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

Support for Appropriate Housing Growth within Ku-ring-gai:
There is general support for the development of new housing within Ku-ring-gai, and recognition of the need for increased density in proximity to transport infrastructure. The community also acknowledges Ku-ring-gai Council’s alternative plan for Transit-Oriented Development (TOD), which promotes carefully considered, well-integrated growth. However, the proposal currently under consideration is not consistent with these objectives. The scale, location, and impacts of the proposed development do not align with the principles of sustainable or context-sensitive urban planning. This site is simply not appropriate for the type and intensity of development being proposed.

Excessive Height, Density, and Bulk:
The proposal seeks approval for a high-density residential development comprising 220 dwellings across nine storeys, with a building height of approximately 33 metres. This is significantly above the current maximum building height controls applicable to the site. The bulk and scale are excessive in comparison to the surrounding built environment, which predominantly consists of low-density residential homes and smaller apartment buildings. This abrupt contrast will result in visual domination, a loss of neighbourhood character, and an unacceptable departure from existing planning parameters.

Edge-of-Precinct Location with No Transition to Lower-Density Housing:
The site is located at the extreme edge of the designated TOD area and, notably, outside the development zones identified in Ku-ring-gai Council’s alternative TOD framework. It is entirely surrounded by low-density residential housing. The lack of any meaningful transition or buffer between the proposed high-rise development and surrounding single-dwelling homes is of serious concern. This violates established planning principles which recommend a graduated scale between different zoning types to reduce adverse impacts and preserve community cohesion.

Heritage Impacts Within a Conservation Area:
The subject site sits within a recognised Heritage Conservation Area (HCA) and directly adjoins four heritage-listed properties. The introduction of a large-scale, high-rise development would irreparably compromise the visual and contextual integrity of this sensitive area. The scale, materials, and form of the proposed building are wholly incompatible with the character and historical significance of the precinct. The proposal would diminish the cultural and architectural heritage value that has been carefully protected over many years.

Overshadowing, Loss of Privacy, and Solar Access Issues:
Due to its excessive height and proximity to adjoining properties, the proposed development will cause substantial overshadowing of nearby homes and private open space, particularly during winter months. This will significantly reduce access to natural sunlight for existing residents, contrary to residential amenity principles. Moreover, the height and density of the building will create serious privacy concerns, with overlooking into backyards and living areas of neighbouring properties.

Acoustic Impacts from High-Density Development:
The scale and intensity of the development are likely to generate significant noise impacts. The site is not well suited to absorb or mitigate the acoustic footprint of 220 units, common areas, vehicular movements, and possible mechanical plant or rooftop facilities. Given the quiet, residential nature of the surrounding neighbourhood, these impacts will be highly disruptive and persistent, particularly for properties adjacent to or near the development.

Loss of Tree Canopy and Mature Vegetation:
The site contains a number of established, mature trees that contribute to Ku-ring-gai’s valued tree canopy and green character. The proposal involves the removal of a significant proportion of this vegetation, which will substantially reduce canopy cover and environmental quality. This loss is particularly concerning given the local and regional significance of Ku-ring-gai’s urban forest, and the increasing need to retain vegetation in the face of climate change and urban heat impacts.

Traffic and Parking Pressures:
The proposed development includes 367 on-site parking spaces, reflecting the expected traffic volume that will be introduced into the local road network. Stanhope Road and adjoining streets are not designed to handle this scale of vehicular movement, particularly during peak hours. The construction phase will further compound these issues, with reduced on-street parking availability and increased safety risks. Post-completion, the area will face ongoing congestion and diminished amenity due to the increased traffic load and competition for parking.

The proposed project is too high and too bulky. It is constructed near the top of a rise in a conservation heritage area and would be overwhelmingly visible all around. Please wait until Ku-ring-gai Council's Preferred Scenario is in place. There are many locations in the Lindfield area which could be developed and would not be as adversely impacted as this one. The topography on the western side of the railway line makes that location far more logical than this location. With this development heritage homes are to be knocked down and nearby low level residential homes will be severely adversely affected. Wrong development in the wrong place.

The development is totally out of character with the surrounding suburb. It is in a heritage Conservation area and will impact on a number of Heritage properties.It has very significant density (220 units) with over 300 parking spaces. There seems nothing planned to handle the extra vehicle loading in the area. It is outside the scope of the planned Kuringgai Council revised TOD paln.

As a 85 year old person who has lived in Lindfield all my life, I feel that these two properties which are in good order and of heritage value should not be demolished.

WENWEN FENG
55 Middle Harbour Road
Lindfield NSW 2070

30 May 2025
To: The Assessment Officer
Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure
Re: Objection to State Significant Development SSD-79276958
59–63 Trafalgar Avenue and 1A & 1B Valley Road, Lindfield

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing to formally object to the proposed development application SSD-79276958 at 59–63 Trafalgar Avenue and 1A & 1B Valley Road, Lindfield. As a nearby resident living at 55 Middle Harbour Road, I have serious concerns about the scale, impact, and suitability of this proposal for our local area.

While I understand the need for housing and development, this particular application is inappropriate for the following reasons:

1. Overdevelopment and Incompatibility with Local Character
The size and scale of the proposed development are excessive and inconsistent with the surrounding residential streetscape. This is a low-density, family-oriented area — and the proposed intensity of use would completely alter the established character, setting a dangerous precedent for future developments.

2. Traffic, Parking, and Safety Risks
Trafalgar Avenue, Valley Road, and Middle Harbour Road already experience congestion during peak hours. This development would significantly increase traffic volumes, leading to safety concerns for pedestrians (particularly school children and older residents), and causing further delays for residents entering or exiting the area. On-street parking overflow will worsen, especially given the limited space and narrowness of nearby roads.

3. Environmental Concerns
The removal of mature trees and the destruction of green space is deeply concerning. Our area is home to valuable native flora and fauna that should be protected. Any proposal that involves extensive tree loss should not be supported, especially in a time when preserving green canopy and enhancing urban biodiversity is a public priority.

4. Amenity Impacts on Surrounding Residents
This development will bring increased noise, reduced privacy, and overshadowing of nearby homes. These impacts directly reduce the quality of life for existing residents. As a nearby property owner, I am concerned about how this will affect the liveability and value of my home.

5. Insufficient Community Consultation
Many residents were unaware of the proposal until very recently. A development of this magnitude requires thorough and transparent community engagement. It is unacceptable that this has progressed with limited input from those most affected.

For these reasons, I strongly oppose the current proposal under SSD-79276958 and urge the Department to reject the application in its current form. I respectfully request that any future development on this site be significantly scaled back and aligned with local planning controls, environmental protections, and community expectations.

Please acknowledge receipt of this objection and notify me of any further updates or opportunities to make submissions.

Yours sincerely,
WENWEN FENG

The Development is outside Ku-Ring-Gai Council's TOD boundary.
The Development will overshadow Heritage properties in Middle Harbour Rd.
The Development conflicts with the local residential neighbourhood.
The Development will have a negative impact on the road infrastructure. Currently there is significant traffic congestion in Lindfield Ave for vehicles assessing the Pacific Hwy.
The proposed Development is above the maximum building height limit. The development should not be allowed to exceed five stories. A reduced height to 5 stories would overcome the issues of overshadowing.

From: YAPING XIONG
Address: 55 Middle Harbour Road, Lindfield NSW 2070
Date: 30/05/2025

Dear Planning Officer,

I am writing to strongly object to the proposed development under SSD-79276958, located at 59–63 Trafalgar Avenue and 1A–1B Valley Road, Lindfield. As a long-term resident at 55 Middle Harbour Road, I am deeply concerned about the negative impacts this large-scale project would have on our neighbourhood’s character, infrastructure, and environment.

1. Inappropriate Scale and Density
The proposed development is excessive in scale for this part of Lindfield, which is defined by low-density residential homes and green streetscapes. The height and density proposed are completely out of step with the existing built environment and would set an undesirable precedent for future development in the area.

2. Traffic and Safety Impacts
This area already suffers from traffic congestion, particularly during school pick-up and drop-off hours. Adding potentially dozens of new dwellings will increase local traffic dramatically, leading to congestion and a higher risk of accidents. The additional vehicle movements would place significant pressure on Valley Road and Middle Harbour Road, both of which are not designed to accommodate high volumes of traffic.

3. Loss of Amenity for Existing Residents
The proposed development will overshadow neighbouring properties and infringe on the privacy of surrounding homes. Noise, light pollution, and loss of visual outlook will have a detrimental impact on local residents’ quality of life.

4. Strain on Local Infrastructure
There is no indication that local schools, public transport, or community facilities will be upgraded to support the influx of new residents. Lindfield Public School and other local services are already at or near capacity.

5. Environmental Concerns
The removal of established trees and reduction of permeable surfaces is unacceptable in an area already experiencing increasing urban heat. The proposal does not offer sufficient green space, nor does it appear to adequately address stormwater runoff or sustainability considerations.

I urge the Planning Authority to reject this application in its current form and to require a development that is more appropriately scaled, environmentally sensitive, and respectful of the surrounding community.

Thank you for the opportunity to make this submission. I ask that my objection be formally recorded and considered as part of the assessment process.

From:YANGYANG SONG
Address: 43 Middle Harbour Road, Lindfield NSW 2070
Date: 30/05/2025

Dear Sir/Madam,

I write to formally object to State Significant Development Application SSD-79276958, concerning the proposed multi-unit residential project at 59–63 Trafalgar Avenue and 1A–1B Valley Road, Lindfield. I reside at 43 Middle Harbour Road, Lindfield, and have serious concerns about the proposal’s impacts on our neighbourhood.

1. Traffic and Parking Impacts

The development’s scale will generate a significant increase in vehicular traffic along Trafalgar Avenue and Valley Road, both of which are already operating near capacity during peak hours.

Insufficient on-site parking is proposed, which will lead to overflow parking on local streets, exacerbating congestion and reducing road safety for pedestrians and cyclists.

2. Neighbourhood Character and Streetscape

The bulk, height and density of the buildings are out of character with the predominantly low-rise, suburban nature of Lindfield.

The proposed façades and materials do not respond sensitively to the existing heritage cottages and tree-lined streets in the vicinity.

3. Overshadowing and Privacy

The height and proximity of the new buildings will cast extensive shadows over adjoining properties and public open spaces, diminishing sunlight to neighbouring homes and gardens.

Balconies and windows overlooking adjacent yards raise serious privacy concerns for existing residents.

4. Community Facilities and Infrastructure

Local schools, parks and medical centres are already under strain. An influx of additional residents without commensurate investment in infrastructure will exacerbate pressure on community services.

5. Environmental and Stormwater Management

The proposal appears to rely on minimal green space and permeable surface, increasing the risk of stormwater runoff and flooding in an area prone to heavy winter rains.

There is insufficient detail on how the development will protect existing mature trees, which contribute significantly to the area’s amenity and wildlife habitat.

For these reasons, I respectfully request that SSD-79276958 be refused or substantially amended to reduce scale, improve setbacks, enhance landscaping, and address traffic, privacy and environmental concerns.

Thank you for your attention to my submission. I trust the Committee will carefully consider the serious negative impacts this proposal would have on our local community and streetscape.

As a long term resident of the municipality, I object to the development of this massively inappropriate high rise project in Lindfield on the following grounds:
1. The finished structure(s) will create extreme overlooking of existing heritage houses which due to their listed heritage status are unable to be developed, changed or altered to any significant extent. The overlooking aspect results in unacceptable intrusion on the privacy of existing residents.
2. It is understood that Ku-Ring-Gai Municipal Council has developed an alternative planning scheme for heritage listed properties under which the proposed development would fail to gain Council approval.
3. The immediately surrounding streets in the area of the proposed residential development are narrow and restrictive to traffic flow. Lindfield commercial district on the eastern side of the railway is already very busy with delivery vehicles and shopping traffic. The recently completed Council carpark which is accessed via Milray Street is heavily used by shoppers and for commuter parking. To add a new development with 300 resident car spaces increases the already high traffic congestion in the area.
4. A nine storey residential building for the site consisting of 200 units is a a gross over development. Apart from the additional traffic generated, there are no parks or external recreation spaces to provide facilities for an estimated 1000 residents.

To Whom It May Concern,
I am writing to strongly object to the State Significant Development (SSD) application for 220 units at 59-63 Trafalgar Avenue & 1A-1B Valley Road, Lindfield. As a resident of the Lindfield Station East area, I am very concerned about the negative impacts this development will have on our neighbourhood.

1. Height, Density, and Bulk
The proposed development of 220 units in a 9+ storey, 33m high building is far above the maximum height limits for this area. This scale is out of character with the existing low-density neighbourhood and will dominate the local streetscape. Furthermore it sits atop a ridge line so will tower over the neighbourhood
2. Inappropriate Location
The site is on the outer edge of the 400-metre Transport Oriented Development (TOD) border and is outside the boundary of the Council’s Proposed TOD. This makes it an unsuitable location for such a large-scale development.
3. Lack of Transition to Low Density Housing
The proposal does not provide a suitable transition to the surrounding low-density, heritage-listed, and heritage conservation area (HCA) houses. This abrupt change will negatively affect the character and amenity of the area. There should be reasonable set back if this development is to take place
4. Traffic and Parking Impacts
An increase of 220 units will significantly worsen traffic congestion and parking shortages in the area, which are already problematic. Unless they can provide 440 car parks there will be significant parking issues as the property is on a narrow hilly street
5. Visual and Environmental Impacts
The bulk and height of the development will create negative visual impacts, including overshadowing, loss of privacy, and reduced solar access for neighbouring properties. The reduction in tree canopy and removal of mature trees will also harm the local environment. There are significant trees on these properties that will be removed and will be impossible to replace with newer smaller ones that may not survive
6. Heritage and Neighbourhood Character
The development abuts heritage-listed and conservation area houses, threatening their integrity and the established character of the surrounding area. We must try and protect these areas and develop appropriately around them. There are plenty of areas within 400m of the station where there is no HCA that can be developed
7. Infrastructure and Social Impacts
Local infrastructure, including roads, schools, and public transport, cannot support such a large increase in population. This will reduce the quality of life for both new and existing residents. This development surely must be considered with other developments of which there are at least 8 within 1km all of which will habe or 100 units. The roads, trains, schools are already choked in this area. Surely the collective impact must be considered.

For these reasons, I urge you to reject this development application or at least reduce it signficantly to be a more reasonable development is density and scale or ultimately the HCA area will be ruined.

I have lived in Lindfield for over 60 years. What attracted me and others to live on the upper North Shore was the leafy peaceful and safe neighbourhood where one could live in a house with a backyard and still be within walking distance of a train station. I fear that if developments like this one are allowed then such places will no longer exist. Instead Lindfield and most of the upper North Shore of Sydney will be no different to the rest of Sydney in being too crowded, noisy and predominantly a concrete jungle of high rise apartments. Whilst this might alleviate the housing crisis it creates a host of other difficult issues. Significant and unique housing architecture from the turn of the last century will be lost forever as will the defining characteristics of Ku-ring-gai. This is a mistake that cannot be reversed. It reminds me of the efforts of the 1970s to protect the historic Rocks district of the Sydney CBD. The many heritage houses of the upper North Shore were predominantly built close to train stations - that history should be protected for future generations. This development on Trafalgar Avenue and Valley Road is at the top of a hill and on the fringe of the TOD area meaning it will be completely out of character with all around it. It also impermissibly extends beyond the TOD zone. If allowed it will be an eyesore on the horizon. It will create an unwelcome precedent and undermine all the houses around it as privacy, safety and peaceful living will all be significantly compromised. Nine stories where there are currently only two stories is simply too much. It is a very short term bandaid solution that allows developers and opportunistic owners to profit from destroying all that Ku-ring-gai is famous for.

Refer to the attached for details on the objection in three summarised areas: 1) The application does not appear to honour the intentions and principles underpinning the State Significance principles; 2) Heritage impacts have been poorly considered in the Heritage Impact Statement and the design will undermine the heritage and environment in the area; and 3) This proposal would set a dangerous precedent: working outside the local council efforts to develop while protecting and enhancing the local area

Dear Sir or Madam,

I am writing to formally object to the proposed development project for the following reasons:

1. Inconsistency with Council’s Preferred Scenario
According to the Council’s preferred scenario—which takes into account community feedback, local character, heritage considerations, and appropriate transition—this site is clearly not suitable for high-density development. The presence of surrounding heritage-listed items further reinforces that it is only appropriate for low-rise R2 zoning, such as single dwelling houses.

2. Excessive Floor Space Ratio and Building Height
The proposed FSR of 3.25 and building height of 33.07 metres are vastly greater than the area's current and proposed planning controls, which permit an FSR of 0.3 and a maximum height of 9.5 metres. Such a scale would severely impact the surrounding area by disrupting solar access, diminishing sunlight, and altering the established character of nearby properties—raising significant transition concerns.

3. Inadequate Deep Soil Provision
The proposal includes only 23% deep soil, far below the required 50% for high density development if allowed. This shortfall undermines essential urban design principles including tree canopy retention, biodiversity support, and effective stormwater infiltration.

Given the above concerns, I strongly urge that this project be rejected. The Council’s preferred scenario is the result of more than 18 months of collaborative work between the Council and the community, and it should be respected in future planning decisions.

Thank you for considering my submission.

Resident name: JS
Roseville 2069
PH 0416 847 646


Objection to - SSD 59-63 Trafalgar Ave & 1A-1B Valley Rd Lindfield

I currently live about 5oo metres away from the site proposed.

My objection to this development is based on the fact that I do not believe it is in the public interest to have such an enormous building in a residential area.

There would be a huge impact on the access points in and out of the area. The parking would be untenable and the roads would be congested. There are already very narrow roads around this area and adding this amount of traffic would create safety issues.

I have not been given any information from the developers regarding this and have not received letterbox drop information or other information regarding this despite living around the corner from it .

The height of this building is completely out of line with all other buildings in the area and would be an eyesore. It would also cast a shadow on the neighbouring houses for most of the day (a friend who lives next door to this proposed development has told me she will lose sun from 930am for the rest of the day ) which to me is absolutely appalling.

I am also concerned about the demolition of lovely family homes, trees and green areas that would been removed and community spaces that would be affected.

I am also told the height and bulk is above the limits allowed.

I strongly oppose this development

I am writing to formally object to the proposed residential development at 59–63 Trafalgar Avenue and 1A–1B Valley Road, Lindfield, currently under consideration as a State Significant Development (SSD). I urge the Department of Planning and Environment to reject this proposal based on the following concerns:

1. Heritage Impact: The proposed development threatens the unique heritage character of Lindfield. The area is known for its early 20th-century architecture and established streetscapes. The scale and design of the proposed buildings are incompatible with the existing heritage context, potentially leading to irreversible changes to the suburb's character.

2. Environmental Concerns: The development site is located within an area with significant tree canopy and biodiversity. The proposed construction would necessitate the removal of mature trees, leading to habitat loss and a reduction in urban greenery. This is contrary to the principles of sustainable development and environmental conservation.

3. Infrastructure Strain: The addition of 237 apartments will place considerable pressure on existing infrastructure, including roads, public transport, schools, and healthcare facilities. There is no clear plan to upgrade these services to accommodate the increased population, which could lead to congestion and reduced quality of life for current residents.

4. Community Consultation: The process leading to this proposal has lacked adequate community consultation. Residents have not been sufficiently informed or involved in the planning stages, leading to decisions that do not reflect the community's needs or desires.

5. Precedent for Overdevelopment: Approving this development could set a precedent for similar high-density projects in low-density residential areas, leading to overdevelopment and the erosion of community character across the region.

6. Traffic and Parking Issues: The proposed development is likely to exacerbate existing traffic congestion and parking shortages in the area. The local road network is not designed to handle the increased vehicle movements that would result from such a high-density development.

7. Lack of Affordable Housing Guarantees: While the proposal includes an infill affordable housing component, there are no clear guarantees or mechanisms to ensure that these units remain affordable in the long term. This raises concerns about the actual benefit to the community in terms of housing diversity and affordability.

In light of these concerns, I respectfully request that the Department of Planning and Environment reject the proposed development application. Preserving the character, environment, and livability of Lindfield is of paramount importance to its residents and the broader community.

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

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

I support this project in the principle that it provides housing in a well located area near public transport, which is necessary to combat Sydney's housing crisis.

However, the provision of 367 parking spaces for 220 dwellings is excessive, which is an average of 1.67 car spaces per dwelling. Despite the non-discretionary standards under Chapter 2 of the Housing SEPP, DPHI should still request the proponent to reduce the parking provision. Whilst the Ku-ring-gai's DCP does not apply in this instance, it can still be used for comparison. Using section A 7B.1 of the DCP, the development should provide no more than 346 spaces. Despite the excessive amount of parking, this project should still be approved.

The provision of car spaces is expensive and affects the cost of construction for apartment buildings, making the apartments less affordable overall. A Centre for International Economics report in 2024 prepared for the NSW Treasury found that parking in mid rise apartments like this one added $93k to the cost of a new apartment in 2023. If the applicant were serious about providing more affordable housing, they would reduce the amount of parking spaces provided. Despite the current apartment premium in Ku-ring-gai, the high future supply of apartments in the TOD precincts may may damage the financial feasibility of the project. If the project is approved with this amount of parking, the construction cost may prove to be higher than what the apartments will sell for, delaying construction, and failing to provide housing in a timely manner during the Housing Accord period. Lower parking provisions also has positive externalities, by reducing pollution, encouraging active transport, improving the physical health of its residents, and reducing traffic.

This project aims to deliver a residential property with over 200 new apartments in the middle of a low density residential area. This proposed 9-storey building will adversely impact the surrounding area due to environmental, overshadowing, noise, and privacy issues. The neighbouring homes and lands are significantly devalued by this project. The increased residents will cause a heavy burden to local traffic and parking, but no plan is proposed to solve it. The proposed site is on the edge of the state's TOD area and outside the council's preferred TOD area, which means this site is not suitable for such development after a more comprehensive review. The proposed fsr and height exceed the original TOD plan, too. This project will also adversely impact 1 Valley road, which is a heritage item that should be protected. An appropriate SSD project should be in public interest but this one provides no benefit but more problems to local area. Please reject this application.

I oppose the proposed SSD near Lindfield Station East due to serious concerns about planning overreach and infrastructure inadequacy.

The proposed development:

Exceeds the building height limit and is located outside the boundary of the Council’s proposed Transport-Oriented Development (TOD) area, undermining the strategic integrity of local planning instruments.

Will place excessive pressure on already stretched local infrastructure, including traffic networks, water, sewerage, and social services such as schools and medical centres.

Ignores the need for a transitional zone between high-density development and the surrounding single-dwelling homes, creating a jarring and disruptive built environment.

This proposal sets a dangerous precedent for ad hoc intensification that disregards established planning controls and community expectations. Approving such a development risks further undermining public trust in the planning process and eroding the local character of Lindfield.

Submission Title: Objection to Development Application (DA 79276958) – 220 Units at 59–63 Trafalgar Ave & 1A–1B Valley Rd, Lindfield

To Whom It May Concern,

I wish to formally object to the above development application on the following grounds:

⸻

1. Excessive Height, Density and Bulk
• The proposed development exceeds 9 storeys and reaches 33 metres in height — far above Ku-ring-gai Council’s maximum building height for this area.
• At 220 units, the scale and density are disproportionate and incompatible with the surrounding low-density residential and heritage areas.

2. Inappropriate Zoning and TOD Encroachment
• The site lies outside the official boundary of Council’s Proposed Transport Oriented Development (TOD) zone.
• It is on the outer edge of the 400m TOD radius, lacking sufficient justification to support this intensity of development.

3. Detrimental Impact on Heritage and Neighbourhood Character
• The proposal directly abuts heritage-listed homes and a Heritage Conservation Area (HCA).
• The transition from high-rise to low-density, single-dwelling homes is abrupt and inappropriate.
• It would compromise the historic and aesthetic character of the Lindfield Station East precinct.

4. Traffic and Parking Concerns
• Increased traffic congestion in already narrow residential streets.
• Insufficient parking for residents and visitors may result in overflow into surrounding areas, worsening local congestion.

5. Negative Visual and Environmental Impacts
• Overshadowing of adjacent properties and streets, reducing access to solar light.
• Loss of tree canopy and mature trees, impacting biodiversity and local amenity.
• Visual bulk of the development dominates the streetscape and undermines neighbourhood appeal.

6. Infrastructure and Social Impact
• Local infrastructure (roads, sewerage, water, power, schools) is not equipped to handle this scale of intensification.
• Significant strain on local amenities and services, negatively affecting current residents.
• Lack of social cohesion due to sharp contrast in building typology.

⸻

Conclusion:
This development is over-scaled, misaligned with planning controls, and damaging to the character and amenity of Lindfield. It fails to respect existing zoning, heritage values, and infrastructure capacity.

I respectfully request that this application be rejected or significantly amended to better align with Council’s planning framework and community expectations.