Residential development with infill affordable housing 9-17 Balfour Street, Lindfield

As a Lindfield local long time resident I strong oppose over development and 9 to 10 story hide rise in Lindfield area.

1.excessive development and density: Our understanding of the NSW Planning framework for this precinct was a limit of 6 to 7 stories. Allowing this project to reach 9 to 10 stories is a massive overreach that disregards local zoning and sets a dangerous precedent for "cramming" our suburb. Why is such a height being permitted when the local infrastructure is already failing.

2. Infrastructure at Breaking Point: Lindfield does not have a Metro. We rely on a train line and a Pacific Highway that is already at a standstill. The intersection of Wallace Street and the Highway is a known bottleneck. Adding a high-density "9 to 10 story" block in a pocket already containing a school, church, and shopping center/ high rise is a recipe for gridlock and safety hazards for schoolchildren.
3. Loss of Character and Security: We settled in Lindfield for its peace, quiet, and security. This development "sardines" residents together, destroying the suburban features/character and privacy we have worked hard to maintain. Development should at least maintain existing local’s living standards (if can not improve) in order to achieve mutual benefit, this proposal actively downgrades them.
4. Lack of Community Benefit: How can the government expect local support when residents are being asked to sacrifice their peace and convenience for a project that offers no improved transport or amenities in return? We are losing our quality of life to satisfy developer margins.
I request that this application be scaled back to the original 6-7 story expectation and that a full, independent traffic impact study be conducted during school peak hours before

As a neighbour which will be greatly impacted, I provide the following points that are the basis of my objection;
- Balfour street is already full of vehicles every day and the proposed developments further down Balfour Street will make the situation greatly worse.
- Construction noise, dust, tradesmen taking all the street parking and historically proven littering of the nature strip and disruption to existing residents must be considered as they will gain ZERO benefit from the development and will greatly suffer.
- Lindfield has NO possibility for affordable housing and suggesting the property development will cater for such is a total lie
- The scale of the development will completely block my northerly views and place my property in shade for a large portion of the year which is unacceptable
- The character of the area is being completely trashed by developers and Government decisions based on bureaucrats who do not live in the area and do not care for those who do.
- The existing Coles redevelopment caused immense disruption and loss of amenity to the local residents and the increased traffic in Balfour Street is now reaching dangerous levels. There is no safe exit turning right out of Balfour Street onto the Pacific Hwy and increased traffic will only make this worse
- The impacted current residents are not being compensated for the loss of value of their properties and the cost of selling and moving together with Government stamp duties on a later purchase is not factored into the negative elements associated with the project.
- The entire character of Lindfield is being trashed by Government policies (TOD) that choose to fill established areas that have no capacity within the local schools, hospitals, roads, electrical, water networks or general facilities for the area chosen to be impacted.
- The residents who made the area our homes did so for the character that existed when purchased. If I wanted to be surrounded by hi-rise apartments I would have sold up and moved to Zetland or similar
- The influx of new residents to Australia is not my choice or doing. The Government made this decision, and it is not my responsibility to abandon my life's hard work to accommodate those to whom this country owes nothing and who have not paid 50 years of tax. My children now can't afford to live in Sydney because of the influx of others who push my children out of the housing market. Again, this is a government caused problem.
- Build new areas for future growth rather than have new immigrants arrive without facilities to cater for them. This is an example of poor Government rather than smart planning.
- As a local resident and an Australian Citizen for my whole life I say enough. ... enough ... enough.
- NO NO NO to this development, and every other development in Lindfield.

I write, not only as a resident in the precinct involved in this development proposal, but also as Parish Priest with responsibility for our church which lies within the precinct, along with our primary school. This proposal, along with the proposal for adjacent properties in Balfour Street, is of great concern to our parish and school. The small precinct bounded by Balfour Street, Wallace Parade, Highfield Road and Pacific Highway is manifestly unsuitable for an increase in residential density. The precinct zoned for higher density development contains just over a dozen homes and yet the two proposed developments will result in hundreds more dwellings despite the fact that the small precinct contains:
* a major Coles supermarket
* a church
*Holy Family Catholic Primary School
* Highfields School

Morning drop-offs and afternoon pick ups for both schools impact Balfour St, Wallace Pde and Highfield Rd. In addition, the route for both drop-off and pick-up for Holy Family School is via Balfour Lane which comes off Balfour Street immediately adjacent to the proposed development. These high traffic periods already cause considerable congestion in the precinct

Wallace Parade, it should be noted, despite its ambitious name, is little wider than a lane.

The only vehicular transit between the eastern and western sides of the railway line is via the Havilah Rd underpass which is narrow, already congested and which becomes, on crossing Pacific Highway, the street in question - Balfour Street.

How on earth could the two developments proposed for Balfour Street be even considered by the government in these circumstances given the extraordinary lack of capacity in the local streets?

Our further objection relates to our parish school - Holy Family School - which partially adjoins the development in question. It would be a grave concern to our parent community that a substantial part of the school play area is overlooked by a ten storey dwelling..

Our final concern is the loss of a small but significant heritage precinct - which until this point was protected for that very reason. This precinct is part of the civic inheritance not only of the local area but of Sydney itself. We strongly object to its destruction when there are ample non-heritage precincts in the local area (which also do not contain the institutional density of this precinct) where medium density could be pursued without the manifold negative outcomes that would occur in this particular precinct.

(Father) Colin Blayney, Parish Priest of the Catholic Parish of Lindfield-Killara, and Dean of the North Shore.

I object to this proposal.
The destruction of 1920s houses, mature gardens and high remnant bushland in a Heritage Conservation Area will enormously diminish the amenity of this area. The tall eucalypts in the corridor to Highfield Road will be a particularly great loss to the whole area. This prospect is particularly distressing when the extra residential accomodation within walking distance of the station could easily be added on the highway nearby without anything like the same level of damage and neighbourhood disruption, which represents an over increase in density completely incongruous to this quiet neighbourhood.
At a time when our State Government purports to be promoting community cohesion, if pursued, this project will create great discord.

I support the project

The height of the building should not be allowed to exceed the current limit of 28.6m. The setback from Balfour Street should follow the east and west sides of the building, i.e. setback 9m from boundary for level 4 and above. These measures would reduce the visual bulk of the building from Balfour Street; also reduce the excessive overshadowing of the neighbouring residents.

The overshadowing of heritage houses with subsequent loss of light for current residents will be of great detriment to the local community. The name; 'Leafy North Shore' will no longer be applicable should this project be approved. There will be loss of native habitat and the stretch of blue gum forest that connects through to Lane Cove will be disrupted. Accompanied with the, already, illegal removal of trees in the area, (a true loss within the community) this will further impact the native species that are reliant on this environmental corridor.
Traffic and parking space are already at capacity as is the train system and other elements of infrastructure (schools/roads etc).
In this area, the water table is close to the surface and underground parking will have an adverse effect.
The works and post work result may impact temperature and air quality for the local residents and wildlife species.
Threatened species such as the long-nosed bandicoot call this part of Sydney home and should be protected.

I formally object to SSD-85974227 for the reasons detailed in the attached submission.

I understand this is a Heritage Conservation Area so why can't you just leave it alone. It's Heritage listed! This is not the area for high rises. What about all the parking issues? There's not going to be enough places!
We need to preserve areas like this! We've got to stop trying to cram as many people as possible into as many places as possible and destroy the families that have made this their forever home.
Please, reconsider, families are at stake and their important too!

My brother and his wife residing at 14 Highfield Rd. since 2000, would be seriously and negatively impacted by the proposed development at 9-17 Balfour Rd., Lindfield, likewise the further development at 19-25 Balfour Rd. The personal cost extends to all the residents in the area impacted by this proposed development
The proposed development is completely out of character with the immediate area. This is a long established heritage area full of high quality one and two level homes of considerable architectural and historic interest.
The vegetation of the area, outstanding with significant native trees and shrubs and fauna to match, is negatively impacted.
The streets are narrow, not adaptable to the increased traffic flow associated with this development added to that for 19-25 Balfour Rd.
For any redevelopment of the property a proposed height of 33.2m is way, way too high. Imagine the shadows to be projected onto surrounding properties.
On behalf of local residents, especially my brother and sister in law so badly impacted by these proposed redevelopments, I object strongly to the proposed redevelopment and request that Council significantly limit the ground space occupied and the allowed building height.

Please see attached letter of objection to the project.
Please come and have a look at all of the other potential sites for such a development which are located on the Pacific Highway (and not in the depths of a side street in a heritage conservation zone) which are much more suitable. I can take you on a tour if you would like.

My objections to the project are contained in the attached Submission.

Please see attached letter of objection.

The development out character of local heritage area. Overshadowing of surrounding houses and heavy traffic impact on local roads.
No allowance has been made to limit adverse impacts on local flora and fauna with removal of many large trees.

Limited car parking spaces will mean many more cars parked on already clogged streets.

I strongly object to this development, for the reasons detailed in the attached submission.

Please see the attachment

I object to this gross overdevelopment on a Heritage Conservation Area, having little regard to the fact that this HCA has saved a protected outstanding biodiversity value land containing a Critically Endangered Ecological Community (CEEC) under the BC Act. It contains both Sydney Turpentine-Ironbark Forest (STIF - PCT3262) and Sydney Blue Gum Forest (PCT3136). This green corridor at the back of all these HCA properties contains flora and fauna not seen elsewhere in Lindfield. It includes Southern Long-nosed Bandicoots, Australian Water Dragons, Eastern Water Dragons, Tawny Frogmouths, Pobblebonk Frogs and King Parrots to name a few. The Heritage of this collection of buildings goes back to 1890s when the Railway Line was first opened and shows a complete progression of building styles through to 1920. It is a unique group of intact houses not represented any where else in Ku-ring-gai. It is worthy of the highest preservation.

I wish to formally object to the current development proposal. While I am not opposed to development in principle, I believe the scale and height of this proposal are excessive and unsuitable for a suburban setting.

As a resident living adjacent to the proposed site, I am directly concerned about the significant impacts this development would have on my home and quality of life. The construction phase alone is likely to involve prolonged noise and disruption. Once completed, the building’s size and proximity would result in loss of sunlight, reduced privacy, and an overall sense of overcrowding. The cumulative effect of these impacts may ultimately force me to relocate.

My objection is not to development itself, but to a proposal that does not appear to fit the character of this particular area. The size and prominence of the structure risk disrupting the visual continuity of the street and suburb. I am also concerned about the removal of established heritage trees and the potential loss of local wildlife habitat.

In addition, the development would adversely affect nearby residents, including young families and elderly people who have chosen this area for its stability and livability. I urge the decision-makers to consider the long-term consequences for the existing community and to avoid approving a proposal that may displace residents in favour of a development that is out of scale with its surroundings.

For these reasons, I respectfully request that this proposal be reconsidered or amended to better reflect the character, environment, and needs of the local community.

I wish to express my objection to the proposed development in its present form due to the following:.

- 9 stories with balconies and windows overlooking the recreation area of the neighbouring catholic primary school are excessive .
-The exterior walls at ground level are unacceptably close to the school playground area while higher floors have a birds eye view of the school playground below.
- The deepsoil provisions in the proposal are below the present TOD's stipulated 50% . This will lead to considerably less vegetation and canopy, so important considering the increased unprecedented higher than normal temperatures that we are experiencing for february, even as I write this submission today. In addition, the roof area, given over to private use, is to be hard surfaced . This, combined with a low percentage of ground level space being reserved for soft landscaping will not contribute to keeping the immediate area cool but could create a heat island instead.

Most importantly, The building is out of proportion with present and future surroundings. THe now gazetted TOD has zoned the area (bounded by Balfour St, Highfield Rd and Wallace Pd) for only 1.3:1 FSR, while the present proposal far exceeds and even doubles this. and will dominate future future apartment blocks in Highfield road which are zoned to be only half the height and density.

In c onclusion, I cannot see how such a proposal can be acceptable in its present form. It flies in the face of and contradicts the zoning of what was gazetted for this particular area bounded by Balfour St, Highfield Rd and /wallace Pd in November 2025, .and as such will not represent good overall planning. With the very much needed infrastructure of the neighbouring Catholic primary school both now and into the future, respecting the FSR stipulated in the agreed upon zoning for this area is much more in harmony with a school for children in their formative years than the intrusive behemoth that this development represents. Without serious modification and in its present form, the proposal cannot be seen to represent the interests of the community.

Assessment Officer manually updated the objectors attachment on 18/02/2026. This was instructed by the objector with consent provided.