Sydney Korean Community Church backs onto Tryon Lane and is regularly very busy with large numbers of parishioner’s and other community events creating significant vehicular and pedestrian traffic – again creating potentially dangerous situations.

• The proposed development creates significant issues of overshadowing, incursion on privacy and impacts on solar access.
o The impacts of overshadowing and invasion of privacy are significant for the many existing residents whose homes sit at a much lower height than the proposed upper floors of the development.
o The potential loss of solar access is an important financial consideration for those residents who have invested in rooftop solar energy paneling

• Another overlooked factor in the development application is the close proximity of the Cromehurst School (for students with moderate to severe intellectual disability). The roads around this school are especially busy around drop-off and pick-up time, with students regularly on teacher supervised walks around the neighbourhood – again another potential source of danger for locals and students.

• The road intersections surrounding the proposed development would suffer massively increased amounts of heavy traffic and changes in patterns of daily commuter traffic – put simply, Lindfield does not have the infrastructure and road network on the Eastern Side of the railway line to absorb construction activities of this scale.

• It is critical to note that the proposed Trafalgar/Valley development should not be viewed in isolation – a number of other significant developments are proposed in close proximity.
o the timing of proposed State Significant Development at xxx Tryon Rd will likely be ongoing at a similar time – this will massively impact the ability of Lindfield’s roads, infrastructure and residents to cope with these intrusions
o of greater concern is another State Significant Development which is being prepared for 1-5 Nelson Road - this is virtually opposite the Cromehurst School, on another narrow sloping street near a difficult 4 way intersection.
o Were these 3 developments to be under construction concurrently; it would be catastrophic to the quality of life and public health of residents of the area and other regular visitors – it would seem that no consideration has been given to the combined impact of these activities in a confined part of the suburb.
• Building on our comments above – developments of this size and scope have significant impacts on the heritage character and streetscapes of this part of Lindfield.
o Of concern, there does not seem to have been any consideration given to an appropriate transition from higher density to lower housing areas on the Eastern side of Lindfield.

• Of particular concern are the environmental impacts of this proposed development – the significant loss of tree canopy and mature trees, as well as the potential for waste run-off into Middle Harbour Creek which may impact residential properties well downstream from the Trafalgar/Valley site, as well as National Park bushland beyond.

• The issues of parking and traffic congestion are already of major concern to Lindfield residents
o the addition of this proposed development of 220 units (potentially in conjunction with 2 others of similar size in very close proximity) will have severe consequences, with a consequent increasing risk of accidents to drivers and pedestrians.
In summary, we believe the proposed development is highly inappropriate and will create a significant detrimental impact of the quality of life and health of existing Lindfield residents.
As we stated at the outset, we are not opposed to the principles of the Transport Oriented Development Strategy – we believe that Lindfield does have some sites which are far more appropriate for developments of this scale than the proposed site at 59-63 Trafalgar Avenue and 1A/1B Valley Road.
We sincerely hope that our comments will be taken into serious consideration.

My name is Robyn Haynes and I am a resident of Roseville within Ku-ring-gai LGA. I live within one kilometre of the proposed development, which I strongly object to.

Whilst I support the development of new housing in Ku-ring-gai and Ku-ring-gai Council’s alternative plan for TOD,I DO NOT support this proposal for the following reasons.
- Under the council's preferred scneario this proposal would never be allowed, given it sits within a heritage conservation area.
- The significant height density and bulk of the project will be an eyesore for the community living east of the train station. 220 units in nine stories plus a height of 33m is above the maximum building height for the area.
- This developemtn proposal is on the outer edge of TOD border (and outside of development in Ku-ring-gai Council’s alternative TOD plan);
- There is no transition to lower-density housing, which surrounds it on all sides
- The impact of shadowing, corner congestion and parking will be significant on heritage (including four adjacent heritage properties) in this Heritage Conservation Area (HCA)
- As discussed above, the significant overshadowing and interruption to privacy will be enormous. There will be a number of solar access issues as well.
- As the sight sits at the top of a hill there will be also significant acoustic issues. It will also appear higher and larger than the anticiapted heght making it an eyesore on the Heritage landscape due to scale of development
- In order to build this development, there will be a significant reduction of tree canopy and mature trees, leaving the wildlife, including native possums without a home.
- Due to the location of the proposed development, on a tight corner with very narrow roads leading in and out, the traffic chaos and buildup of parked cars will make it impossible to drive down those tight laneways. Only 367 parking spaces have been allocated for this proposed development.

I urge the state government to reject this proposal and find an alternative site that is more conducive to high-rise development and traffic.

This overwhelming project has a number of flaws
1, ambitious high rise in a small town, without considering negative impact on neighbourhood
2, it has broken TOD as it is outside of 400m
3, it doesnt treasure historical and classical beauty of our heritage, it will not come back forever once demolished

I am supportive of new housing in Ku-ring-gai including affordable housing but as identified in Council's alternative plan. That plan now known as the Preferred Scenario, was developed in accordance with significant community consultation and in accordance with the mediation agreement agreed by the NSW Government. That alternative plan goes before Council this week.

I supported the Preferred Scenario which would make what is proposed for this location wholly impermissible . This proposal is on the border of the TOD and Landmark have determined to maximise FSR and GFA (3.25:1) in an area which is earmarked for 0.3:1. It will tower over adjoining developments and neighbouring properties on the edge of the TOD. It will be an eyesore and be inconsistent with many planning rules which no doubt Council will identify.

Whilst Landmark are requesting the maximum FSR Bonus, it is only offering the minimum 5 affordable apartments in perpetuity with 41 affordable apartments for only 15 years. That will displace the affordable housing tenants of 41 apartments after 15 years and is not acceptable given what the Developer has applied for. No doubt Council will raise the affordable apartment issue as they have for other in-fill affordable housing SSDs that have popped up.

Maximising GFA will of course deliver that Developer enormous profit but at what cost ? It certainly will not help the essential worker tenants of those 41 apartments after they are displaced.

For that embarrassingly low affordable housing outcome after 15 years, the community and the landscape is affected by the following significant impacts forever:

1. significant height density and bulk - it appears 220 units in nine stories and 33m, which exceeds the maximum building height;
2. no transition to lower density housing which surrounds it on all sides including an adjoining listed heritage property which will e overshadowed;
3. significant impacts on heritage (including four adjacent heritage properties) it being located in a Heritage Conservation Area (HCA);
4. the destruction of some of the homes which are contributory to the streetscape and the surrounding HCA - it is noted that this justification is supported by the in-house heritage consultants of Urbis which has provided similar reports for other SSDs in the District. This report has been prepared by a "Heritage Assistant" and reviewed by an Associate Director who "endorsed its content". This Report will need to be considered critically and independently by Council and the Department. Regardless, its recommendations do not appear to have been adopted as part of the proposal.
5. Extraordinary and overbearing overshadowing and privacy impacts to adjoining residences as detailed on the drawings;
6. Significant acoustic issues due to location of site and scale of development at the top of the hill which will include 220 apartments and presumably over 600 residents.
7. Significant reduction of tree canopy and mature trees noting 42 trees will be removed.
8. Significant traffic and parking issues (noting 367 parking spaces in building - noting the net movements figures of 39 per day appears extraordinarily low given school drop offs and people who drive to work.

What was the point of developing an alternative planning scheme that delivers the housing numbers required of the NSW Government if it can just be ignored ?

The application is opportunistic, not in the public interest at all and should be withdrawn or rejected until the outcome of the Preferred Scenario is known. Like another SSD application nearby, the developer has disregarded broader community consultation and Council's alternative plan. It has taken a "punt" and it did not come off - the developer should focus its energies and capital elsewhere where housing has been identified by the Preferred Scenario.

Thank you for considering this submission.

Dear Sir/Madam
This proposal comes at a time when Kuringai Council is very close to approving a carefully considered TOD alternate that has gone through extensive community consultation and importantly will deliver the required number of additional dwellings required by Government to assist with increasing housing supply. It is yet another example of a one-off, opportunistic proposal designed wholly to maximise developer profits at the permanent expense of the local neighbourhood.
At nine stories of 33m height and massive scale of 220 units, the development bears no relationship to its surroundings and will have a significant and overbearing impact on the surrounding area. It is on the outer-edge of the TOD zone and there will be no transition compared to the lower density housing which surrounds it on all sides. There will be significant impact on the valuable heritage conservation area including four adjacent heritage properties. It will cause severe overshadowing to neighbours and result in the loss of environmentally important tree canopy and established trees.
I support Councils plan which delivers the increase in housing in an appropriate and well planned way. This proposal is not supported by Council nor the vast majority of local residents and should be rejected on that basis.
Thank you for considering my objection.

To Whom It May Concern
Re: Objection to SSD-79276958 – Proposed Development at 59-63 Trafalgar Avenue and 1A & 1B Valley Road, Lindfield

My name is Joanne Hitchcock, and I am a local resident living near the site of the proposed State Significant Development. I wish to lodge a formal objection to SSD-79276958 on the grounds that it poses significant and lasting negative impacts on the character, amenity, and sustainability of the local community.

1. Excessive Scale and Visual Impact
The proposed development — comprising 220 units across four nine-storey towers — is completely out of scale with the surrounding residential neighbourhood. Lindfield is characterised by detached houses, low-rise dwellings, and leafy streets. The proposed towers would dominate the skyline, overshadow adjacent homes, and create an overwhelming sense of enclosure.

Such a dramatic departure from the existing built form will irreversibly alter the suburb’s character and degrade the visual harmony that residents value.

2. Inconsistency with Local Planning Strategy
While I support the need to increase housing supply in Sydney, this proposal is inconsistent with the strategic planning work undertaken by Ku-ring-gai Council. The Council has developed a comprehensive housing strategy that supports sustainable growth, respects local character, and is informed by extensive community consultation.

The SSD pathway circumvents this democratic process and risks undermining the authority of local planning. This sets a concerning precedent for unchecked overdevelopment without meaningful input from those most affected.

3. Inadequate Community Consultation
There has been a serious lack of community engagement regarding this proposal. Many local residents — myself included — were unaware of the proposal’s scale and implications until very recently. There were no letterbox notifications, no public information sessions, and no forums for community discussion.

Effective consultation is not a box-ticking exercise; it is vital to ensuring fair and informed planning outcomes. The lack of transparency and engagement here is unacceptable.

4. Traffic and Infrastructure Strain
Introducing 220 new units will significantly increase the volume of traffic in an already congested area. Roads such as Trafalgar Avenue and Valley Road are particularly strained during school hours. Local infrastructure — including public transport, parking availability, and road networks — is not equipped to accommodate this level of densification.

This will lead to increased congestion, reduced road safety, and a decline in the overall quality of life for existing residents.

5. Environmental and Ecological Loss
The site is currently home to mature trees and established vegetation that contribute to the area's ecological health and aesthetic value. The removal of this greenery to make way for high-density construction is short-sighted and irreversible. Once these trees are lost, they cannot be replaced in our lifetimes — representing a permanent environmental loss.

In conclusion, this proposal is incompatible with the existing character of Lindfield, undermines local planning processes, and presents serious environmental, social, and infrastructural concerns. I respectfully urge the Department to reject SSD-79276958 in favour of development that reflects genuine community input and the principles of sustainable, place-based planning.

Thank you for considering my submission.

Sincerely,
Joanne Hitchcock
Local Resident

To Whom It May Concern

Re: State Significant Development SSD-79276958– 59-63 Trafalgar Ave, and 1A&1B Valley Road Lindfield

My name is Paul Hitchcock and I live in Roseville, quite close to the proposed development. I am writing to lodge a formal objection to the above-mentioned State Significant Development (SSD) proposal.

1. Inappropriate Height and Density
The proposed development—comprising 220 apartments across four nine-storey buildings—is entirely out of character with the Lindfield area, which is predominantly made up of single and double-storey dwellings, with some low-rise apartments. The scale and bulk of this proposal is grossly inconsistent with the established neighbourhood. 9 storeys is ridiculously high, simply doesn’t fit with the suburb.
Not only would this height result in significant overshadowing of nearby homes, but it would also severely compromise the privacy of existing residents, with apartment windows overlooking private backyards. This level of intrusion is unacceptable and unnecessary.

2. Undermining of Council’s Strategic Plan
I acknowledge the urgent need for increased housing in Sydney and am not opposed to well-considered development. However, the current proposal is not in line with thoughtful urban planning.
Ku-ring-gai Council has developed a carefully balanced housing strategy which, once endorsed by the State Government, will meet—and indeed exceed—the housing targets for this area. That plan was developed through extensive community consultation and reflects local character, infrastructure capacity, and heritage considerations.
Allowing an ad hoc, oversized development such as this to proceed in parallel with the council’s more sustainable approach undermines good planning practice. Once the council’s scenario is adopted, this SSD should no longer be considered viable.

3. Lack of Community Engagement
There has been little, if any meaningful consultation with local residents. Neither I nor my neighbours have received any information, flyers, invitations to community meetings, or surveys regarding this development. This lack of transparency is deeply concerning and suggests an attempt to avoid public scrutiny and bypass local planning controls.

4. Traffic and Parking Concerns
Lindfield and Roseville areas are already under significant traffic pressure, particularly during peak school and commuting hours. The addition of over 367 additional cars will bring an influx of vehicles, with many residents unlikely to rely solely on public transport. The resulting congestion on surrounding roads will further degrade the quality of life in our community and place undue strain on existing infrastructure.

5. Destruction of Established Trees
The planned removal of many mature trees and vegetation is devastating. These trees have taken decades to grow and provide critical environmental, aesthetic, and community value. Their destruction for the sake of high-density development is not justifiable—especially when alternative, lower-impact housing options exist within the council’s preferred scenario.
________________________________________
In summary, this development proposal is poorly suited to the character of Lindfield and disregards the well-considered planning framework being put forward by Ku-ring-gai Council. I urge the NSW Government to reject this SSD and support a more integrated and community-backed approach to housing growth.
Thank you for considering my submission.

Paul Hitchcock
Local Resident

I object to the proposal. Refer to my submission attached.

I object to the proposed development. I note the consultation process with the community regarding this project was inadequate. We received a photocopied piece of paper with limited information. A short webinar provided minimal information about the actual development with a very basic diagram of the project . The proposed project with minimal setback from an adjacent heritage item would severely diminish the heritage value and amenity of the property. The development overshadows lower lying properties on the south side, threatening adequate light, privacy and amenity . The development risks significant biodiversity on a site identified by the NSW Planning Portal as highly sensitive yet the proposal offers no clear justification or environmental mitigation. The development is not consistent with Ku-ring-gai councils new TOD proposal and if allowed, the height, size and bulk of this project will be out of keeping with the precinct's residential character. I request this application is not permitted and that NSW planning awaits approval of the council's alternative TOD before accepting SSDs to ensure Ku-ring-gai's character and amenity is preserved whilst achieving the goal of increased dwellings.

This monstrosity is completely unsuitable to the area and will significantly damage neighbouring property values and neighbours’ quiet enjoyment of their homes.
It’s too high and too large.
If you must, permit a larger number of smaller developments. This is Lindfield not Chatswood.

This extremely large development is in stark contrast to the neighbourhood’s streetscape and would drastically change the character of the area. The proposed building would tower over existing low and medium density buildings in the surrounding streets, especially in the valley to the southeast. The building would result in loss of privacy and sunlight for it’s immediate neighbors. Mature trees which are so highly valued by residents in Ku ring gai would be replace by concrete.
Traffic congestion would increase on already busy suburban streets especially the T-intersection of Russell Ave, Russell Lane and Trafalgar Ave. Russell Lane is a popular shortcut for locals to get from Trafalgar Ave to Nelson Road.
This SSD exceeds building height limits and is outside the council’s proposed TOD for Lindfield Station

We are the owners of 1 Valley Road, Lindfield which is surrounded on three sides by the proposed development. This is an objection to the proposed development.

We object to the proposed development of the following 4 grounds:

1. Impact on heritage area and inadequate mitigation of heritage impacts

• The proposed development site is within the Middle Harbour Road, Lindfield Conservation Area and directly adjoins four heritage-listed dwellings, including our property at 1 Valley Road. Our house has been listed on the heritage register for its contribution to the original streetscape and garden setting.
• In addition to the view of our house, the integrity of the conservation area relies not only on the preservation of individual heritage items but also on the maintenance of the overall character, streetscape, and landscape setting.
• The State is required to consider the effect of proposed development on the heritage significance of the conservation area and adjoining heritage items.
• The Heritage Impact Statement (HIS) acknowledges that the proposed building is of a different scale and typology than currently exists and that the development will introduce a substantial change to the character of the conservation area. While the HIS attempts to justify this on the basis of future planning intent (essentially that if you build enough 9 story apartment blocks in the area then there is no impact on heritage as there is no longer anything to protect), the scale, bulk, and height of the proposed development are inconsistent with the established character and will have a direct and irreversible impact on the setting and significance of 1 Valley Road and other nearby heritage items.
• The HIS proposes setbacks, landscaping, and façade articulation as mitigation measures. However, the visual impact assessment (VIA) and photomontages demonstrate that the development will dominate the local streetscape and diminish the prominence and setting of heritage items, including dwarfing our property at 1 Valley Road. In addition:
◦ pages 48-50 of Appendix B show the failure to consider the transition of heights to the surrounding areas;
◦ the proposed 1.8m steel security gates to the left of our property would severely impact the view of our house from the street (noting that it is this aspect that makes our house a locally heritage significant item).

2. Environmental and Amenity Considerations

• The proposed development negatively impacts 1 Valley Road in the following ways:
◦ Visual and View Impacts – the VIA identifies moderate to severe view loss for neighbouring properties, including 1 Valley Road, particularly from primary and secondary living areas. Please see attached photos to show the current aspect from our property as it would face the development (noting where there is currently mature vegetation and blue sky, instead we would be looking into the proposed development). The proposal will also result in a significant loss of sky views and visual dominance of the new building from adjacent properties. The Apartment Design Guide (ADG) and relevant planning principles require equitable sharing of views and protection of residential amenity. The scale and siting of the proposed development will unreasonably compromise the amenity and outlook of 1 Valley Road, contrary to the objectives of the ADG and the public interest. The developers are required to lodge a visual impact assessment but it grossly misrepresents the impact on the surrounding areas in particular, there are no images showing the impact on the housing on Valley Rd immediately adjacent to the development. The cut and paste job at the end of the VIA (see references to 317 Victoria Parade) indicates that this and perhaps other documentation, has been prepared hastily and without a view to truly considering impacts.
◦ Overshadowing and Privacy - the development will increase overshadowing of adjacent properties and for our property, particularly during the summer months when previously our backyard would be sunlit. The proposed development would mean our background is in shade all afternoon. We will also have a significant loss of privacy due to the height and proximity of new dwellings as well as 400+ residents being able to walk alongside our property via the existing driveway to 1A Valley Road. When the driveway to 1A Valley Road was created as part of the subdivision from 1 Valley Road and 1B Valley Road, it was not created in contemplation that 400+ residents would be able to use the driveway as a new walkway. All the apartments facing our property will overlook directly into our backyard and our children’s bedroom windows. The proposal does not adequately demonstrate that overshadowing and privacy impacts have been minimised as required by the relevant planning principles.
◦ Tree Removal and Landscaping - the Arboricultural Impact Assessment identifies the removal of 42 trees, with only 7 to be retained – the trees to be retained are also likely to have their viability significantly impacted due to the proposed construction. The Assessment also notes that the tree protection zone for the mature trees in our garden are disturbed/encroached by the apartments built directly to the border. There has been no consideration or mitigation steps given to how our garden will be protected. The landscaping plans do not show any visual representation from Valley Road which would actually show the severe loss of tree canopy proposed by the development. The loss of mature vegetation will further erode the landscape character of the conservation area and the setting of heritage items. The removal of significant trees within a heritage conservation area is contrary to the objectives of both the KLEP and the Biodiversity and Conservation SEPP.

3. Procedural and Strategic Issue

◦ Consultation – having spoken with a number of our neighbours during the last couple of weeks during the exhibition period, in many cases there was little to no understanding of the proposed development including its scale, height and density (this includes those who attended the web sessions that were made available). We are concerned that these numerous conversations typify the consultation process more generally and the developers have inadequately engaged with the local and broader community on this project.
◦ Inconsistency with Strategic Planning Objectives - the developers argue that their proposal is justified on the basis of State housing supply targets and the TOD program but note:
▪ the project is over the maximum height at the very extremity of the TOD which makes no transition to single and two story detached housing that typify the environment further away from the station; and
▪ the Ku-ring-gai Local Strategic Planning Statement and Housing Strategy emphasises the need to balance growth with protection of local character, heritage, and environmental values. The council is in the process of proposing an alternative plan to deliver more housing but in a way that is sensitive to these values. The project would not be permitted under the alternative plan exhibited by council.
The application of the Housing SEPP in this context is not mandatory and should be balanced against the adverse impacts identified. The developers have also sought to make this is State Significant Project by including affordable housing but the following factors indicate this project is not a genuine attempt to create more affordable housing:
▪ conveniently, the increased height for the apartments against planning policy is needed for the affordable housing. Without the increased height, the developers have indicated that the affordable housing would not be possible
▪ 18 of the 44 proposed affordable housing apartments would have no solar and/or no cross ventilation
◦ Clause 4.6 Variation – Building Height - the application seeks a variation to the maximum building height under Clause 4.6 of the KLEP. The justification for the variation is based on site topography and strategic planning intent. Clause 4.6 variations must demonstrate that compliance with the standard is unreasonable or unnecessary and that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify the contravention. In this case, the adverse impacts on heritage, amenity, and local character outweigh the purported benefits, and the variation should not be supported.

4. Other Issues

◦ Traffic and Parking - the Transport Impact Assessment claims minimal impact, but the scale of the development will increase local traffic and parking demand, potentially affecting the safety and amenity of Valley Road and surrounding streets.
◦ Cumulative Impacts - the EIS states that the character of Lindfield is changing, but the cumulative impact of multiple high-density developments in a heritage conservation area has not been adequately assessed.

Dear Planning Officers,
I am writing as a long-term resident of Lindfield to formally object to the proposed development application for 220 residential units at 59-63 Trafalgar Avenue & 1A-1B Valley Road, Lindfield.
Having lived in this neighbourhood for [number] years, I am deeply concerned about the scale and impact of this proposed development on our established community. While I understand the need for additional housing, this particular proposal is simply too large and inappropriate for our area.
My primary concerns are:
The sheer size is overwhelming. A 220-unit development with buildings up to 9+ storeys will completely dominate our neighbourhood. As noted in the application materials, this could be "the largest development in all of Lindfield" - which clearly shows it's out of scale with our community character. Our streets are lined with heritage homes and low-rise buildings, and this massive complex will stick out like a sore thumb.
Traffic will become a nightmare. I already experience congestion on Trafalgar Avenue and Valley Road during peak times. Adding 220 new apartments - potentially 300+ new cars - will create gridlock. Where will all these residents park? The overflow will spill into our quiet residential streets, making it difficult for existing residents to park near their own homes.
Our heritage is at risk. This development sits right next to beautiful heritage-listed homes and heritage conservation areas that give our neighbourhood its character and charm. A massive modern apartment complex towering over these historic properties will destroy the streetscape we've all come to love and value.
Public transport access is poor. Despite being marketed as transit-oriented, this site is actually outside the 400-metre TOD boundary. This means residents will be heavily car-dependent, adding to the traffic problems I've already mentioned.
We'll lose our neighbourhood feel. What makes Lindfield special is its village atmosphere, mature trees, and human scale. This development will overshadow neighbouring homes, remove established vegetation, and fundamentally change the character of our area. Once it's built, there's no going back.
Infrastructure can't cope. Our local schools, medical facilities, and community services are already stretched. Adding 220 new households will put enormous pressure on facilities that serve our existing community.
I'm not against development entirely, but it needs to fit with our neighbourhood. This proposal is simply too big, too tall, and too impactful for this location. I urge you to refuse this application or require significant reductions in scale to something more appropriate for Lindfield.
Our community deserves better than having inappropriate overdevelopment forced upon us. Please consider the impact on existing residents who have chosen to live here precisely because of the established character and amenity that this development would destroy.
I trust you will give serious consideration to these concerns when assessing this application.

The height, density and bulk of the project is above maximum building height limits
Creates huge traffic and parking problems
The infrastructure is negatively impacted
There will be overshadowing and also privacy and solar access will be negatively affected
It is completely out of keeping with the local neighbourhood character and and streetscape

I wish to lodge an objection to the SSD Application for 220 Units 59-63 Trafalgar Anenue and 1A-1B Valley Road Lindfield.
This application
greatly impacts on heritage and heritage conservation areas. This includes its abutment to 1 Valley Road which is a heritage Victorian Manor
has a high impact on neighbouring houses by overshadowing and overlooking all their outdoor activities
has a high environmental impact including the destruction of significant trees, huge loss of solar access to neighbouring premises
is not at all sympathetic to its surroundings
is above maximum building height limits
is on the edge of TOD border
does not transition to low density housing
I would appreciate your consideration of these points
Thank you
Christina and Thomas Willoughby (Joint owners of 4 Vally Road, Lindfield)

This development is very concerning (and should be rejected) for the following reasons:
1. It is too high (9+stories!), too dense, and actually above maximum building heights
2. It will be a visual eyesore and lead to major traffic and parking issues in the area
3. It does provide any consideration for the transition to low density houses immediately surrounding it and in fact is outside the boundary of council's proposed "Transport Orientated Development" border
4. It conflicts with the local neighbourhood character and streetscape, and will lead to major privacy issues for surrounding homes (many of which are heritage listed

I would have far fewer issues with this if it were built along the Pacific Highway, however the proposed development would be on or outside the edge of the 400m TOC border.

Please take this as an OBJECTION to the proposed development at the above address.
1. The development is inconsistent with the TOD alternative scenario proposed by Ku-ring-gai Council
Ku-ring-gai Council (KRGC) has been working diligently and extensively engaging the community to propose alternatives to the TOD that will meet the housing demands imposed by the State Government but also preserve the heritage, environment and tree canopy that is unique to the North Shore of Sydney. The Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure (DPHI) should ensure that this development be rejected or held in abeyance until the KRGC’s preferred TOD scenarios become effective.
2. Detrimental to heritage listed items and Heritage Conservation Area
There are 4 heritage listed items adjacent to the development and the development is in the Middle Harbour Road Lindfield Heritage Conservation Area (HCA). This development does not contribute to the HCA and the height and density will have significant detrimental impacts on those heritage items and the HCA in general.

3. Significant height density and large bulk
This development is 33m which is above the maximum allowable building height and in an area that is already high because it sits at the top of a valley.
4. Traffic danger
It borders a very narrow lane, which is already quite dangerous with rat run traffic and such represents a significant danger to the community and local students of the Sunday School at the Alliance Church and Cromehurst School.
5. Significant destruction of tree canopy
This development involves the destruction of a large number of mature trees.

I object to this proposed project strongly on a number of grounds:

1. I am a close neighbour of the project, owning and living in my home at 6 Valley Road Lindfield (for over 14 years), approximately 50 metres from the nearest boundary of the proposed site. There has been no engagement with me. I confirm I did not receive a letter in my letterbox or any other contact (notwithstanding the Community Notification Distribution Map on page 20 of the Consultation Outcomes Report). I first learned about the proposal on 31 May 2025 (five days before submissions close) when a near neighbour knocked on my door to discuss it. Therefore, as far as I am concerned, the claims in the application regarding engagement and consultation with surrounding property owners are factually incorrect and misleading.

2. The proposed project should not qualify as a “State Significant Development” as it is not of significance to the State of NSW. It relates simply to the provision residential dwellings in a local suburban street. This is contrary to the intent of State Significant Development provisions, even if it does meet the $75 million cost threshold. As such, it should be determined by the local consent authority, being Ku-ring-gai Council.

3. The proposal does not comply with either the existing Ku-ring-gai LEP or the draft Ku-ring-gai LEP which, after considerable community consultation (in which I have participated), meets the increased housing objectives of the State government in ways which are sympathetic to the character of and opportunities within the LGA. Specific areas of non-compliance include: (a) height of 9 storeys, FSR of 3.25:1, density and bulk; (b) outside the proposed TOD boundary in the draft LEP; (c) within a Heritage Conservation Area (HCA). In general terms, the proposed project would significantly compromise the local neighbourhood character and streetscape, it would have major impacts on local infrastructure (see more on traffic below), and its scale at 9 storeys would be higher than any other building in Lindfield, including the newer buildings much closer the Lindfield Railway Station and central amenities, and cause major visual, overshadowing and privacy problems. there is no consideration given to the need for transition to lower density housing moving away from the railway station. The removal of 42 trees will have a significant negative impact on the tree canopy and biodiversity.

4. The traffic impact would be significant, and this has not been adequately addressed in the Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA) report. Providing space for 367 cars plus 15 motorcycles will replace 10-15 cars in the existing 5 dwellings. The TIA says there will be “negligible impact on nearby intersections” but only considers the intersections at Russell Ave / Lindfield Ave and Trafalgar Ave / Middle Harbour Rd, which are secondary in the local area. Already, the limited points of access onto the Pacific Highway (particularly at Havilah Road) and Archbold Road (at Tryon Road) experience major delays, not only at peak times but throughout the day. There has been no assessment of this in the application. This traffic congestion has worsened significantly in recent years with added density in the centre of Lindfield, which has been implemented with no changes to traffic infrastructure. This project would significantly worsen this further.

5. The Heritage impact Assessment report makes only one recommendation, namely: “A heritage consultant is to be included in the final resolution of the below: The finalisation of the façade treatment, acknowledging that the facade design should not be visually dominant in the streetscape but should focus on visually breaking the development visual scale into smaller architectural facades or buildings and elements.” This is fanciful: there is simply no way that the façade will not be visually dominant given the proposed scale of the building.

6. 39 of the proposed 220 apartments receive no sunlight in winter. At 17.7%, this is above the 15% minimum threshold.

7. There will be major and unresolvable impacts on the property at 1 Valley Road (which has not been included in the site as it is a local heritage item - there will be 9 storeys immediately adjacent to a two storey heritage dwelling forevermore.

The better pathway would be to refer this proposal back to the appropriate consent authority, Ku-ring-gai Council, and allow it to be addressed when the new Ku-ring-gai LEP has been approved by the State. This is the only respectful way to treat neighbouring property owners and the local community more generally.