Residential flat building with in-fill affordable housing - 27-29 Tryon Road, Lindfield

PLEASE REFER TO THE ATTACHEMENT FOR FULL INFORMATION. THANK YOU.

Submission: 27-29 Tryon Road, Lindfield NSW 2070
State Significant Development
15/05/2025

Dear Sir/Madam
I am writing in relation to the proposed State Significant Development application SSD-78669234 – Residential flat building with in-fill affordable housing – 27-29 Tryon Road, Lindfield. This building falls within the LGA I reside in, and I request that the concerns in this submission alongside other similar submissions will be considered and addressed to ensure a more than optimal outcome for the local community and the environment.

Though I may be providing comments, I object to the project in its current form until the issues presented in this submission are resolved. If the issues presented are resolved, I will support the project accordingly.

Deep soil
The deep soil provided for this site is not sufficient and will result in negative impacts on the environment. Deep soil plays an extremely important role in minimising environmental impacts. Due to Ku-ring-gai’s proximity to national parks and endangered forests, this is vital for the LGA as impervious surfaces negatively impact the surrounding environment.
Impervious surfaces, such as concrete, have been linked to the cause of the urban heat island effect. This phenomenon results in increased temperatures in developed areas, particularly where there is little tree canopy cover to provide shade and cool the surrounding area through transpiration. Recent studies have shown that despite the cooling effects of tree canopy cover, there is a close relationship with the surface shaded. Due to the high thermal mass of concrete, it absorbs and retains heat longer than bare soil or bark mulch. As a result, it reduces the effectiveness of tree canopy cover as the heat is retained even after sunset – leading to higher surface air temperatures during the night (Kaluarachichi, Tjoelker, & Pfautsch, 2020; Pfautsch, & Tjoelker, 2020). Additionally, impervious surfaces prevent rainfall from infiltrating into the ground, leading to excessive surface runoff. This runoff contributes to stormwater pollution, disrupting local ecosystems and affecting nearby national parks. Stormwater also accelerates soil erosion, which affects soil fertility, weakens plant growth, and alters the natural landscape. Over time, this degradation impacts biodiversity, reduces water quality, and increases the risk of flooding, further stressing both built and natural environments. Due to this, reducing the amount of impervious surfaces and increasing deep soil area is vital to maintain environmental health.

However, the current proposed deep soil that complies with the ADG is 8.5% – significantly lower than the Ku-ring-gai Development Control Plan (KDCP) minimum of 50%, and just 1.5% more than the ADG minimum of 7%. Moreover, the SEPP requires a minimum of 15% deep soil with a minimum dimension of 3m, and the proposed development does not appear to be compliant with this standard. Not only will this lead to adverse environmental effects stated above, but will impact the surrounding tree-lined character of Lindfield. The presence of vegetation has proven to produce psychological benefits – positively impacting residents and community.

Despite having some advantages, not all standards required by the KDCP are environmentally oriented – it requires a higher minimum parking standard than what the SEPP typically allows or encourages. Cars have a higher environmental impact than alternative transport modes, and the proximity of this development to Lindfield railway station is planned to reduce car usage. However in this instance, the high number of parking spaces is adversely impacting the environment differently, as it has resulted in a large basement.

The most significant factors reducing the amount of deep soil proposed are the narrow setbacks due to the large footprint of the basement. For this site, the KDCP has been used to justify the high number of parking spaces – 123 spaces for 62 dwellings. On average, this is almost two spaces per dwelling, and has resulting in a inefficient four-level basement with two different footprints. Additionally, tandem parking is an inefficient layout that increases the number of parking spaces and the footprint of the basement, for minimal advantage. This provides limited deep soil opportunities throughout the site, negatively impacting the surrounding environment. In conjunction with potential risk for increase car usage and congestion, this plan must be revised to ensure that the development maintains a low ecological impact.

Requests:
• Rearrange the basement of the building to reduce its footprint. This may require reducing the number of parking spaces to achieve this or constructing an additional level below.
• Ensure than almost all the space within the building setback is utilised as deep soil. This is possible provided that the footprint of the basement is reduced.
• Ensure that the total amount of ADG compliant deep soil satisfies the minimum 15% required by the TOD SEPP and increase the amount of deep soil to the minimum 50% required by the KDCP, or at least as close to the minimum as possible. The adjacent 5 storey building has a similar site coverage but achieved the 50% deep soil area required by the DCP, so this should not be completely unfeasible.
• Increase the building height from 9 storeys to accommodate for the loss in floor area due to potential additional setbacks. This may result in a building height of 10-12 storeys.

Setbacks
The 6m front setback and the 3m side setbacks are less than optimal for a building this size. In Ku-ring-gai Council, residential flat buildings constructed in the past have adhered to the minimum 10m front setback and 6-9m side setbacks stated on the KDCP. This practice allows increased deep soil, tree canopy cover, and vegetation to surround the building, encouraging the important environmental benefits stated in the above point, alongside providing residents with optimal views to nature and increased privacy. Additionally, the generous front setback allows the uniquely high-density building in the lower-density surrounding environment to share a similar character alongside older development or previous residential flat buildings regulated by the KDCP. This includes the tall, large trees and the open, blue sky associated with Ku-ring-gai.

However, the current proposed setbacks do not facilitate any of these benefits or qualities. The 6m setback may align similarly with adjacent developments, but at 9 storeys the proposed building is significantly taller than its 5 and 3 storey neighbours. Neither of these developments are likely to be upzoned, demolished, and rebuilt for many years due to financial viability and costs. The justification provided for the 3m side setbacks is that the responsibility of maintaining adequate building separation required by the NSW Apartment Design Guide should be passed to the future development, and that the future adjacent building must increase their setback to accommodate for this. This justification is questionable as it unfairly impacts adjacent sites.

Requests:
• Increase the front setback from 6 to 10m to allow for increased deep soil and to maintain the surrounding character for the reasons provided above. If the rare instance that 10m is deemed to be completely unfeasible, please increase the setback as much as possible to the target distance.
• Increase the side setback enough to ensure adjacent sites will not be required to increase the setback of future buildings more than the minimum requirements.
• Increase the building height from 9 storeys to accommodate for the loss in floor area due to additional setbacks. This may result in a building height of 10-12 storeys.

References
Kaluarachichi, T. U. N., Tjoelker, M. G., & Pfautsch, S. (2020). Temperature reduction in urban surface materials through tree shading depends on surface type, not tree species. Forests, 11(11), 1141. https://doi.org/10.3390/f11111141
Pfautsch, S., & Tjoelker, A. (2020). The impact of surface cover and tree canopy on air temperature in Western Sydney. Western Sydney University. https://doi.org/10.26183/bk6d-1466

My comments are provided in the attached pdf file.

PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION
Excavation
Four basement levels containing 136 car parking spaces will require deep excavations. There is a significant flow of storm water that passes through 25 Tryon Road in an easterly direction. The creation of a four-level underground car park creates a very significant possibility of subsidence and cracking of the neighbouring properties i.e. 25 and 31 Tryon Road is a real risk.
Recommendation:
• Modification to the overall design of the project by reducing its size to 5 levels would enable limiting basement level parking to one level (as exists at 9-25 Tryon Road). This would substantially reduce the risk of subsidence etc.
• Reduction in the size of the project to 5 levels will significantly reduce the level of demolition, site preparation, bulk earthworks and stormwater works associated with the proposed project.
Access
It has to be borne in mind that Tryon Lane is the ONLY vehicle access available to existing developments at 9, 15, 25 Tryon Road; also, the townhouses on Russel Avenue have their garage and vehicle access via the Lane. In addition, there are residences that back onto Tryon Lane. To add construction vehicles to utilise Tryon Lane would result in chaos. The lane is also a designated bike lane as well as providing pedestrian access to the station. Ballet school on the corner of the lane sees many children darting in and out as well as parent drop offs and pick-ups. (See photo: Tryon Lane from Lindfield Avenue-photo 4)
Due to the crucial nature of Tryon Lane, there cannot be any blockages or restrictions of traffic flow within Tryon Lane at ANY time.
Building works will cause considerable disruption to the neighbourhood, increased noise and dust.
Recommendation:
• Utilisation of Tryon Lane should not be permitted to heavy vehicles during the construction phase. Access for such vehicles should be via Tryon Road only; with all heavy vehicles being required to enter and exit the site from Tryon Road.
• Building works be permitted only between the hours of 7.00am to 4.00pm on week days.
• The cost of remedial cleaning of neighbouring properties should be borne by the developer.
SIZE AND DESIGN OF THE PROJECT
9-25 Tryon Road (Seldon) is a residential block occupied by residents 95% of whom are over 70 years of age. The same applies to the properties on Russell Street that have rear access via Tryon Lane.
The construction of a building of 9 floors is totally out of character with the neighbourhood. See photos of properties adjacent to the proposed development: 1 (25 Tryon) and 2 (31 Tryon Road). Properties opposite the proposed development are depicted in photo 3. The development should be reduced to 5 levels only. The reduced size will reduce the demand on the existing infrastructure.
The construction of a 9-level development will create overshadowing to 25 and 21 Tryon Road. To avoid this, modification of the design of the property is required.
Reducing the size of the project will also enable landscaping to enhance and soften the mass and bulk of the proposed development.
Recommendation:
• The height of the project should be limited to 5 levels, commensurate with existing buildings. Not only would this be more aesthetic but the reduced size will significantly reduce the pedestrian and vehicle traffic load in the area.
• Consistent with 25 Tryon Road, the levels of the building should also be layered so that floors 4 and 5 (of the 5-floor building) are set back from the frontage.
The roof garden proposed on Building C is designed to provide recreational space for the Project. This is unacceptable as it is in close proximity to the property at 25 Tryon Road. It would both overlook 25 Tryon Road impacting on the privacy that exists now and would also create the potential for noise (from parties and celebrations in the space) to disturb both 25 Tryon Road residents and those residents on the other side of Tryon Lane. A reduction in the overall size of the buildings to 5 levels would create a resultant reduction in the number of residents and thus demand for such a facility.
The development will cause removal of significant trees and gardens that will detract from the aesthetics of the area.
Recommendation:
• Remove the proposed roof garden.
• The removal of existing trees and vegetation needs to be assessed to ensure that the streetscape and curtilage are complemented.
IMPACT OF PROJECT
Traffic
Tryon Road is already congested because of the present car parking facilities (on both sides of the street) which are continuously utilised by commuters accessing the train station and shops. The addition of 63 new apartments (60 of which are 3-bedroom apartments) will only result in additional congestion. Tryon Lane is a one-way lane which already serves as the ONLY entrance and exit point for a number of properties. Additional traffic load will not be able to be accommodated without posing a traffic hazard, traffic congestion and danger to pedestrians who use this lane to access the train station.
It is important to note that the current entry to Tryon Lane is next to the Masonic Hall at which a Ballet School operates. Here young children and teenagers regularly attend. Parents frequently park their vehicles in Tryon Lane or thereabouts when collecting their children. (See photo 4)
Russell Lane currently allows traffic to flow in northerly and southerly direction. It is a very narrow lane and accidents and near accidents regularly occur there. It should be restricted to one way access to only allow vehicles to exit Tryon Lane to then enter either Russell Avenue or Trafalgar Road. See photos 5 and 6).
Recommendation:
• Tryon Lane to remain one-way only.
• Traffic entering and exiting the development should be via Tryon Road only and not Tryon Lane.
• Traffic flow in Tryon Lane to be unrestricted 24/7 to enable unrestricted flow so as to permit 24/7 access to all properties that currently utilise Tryon Lane-e.g. emergency vehicles
• Confine Russell Lane to ONE direction of traffic flow to only permit vehicles to use Russell Lane to exit onto either Russell Avenue or Trafalgar Road.
Korean Church
• The adverse impact on the heritage significance of the Sydney Korean Community Church at 33 Tryon Road, Lindfield needs to be considered.
Cromehurst
Cromehurst School caters for students from the age of 4 to the completion of year 12 in the moderate to severe range of intellectual disability.
Recommendation:
• The potential adverse impact a project, the size of the development, has on the important function this school provides to the community must be considered.

This submission responds to the amended development application for SSD-78669234, including the Amendment Report and the Response to Submissions (December 2025).

It supplements my original submission dated 20 May 2025 and addresses whether the amended material resolves the substantive planning impacts previously identified.

I have reviewed the proponent’s Response to Submissions dated December 2025.

While that document catalogues issues raised by the public and agencies, it is primarily justificatory in nature and does not result in material changes to the proposal or secure enforceable mitigation measures.

In particular, the Response to Submissions retains:
• a 9-storey building envelope
• four basement levels
• Tryon Lane as the sole vehicular access point
• rooftop communal open space adjacent to neighbouring dwellings

Accordingly, while the report responds procedurally to submissions, it does not resolve the core amenity, safety and risk impacts raised in my earlier submission.


MATTERS NOT RESOLVED BY THE AMENDMENT

A. Height, scale and visual bulk
The amended proposal continues to comprise a 9-storey building in a prevailing 4–5 storey context, including the setting of the heritage-listed Korean Community Church.

Increased side setbacks do not mitigate:
• skyline dominance
• excessive perceived bulk
• incompatibility with the intended “base” scale of the TOD framework

The fundamental height exceedance remains unchanged.

B. Overshadowing and privacy
Rooftop communal open space is retained, notwithstanding its relocation.

The amendment does not:
• restore winter solar access to adjoining dwellings
• prevent direct overlooking
• provide enforceable controls on hours of use or acoustic impacts

These impacts stem from excessive height and remain unresolved.

C. Geotechnical and subsidence risk
The proposal continues to include four basement levels beneath a known stormwater flow path.

Although basement setbacks have increased, the amendment does not:
• reduce excavation depth
• require an independent geotechnical peer review
• mandate real-time settlement monitoring
• secure groundwater cut-off measures by condition

Given the uninsurable nature of subsidence damage, this remains a critical unresolved risk to adjoining properties.

D. Traffic, parking and Tryon Lane safety
The reduction in parking from 136 to 101 spaces is acknowledged.

However:
• Tryon Lane remains the sole access point
• no prohibition on heavy vehicles (construction or operational) is proposed
• lane capacity and pedestrian safety conflicts remain unresolved

The amendment improves parking quantity, but not safety outcomes.

E. Social and heritage impacts
The amendment does not secure:
• a neighbourhood liaison committee
• a 24-hour complaints hotline
• developer-funded dust, noise or façade mitigation

This is a material omission given the high concentration of elderly residents nearby and the proximity of Cromehurst Special School.


MATTERS PARTIALLY ADDRESSED

Landscaping and deep soil

The increase in deep soil and landscaped area is noted.
However:
• retention of mature boundary trees is not guaranteed
• protection of Tree Protection Zones through enforceable conditions remains unclear

CONCLUSION
The amended proposal prioritises technical adjustments over impact avoidance.

The principal adverse impacts identified in submissions — excessive height, deep excavation risk, overshadowing, lane safety and cumulative social impacts — remain substantially unresolved.

For these reasons, the application should not be approved in its current amended form.

Objection – Residential Flat Building with In Fill Affordable Housing 27–29 Tryon Road, Lindfield

To the Assessing Officer,
I am writing to formally object to the proposed Residential Flat Building with in fill affordable housing at 27–29 Tryon Road, Lindfield. While I support the principle of increasing housing diversity, the current proposal is incompatible with the established character of the area and poses significant amenity impacts for existing residents. My concerns relate specifically to destruction of neighbourhood character, excessive height, and construction noise and disruption.
________________________________________
1. Loss of Neighbourhood Character
Tryon Road is defined by its leafy, low density residential character, with a predominance of detached dwellings and small scale developments that maintain a consistent rhythm, scale, and visual harmony. The proposed building undermines this character in several ways:
• Bulk and massing far exceed the surrounding built form, creating a visually intrusive presence.
• Architectural style and density are inconsistent with the established streetscape.
• Loss of greenery and open space, which are defining features of Lindfield’s identity.
• Increased traffic and parking pressure, which further erodes the quiet residential nature of the street.
The proposal does not appropriately respond to the local context and risks permanently altering the character that residents value.
________________________________________
2. Excessive Height and Visual Impact
The proposed height is disproportionate to neighbouring properties and incompatible with the intended scale of development in this part of Lindfield. Key concerns include:
• Overshadowing of adjacent homes and private open spaces, reducing natural light and liveability.
• Dominance over the streetscape, creating a sense of enclosure and visual imbalance.
• Loss of privacy for surrounding residents due to elevated sightlines.
• Precedent for further height creep, undermining strategic planning controls and community expectations.
The height and scale should be significantly reduced to align with the surrounding built environment.
________________________________________
3. Construction Noise and Community Disruption
Given the scale of the proposed development, the construction phase will inevitably be lengthy and disruptive. This raises several concerns:
• Prolonged noise from excavation, heavy machinery, and structural works, impacting residents’ ability to work, rest, and maintain daily routines.
• Traffic disruption from construction vehicles on a narrow residential street.
• Dust, vibration, and general disturbance, particularly affecting families, older residents, and those working from home.
• Cumulative impact when combined with other developments occurring in the area.
Without strict controls, the construction period will impose unreasonable hardship on the community.
________________________________________
Requested Actions
I respectfully request that the consent authority:
1. Require a substantial reduction in building height and bulk to ensure compatibility with the existing neighbourhood character.
2. Mandate a revised design that better reflects the scale, rhythm, and greenery of Tryon Road.
3. Impose strict construction management conditions, including:
o Limited working hours
o Noise mitigation measures
o Traffic and parking controls
o Clear communication protocols with residents
4. Undertake a more rigorous assessment of cumulative impacts on local amenity.
________________________________________
Conclusion
The proposal, in its current form, poses unacceptable impacts on neighbourhood character, residential amenity, and community wellbeing. I urge the assessment panel to require meaningful amendments.

Thank you for your understanding.

I am writing to formally object to the proposed development adjoining 25 Tryon Road. After reviewing the available information, I have serious concerns regarding the safety, amenity, and long‑term impacts this project will impose on neighbouring residents and the surrounding environment.

Grounds for Objection

* Excavation of four basement levels presents a substantial risk to the structural integrity and foundations of 25 Tryon Road, given the depth, scale, and immediate proximity of the proposed works.

* The proposal to use Tryon Lane, a narrow one‑way laneway, as the sole access point for all demolition and construction vehicles, machinery, and worker traffic will block residents of Seldon from entering and exiting their carpark for the entire duration of the development, estimated at 4–5 years.

* Continuous heavy‑vehicle movements will severely damage the surface of Tryon Lane, creating long‑term safety hazards and access issues for existing residents who rely on the lane daily.

* The comparison made to Seldon’s previous development is not valid or appropriate.
- Seldon’s project did not require more than 100 vehicles to enter and exit via Tryon Lane each day.
- At that time, there were no other buildings or traffic dependent on the lane, making the circumstances entirely different and not comparable to the current proposal.

* The proposed building height of nine storeys is excessive and incompatible with the surrounding built environment. It will tower over 25 Tryon Road, which is only four storeys, resulting in significant overshadowing, loss of privacy, and a dramatic change to the character and scale of the neighbourhood.

* Noise, dust, vibration, and ground tremors generated by prolonged excavation and construction activities will significantly impact the health, wellbeing, and daily living conditions of residents at 25 Tryon Road. These impacts may render the building effectively uninhabitable for the duration of the works, forcing residents to seek alternative accommodation.
* A full and transparent explanation is required regarding the classification of the 14 units described as “in‑fill affordable housing”, including:
- how the term is defined,
- how eligibility is determined,
- how the 14 units termed as in‑fill affordable housing are distributed, and
- how this designation complies with relevant planning controls and affordability requirements.

Request for Reconsideration

Given the significant risks and impacts outlined above, I respectfully request that the development be reconsidered, or that substantial amendments be made to address these concerns in a meaningful and enforceable manner. The current proposal, in its present form, poses unacceptable consequences for neighbouring residents and the broader community.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. I request to be kept informed of all updates, revisions, and opportunities for further consultation.

This development is not a solution for affordable housing.
The proposal does not conform to the government's housing goals.
The government promised to protect high-value heritage areas. This development will destroy 9 heritage homes, contradicting the government's promise.
This development is out of character for the local area.
There is no infrastructure plan to support this development. Traffic is already unbearable with existing housing in the area.
Changes made in Hyecorp's new proposal do not address any of the original issues presented.
The developer must adhere to the community engagement guidelines.

I object to the project as the outcome of the long term plan between the state and council has not been formalized yet. There are many trees, heritage areas in this area.

I object to this project because:
1. Will increase the density of population around Lindfield area, which will bring negative impact on our living environment, traffic, shopping, education, etc.
2. There are many elderly people living around, the noise made during apartment construction will impact our normal living standard, especially for people who have sleep disorder problems.
3. It will cause a sharp fall in the value of our own property.

I am writing in support of this project. More housing is needed and Lindfield is a place which is dramatically underutilised. Its placement on the train line makes it a great place for more infill development. I know the area well because my grandparents lived there.

1. This development is excessive in height and will overshadow adjacent home units, reducing their resale value and restricting their amenity.
2. This development adds up to another 150 residents. Together with several other development proposals in the Lindfield area, this will cause overpopulation with excessive traffic flows in Lindfield Ave, Tryon Rd, Russell Ave and surrounds. There is already a regular traffic jam in Lindfield Ave twice daily, due to people parking for shopping. Access from Lindfield Ave to the Pacific Highway is appallingly slow right now. This and other developments will make that much worse.
3. If this development proposes car access to 4 levels of underground parking spaces opening only into Tryon Lane, there will be a major regular traffic problem, as the Seldon apartment complex already has over 90 cars that use Tryon Lane for entry regularly. The Lane is one-way and narrow. Several properties on Russell Ave also have garages opening onto Tryon Lane.
4. Prior experience in other suburbs with "affordable housing" often means introduction of undesirable people into an area with an increase in crime rates. Tryon Road has a high proportion of elderly residents, who will be very nervous about this prospect.
5. The excavation to 4 below ground levels for parking spaces will involve prolonged noise and will certainly require heavy machinery able to excavate bedrock. That is a major loss of amenity to neighbours with noise a major issue. It is usual to require a minimum 10,000 litre underground water supply in such developments and often a further underground level of excavation for electrical, sewerage and other facilities. I estimate that together with the garage space excavation, it would require the removal of approximately 7,000 - 10,000 cubic metres of rock and soil...requiring up to 500 separate 20 tonne truck loads. Access to the site for these trucks MUST NOT be via Tryon Lane and MUST be via Tryon Road. That will require an approximately 50 metre parking ban along Tryon Road outside the development, as parking on both sides of Tryon Rd would make truck access impossible. That further reduces the amenity of visitors to Tryon Road.
6. There is an underground stream that flows north-east under the properties that back onto Tryon Lane. That will cause significant water drainage issues in a 4 level below-ground excavation.
7. In general, I object to the insane over-population policies of the current NSW government. Despite adding over a million residents to the greater Sydney area in recent years, there has been NO provision for adding further water supply, which already in times of drought is marginal. There are inadequate green spaces, inadequate health services and inadequate schooling to cope with this influx. The roads are poorly-maintained. The further million residents planned for Sydney over the next 5 years is adding madness to madness in my opinion. This development is just one small symptom of this insanity.

I object to the Application SSD-78669234.

Currently in Tryon Road there are NO apartment buildings as high as 7-9 stories so this development would not be in keeping with the area.

Tryon Road is a busy through road and often log jammed with cars when they are trying to pass in the street. It already has a number of apartment buildings on the road and in surrounding areas. This new development would increase the traffic considerably. There is a school on the corner of Tryon Road and Nelson Road and adding more traffic is not ideal. Also, during construction I wonder how the school would be impacted by construction traffic?

During any development where are all the trades going to park etc? Parking is at a premium in Tryon Road already, often near capacity during the day.

Tryon Lane is the access to many garages and during construction I wonder how access will be impacted? I would hope during any construction there would NEVER be any Tryon Lane closures.

Dear Sir or Madam,

I am writing to object the project due to the below reasons.

1. The project provides only 13% deep soil, which is well below the 50% deep soil requirement - undermining canopy retention, biodiversity objectives and storm infiltration. Also, this would be unfair for future 15 years local residential development projects.
2. The proposed FSR (i.e 3.25) is too high, far above the residential development standard in this suburb. As Ku-ring-gai council is going to finalize its preferred scenario which indicates an FSR 1.69 (base 1.3 with 30% bonus) for this site. The project FSR doesn't take the transition impact into account as it only considers its own project alone. Though other factors are considered in the design process, they are not able to consider other compliant projects/infrastructure/community feedback as a whole.
3. A 9-storey building is also one concern, affecting nearby sites solar access, sunlight, characters as well.

Overall, I would request that such projects should complied with the council preferred scenario. That scenario is an outcome from the council and whole community after one and half years' hard work.

Thank you.

Thank you for notifying Sydney Water of SSD-78493518 at 27-29 Tryon Road, Lindfield. Please see attached response and information sheet for the applicant. If this response raises any enquiries, please do not hesitate to contact Sydney Water at [email protected].

I would like to object to the project for the following reasons:
1. Re four basement levels containing 136 car parking spaces - deep excavations bring about the possibility of subsidence and cracking of the neighbouring properties i.e. 25 Tryon Road and 31 Tryon Road.
2. Similar negative possibilities from demolition, site preparation, bulk earthworks and stormwater works will impact on adjacent properties, particularly 25 Tryon Road. Flooding of the car park spaces below ground poses a potential risk.
3. Tryon Road, including Tryon Lane, have been zoned low and medium rise development not exceeding 6 storeys in the past. All the subsequent development and present buildings have complied with this zoning. The new development of 9 storeys does not comply with the previous zoning and contravene the previous zoning height restrictions and is not in keeping with the streetscape of Tryon Road and Tryon Lane.
4. Additional ingress and egress on Tryon Lane - it is a one-way lane which already serves as the main entrance and exit points for a number of existing developments on site 9, 15, 25 plus the townhouses opposite, plus a number of private residences. It is used by residents and pedestrians, including school kids, as a quiet lane to walk their dogs, exercise and provide a safer access to various points within the vicinity. It is also a bicycle lane. Additional pathways from this development will not accommodate any more additional traffic without posing a traffic hazard, traffic congestion and danger to pedestrians who use this lane to access the train station.
5. The proposed height of 9 storeys (not mentioned in the letter of notice to residents) is not in keeping with the existing streetscape of Tryon Road and is considerably higher than the 5-storey developments adjacent at 25 Tryon Road and 31 Tryon Road, and looms over the heritage listed Sydney Korean Community Church on 33 Tryon Road.
6. The limited total ground space restricts the scope of landscaping to soften the mass and bulk of the proposed development. The removal of existing trees and vegetation needs to be further assessed to ensure that the streetscape and curtilage are not adversely affected.
7. Tryon Road is already congested because of the present car parking facilities (on both sides of the street) which are continuously utilised by commuters to access the train station and shops which result in a continuous movement of cars, delivery vans etc entering and exiting the street. Further provision of entrance and exit points on Tryon Road will drastically increase and negatively affect the existing traffic congestion on the street.
8. The proposed development will increase the possibility of overlooking and diminish the privacy of the adjacent buildings at 25 Tryon Road and 31 Tryon Road.
9. The various adverse impacts on the heritage significance of the Sydney Korean Community Church at 33 Tryon Road, Lindfield (Heritage State Listed in 2003) needs to be considered and further investigated.

I strongly support this proposal.
The reason as to why are the following
1. I support this proposal as it is close to public transportation and shops. We need more housing supply as we are in a housing crisis.
2. It is excellent to see what seems to be an all electric building, saving future residents money & also reducing dependency and use of fossil fuels.

I am objecting to this development for the following reasons:
1. Significantly increase the pressure on the current infrastructure particularly transport which is barely viable given the past development to date. This is particularly the case where there are many multiple SSDs around this area.
2. The multiple SSDs in this area are not necessary to meet the housing targets. The housing targets have been addressed in the current proposed TOD. Hence the only observable benefit is one-sided (that is, the developer) at the expense of existing residents.
3. Reduce privacy and sunlight on surrounding homes
4. Increase noise and traffic
5. Significantly reduce the flora and fauna, as well as the heritage characteristics which we pride living in this area.

I oppose the project for the following reasons:
* the height and scale of the project is completely out of character for the area and will devalue all surrounding properties. Specifically our building will be overlooked with sunlight and sky views restricted.
* The extensive construction period of 24 months and long working hours (until 6pm each day and 1pm on Saturday) will create an unacceptable level of disturbance to the surrounding residents by both the noise and continual dust. Residents will not be able to enjoy being outside.
* Continual trucks and trade vehicles will create extreme congestion in both Tryon Road and Tryon Lane.
* The development proposes parking access from Tryon Lane which will create a dangerous situation for both cars and pedestrians.
* From research performed it is not clear what sort of proven track record the developer has with such a significant building including actual completion, within stated timeframes and compliance with laws and regulations.
As elderly residents we feel exceptionally concerned and devastated about the interruption to what should be our golden years of retirement. We will not be able to feel safe in our own suburb and definitely not able to enjoy our balcony or garden in our apartment which drew us to this area in the first instance. At our age (> 80 years old) options to move away from this inappropriate development and extreme interruption are very limited which is devastating and frankly frightening.

Fundamentally I support the provision of more housing near good public transport links, however this project has some fundamental flaws which need to be addressed before if it is approved. These are:
- Provision of parking is excessive. 136 parking spaces for 62 apartments is incredibly excessive, and it will increase the cost of construction, encourage car use, and has resulted in the applicant proposing a measly 8.5% of deep soil area which can easily be improved if the basements are downsized.
- Not enough deep soil. This development will worsen the urban heat island effect, and will not help the NSW government achieve their 40% urban tree canopy target. The information provided by the applicant is also unclear and misleading regarding the provision of deep soil. Under 6.1 of the EIS, the applicant states the project has 424m^2 (14%) of deep soil, whilst in the summary of the EIS the project apparently has 393m² (13%) of deep soil. However, if you consider the ADG guidelines, the ADG compliant deep soil figure is only 8.5%.

I do like how the applicant is not proposing to use natural gas on site, which has environmental and health benefits.

Submission to NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure

Re: Residential flat building with in-fill affordable housing - 27-29 Tryon Road, Lindfield. 19 May 2025


I wish to put forward objections to the above project, as a resident of the Northwood apartment complex at No. 25 Tryon Rd. Lindfield. I have studied the proposal documents put forward by its proponents and made available during the period of Exhibition. Several of these documents are referred to in these comments and selected pages are attached.

I should state at the beginning that my objections are not to the Government’s goal of increasing the stock of housing in NSW, nor to new housing in Lindfield. They are to specific features of this proposal that will have adverse impacts on neighbouring residents as well as future residents of the new complex, and which I believe could be corrected without serious difficulty by changes to the design.

My concerns are about two matters of importance to neighbours of the project: preservation of trees; and waste management.

(1) Preservation of trees.

The first concern is that aspects of the planned landscaping need to be modified on the grounds that there has not been sufficient effort made to preserve important trees on the Western boundary of the development, with consequential adverse impact on the residents of the apartments living in the neighbouring property No. 25 Tryon Road, which are close to the Western boundary of the proposed buildings A and C. I and other residents in No. 25 live in apartments which face eastward toward the new complex and will be directly affected by the project, as two of its four buildings which will be in close proximity—some 3 to 6 metres away from the fence.

With such a large, tall building planned, we are anxious to preserve as much of the natural habitat as possible. Yet only 3 trees on the side boundaries of the entire proposed development are to be retained. This is an enormous reduction of the vegetation and canopy currently enjoyed by residents and visitors to the Lindfield area, as well as the future residents of the complex. The planned landscaping of the property cannot replace the loss of fine established trees (See attached selected pages from the proposal’s Design Report and Arboricultural Report).

In particular, there are two large trees located inside number 27 just a metre from the boundary, towards the southwest end of the property, where they provide a natural and leafy landscape as well as screening and privacy at this end of the existing building. They are close to Tryon Lane, where the vehicle entrance to the new development’s garage will be, and if they are kept, would provide some shielding from traffic movement and noise.

The larger of the trees is a Cupressus, a very healthy tree 18 metres high, which the arborist Andrew Scales assessed as “A1 High” and “worthy of being a constraint.” But it is indicated on the plan as “to be removed”. This is not the arborist’s recommendation: he says it is worth preserving even at the cost of being a constraint. It is my belief that this tree could be preserved without much difficulty.
The other tree is a Phoenix Canariensis or Canary Island Date Palm, 9 metres high, with spreading branches and typical palm fronds. It is rated by the arborist as Z12, “unacceptably expensive to retain”. The tree is that it is quite healthy and would be worth keeping for its attractiveness at this end of the new development, which will be lacking established trees.
A third large healthy tree in the middle of the western boundary is a Chamaecyparis (or false cypress), providing screening and canopy in the middle of the western boundary of the development.

It is deeply concerning that these valuable and beautiful trees are planned to be removed, with considerable loss of amenity and green canopy. Removal would be a significant loss not only to residents of No. 25, but also to those who will own apartments in building C the new complex. The design plan (see Proposed Canopy Coverage, page 34) shows that this south-west corner of the property will have practically no ground-level vegetation. Keeping these trees would be a simple way of enhancing this part of the new complex for the new residents, while preserving the green canopy which provides tranquillity and protection to us residents of No. 25. Adding other trees along the boundary would further enhance the area.

Proposal 1.

It is proposed that the three large trees of importance identified above be retained and that others be planted in the area currently planned for waste collection.


(2) Waste Management & Environmental Impact

The plans for collecting garbage and waste from the development are to have waste collection trucks picking up bins at an open, ground level service area located in the south-west corner of the apartment complex. They will back into that open area from Tryon Lane to pick up bins brought up in a service lift from the garage. (See attached LANDSCAPING & WASTE MANAGEMENT document with relevant diagrams).

This will further adversely affect the well-being of residents of No. 25 due to noise, odours, and congestion for residents and passing traffic in narrow Tryon Lane. It will also prevent landscaping in that area of the property. It will also adversely affect the future residents of the new development who will own apartments close to the service area, as well as residents of other properties backing onto Tryon Lane. It will degrade the area in the southwest corner of the development, creating a less attractive and “underprivileged” section of the complex. For apartment owners in Building C that will reduce their enjoyment of their apartments and adversely affect their value.

An alternative would be to do all waste collection on the Basement Level 1, below where the bins will be located. This would eliminate the problem and enable the southwest corner of the site to be enhanced with landscaping and enjoyed by residents for residents of Building C, with less impact on neighbouring residents.

Another alternative would be to place the entrance to the garage at the south-east corner of the site, under Building D, with waste collection on the Basement Level 1.

(2) Proposal 2.

It is proposed that no waste collection operations be undertaken at ground level, but that the waste collection operations be done on Level 1 inside the garage, and possibly at the Eastern end of the complex under Building D.