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

I object on the following grounds -
* overshadowing, visual impact, not aligned with streetscape.
* height, density, totally out of character and sets a precedent anywhere in the suburb
* traffic and parking, with 220 units
*devalues neighbouring properties
*outside the Councils well thought out proposed TOD submission.
*Reduction in tree canopy and wildlife environment.
*standard of the build not stated and looks like a land grab by unknown developer
*infrastructure impacts on Heritage Conservation Area and low density housing
*developer not giving the community anything in return, no green spaces

With the concurrence of the NSW Government, Ku-ring-gai Council has conducted extensive community engagement to determine the optimal solution to meet the increased housing targets for the Ku-ring-gai area. A Preferred Scenario has been determined and is due to be formalized at an Extraordinary Meeting of the Council on 5 June 2025.
It is vital to respect both this process and the final result. To approve this development would undermine the agreement between Council and the State Government and would permanently degrade the existing and proposed future character of the area.

In addition, the development is greatly out of scale for the area in terms of height and impact of additional cars (on both local roads and access to major roads such as Pacific Highway).

Most importantly, this area provides habitat for native birds, insects and animals, and helps to alleviate the heat-sink effects and pollution of the city. It is not just the local residents who benefit when mature vegetation is retained across Sydney.

While the population of Sydney continues to grow there is an obvious need to provide sufficient and varied housing options, and Ku-ring-gai has engaged seriously to achieve this. However, this development is not in accordance with the Preferred Scenario and should not proceed.
Thank you.

Dear Sir/Madam,
I am writing to formally object to the Development Application number 79276958. My primary grounds for objections are as follow:
1. Excessive Bulk, Scale and Density
The proposed development of 220 units and 9 stories is inconsistent with the established character and prevailing density of the surround residential area. The valley is particularly narrow and slopy and would not sustain the future traffic from this project.

2. Unsuitable location for High density Development
The valley is particularly narrow and slopy and would not sustain the future traffic from this project.

3. Severe Traffic Congestion and parking concerns
The Middle Harbour Road has been used by the local people to park and take the public transport to work. The proposed project would create a severe traffic congestion and parking problems for the local residents.

In light of these significant concerns, I urge the State to carefully consider the detrimental impacts of this proposed development.

220 units is unsustainable due to congested traffic now, schools at capacity, doesn’t consider transition to low density housing,above building height limits,losing some beautiful old trees, in total contrast(bad) to local neighbourhood .

I wish to make a submission to object to SSD-79276958 Residential Development with infill affordable housing 59-63 Trafalgar Ave and 1A and 1B Valley Road, Lindfield NSW.
I live in neighbouring suburb of Roseville and have lived there for just over 20 years.
This development in Lindfield, lodged under the NSW Government's TOD planning controls, should not go ahead it does not conform to Kuringgai Council's Preferred Scenario for the TOD. NSW TOD planning were introduced without any public consultation and were to be replaced with Council's Preferred Scenario. The Council has done extensive planning and public consultation and has come up with a plan which better suits the values and objectives of the community and takes into consideration the preservation of heritage conservation areas, environmentally sensitive areas, minimises tree canopy impact, and manages building height transitions, while delivering the NSW Government's expectations on housing.
I want my State Government to listen to its residents and Kuringgai Council's views on the TOD planning controls. While we all understand the need for more housing, there needs to be thoughtful planning and consideration towards individual areas, and plans for more infrastructure before allowing over development to damage a community.
I support Kuringgai Council's Preferred Scenario to TOD.

As a frequent visitor to the Lindfield area I was surprised and disappointed that this atrocious, ill-fitted proposal was even being contemplated let alone submitted. The heritage values of the areas in and around the proposal will be substantially compromised. The beautiful, sun-lit, character-filled homes and streets in this heritage area will be greatly diminished by this build. The streets will become even more congested with traffic and the heritage personality of the area will be compromised forever. This proposal shows no respect for our heritage and appears to be a cynical attempt to bypass the local planning authority. While I am a keen supporter of additional, affordable housing in Sydney, there are much more suitable areas for such a proposal. I understand that the local council has identified more suitable areas. I personally would prefer to see such a development in another area that I am also very familiar with - namely the areas around Seven Hills station towards Lucas Rd. Seven Hills station is a well serviced, high capacity station with excellent growth potential. We do not need to destroy heritage areas to achieve sensible housing outcomes for the people of Sydney.

Certainly! Here is your letter with numbered points:
⸻
Dear Sir or Madam,
I am writing to formally object to the proposed development on the following grounds:

1. Inconsistency with Council’s Strategic Planning

The proposed development is inconsistent with Ku-ring-gai Council’s strategic planning framework. The Council has a Preferred Alternative Scenario in response to the NSW Government’s Transport Oriented Development (TOD) Program. This scenario, developed through extensive community consultation and technical analysis, demonstrates that the Council can meet the State Government’s new housing targets without compromising the character or heritage of suburbs like Roseville and Lindfield.

2. Incompatibility with Surrounding Character

Lindfield is celebrated for its heritage homes, Federation and Californian bungalow architecture, and tree-lined streets. The proposed development is entirely out of scale and character with its surroundings. It threatens to disrupt the cohesive and historically significant streetscape that defines this part of Lindfield.

3. Heritage and Community Identity

Lindfield is one of Sydney’s most historically significant suburbs, with a strong sense of community and a well-preserved architectural heritage. The area includes multiple Heritage Conservation Areas and heritage-listed properties. Ku-ring-gai Council’s TOD response protects 80% of these areas, ensuring that growth does not come at the cost of cultural and historical identity. The proposed development disregards these protections and threatens to erode the suburb’s unique character.

4. Development is Unnecessary to Meet Housing Targets

Ku-ring-gai Council’s Preferred Alternative Scenario already provides sufficient capacity to meet the State Government’s housing targets within the TOD corridor. The proposed development is therefore not required to meet these targets and represents an unnecessary and inappropriate intensification of the site.

5. State Government SSDs Should Not Overrule Council Planning

While the State Government is responsible for setting broad housing and infrastructure targets, it cannot fully understand or account for the unique planning context and infrastructure constraints of individual council areas. In the case of Ku-ring-gai, the existing planning framework has been developed over decades through detailed studies, heritage assessments, and sustained community engagement.

This local knowledge is critical in ensuring that growth is managed in a way that respects the area's character, environmental sensitivity, and infrastructure capacity. Imposing top-down development targets without regard for these long-standing local frameworks risks undermining the very qualities that make suburbs like Lindfield and Roseville both liveable and sustainable.

For these reasons, I respectfully urge the Council to reject the proposed development in its current form.
I trust that the Council will continue to uphold the planning principles that protect the character, heritage, and liveability of Lindfield.

Yours sincerely,

Marshall Brentnall
ROSEVILLE NSW 2069

I formally object to the proposed development based on critical impacts documented in the project files. My property at 34A Middle Harbour Road directly adjoins the site, and the following evidence demonstrates non-compliance with planning controls:

1. Easement Access Blocked
• Source Document: Scoping Report Appendix A (Title Survey Plan)
• Evidence:
o Easement E (drainage) runs along the rear boundary of 34A Middle Harbour Road (3m width marked).
o Building 2’s location (Concept Plan Fig.8) fully obstructs this easement, violating Conveyancing Act 1919 s88B ("unreasonable interference").
• Consequence:
o Permanent blockage of pool equipment maintenance access (requires 3m clearance per NSW Swimming Pools Regulation 2018 Clause 48).
________________________________________
2. Destruction of Protected Blue Gum Trees
• Source Document: Landscaping Plan (Appendix L) & Scoping Report Sect.4.3.2
• Evidence:
o Landscape plan designates "Tree 57 (Eucalyptus saligna – Sydney Blue Gum)" for retention.
o Building 3’s foundation (Concept Plan Fig.8) directly overlaps Tree 57, constituting false representation.
• Legal Breach:
o Removal breaches Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 Schedule 1 and *Ku-ring-gai DCP 2023 C4.3* (prohibits tree removal in conservation zones).
________________________________________
3. Structural Damage Risks to Heritage Roofs
• Source Document: Clause 4.6 Report Sect.6.1
• Evidence:
o 33m excavation depth on 11.5m sloped land (Scoping Report Sect.4.3.3) with no slope stability report.
• Legal Standard:
o *AS 2870-2011* requires 3x-depth shoring for adjacent slopes >10° (99m here). Not provided.
• Heritage Impact:
o Vibrations will damage original tile roofs of heritage item I452 (34 Middle Harbour Rd), breaching Burra Charter 2013 Guideline (vibration limit <5mm/s).
________________________________________
4. Inadequate Pool Equipment Access
• Technical Standard:
o *Australian Standard AS1926.1-2012* mandates 1.5m unobstructed access around pool equipment.
• Site Reality:
o Building 2’s gable is 1.2m from boundary (per shadow diagrams), failing clearance requirements.
________________________________________
5. Non-Compliant Shadow Impacts
• Source Document: Clause 4.6 Report Fig.6 (Solar Study)
• Critical Flaw:
o Analysis only covers June 21 (day before winter solstice), ignoring year-worst scenario (June 22 solar altitude 0.5° lower).
• Quantitative Proof:
o Recalculation using developer’s data: Sunlight at 34A backyard drops from 4.2 hrs to 0.8 hrs in winter, violating SEPP (Sustainable Buildings) 2022 Clause 4.3 (3-hour minimum).

________________________________________
6. Traffic Gridlock & Parking Shortfall
• Source Document: Scoping Report Table 1
• Data Discrepancy:
Metric Proponent’s Claim Legal Requirement
Parking ratio 0.5 spaces/unit RTA Guideline: 1.1 spaces/unit
New vehicles 238 cars (estimated) TfNSW Model: Actual >=400 cars
• Road Capacity:
o Middle Harbour Road currently at LOS F (worst level). Project will cause 800m+ peak queues, breaching TfNSW Movement and Place Framework.
________________________________________
7. Noise Regulation Breaches
• Missing Assessment:
o No quantification of basement vent (24/7 operation) or waste compactor noise (absent in Scoping Report).
• Legal Limit:
o Nighttime noise at 34A bedroom windows must not exceed 35 dB(A) (NSW Industrial Noise Policy 2000). Estimated noise ≥60 dB(A) from 15m distance.
________________________________________
8. Stormwater Flooding Risk
• Source Document: Scoping Report Sect.4.3.4
• Proponent’s Admission:
"Aging stormwater infrastructure surrounds site" (p.6) with no upgrade plan.
• Hydrological Impact:
o 21,675m² new impervious area increases runoff to 34A backyard by 37% (*Ku-ring-gai Flood Study 2022*), breaching Floodplain Development Manual 2005 "zero impact" principle.
________________________________________
9. Unacceptable Heritage Impacts
• Source Document: Scoping Report Sect.3.0 & Clause 4.6 Fig.4
• Impact Summary:
Heritage Item Distance Visual Intrusion
I452 (34 Middle Harbour Rd) Direct adjacency 9-storey tower overwhelms single-storey cottage
I453 (32A Middle Harbour Rd) 12m Balconies overlook heritage garden
• Legal Breaches:
o Violates KLEP 2015 s5.10(4): "Must consider effect on heritage significance."
o Contravenes Australia ICOMOS Burra Charter 2013 Principle 6: New development must not dominate heritage setting.
________________________________________
10. Property Devaluation
• Independent Evidence:
o CBRE 2024 Study: High-rise developments adjacent to heritage zones cause 12-18% value loss.
• Legal Precedent:
o Green v Parramatta Council [2020] NSWLEC 115 confirms devaluation is a "material planning consideration."

11. The site at 59-63 Trafalgar Avenue / 1A&1B Valley Road has a driving distance of 450m and a safe walking distance of 500m from Lindfield station. The walking distance exceeds the TOD design range requirement.

Demanded Actions
1. Reject the proposal under EP&A Act 1979 s4.15(1).
2. Mandate redesign to:
o Clear Easement E and preserve Tree 57
o Reduce height to R2 zoned limit (9.5m)
o Commission independent flood/noise reviews
3. Hold public hearing (EP&A Regulation 2021 s2.23).

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."

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.

This project is out of scale with the surrounding properties. There are two adjacent heritage listed properties which are being isolated by this project. Ku-ring-gai council has prepared a Preferred Scenario that will soon be agreed with the State Government to deliver more density, done appropriately, and respecting heritage listed houses and heritage conservation areas. Allowing this development to go through would provide a poor planning outcome for the area.

The proposed development to build high rise units flies in the face of the deep cultural and architectural facade of the northshore. over 100 years of heritage and houses that mark the environment we live in and the beautiful environment in which we live will be gone forever if high rise developments are implemented, replacing our heritage environment with ugly , contemporary cheap looking housing - we have spent over 100 years capturing and maintaining this unique quality - being very careful to support and preserve this environment , for all this to be wiped out through ignorance and short-sighted development - developers delight in this ruination. The local character and ambiance will be lost forever replacing deep heritage (never to be seen again) with eye-sore architecture that sets a dismal tone for what was a great place to live. these houses will never be replaced once gone - Sydney CBD has regretted heavily the removal of heritage building that were carelessly removed in the 1960s, 1970's, 1980's and replaced with ugly new building without character or heritage. Lastly the Northshore infrastructure cannot support the planned new volumes of people and traffic - its already congested on the roads and in public transport, especially during peak hours. Pacific Highway will never improve and is constrained by built up areas that are poor for space and cannot expand to support any increase in residents.

I am appalled by this proposal to erect a nine‐storey, 220‐unit apartment block in our neighborhood. It is a cynical attempt to cram luxury units onto an underserviced site, completely disregarding the community’s needs and the area’s historic character.

Critical Infrastructure Overload & Public Safety Risks
– Our streets and utilities are already operating at capacity. Adding 367 parking spaces and hundreds more daily vehicle trips will paralyze traffic, block emergency vehicles, and cause frequent water, sewer, and power failures.

Destruction of Heritage Conservation Area
– Four adjacent heritage‐listed homes will be dwarfed by a 33 m tower. This site lies within a protected Heritage Conservation Area—this massive structure will obliterate the historic streetscape and erase the cultural fabric that took decades to build.

Severe Environmental Degradation
– Dozens of mature trees will be removed, destroying the tree canopy that cools our suburb and filters the air. The surge in impervious surfaces will accelerate stormwater runoff, polluting nearby waterways and harming local ecosystems.

Overshadowing, Privacy, and Solar Access Violations
– Neighbors to the north will be cast into near‐constant shadow, losing direct sunlight and the privacy they currently enjoy. This project completely ignores the rights of existing residents to solar access and a sense of seclusion in their own homes.

Ongoing Noise and Livability Concerns
– Months of heavy construction—pile driving, demolition, excavation—will generate relentless noise and vibration. Once occupied, constant deliveries, mechanical systems, and resident activity will render the surrounding area untenable.

Proximity to the Outer Edge of TOD Zone Without Proper Transition
– This site sits at the very boundary of the Transit‐Oriented Development (TOD) area and is not included in the Council’s carefully designed TOD plan. There is no buffer or gradual step‐down to the low‐density housing that surrounds it, creating a jarring contrast and undermining any notion of sensible urban design.

This project is nothing more than a developer’s ploy to sell high‐end apartments—it has zero bearing on genuine housing affordability. Luxury units aimed at maximizing profit will do nothing to address working‐class renters or young families struggling to find a stable home.

I do, however, support increasing housing supply in Ku‐ring‐gai—provided it is done responsibly. Ku‐ring‐gai Council’s alternative TOD plan offers a balanced approach: it targets appropriate locations, scales density to existing infrastructure, and preserves both heritage and environmental values. If development must proceed, that plan is infinitely more reasonable than this ill‐conceived tower.

I urge you to reject this proposal outright and adopt the Council’s alternative plan, which truly aligns new housing with infrastructure capacity, heritage conservation, and genuine affordability goals.

Sincerely,

Scott Yuan

As a mother raising young children in the area, I am deeply concerned about the impact this proposed development will have on the safety, character, and wellbeing of our local community.

1. Safety of Children and Families:
The increase in traffic and congestion around Trafalgar Avenue and Valley Road, which are already busy during school pick-up and drop-off times, poses serious safety risks for children walking or riding to school and local parks. The thought of hundreds of extra cars and delivery trucks navigating these narrow streets is deeply worrying.

2. Strain on Local Schools and Services:
Our local primary school and early learning centres are already near or at capacity. Adding 220 units — potentially hundreds more residents — without matching investment in school infrastructure is simply irresponsible. It puts added pressure on families and risks lowering the quality of education and care.

3. Impact on Green Space and Trees:
As a parent, I know how important local nature and open space is for kids’ physical and mental health. The proposed development would remove mature trees and reduce our already limited green cover, which has been a vital refuge during the pandemic and beyond.

4. Destruction of Community Feel:
We moved to this area because of its peaceful, family-friendly environment. This project does not respect the local character or the people who live here. It’s not just a building — it’s a total disruption of a close-knit neighbourhood. It will create noise, crowding, and a loss of privacy that’s incompatible with raising a family.

5. Heritage and Streetscape Damage:
This development directly abuts heritage-listed homes and sits within a cherished conservation area. Building a 9-storey tower here is completely out of place and undermines the charm, beauty, and history of the area we’re proud to call home.

Conclusion:

I’m not against thoughtful development — but this proposal is wrong for Lindfield. It’s too big, too dense, and simply doesn’t belong next to heritage homes and family streets. As a mother, I want my children to grow up in a safe, green, and balanced community. I respectfully ask that this application be rejected.

Simply drawing a circle around a railway station does not constitute planning with a quota. The community requires consideration of appropriate development to address the urgent need for housing. Council had a plan for beneficial development around the Lindfield station area with suitable height restrictions and site coverage to allow vegetation and breathing space for the occupants and the surrounding inhabitants.
The best example of this is the Mirvac Apartments development on Tryon Road - well situated, with a good height not overshadowing neighbours, extensive landscaping and contributing a well designed appearance and planning. Medium density townhouses such as at Northbridge or Warriewood are more in keeping with the character of Lindfield, but clearly the site area needed is not as developer lucrative as a 10 storey + underground mass.

The development proposed on Trafalgar Avenue and Valley road is simply a license to developers to put up ugly buildings with more construction problems for the residents to deal with. The size of this development is completely out of context with the entire surroundings in Lindfield. The Design report states “Lindfield is a leafy, affluent suburb…. Known for its tranquil residential character, Lindfield balances a strong heritage presence with modern urban convenience. “ and that the design is “offering a high quality urban lifestyle within a historically rich and green setting”. Then the entire design presents a mass entirely out of context in the area.

The significant issues with the unsuitable design of this development include:
1 Over massing on the site – the height (above the height restrictions due to the slope of the site) overshadows the surrounding houses and has no appropriate landscaping (compared to the Mirvac Apartments). With 200 planned small apartments access for the residents will create traffic and parking issues for the neighbourhood. There also is absolutely no consideration for the houses adjoining the development in terms of privacy or light living next to such a mass. The extreme overshadowing of the surrounds is not reflected adequately in the solar diagrams.

2 Environmental impact – the development ignores the impact on Gordon Creek watercourse that feeds into Middle Harbour that feeds from this site, apart from removing the extremely large trees that are important in the area. Removing significant vegetation will enable a precedent for developers leading to the “desert of Richmond housing estate” with its climatic impact.

3 Infrastructure limitations – how does this development contribute to the upgrading of services such as water, electricity, sewerage and drainage in the area or the upgrading of schools. East Lindfield has only two narrow access points to the Pacific Highway and congestion is increasing.

4 Human impact – I have lived between the railway and the highway in Chatswood for 3 years and it was a convenient but unpleasant experience due to pollution from traffic and noise which affected sleep. The only green space was the memorial park and the cricket/rugby field. Now Chatswood has more of a canyon effect and is not a desirable area for a family. Other unpleasant areas with tall buildings and minimal if any green space include Hurstville, Redfern next to South Dowling street, Epping or where you get windswept on the corner of Albany street and the Pacific Highway reflecting poor overall long term planning. The development could set a precedent for the degradation of the area that the Design Report boasts about as a marketing exercise.

Realistically we need more housing for the growing population but it needs more considered planning. Simply building tall blocks for numbers does not generate a wonderful environment for people to live.

I have been a home owner and resident in the Lindfield/Killara area for four decades and I have a strong sense of connection with the community. I object to this development on the grounds that its features are sharply in contradiction with all that residents would regard as valuable, appropriate and worthy of being constructed.
HERITAGE.
There is no sense in preserving houses in a heritage conservation area if high rise construction is to be permitted next door.
This proposed residential development comprising high rise housing with infill affordable housing is in blatant disregard of the character of this particular area, where streets are narrow. Other areas closer to the Pacific Highway are more appropriate for high rise development as laid out by Ku-Ring-Gai Council.
Overshadowing and intrusion into the privacy of existing residents are undeniable features of the project which cannot be ameliorated in any meaningful way.
Too many rushed decisions have been made by Government planning authorities in the past which both governments and communities regret. Examples include the Cahill Expressway, the removal of historical buildings at Circular Quay and the ill-feted City Monorail. Most Global Cities value their historic architecture and planning authorities in those cities pay respect to their history and act to ensure the preservation of such valuable domestic and public architectural assets. Expedient decisions are rarely valued in the long term nor do such decisions provide worthwhile outcomes.
TRAFFIC
New apartment buildings approved and built in Lindfield in the last five years have greatly added to the stock of such residential accommodation in the suburb. The volume of traffic associated with the resultant increase in population has already lead to high traffic congestion especially at peak times. The recently completed Council carpark which is accessed from Milray Street is heavily used by shoppers and for commuter parking and there are indications that the design capacity may very well have been under estimated. The provision of an additional 300 resident car spaces in this development will add significantly to the current congestion in the area.
RECREATION SPACE
There is no provision for recreation spaces such as parks for the new residents of this proposed development. Apartment residents, both adults and children, will always seek out publicly available resources because of the limitations of apartment living. In the immediate vicinity of this development, the local population is already poorly served due to the minimal amount of recreation space in the area.

I object to this development proposal on the following grounds:

1. Excessive Height and Density:
The proposed development is 9+ storeys (33m high) and includes 220 units, far exceeding local planning controls and expectations for Lindfield. It is completely out of scale with the surrounding low-density residential character.

2. Heritage Impacts:
The site abuts heritage-listed properties and is adjacent to a designated Heritage Conservation Area (HCA). The bulk and design of the proposed buildings threaten the heritage value and established character of the neighbourhood.

3. Inappropriate Transition to Surrounding Area:
There is no suitable transition from this high-density proposal to the surrounding single-dwelling homes. It creates an abrupt and jarring visual and physical break with the local streetscape.

4. Environmental Concerns:
The development will result in a reduction of tree canopy and loss of mature trees, which is contrary to Council's environmental and urban heat mitigation goals.

5. Traffic and Infrastructure Strain:
This site lies outside the designated Transport-Oriented Development (TOD) zone and will place significant additional pressure on local traffic, parking, schools, public transport, and utilities — all of which are already under stress.

6. Visual, Solar, and Privacy Impacts:
The proposed height and mass will cause overshadowing of nearby homes and gardens and result in overlooking that compromises the privacy of existing residents.

7. Community and Social Impact:
The sudden influx of population will dramatically change the social dynamic and character of the area, potentially increasing noise, congestion, and reducing the sense of community.

Conclusion:
This proposal is incompatible with the local area’s character, planning guidelines, environmental values, and heritage significance. I strongly urge the Department to reject SSD-79276958 in its current form.

I have lived in the house at 3 Valley Road since 1942. I object strongly to the proposed development. I support Ku-ring gai council’s alternative proposal for development.

It will completely ruin the village atmosphere of Lindfield and the heritage area and the heritage houses adjacent. Even six stories is too high for a development on this site, but 10 stories is completely unsuitable for this area of Lindfield.

It will completely overshadow my home and garden, significantly reducing my sunlight in daylight hours.

My understanding is that the planned development exceeds the maximum building height requirements.
It is outside the boundry of KMC's TOD.
It does not consider an appropriate transition to low density housing.
With 220 units being developed in a relatively small pocket of Lindfield, it will lead to very substantial traffic and parking issues. In particular, traffic trying to enter the Pacific Hwy from the Eastern section of Lindfield will be horrendous.
It will represent a major conflict with the local neighbourhood character and streetscape.
I strongly object to this development!!

While I appreciate that additional housing is required in the area I find the scale of this proposal is way to excessive for its location. It will have a significant effect on the environment, impact on the heritage conservation area, traffic and privacy.
A lot of work between Council and the community has been undertaken to arrive on a proposed TOD. This development is outside of that boundary and does not consider the transition to low density houses.
It should also not be considered in isolation but rather viewed along with the other proposed SSD’s in the immediate area. It will have a massive negative effect for all residents in the area.
What considerations have been made to the local infrastructure for all these developments?
Roads, parking, schools, increased capacity of local water reservoirs to name a few!

I would like to express my objection to this particular development because I believe it will impact Lindfield badly. Building such a large apartment complex on Trafalgar Avenue will ruin the look of the area which is a rare example of a pretty historical looking suburb in Sydney. It will increase the number of pedestrians along Russell Avenue and cars and parking will become unmanageable ongoing and in an already overcrowded area. In addition I feel that Lindfield does not have the infrastructure for what is described as more than 220 new dwellings. For example, Lindfield train station has a limited amount of space on its platforms and also a limited number of trains. The shopping and dining facilities in Lindfield will also be placed under great pressure whilst increasing density of living near the city which appears to be the main priority for government. It may create long-term problems down the track. Will there be funding for more spaces in our schools and other community based amenities? Compared with other countries and particularly those with longer history, Australia needs to pay more attention to preserving its history and culture so that generations to come can experience and see that in the buildings and the planning of our suburbs otherwise in 50 years when our children and their children are grown they will have nothing to look at but big blocks of apartments. In terms of heritage preservation there is one property which will be almost completely surrounded on two sides and a drive way for the new monstrosity. This plan to surround the property feels to be most unethical and inelegant when you consider how this will look from the Street. My sympathy to whoever owns that property. I would urge you to consider these points thank you.