Residential flat building with in-fill affordable housing - 19 - 25 Balfour Street, Lindfield

I support the proposed redevelopment of 19–25 Balfour Street, Lindfield.
Lindfield is an ideal location for additional housing because it already has excellent public transport, schools, shops and community facilities. More housing options are needed for young families, downsizers and professionals in established suburbs like Lindfield.
I believe well-planned redevelopment can occur while maintaining the qualities that make the suburb attractive. Careful planning should allow communities to evolve rather than remain unchanged.
I respectfully ask that the proposal be approved.

I am writing as a long-term local resident to express my strong support for State Significant Development application at 19-25 Balfour Street, Lindfield.
Having rented in Killara and Lindfield for several years, I have experienced first-hand the severe financial strain of skyrocketing rents. This housing stress is widespread across the North Shore. Many of my local friends, whose families have been deeply rooted in this community for decades, face the heartbreaking reality that their children’s generation is completely priced out of the area. These young people want to raise their own families here, send their children to the same reputable local schools, and enjoy the distinct childhood lifestyle that Lindfield and Killara offers, but the lack of diverse, attainable housing makes it a mathematical impossibility.
The structural cause of this crisis is an acute shortage of supply. For too long, excessive planning red tape and restrictive local controls have stifled meaningful housing growth on the North Shore. The historic undersupply of modern apartment living has driven both rental and purchase prices to exclusionary levels, putting the area entirely out of reach for the younger generation.
I am incredibly relieved that the NSW State Government has initiated the Transport Oriented Development (TOD) Program to cut through this inertia. Directing high-density growth around established transit infrastructure is the only logical and sustainable solution. This specific site is absolutely ideal, sitting less than 100 metres from the Coles supermarket (No. 1 Balfour Street, Lindfield), a short walk from Lindfield train and bus station, and in immediate proximity to local cafes, parks, and schools. Delivering 120 new apartments - including 30 dedicated affordable housing units - is a profoundly positive injection of housing stock that gives young families a genuine fighting chance to establish themselves in the North Shore market.
While I acknowledge concerns regarding changes to the existing streetscape, we must look at the broader environmental picture. Restricting high-density development in optimal urban hubs simply pushes housing demand further to the urban fringe. This causes urban sprawl, forcing the destruction of untouched, pristine bushland habitats elsewhere in the state. By contrast, concentrating infill development on this highly connected and urbanised Lindfield site ensures that housing is delivered under strict, modern environmental and energy-efficiency standards. Furthermore, it embeds a low-carbon lifestyle, enabling residents to walk, cycle, or take public transit for their daily commutes rather than relying on private vehicles.
Ultimately, this development is not about change for the sake of it; it is about community survival and equity. If we do not act, Lindfield risks transforming into an exclusive enclave accessible only to retirees and the ultra-wealthy. A truly vibrant, healthy community requires demographic diversity—it relies on young families, essential workers, and a mix of generations. We need neighbourhoods where children can walk safely to school, friends can live near one another, and public infrastructure is fully utilized. Project SSD-82709458 provides a fair, balanced mechanism to achieve this. I strongly urge the Department to approve this application and support the future vitality of Lindfield.

Objection Submission to Proposed Development

To: NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure

Re: State Significant Development Application SSD-82709458 — 19–25 Balfour Street, Lindfield

As a resident of the local area, I wish to lodge my objection to the proposed development. In my view, the proposal in its current form is seriously flawed and would cause long-term and irreversible adverse impacts on the surrounding community, road traffic, parking, residential amenity, solar access, the local skyline and the natural environment.

I respectfully request that the NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure assess this application with great care and refuse the proposal in its current form, or at the very least require the applicant to fully address the following significant issues before any determination is made.

1. The building height substantially exceeds the maximum permitted under the planning controls

The proposed building is clearly excessive in height, exceeding the maximum building height permitted under the applicable planning controls by approximately 4 metres. This is not a minor departure; it is a significant exceedance that materially increases the bulk, scale, visual dominance and overbearing impact of the development.

The purpose of a height control is to maintain a reasonable balance between development intensity and the amenity of the existing residential environment. Allowing this project to breach the height limit by such a margin would undermine the integrity of the planning framework and could set an undesirable precedent for similar over-height development in this area in the future.

Excessive building bulk would not only affect the immediately adjoining residents; it would also change the sense of space, openness and residential amenity of the entire neighbourhood. I submit that the project should be required to comply strictly with the applicable height controls, and should not be permitted to obtain additional development yield through a substantial breach of those controls.

2. Increasing dwellings and population while reducing parking will worsen traffic and parking pressure

The amended proposal adds more dwellings, which means the development will accommodate more residents, visitors, delivery vehicles, service vehicles and waste collection vehicles in future. At the same time, the proposal reduces the number of parking spaces. This arrangement is plainly unreasonable and does not reflect the practical needs of residents in the surrounding area.

The local road network is constrained, and the existing streets already experience traffic and parking pressure. Increasing residential density while reducing parking supply will inevitably worsen road congestion, on-street parking shortages and traffic safety risks.

These impacts will not be confined to the future occupants of the development; they will directly affect the daily lives of existing residents, including ease of access, visitor parking, safe movement through the area, waste collection, emergency vehicle access and overall residential amenity.

A development that increases the residential population should not be permitted to reduce parking provision without fully resolving its traffic and parking impacts. I request that the consent authority require the applicant to reassess the traffic and parking impacts of the proposal and to provide parking commensurate with the increased number of dwellings and realistic levels of demand.

3. The over-height building will damage the skyline and make it harder for residents to obtain adequate sunlight

The building bulk that exceeds the height controls will damage the established skyline and residential character of this area. A building of this height and scale is not compatible with the existing surrounding residential environment.

I am particularly concerned that, if over-height buildings of this kind are approved, it will become increasingly difficult for residents of this area to obtain adequate natural sunlight. Solar access is a basic and important residential amenity, directly related to residents’ health, comfort and quality of life. Once a building of this height is constructed, the resulting loss of sunlight, sky views and openness will be effectively irreversible.

This area currently enjoys a good residential environment and a strong sense of openness. If over-height, over-scale buildings continue to be permitted, the character of the community will progressively change, and surrounding residents will bear the long-term consequences of overshadowing, visual dominance, reduced privacy and diminished environmental quality.

The project also risks creating an undesirable precedent, exposing surrounding residents to further overdevelopment of a similar kind in the future. I submit that the consent authority should give full weight to the project’s overall impact on the skyline, solar access, streetscape character and residents’ quality of life, rather than assessing it solely from the perspective of the development benefit of a single site.

4. The BDAR is based on the site condition after trees had already died; the tree-poisoning incident must be clarified before any determination

I note that the Biodiversity Development Assessment Report (BDAR) submitted for this project is based on the current condition of the site, in which some trees have already died or been severely damaged. I understand that there are serious community concerns regarding trees being poisoned or deliberately damaged in the area, and that the investigation and enforcement of such tree destruction matters fall within the responsibility of Ku-ring-gai Council.

If the relevant trees were in fact poisoned or deliberately destroyed, then an ecological assessment that takes the post-damage condition of the site as its baseline may not properly reflect the true pre-damage ecological value of the site, the value of the trees, or the environmental impacts of the proposal. Such a report may, in practical effect, reduce the ecological constraints on the project, weaken the protections that should apply to trees and biodiversity, and allow the developer to obtain an improper planning benefit from the damaged state of the environment.

I therefore request that the NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure, before assessing and determining this application, seek confirmation from Ku-ring-gai Council regarding the progress and outcome of the investigation into the tree-poisoning incident, including whether the deaths of the relevant trees involved poisoning, deliberate destruction or any other unlawful conduct.

Until the investigation into the tree-poisoning incident has been concluded, the consent authority should not accept the BDAR without qualification, nor treat it as a reliable, complete and lawful basis for ecological assessment. Only after the investigation findings are known can it be determined whether the BDAR is accurate and lawful, and whether a fresh, independent ecological assessment based on the original condition of the trees is required.

If the investigation confirms that trees were deliberately poisoned or destroyed, the consent authority should require the applicant to resubmit its ecological assessment materials and should ensure that no unlawful destruction of vegetation is converted into a development benefit through the planning approval process. Otherwise an extremely dangerous precedent will be created: destroy the trees first, then seek approval on the basis of the reduced ecological value of the damaged site.

Until the outcome of the investigation is clear and the accuracy and reliability of the BDAR have been verified, this project should not be approved.

Conclusion

For the reasons set out above, I respectfully request that the NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure refuse this project in its current form.

I note that the traffic generation plan prepared by Traffix applies a broad brush approach in estimating the overall traffic impact and obviously they have concluded that this will have minimal impact. This is not the reality and I invite the assessors to perform a physical site visit in peak hours (Mornings and Afternoons) where school pick ups and drop offs are conducted.

Traffix also claim that there would be a net generation of 20 trips during the morning peak hour period (5 in, 15 out) and 15 in the evening peak hour period (11 in, 4 out). That assumption means that they believe only 10.84% of the 184 car spaces in this proposal would have activity in the morning, and 8.1% in the evening in their respective peak hours. This calculation is optimistic if not flawed, and should also be conducted in addition to the proposed development on 9-17 Balfour Street, which is looking at also adding another 181 car spaces.

As mentioned by previous submissions, the site is located on a narrow single lane between two public schools, a church, and a public supermarket (which is at time of submission is one of the largest Coles in Sydney). Additionally, Wallace Parade which sits adjacent to the site is even tighter and only accessible by one car at a time regardless of direction. When construction of this site, and the other SSD applicants are finished, the obvious conclusion should be that these developments are piling on more and more cars and traffic onto two roads which cannot support them. Even a quick look at the street images via Google Maps will show how tight and congested Wallace Parade and Balfour Street are in its current form.

I also invite assessors to also look at the traffic light turn on Balfour Street and Pacific Highway. This traffic light serves as the primary exit from Balfour Street. Cars have difficulty trying to turn right into Pacific Highway towards Chatswood/Sydney CBD (which is the most frequent route) due to the tight roads and traffic from the opposite side which adds to the congestion issue on Balfour Street as cars cannot clear out in time. Approving more 10 storey apartments on Balfour Street would only add to issues here unless the infrastructure is meaningfully upgraded.

In conclusion, I object this development and urge the State Government to consider a meaningful reduction to the allowable scale of this development to the now amended and agreed R4 zoning. While still not an ideal solution, this would provide additional housing while providing the local infrastructure some relief.

I am writing to express my strong support for this proposed residential development in Lindfield. As a resident who values the long-term viability and vibrancy of the North Shore, I believe this project aligns perfectly with the NSW Government’s Transport Oriented Development (TOD) program and addresses critical needs in our community.
I encourage the Department to approve this application based on the following key points:
• Addressing the Housing Shortage: The addition of 120 apartments introduces much-needed housing supply to the Sydney North Shore, directly helping to relieve the acute housing shortage currently facing the broader Sydney metropolitan area.
• Substantial Affordable Housing Contribution: The provision of 30 affordable apartments - including units held in perpetuity and others reserved for at least 15 years - is an exceptional merit of this project. This delivers a meaningful, tangible contribution to housing access for essential workers, downsizers, and younger households who are otherwise being priced out of the area.
• Optimal Transit-Oriented Location: Placing high-density housing within a short walking distance of Lindfield train and bus station, the Coles supermarket, and local schools is the definition of sustainable urban planning. It places residents exactly where infrastructure can support them.
• Reduced Car Dependency & Environmental Benefits: By locating housing so close to premium public transport, the development naturally encourages active transport (walking and cycling) and train use. This reduces traffic congestion on major arterial roads like the Pacific Highway and lowers the community's overall carbon footprint.
• Housing Diversity for Families and Downsizers: The varied mix of 2, 3, and 4-bedroom configurations provides excellent housing diversity. This allows local downsizers to transition out of large family homes while staying in their familiar community, subsequently freeing up local low-density housing for growing families.
• Thoughtful Landscaping and Deep Soil Planting: While urban transformation inherently alters the landscape, I am pleased to see the inclusion of significant deep soil zones and native tree planting. This design response will actively enhance local native vegetation and preserve the North Shore's valued "garden character" within a highly urbanised locality.
• Minimal Impact on Neighbours: The environmental and architectural assessments demonstrate that the proposal has no material impact on neighbouring properties. It respects solar access and privacy compliance, proving that increased density can coexist responsibly with existing low-density boundaries.
• Economic Support for Local Business: Introducing new residents to the immediate town centre will provide sustained, daily foot traffic to Lindfield’s local shops, cafes, and services, boosting the local economy and ensuring the town centre remains vibrant.
This proposal represents a balanced, sensible, and highly sustainable approach to growing our suburbs under the TOD framework. It delivers essential housing choices and social infrastructure without sacrificing the core character and quality of life on the North Shore.
I strongly urge the Department to support and approve this application.
Thank you for considering my feedback.

The current fascination with pretending that Lindfield and central North Shore is "affordable" housing is a farce. The whole TOD concept is flawed given that Australia has huge land areas and we must jam as many people into Sydney as possible is completely crazy. I have lived in this area for over 30 years and it is a nice suburb, just the way that it was for families who have aspired to live in the area and saved their whole life for the privilege. If I wanted to live in the equivalent of Zetland I would have bought there instead of Lindfield. The bullying of council and ignoring of residents and overturning their rights and choices by the NSW and Federal Governments is an absolute disgrace and approaching that of a communist country. As a professional Civil Engineer with over 40 years of experience who has created many of NSW's key infrastructure projects, I have considerable insight into this area and the needs of a community.
However, moving on, the proposed development, and in fact the entire TOD proposal on the North Shore, has completely negated planning sensibility given the lack of infrastructure to cope with such an influx of new residents. Specifically, school boundaries are being changed, and current class capacity is exhausted at Killara High and a number of nearby schools even prior to any further new residents entering the area. The electricity and water supply / sewage system is also at capacity. As for the Pacific Hwy, travelling south after 7am or north after 5pm is a recipe for a slowly moving carpark. It is ridiculous to anticipate that anything other than a high percentage of new residents would not be utilising their cars to travel, hence further contributing to local gridlock. Importantly it must be noted that Balfour St and Bent St over their whole length are 100% full of cars EVERY day, prior to the vast influx of necessary tradesmen and workers necessary to undertake the scale of project proposed. There will be no parking for the workers and what is worse is that the residents will be inconvenienced by excessive noise, rubbish, inability to park in their own street during the construction period. The traffic generated by the close to 200 extra vehicles in Balfour Street even prior to the other intended nearby developments proceeding has not been assessed. The completion of the new Coles redevelopment has increased local traffic volumes by approximately double and this proposed development is going to make things even more crazy, noting that in the afternoon cars are already double parked in Balfour Street to collect children from the school near Coles, which results in dangerous actions of motorists, to overtake on the wrong side of the narrow road with young children interacting with this scenario. It is only a matter of time prior to a serious injury / accident with the current traffic volumes and congestion. The fact that the TOD mandate has been forced upon the area in which I have made my home will have effectively 10-20 Storey buildings causing gridlock over much of the local area. The traffic intersection at the junction of Pacific Hwy and Balfour Street is verry dangerous due to the blind crest and besides this already being a black spot, it will certainly only get worse. Simply put this area is not suited nor have the capacity to incorporate the scale of development proposed in this application and should be rejected, for the equivalent of 2-3 storey premises in line with the local area.
Many thanks for considering this submission
Mark Sinclair

Vrf

SUBMISSION IN SUPPORT: STATE SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION (SSD-82709458) – LINDFIELD
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This submission strongly supports the State Significant Development (SSD-82709458) application for the proposed residential flat building in Lindfield. Delivering 120 high-quality apartments, including 30 dedicated affordable housing units, the proposal directly aligns with the NSW Government’s National Housing Accord commitments and the core mandates of the Transport Oriented Development (TOD) Program. By focusing critical density within immediate walking distance of Lindfield Train Station and established commercial services, the project exemplifies highly sustainable urban infill while demonstrating deep structural respect for the local environment and adjacent properties.
2. STRATEGIC JUSTIFICATION & SUPPORTING POINTS
• Optimising Infrastructure and Local Economy: Placing a 120-unit development within a brief walking distance of Lindfield's train and bus station maximizes public infrastructure utility, reduces car dependency, and curtails traffic congestion. It will significantly stimulate local small businesses, cafes, and essential retail within the Lindfield town centre. Notably, the site sits just 50 metres from Coles supermarket and is within short walking distance of the future Lindfield Community Hub, perfectly bolstering a vibrant "15-minute neighbourhood" economy.
• Mitigating the Sydney Housing Crisis: The Ku-ring-gai LGA faces intense pressure to meet its National Housing Accord housing targets. This project directly relieves this regional shortage by delivering high-yield density exactly where planning frameworks mandate it. Furthermore, the inclusion of 30 affordable apartments featuring both 15-year and perpetual tenures guarantees structural housing access. This provides a meaningful contribution for essential workers like teachers, nurses, and emergency staff, while simultaneously helping to relieve upward rental pressure for ordinary local renters.
• Housing Diversity and Social Inclusion: Moving away from homogenous, large, free-standing, and high-energy-consumption villa houses in the area, the diverse configuration of 2, 3, and 4-bedroom alternatives offers abundant choices for a variety of households. This provides practical, multi-generational, and energy-efficient options that accommodate young families seeking proximity to reputable North Shore public schools, as well as local downsizers wanting to remain within their established Lindfield community without the burden of maintaining a large house.
• Biodiversity and Native Vegetation: The proposed landscaping plan actively delivers a net-positive improvement over existing urban conditions. The landscaping plan introduces significant deep soil tree planting to ensure long-term canopy health and natural groundwater absorption. Over 80% of the species selected for the proposed landscaping plan are representative of PCT 3262, STIF, which serves to preserve and enhance the locality's native vegetation.
• Built Form and Neighbouring Sensitivity: The structural layout fully adheres to State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing) 2021 guidelines, achieving critical density while successfully mitigating visual impacts on the surrounding streetscape. Rigorous architectural design ensures that the development has no material impact on neighbouring properties, strictly complying with all required solar access, visual privacy, and acoustic standards. The project sets an outstanding example of how modern, sustainable density can coexist seamlessly with established suburban bounds.
3. CONCLUSION
This development is a highly meritorious project that achieves the exact balance required of modern urban expansion. It answers the NSW Government's urgent mandate for well-located housing while delivering clear social infrastructure via affordable housing, ecological renewal through native tree planting, and minimal impacts on neighbours. We strongly urge the Department to expedite its favourable determination for this project.

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing to formally lodge my objection to the proposed development project that seeks to construct a 10-storey residential flat building with 98 dwellings and 193 car parking spaces adjacent to my property. After thoroughly reviewing the preliminary architectural plans and public development notice, I have several serious concerns that I believe warrant a comprehensive re-evaluation of this proposal.

1. Excessive Height and Associated Impacts
The proposed 10-storey structure is significantly out of scale with the surrounding low-density residential neighbourhood. Its excessive height raises serious concerns regarding:
• Overlooking and loss of privacy: The placement of high-level windows and balconies directly facing neighbouring properties will result in intrusive overlooking into private yards and dwellings.
• Overshadowing: The building’s height will cast prolonged shadows over adjacent properties, drastically reducing natural sunlight during the day.
• Visual impact and landscape obstruction: The structure will obstruct the natural views currently enjoyed by the local residents and alter the overall landscape character of the neighbourhood in a negative manner.

2. Loss of Green Space and Tree Removal
The development will require the clearing of a substantial area of green space and the removal of numerous mature trees. This not only diminishes the ecological value of the site but also negatively affects the community’s access to green cover. The existing vegetation plays a vital role in:
• Carbon sequestration and urban cooling
• Providing habitat for local wildlife
• Enhancing the aesthetic and environmental quality of the area
Removing these green assets contradicts broader environmental sustainability goals and sets a concerning precedent for future development in the region.

3. Increased Density and Associated Pollution
The proposal includes 98 dwellings and 193 parking spaces, suggesting a substantial population influx and vehicle increase in a currently quiet neighbourhood. This scale of density will likely introduce:
• Noise pollution: From both increased vehicular movement and human activity, particularly during evenings and weekends
• Air quality concerns: Due to higher concentrations of vehicle emissions and reduced airflow resulting from the dense building footprint
• Traffic and congestion: With the increase in parked and moving vehicles, existing roads may become congested and unsafe, especially for pedestrians and cyclists.

4. Lack of Supporting Infrastructure
The proposed development makes no substantial effort to upgrade or accommodate the increased strain on existing infrastructure, which is already under pressure. Specific concerns include:
• Drainage and sewage: The current stormwater and wastewater systems may not be adequately equipped to handle the added load, increasing the risk of flooding or system failure.
• Traffic management: Local roads are narrow and not designed to handle such a high influx of daily vehicle movements.
• Utility pressure: The increase in demand for electricity, water, and internet (including NBN services) will stretch the already limited service provision in the area.

• Public facilities: There is a notable shortage of community amenities (parks, schools, healthcare services) in the immediate vicinity to support a population increase of this magnitude.

5. Construction-Related Disturbance
The proposed construction period will inevitably involve the deployment of heavy machinery, prolonged site work, and continuous delivery and transport operations. These activities are highly disruptive and will:
• Diminish the daily quality of life for residents
• Create safety risks for pedestrians and schoolchildren in the area
• Generate dust, vibration, and noise pollution over an extended period
Given the building scale, the construction phase could last several years, compounding these issues over time.

6. Accumulative Effects
There are numbers of development projects in this area. They would generate accumulated effect to worse the impacts.

Conclusion
While I understand the need for urban development and increased housing supply, such efforts must be balanced with community interests, environmental protection, and infrastructure planning. The current proposal demonstrates a lack of due consideration in these critical areas and represents a clear threat to the livability, safety, and character of the existing neighbourhood.
For these reasons, I respectfully urge the planning authority to reject the current proposal or require a substantial redesign that reflects the scale, infrastructure, and environmental realities of the area.

Thank you for considering this submission.

Please see my objection in attached file

Objection Submission

To: NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure – Major Projects Assessment Team
Re: Development Application SSD-82709458 – 19–25 Balfour Street, Lindfield NSW 2070
Submitted by: Jian Jin, Owner of 1 Wallace Parade, Lindfield NSW 2070
Submission Date: 03/09/2025
1. Introduction
I, Jian Jin, as the owner of 1 Wallace Parade, Lindfield, hereby lodge a formal objection to the proposed residential flat building at 19–25 Balfour Street, Lindfield (SSD-82709458).

This submission is made pursuant to Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW). While I acknowledge the NSW Government’s Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Program, the current proposal is inconsistent with both the statutory planning framework and the stated objectives of TOD.
2. Grounds of Objection
(a) Environmental Impacts
Solar access and overshadowing
- The applicant’s shadow diagrams show that during winter solstice (22 June), surrounding low-density dwellings, including my property at 1 Wallace Parade, would not achieve the minimum three hours of direct sunlight between 9:00 am and 3:00 pm as required by the Apartment Design Guide (ADG, Objective 3B-2).
- With a proposed height of 32.7m, the building substantially exceeds the R2 low-density residential context, creating an excessive overshadowing effect.
- Long-term loss of sunlight would reduce amenity, increase winter heating demand, impair natural ventilation, and inhibit vegetation growth. Land and Environment Court precedents have recognised severe overshadowing as an unacceptable environmental impact that justifies refusal.
Privacy and overlooking
- The proposal does not meet ADG Objective 3F-1, which requires minimum 12m separation between habitable room windows.
- Upper-level balconies and windows would directly overlook the rear yards and habitable rooms of neighbouring properties, including mine, resulting in continuous visual intrusion.
- This is inconsistent with the privacy principles established in Tenacity Consulting v Warringah (2004).
- Planting or screens would not resolve the issue, as the scale and height of the building create unavoidable overlooking impacts.
Traffic and safety
- Wallace Parade and Balfour Street are narrow local roads that cannot accommodate large increases in traffic volumes.
- The site is close to schools including Lindfield Public School and Holy Family Catholic Primary School, where congestion during school hours is already severe.
- Additional residents’ vehicles would worsen bottlenecks. Insufficient parking would cause overflow parking, obstructing residents, garbage collection, and emergency vehicles.
- Increased vehicle movements near schools would heighten risks to students, elderly residents, and pedestrians.
Construction impacts
- Given the project scale, construction is likely to last 18–24 months or more. This would cause:
• Noise pollution from excavation, piling, and trucks, exceeding the Construction Noise Guideline thresholds;
• Dust and air pollution from earthworks and transport, affecting residents’ health;
• Traffic disruption from frequent heavy vehicle access;
• Daily disruption such as delays to waste collection and service access.
- Unlike small-scale developments, this project’s magnitude and duration would impose significant and long-term negative impacts on the community.
(b) Suitability of the Site
Incompatibility with Heritage Conservation Area
- The site is within the Balfour Street/Highfield Road Heritage Conservation Area (HCA), characterised by detached houses, landscaped setbacks, and consistent rooflines.
- The proposed 32.7m tower is completely out of scale with this context. Its bulk and modern façade undermine the streetscape and heritage values.
- The Ku-ring-gai LEP 2015 and DCP require that new development in HCAs respect and reinforce the established character, which this proposal fails to do.
Site Isolation
This proposal directly creates isolated sites, including 1 Wallace Parade and 23 Bent Street. These properties were originally identified within the NSW Government’s TOD high-density redevelopment area. However, due to the way this project is designed and delivered, they are now effectively “trapped” between large-scale buildings and have in practice lost the ability to be redeveloped as part of the TOD high-density precinct.
This represents a clear case of planning inequity: adjoining landowners are deprived of their reasonable redevelopment potential, their property values and planning opportunities are significantly diminished, and a classic site isolation effect is produced. The consequences are:
• Departure from TOD objectives – TOD seeks to achieve fair and orderly high-density development through comprehensive land consolidation. Instead, this project produces fragmented and unbalanced outcomes.
• Erosion of neighbouring property rights – Development rights that should reasonably be available to adjoining owners are effectively removed, with substantial loss of land value and redevelopment potential.
• Contradiction of government policy goals – TOD policy emphasises integration, fairness, and sustainability. The outcome of this project runs directly counter to those principles.
The NSW Land and Environment Court has consistently recognised site isolation as an undesirable planning outcome. In Karavellas v Sutherland Shire Council [2004] NSWLEC 251, the Court established that developments must avoid creating isolated sites, and where isolation is unavoidable, the assessment must consider:
1. whether amalgamation with adjoining land was reasonably attempted;
2. whether genuine acquisition negotiations were pursued; and
3. whether the remaining isolated site can still achieve a reasonable planning outcome.
This principle has been reaffirmed in 193 Liverpool Road Pty Ltd v Inner West Council [2017] NSWLEC 13 (Moore J), which confirmed that Karavellas remains authoritative. Earlier cases such as Melissa Grech v Auburn Council [2004] NSWLEC 40 and Cornerstone Property Group Pty Ltd v Warringah Council [2004] NSWLEC 189 were cited in Karavellas as foundational authorities. More recently, the principle was applied in ABC Planning Pty Ltd v Cumberland Council [2019] NSWLEC 1278, demonstrating its ongoing relevance even where an LEP does not expressly address site isolation.
Accordingly, approval of the current proposal would result in an outcome already recognised by the Court as inequitable, fragmented, and contrary to sound planning practice, while also undermining the credibility of the TOD program itself.
Infrastructure Constraints
- Local roads are too narrow to accommodate increased traffic.
- Schools and community facilities are already at or near capacity.
- Utilities such as drainage and electricity have not been upgraded to support additional demand.
- TOD policy requires infrastructure first, which is not met here.
(c) Planning Instruments and TOD Policy
Conflict with Ku-ring-gai LEP 2015
- The site is zoned R2 Low Density Residential under the Ku-ring-gai LEP 2015, where residential flat buildings are prohibited.
- The proposed 32.7m height and excessive FSR significantly exceed statutory controls.
Inconsistency with TOD objectives
Even under TOD reforms, the proposal contradicts key principles:
1. Gradual density transition – TOD promotes staged growth, not abrupt high-rise intrusion.
2. Land amalgamation and fairness – TOD requires equitable consolidation. This proposal creates isolated sites.
3. Respect for character and heritage – TOD stresses integration with local identity. This proposal undermines a heritage conservation area.
4. Infrastructure alignment – TOD requires density to align with infrastructure readiness, which this site lacks.
Misuse of TOD policy
- TOD reforms are intended for orderly, integrated, sustainable growth around transport nodes.
- This proposal misuses TOD to justify an over-scaled, ad hoc project, undermining policy credibility and public trust.
(d) Public Interest
Undermining planning integrity
- Approving a development that contravenes statutory planning controls would weaken the integrity of the planning system and erode public trust.
Precedent setting
- Approval would set a precedent for further high-rise intrusion into low-density and heritage areas, creating cumulative negative impacts across Ku-ring-gai.
Equity and community confidence
- By isolating neighbouring sites, the proposal creates inequitable outcomes for landowners, contrary to TOD fairness objectives.
- This would reduce community trust in planning reforms.
Infrastructure and sustainability
- The proposal would overload local infrastructure including roads, schools, parking, and drainage systems, with no upgrades.
- This contradicts TOD’s infrastructure-first principle and undermines long-term sustainability.
3. Conclusion
The proposed development fails to satisfy the statutory assessment requirements under section 4.15 of the EP&A Act, conflicts with the Ku-ring-gai LEP 2015, contradicts TOD policy objectives, and would result in unacceptable impacts on the environment, amenity, and public interest.

I respectfully request that the Department refuse Development Application SSD-82709458 in its entirety.
References
*Karavellas v Sutherland Shire Council* [2004] NSWLEC 251
*193 Liverpool Road Pty Ltd v Inner West Council* [2017] NSWLEC 13
*Melissa Grech v Auburn Council* [2004] NSWLEC 40
*Cornerstone Property Group Pty Ltd v Warringah Council* [2004] NSWLEC 189
*ABC Planning Pty Ltd v Cumberland Council* [2019] NSWLEC 1278

Sincerely,

Jian Jin
Owner – 1 Wallace Parade, Lindfield NSW 2070
Date:03/09/2025

To: Adela Murimba (Planner, NSW Department of Planning, Housing & Infrastructure, DPHI)

I have lived with my family in Lindfield for over 10 years and reside within 1km of the proposed development at 19–25 Balfour Street, Lindfield. I object to development application SSD-82709458 as my family and I will be impacted by this proposal. My concerns are as follows:

Poor Design Quality
The building is visually inconsistent with the surrounding area and lacks architectural merit relative to nearby heritage conservation homes and other developments. It is a 9–10 storey block that will tower over adjacent 1–2 storey homes and sit directly opposite more modest 3-storey developments. The tallest apartment building on Balfour Street—and indeed in Lindfield (the Coles mixed-use development)—is only 6 storeys.

Overbearing Bulk and Inadequate Setbacks
The proposed building mass is excessively large and out of step with the existing and evolving character of surrounding properties.

The proposal is based on FSR 3.25:1, far exceeding the 1.3:1 applicable to adjacent and surrounding homes under Ku-ring-gai (KRG) Council’s proposed amendments to the NSW Government’s TOD policy—making it at least three times larger than likely neighbouring structures.

The developer seeks a total height of 32.7m, which is 4.1m higher than the already enhanced 28.6m height limit for developments including affordable housing under the NSW Government’s regime. KRG’s proposed TOD height for adjacent properties is 18.5m. The result would be a dominating, out-of-context building. This is excessive; other developers have delivered 3-storey buildings with viable returns, so there is no justification for this enhanced height.

The development at 19–25 Balfour Street is therefore unreasonable and excessively large in the local context.

Environmental Amenity
The development adds disproportionate density and would negatively impact nearby homes on Balfour Street, Wallace Parade, and Highfield Road through loss of sunlight, overshadowing of homes and gardens, and loss of privacy due to height and direct sightlines into private residences.

Biodiversity
From April 2024, the owners of 19 Balfour Street appear to have poisoned and/or removed ecologically significant trees without a Council permit, seemingly to maximise development value and evade obligations to protect a recognised biodiversity corridor. Trees on 21–25 Balfour also appear to have been poisoned.
Removing/killing trees without a permit is illegal and has caused significant harm to Lindfield’s environment and tree canopy. DPHI must not allow the owners/developer to profit from any unlawful conduct; doing so would set a dangerous precedent for environmental destruction.

The protected biodiversity corridor bordered by Balfour Street and Highfield Road comprises critically endangered Blue Gum High Forest and Sydney Turpentine–Ironbark Forest. Prior to 2024 (before development negotiations for Nos. 19–25), mature protected species on those properties were healthy—this is evident in freely available aerial photos. From mid-2024 (around the time the development agreement was likely concluded), once-thriving trees at Nos. 19–25 had “mysteriously” died, and several were removed without approval. Notably, adjacent properties’ trees remain healthy.

Under KRG Council FOI, neighbours lodged the following reports from mid-2024:

RMTR24/04400 (25 Balfour) – suspected poisoning of Turpentine (protected)

RMTR24/04393 (23 Balfour) – suspected poisoning of Sydney Red Gum

RMTR24/04399 (21 Balfour) – suspected poisoning of Melaleuca

RMTR25/01479 (19 Balfour) – suspected poisoning of Blue Gum; poison may have seeped into water table, also killing a neighbour’s gum at 10 Highfield Road

RMTR24/04459 (19 Balfour) – suspected poisoning and illegal removal of a mature oak

Although penalties were not issued (criminal standard of beyond reasonable doubt), Council investigators noted signs of “toxic shock.” Meanwhile, adjacent properties’ valuable species continue to thrive, reinforcing that the subject trees did not die of natural causes.

It is risible that the developer’s EIS (6.10.1) and Biodiversity Assessment Report (5.3) conclude there is “no significant” biodiversity value on 19–25 Balfour, while referencing dead protected trees. These conclusions are only possible because the trees were most likely destroyed to erase biodiversity value. The report then argues that, due to the site’s now-negligible value, the developer should not be required to purchase biodiversity credits.

DPHI should not allow this to pass without consequence. The developer must calculate biodiversity credits by reference to the pre-destruction value of the protected trees, and must not benefit from any additional development area gained through their removal. A reduction in FSR is therefore appropriate.

Trees and Landscaping
The developer currently commits only to the minimum 32.5% landscaping required under KRG’s DCP. Given the removal of protected trees and the corridor’s decimation, additional landscaping and restoration should be required—specifically, re-establishing protected species and the biodiversity corridor to meaningful maturity. Approval should be conditioned on restoration milestones (e.g., canopy and age benchmarks), not just planting.

Transport and Parking
While close to the train station, increased traffic and reduced parking will impact Balfour Street, Bent Street, Wallace Parade and Highfield Road. Even with rail proximity, the proposed unit numbers will inevitably increase car ownership and on-street parking demand.

The EIS (6.7.2) incorrectly states that Balfour and Bent have two lanes in each direction; with all-day kerbside parking, they operate as one lane each way.

Peak congestion is already compounded by two nearby schools—Holy Family Catholic School (Balfour St) and Highfield Preparatory School (Wallace Pde/Highfield Rd).

Cumulative impact is material: five SSDs (12 Bent St; 5 & 9 Beaconsfield Pde; 19–25 & 9–17 Balfour St) will generate 904 apartments, further stressing narrow local roads feeding the Pacific Highway. The EIS (6.7.3) assertion that added traffic will be “minimal” is therefore misleading.

Noise and Vibration
Construction noise, vibration and heavy-vehicle traffic will disrupt nearby residents—including children and people working from home—for at least two years given the excavation and depth required for a 9–10 storey build. Dust and waste will also affect properties and potentially health.

Recommendations

The development should not proceed in its current form. Reduce scale, height and bulk to 6 storeys (consistent with the Coles development at 1 Balfour Place) to align with local context.

Do not allow any net gain from alleged unlawful clearing:

Calculate biodiversity credits on pre-2024 canopy,

Reduce FSR to remove any uplift derived from lost trees, and

Mandate restoration and enhanced landscaping beyond DCP minima with enforceable maturity milestones.

Reassess traffic using the correct lane configuration and cumulative SSD base case before any determination.

Thank you for considering this submission.

Hi Team, please find attached our submission objecting to this development. This was ‎initially prepared for the Ku-ring-gai Council DA for the same project. My main concern ‎is the isolation this will cause for the TOD sites on Wallace Parade (i.e. 23 Bent Street ‎and 1 Wallace Parade) plus the massive overshadowing this development will cause on ‎those properties.‎

The proposed development is inconsistent with the street's aesthetics. The proposed building is extremely high relative to the surrounding properties and will be an eyesore. There are no apartment buildings of any similar height in the vicinity.
The effect on local traffic will be significant due to coming and going from the property. This increased traffic along with local traffic coming to and from the Coles, will create gridlock at the top of Balfour Road (a small local street) trying to turn onto the Pacific Highway.
The driveway location at the lower end of Balfour Road will create an extremely dangerous point in the road near where it joins Bent Street. When cars enter and exit the property onto Balfour Road, they will be unable to see traffic coming from Bent Street onto Balfour Road. This traffic is trying to accelerate to climb the hill up Balfour Road and will not have time to react to cars coming in an out of the property.
We believe the scale of this development is excessive.

To: NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure
Re: SSD-82709458 – 19–25 Balfour Street, Lindfield – Residential In-fill Affordable Housing

1. Summary of Objection
I strongly object to SSD-82709458 due to its non-compliance with foundational planning instruments, excessive scale, environmental and heritage risks, and inadequate consideration for local infrastructure and amenity.

2. Inconsistency with Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979
Section 1.3 (ESD Principles): The proposal contravenes sustainable development principles by prioritizing density over environmental integration and community amenity.
Section 1.4 (Design Quality): The development fails to demonstrate good design that appropriately responds to local context.

3. Non-Compliance with SEPP (Housing) 2021 & Apartment Design Guide (ADG)
Clause 3.6 (Design Quality):
Solar Access (ADG Objective 4A-1): Likely fewer than 70% of units will receive minimum required sunlight due to the building’s massing and height.
Deep Soil Zones (Objective 3D-1): Site’s landscaping includes too little deep soil (must be ≥ 7% for sites > 1,500 m²).
Visual Privacy (Objective 3F-1): Inadequate setbacks and screening risks overlooking adjacent properties.

4. Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2015 (KLEP 2015)
Clause 4.3 (Height): Maximum height is set at ~18.5 m for R4 zones; a 9-storey tower significantly exceeds this.
Clause 5.10 (Heritage): Proximity to heritage items increases the risk of visual and contextual harm, potentially contravening subclause (4)’s heritage conservation requirements.

5. Environmental, Infrastructure & Community Amenity Concerns
Tree Canopy & Urban Biodiversity: Significant removal of canopy trees goes against DCP guidelines and the Greater Sydney Commission’s urban canopy goals.
Stormwater & Urban Heat: Insufficient vegetation exacerbates heat island effect and fails to mitigate stormwater runoff.
Traffic, Parking & Local Infrastructure (EP&A Act s4.15(1)(b)): The addition of 98 units on a narrow street inadequately serviced for traffic, parking, transit, schools, and health facilities.

6. Policy Integrity & Planning Sequence
Application “saved” under TOD SEPP should not circumvent the need for comprehensive community-led strategic planning, as intended in Section 3.33 (Strategic Planning) of the EP&A Act.
Proceeding with such projects before completing the Ku-ring-gai Housing Strategy and TOD framework undermines orderly planning and public trust.

7. Requested Determination
I request that the consent authority either:
Refuse SSD-82709458 based on the above non-compliances and impacts; or
Impose substantial redesign requirements, including:
Reducing height and bulk;
Enhancing deep soil and tree canopy;
Improving shadowing, privacy, and design quality;
Confirming infrastructure upgrades prior to approval.

I am the joint owner of 8 Highfield Road Lindfield. I became the owner of this property in early 1969. The residence has two sections, each with a separate kitchen, bedrooms, bathrooms and living areas etc. I live in the front section which was built in about 1907 with my wife, and my son and his wife, with their two children live in the back section which was built in about 1955. The house is subject to a restrictive covenant back to Ku-ring-gai Council as to its use, as when the back section was built, dual occupancies were only permitted if certain conditions were satisfied.

Reasons for this objection
Although 8 Highfield Road is within the 400 metres zone from Lindfield railway station, council's current zoning is more restrictive as to the development that may occur at 8 Highfield Road than at the Balfour Street properties, although in terms of radial distance from Lindfield railway station some of those properties are probably significantly further from Lindfield railway station than 8 Highfield Road. This difference in development potential has no logical justification, as the Balfour Street houses are all on the same central block of land as 8 Highfield Road, without any street separating them from our house.

My objection
Please refer to the submission by BBC planning on our behalf. See also the submissions from No 14 Highfield Rd. In particular these submissions express better than I can my objections to the proposed Significant State Development SSD 82709458.

More particularly I refer to viewpoint 4 on page 53 of the Keylan Environmental Impact Statement stated to be taken from 8 Highfield Road, being my house. It is suggested that Visual Sensitivity is “Moderate”, Visual Compatibility is suggested to be “Low-moderate”, Magnitude of impact is suggested to be “Low-moderate” and Overall rating is stated to be “Low-moderate”. Firstly the angle of viewpoint has not been disclosed. I may be wrong, but it seems to have been taken from a very low angle, closer to ground level, than from that of a human standing on Highfield Road.

In terms of visual sensitivity, compatibility and magnitude of impact, I believe a more correct assessment is that the proposed 8 and 9 storey development will have a gross and highly detrimental visual impact and the photographs are misleading. The photographs take advantage of trees located at the front of 8 Highfield Road, in particular a ginko planted by the previous owner about 70 years ago. These trees are likely to be removed, if we are obliged to sell, as we probably will be if the proposed development proceeds, because of the noise during construction, enormous traffic congestion, the danger caused by the proposed development to the two children living in our house, (combined with danger to other people’s children attending the two schools in our street) and the difficulty of recording with the noise (I am a practicing writer and am planning on podcasting. My daughter-in-law, who is a journalist already regularly podcasts from the house).

A more appropriate assessment than Keylan’s of visual sensitivity etc would have been a view from more directly within 8 Highfield Road. Such a viewpoint would show the proposed development as towering massively above 8 Highfield Road and adjoining properties.

I note also the photographs taken by Keylan include a dead tree which was about 100 years old and has been poisoned, at about the same time as other trees were illegally removed from some of the properties in Balfour Road that are proposed to be developed.

I believe the proposed development will cause traffic congestion and badly disrupt the use of public facilities in our street (two schools and a church) which are currently, and have for decades, been accessed by hundreds, if not thousands of people living in nearby localities.

Highfield Road has a Catholic Church on the corner, a school immediately next to it, a listed heritage house (Number 6) then our house (Number 8). The Catholic church owns the presbytery next door (Number 10, a classic Californian bungalow), allowing the local priest, currently Father Colin Blayney, good access to the church. Then there are two more houses (one being a cottage built in about 1920) and yet another school. The church is well attended and many funerals and weddings are held there as well as regular church services. Much of the parking in Highfield Road is already occupied by cars owned by people living in nearby apartments. If the proposed development proceeds casual parking, needed by visitors, and by people briefly parking for access to the church and two schools in Highfield Road, will become impossible.

The gardens in our street are all well cared for and have a great variety of plants, indigenous and exotic.I have myself spent probably well over $100,000 on plants (literally hundreds of different plants) and maintenance of the garden at 8 Highfield Road. Passers-by frequently remark on the beauty of the garden. It is also enjoyed by a wide range of wildlife: kookaburras, currawongs, magpies, crows, soldier birds, several varies of parrot, sometimes owls, bandicoots, many possums, occasionally blue tongue lizards, bush turkeys, and sometimes a frog who presses him/herself against my study window at night. It is all part of a great wildlife corridor which would be destroyed by the proposed development.

re Application No: SSD – 82709458
19-25 Balfour Street, Lindfield
(Lot 12 DP 654363, Lot 1 DP 121527, Lot 13 DP 657173, Lot 13 DP 663524)
Applicant: Balfour Group Pty Ltd

Objection
I object to this application for a proposed development that is out of scale with its surrounds. The supporting documentation for the application is partly inaccurate and inconsistent. The proposed development does not conform with all existing planning controls. Please refer to the submission by BBC planning on our behalf. See also the submissions from No 14 Highfield Rd.
In my view, the proposed development entails destruction with little discernible benefit to the built or social environment.
1.1 The natural environment
The proposal involves destruction of all trees. Some months ago, a tree was illegally removed on Sunday morning at 19 Balfour St. Both Council and police attended and were unable to prevent this. I was a witness to this. These was not a small tree. Another tree had been cut down on one of the other properties comprising the site on a Sunday morning two weeks earlier. In addition, a tree on the land of No 19 Balfour has all the appearance of being poisoned. It continues to stand as a ‘dead’ tree. My understanding is that the trees lost are ‘remnant native vegetation’ and include an angophora, a Sydney blue gum and a turpentine, the latter a species with additional protections. At the same time a tree on the land of No 10 Highfield Rd close to No 19 has all the appearance of being poisoned. It too for all purposes appears ‘dead.’ This destruction of trees and canopy interrupts a corridor of tall blue gums, turpentine and other species between Holy Family School and the back of the Wallace Pde houses. To describe the canopy as mostly exotic and non locally occurring native vegetation is, in my view, to misrepresent the situation as it fails to take into account what was recently there. The application, I believe, misidentifies trees on neighbouring properties. There is no proposal for purposeful replanting and the set back is insufficient for replacement trees. ‘Ground level planting to integrate the site’ does not replace or mitigate the loss of several 100 year old trees. The community engagement report states there will be landscape plans. There is an appendix entitled Landscape Plans. It is not clear that the redeveloped site and soil depths can maintain mature trees. My prior experience with developments and proposed landscaping is that the landscaping often fails to materialise. The destruction of habitat has already impacted wildlife. We have noticed increased possum activity on our roof. The bulk and the scale of the proposed development also mean loss of the open sky.
2.1 The built environment
The Balfour Rd Highfield Rd conservation area consists largely of pretty Federation houses. It is significant for its architecture and for the history of its inhabitants. Our neighbours have undertaken extensive work on the built heritage values of this area. The built environment and history of the social environment of this part of Lindfield are intrinsically linked. Over time, the houses have been inhabited by well-known entrepreneurs, musicians, artists and writers, not to mention senior health and legal professionals as well as teachers, and trades people. These include the owner of one- time iconic Australian product, Perkins Paste; a founder of Link Up, the organisation dedicated to putting Aboriginal people separated from family in touch with their families; a noted novelist and former Chair of the Australia Council; and a renowned concert pianist. Destruction of the built environment destroys the material aspect of the social environment. The application appears to erroneously suggest that the built heritage of 19-25 Balfour is of little value as changes have been made to the rear of the buildings. This is, in my view, risible as it is the streetscape that is germane to a heritage conservation area. So far, the pretty Federation street scape has been maintained. The bulk and scale of the proposed development of 19-25 is out of keeping with this area. The application uses 9 stories in some parts and 10 stories in other parts. The application suggests this is a built-up area. This is not correct. The earlier developments on the other side of Balfour St and in Bent St increased density yet are not inappropriate in bulk, scale, and appearance. New development should have architectural merit.
3.1 Privacy and social amenity
This is an area of families. Children and grandchildren including until recently also in 19-25, live and gather here. Until recently we were often aware of teenager parties coming from back gardens in the 19-25 direction celebrating for instance the end of school terms. In the visual impact statement, it is unclear to me where the photograph for Figure 4 has been taken. In the documentation it purports to be from 8 Highfield Rd. It seems to be taken from the ground, possibly the footpath across the road north of this house. This footpath is considerably higher than the road. The proposed development towers over the barely discernible house and garden. The photograph certainly does not represent the visual impact from the rear of the house and our back garden. To call the development a low to moderate visual impact seems to me to be misleading. Our house is a multi-generational household and has been over many decades. The proposed development at 19-25 will destroy the privacy of our family. It impacts the privacy of our grass tennis court and trampoline area, garden, back decks, internal living rooms and bedrooms. Lack of privacy will affect our young grandchildren. It will undermine the easy sociability of the neighbourhood.
4.1 Traffic and Parking
Highfield Rd has 2 schools that cater to preschoolers, infants and primary school children. Numbers of children walk to school. Numbers of children are driven to school utilising entrances on Balfour St and along Wallace Parade and entrances and exits on Highfield Rd. This area is particularly congested at school drop off and pick up times. It is difficult to park on the street. The proposed development at 19-25 Balfour will only add to this congestion. This traffic buildup risks driver frustration and decreased safety for child pedestrians and children in cars. Many children walk from the direction of Lindfield train station either along the Pacific Highway or through the underpass and cross Balfour St and Highfield Rd. The Balfour Rd Pacific Highway crossing is already dangerous. Increased traffic from the proposed development at 19-25 Balfour St will exacerbate risks to child safety. It is also a risk to the safety of cars entering and leaving the driveways in the surrounding area.
5.1 Noise
Our house has 4 adults who write books, publish internationally and in Australia, and run businesses. Most of this is done from home. We have young children who practice musical instruments at a high level for their ages. The noise from construction will directly impact our quality of life. It is not clear to me that the noise report is of assistance to neighbours. It is not clear how contractors will actually measure noise and ensure it occurs only within legally permissible times and at legally permissible levels. While a complaints mechanism is recommended, there is no indication of how a construction noise complaints mechanism for this development will work in practice.
6.1 A personal note
Our family has lived in this house since 1969, that is getting close to sixty years. Four generations have lived here. My husband and I hoped, in time, to die quietly and with privacy in this house. We hoped that our grandchildren would live here until they are adults and beyond. Our house has a culturally significant history that is unnecessary to go into in this objection. We have seen many changes in this neighbourhood and welcomed most of them. This proposed development is not one of them.
6.1 9-17 Balfour St
There is a further SSD adjacent to 19-25 Balfour St. It is also for a 9 to 10 story building directly behind us. I request that this application re 19-25 Balfour St be assessed together with an application for 9-17 Balfour St.
6.1 Declarations
I declare that I have made no political donations in the last two years.
I accept the disclaimer and declaration.
I do not give permission for my name to published with the publication of this submission.

I am writing to object to the SSD proposal for 19-25 Balfour Rd.
The proposal is overimposing, up on a slope and situated higher than its surroundings to the west and does not fit in with either present built form or with future developed form proposed for the area by the council's alternative TOD, currently awaiting gazettal.
The proposal is also destructive of existing tree canopy on a part of the site, nor will it favour the health of the tree canopy and natural environment on land adjacent to the site and in the properties along Highfield Road. Mature trees, with their minute water droplets given off on hot days, provide a natural cooling mechanism for their surroundings (and its free!) and should not be destroyed without a very adequate justification. This is particularly important for the world in which we live at present with its dramatically changing climate and ever more frequent natural events that adversely effect all of us today. Even this afternoon, just a few hours ago my husband and I raced inside from our verandah on hearing a deafeningly loud rogue thunderclap accompanied by a lightning flash the brightness of which I have never witnessed before in my not short lifetime! Our electric equipment fortunately survived and so I am able to write this submission of objection at this very moment on my PC!
The proposal also flies in the face of the future zoning for the area, which envisages a lower HOB and FSR than that sought by the applicant. I have always supported the council's alternative TOD, believing that the high density zoning on the west side of Lindfield station is a necessary compromise that will save other areas of lindfield from excessive overdevelopment. It is highly concerning that due to SSDs such as Balfour Road 19-25 (and the myriads of others popping up all over Lindfield) my support could have been in vane.
Yes, people need to have a place to live in the right place and within reach of their economic circumstances. But this should be the "right fit", and not at the expense of the natural environment that we all share and on which we all, in the long run, depend..
I hope that the department will offer thoughtful planning for the Balfour Road site and ensure that the present proposal is modified appropriately.

I’m writing to object to more properties being added to the State Significant Developments (SSD’S) in Ku ring gai which brings the total SSD’s to 19 with 4 pending.
The approach being taken by the State Government in dealing with the housing shortage lacks planning forethought and a one size fits all approach shows little regard for the environmental and existing character of the area. The idea of building high rise blocks of units within 400 to 800 meters of railway stations needs to be thought about having regard to the existing environment and facilities such as schools, shopping centre, open space and other amenities.
To allocate a population number to selected suburbs with a train station 30 minutes from the city and impose a one size fits all development regime on them is frankly ridiculous and will not result in a good planning outcome.
In most countries there are high and low density residential areas and Ku-ring-gai is certainly in the high density category. To treat it as one will destroy the garden suburb environment and heritage depriving Sydney of an important suburban character and lifestyle option.
There are a number of existing high density areas across Sydney which should be further developed.
Existing high density areas north of the harbour are St Leonards, Chatswood and Macquarie which is where further high density housing should be built. These areas and Macquarie in particular has the capacity to provide considerably more high density unit housing, has an excellent shopping centre, 2 train stations, an increasing number of businesses providing employment opportunities, a university and sport fields.
On the other hand, Roseville, Lindfield, Killara and Gordon in Ku-ring-gai are low density areas with heritage properties set in a bush land and garden setting. It should be noted that on weekdays, particularly on the eastern side of these stations the streets are full of commuter car parking making any sort of development difficult in terms of access and would increase resident parking. These areas also lack access to facilities and infrastructure to support high density living.
The local community action group FOKE have prepared a comprehensive document detailing objections to the current development proposals which has received strong community support. What is being proposed by Government and responded to by developers is unnecessary and excessive in the Ku-ring-gai environment.
Ku-ring-gai residents will continue to protest the introduction of the one size fits all TOD type high rise developments while the majority of residents are accepting of low rise 5-6 story unit blocks and town house developments in suitable areas with a number currently under construction.
The Governments current development approach in Ku-ring-gai will not make a major contribution to the housing shortage but will unnecessarily destroy the environment of the area and Sydney will lose a lifestyle and housing choice which would be the envy of many countries around the world.

Please refer to the attached document in which I detail at length the issues with this development, the errors/omissions/inconsistencies/flaws in the supplied documentation, the negative impact it will have on the local biodiversity environment (both fauna and flora) and the huge negative impact it will have on myself and my family.
This development should NOT be approved and be REJECTED.