Residential Flat Building with In-fill Affordable Housing - Park Ave, Gordon

Subject: Formal Objection to SSD-78775458 – Proposed Development at 3–9 Park Avenue, Gordon

To Whom It May Concern,
I write to lodge my strong objection to State Significant Development (SSD) Application SSD-78775458, submitted by CPDM for a nine-storey mixed-use development at 3–9 Park Avenue, Gordon. This proposal represents a severe overreach that contravenes established planning controls, disrespects heritage protections, and fails to align with the values and expectations of the local community.

1. Denial of Procedural Fairness
This application pre-empts ongoing negotiations between Ku-ring-gai Council and the NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure (DPHI) regarding a more suitable Transport Oriented Development (TOD) framework for Gordon. The Council’s “Preferred Scenario”, endorsed in response to the NSW Government’s Low and Mid-Rise Housing Reforms, proposes measured growth that aligns with local infrastructure capacity, heritage conservation, and community expectations.

The lodging of this SSD application—prior to the finalisation of the TOD framework—undermines democratic planning processes and denies residents the opportunity for genuine input. It represents a failure of procedural fairness and an unacceptable sidelining of local governance.

2. Non-Compliance with Planning Controls and Excessive Height
The development proposes a nine-storey structure exceeding 30 metres, flagrantly breaching the existing Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2015 (KLEP 2015) and Ku-ring-gai Development Control Plan (KDCP), which impose a maximum building height of 22 metres in the area. Even factoring in the State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing) 2021, the scale of this development vastly exceeds what might be reasonably allowed under any bonus provision.

This excessive height and bulk is entirely inconsistent with the fine-grained character of Gordon, particularly on the eastern side of the railway, and would dominate the streetscape to an unacceptable degree.

3. Irreparable Heritage Impacts
The subject site is located adjacent to the Gordon Heritage Conservation Area (HCA) and is within immediate visual proximity of heritage-listed properties protected under Schedule 5 of KLEP 2015 and the NSW Heritage Act 1977. These properties include:

Heritage item I175 – Federation-era residence at 5 Park Avenue
Heritage item I177 – Interwar home at 11 Park Avenue

Items identified in the Ku-ring-gai Heritage Inventory and accompanying Heritage Conservation Area DCP Guidelines

The proposed development:

Fails to observe Section 3.9 of the KDCP, which requires that new development adjacent to heritage items must respect established scale, roof forms, setbacks, and architectural detailing.

Will result in visual isolation and overshadowing of significant heritage assets.

Makes no serious attempt to integrate or defer to the prevailing heritage streetscape, and in doing so, risks eroding the historic identity of the area.

4. Failure of Good Urban Design Principles
The proposed building is incongruous with the urban fabric of Gordon, violating core town planning principles, including those outlined in the NSW Urban Design Guide (2015) and Better Placed: An Integrated Design Policy. Specifically:

Contextual Incompatibility: The building’s scale, bulk and bland “box-like” design ignores the area’s topography, established residential character, and heritage fabric.

Amenity Impacts: There will be significant overshadowing, overlooking, and loss of privacy to surrounding dwellings, with non-compliant setbacks and poor interface transitions.

Public Domain Impact: The overdevelopment of the site will cause substantial visual clutter, lack of sunlight in the public domain, and degradation of pedestrian amenity.

5. Environmental Destruction and Loss of Tree Canopy
The application proposes the removal of over 50 mature trees, many of which form part of the Ku-ring-gai tree canopy, a recognised ecological and visual asset. This would:

Contravene the aims of the Ku-ring-gai Urban Forest Policy and Biodiversity Strategy 2030.

Destroy habitat for protected and locally significant fauna, including Kookaburras, Galahs, Rosellas, Echidnas, and Ringtail Possums.

Accelerate heat island effects and significantly reduce the suburb’s environmental resilience.

6. Infrastructure and Traffic Overload
The proposed 100-apartment development will place unsustainable pressure on local infrastructure:

Traffic congestion at the already critical Pacific Highway/Park Avenue intersection will worsen.

Local roads and street parking are insufficient to accommodate the resulting increase in vehicle movements.

Existing stormwater, sewerage, and transport infrastructure—not upgraded to accommodate such density—will be severely strained, contrary to planning principles that require development to match service capacity.

7. Misuse of State Significant Development Pathway
There is no legitimate basis for this proposal to be classified as “State Significant.” It does not demonstrate any extraordinary public benefit or strategic merit that would warrant bypassing Council oversight and community engagement mechanisms. The use of the SSD pathway in this case appears to be a deliberate tactic to circumvent local controls, which must not be rewarded.

Conclusion
This application fails every relevant planning test:
It is non-compliant with applicable height limits and planning controls.
It inflicts severe and permanent damage to Gordon’s heritage and character.
It undermines public confidence in fair and transparent planning processes.
It disregards the environmental, amenity, and infrastructure needs of the community.

For these reasons, I urge the NSW Department of Planning to refuse SSD-78775458 in full, and to support Ku-ring-gai Council’s evidence-based, consultative planning approach for Gordon’s future.

Sincerely,

This proposal is inconsistent with Ku-ring-gai council's preferred vision, where heritage and our environment will be preserved.
The 9 storeys apartment will overshadow and disrupting views of neighbours.
Pearson Road has already been congested during peak hour, long queue going to Pacific Hwy and Werona Ave. Given the proposed 100 apartments which means at least 150 cars more. It will be disastrous to try to mauver with heavy traffic.
It is not fair for the heritage listed properties to be surrounded by high-rise. That will devalue those properties.

Dear Sir/Madam,
I want to object to the proposed SSD at 3-9 Park Avenue Gordon.
I am a resident in Gordon and have lived here for almost 30 years.
I object to the proposal for many reasons but my six key objections are:
1. Its excessive height. At a height of 9 storeys this will be the tallest structure on the east side of Gordon. It will cause significant overshadowing and reduce the privacy of a number of residences.
2. Poor quality design. The design does not fit with the suburb's style of homes . It lacks any heritage or Californian bungalow recognition with ugly box type structures.
3. Traffic and infrastructure overload. The corner of Park Avenue and Pearson Avenue as well as the traffic entering the Pacific Highway is already a bottle neck . It will now be a strangle hold.
4. Devastating wildlife impact. There will be the destruction of 50 established trees!!! This will severely impact on the habitats of native species such as kookaburras, cockatoos and many others.
5. Isolation of Heritage homes. The development will destroy the heritage value of many homes adjacent and opposite the proposed development.
6. Nothing to offer the community. This project does not incorporate any public areas such as parks to benefit the community. It is a very selfish development.

Kind regards

Please refer to the attached objection

Dear Planning Team,

My name is Bassam Nassim and I am writing to express my strong support for the proposed housing development on Park Avenue, Gordon.

I am a recent migrant to Australia, and now an Australian citizen. My wife grew up in Gordon and went to school in the area. I am working as a Financial Manager at a manufacturing firm, whilst my wife is a lawyer. Despite earning good income, we are unable to afford housing in the area of Gordon, where we would like to live and raise our family. Unfortunately, like many young families, we were forced to move away due to the lack of affordable housing in the area.

This development represents a step forward to address this issue. Importantly, it also offers housing opportunities that are accessible to those who work in and support this community every day — teachers, emergency service personnel, healthcare workers, and others — helping ensure that those who serve Gordon can also live in Gordon.

The location of this development is ideal. It is close to the station, cafes, good schools, and groceries stores. It is an easy walk to the station, and does not involve walking up hill (many of the development in Gordon is on the other side of the train station which, even if close, is not walkable with small children or elderly family members given the incline). This type of walkable, well-connected development is exactly what our growing communities need.

From my understanding this development is also consistent with the direction set by the council’s broader redevelopment strategy. The area already includes plans for multiple high-density buildings, including a 25-storey tower proposed less than 200 metres from this site. As such, this development will not be out of context but rather a complementary part of Gordon’s evolving landscape.

I strongly urge Planning NSW and decision-makers to approve this development. It will create real opportunities for people like myself to be able to afford to move to the local area.

Sincerely,
Bassam Nassim
39 Kays Avenue East, Marrickville NSW 2204

To Whom It May Concern,

I am writing to express my strong support for the proposed housing development on Park Avenue, Gordon.

I spent the first 25 years of my life growing up in Gordon. My wife, now a dedicated school teacher, also grew up in this community. I work part-time as a firefighter, and together, we’ve always wanted to remain close to the place we consider home. Unfortunately, like many essential workers and young families, we were forced to move away due to the lack of affordable housing in the area.

This development represents a positive and much-needed solution to that issue. It offers housing opportunities that are accessible to those who work in and support this community every day — teachers, emergency service personnel, healthcare workers, and others — helping ensure that those who serve Gordon can also live in Gordon.

Importantly, the location of this development is ideal. It is close to essential services, including grocery stores, bus routes, and Gordon train station, offering excellent access to public transport and making daily life more convenient and sustainable. This type of walkable, well-connected development is exactly what our growing communities need.

Furthermore, the development is consistent with the direction set by the council’s broader redevelopment strategy. The area already includes plans for multiple high-density buildings, including a 25-storey tower proposed less than 200 metres from this site. As such, this development will not be out of context but rather a complementary part of Gordon’s evolving landscape.

I strongly urge Planning NSW and decision-makers to approve this development. It will create real opportunities for essential workers and families to live in the communities they support, while aligning with the area’s infrastructure and future planning goals.

The project should be put on-hold indefinitely until there is an agreement between the Kuring-Gai council and the State government. It is inappropriate that this SSD proceed when the community has undergone consultation for a new Ku-ring-gai’s draft Local Environment Plan (LEP) that is due to go on exhibition and the Minister for Planning on 22 May 2025.
The proposal should also be refused because:
• It will block sunlight and will negatively overshadow residential properties in the vicinity of the site.
• It will choke traffic to the Pacific Highway and will make Park Avenue a permanent traffic gridlock
• It will remove trees and has no proposal how to keep and maintain the existing trees. The impact to the root systems of the trees has not been assessed and addressed.

I am aware of a submission made by Sarah Watson. I endorse that submission. I add that developments like these deny the current and future residents of New South Wales housing choice and diminish our quality of life.

I strongly urge that this State Significant Development (SSD - 78775458) application at 3-9 Park
Avenue, Gordon by developer CPDM be refused in full.
The project must be put on hold indefinitely until an agreement is reached between Ku-ring-gai
Council and the NSW State Government regarding the planning future of the area. It is entirely
inappropriate and premature for this proposal to proceed while the community has actively
participated in consultation for the new Ku-ring-gai Draft Local Environment Plan (LEP), which is
scheduled for public exhibition by the Minister for Planning on 22 May 2025.
Allowing this SSD to go ahead while the LEP is still under review would seriously undermine
community trust and planning integrity.
In addition, the proposal should be refused on the following grounds:
- Loss of sunlight and excessive overshadowing: The development will significantly reduce sunlight
and cast long shadows over surrounding residential properties, impacting quality of life and
residential amenity.
- Severe traffic congestion: The scale of the development will worsen traffic conditions, particularly
along the Pacific Highway and Park Avenue, potentially turning the latter into a permanent traffic
bottleneck.
- Tree loss and environmental damage: The proposal includes the removal of established trees
without any clear strategy to retain or protect existing greenery. There is no proper assessment of
the impact to root systems, which poses long-term risks to the local environment and urban canopy.
This development represents overreach, poor planning coordination, and environmental disregard.
For the benefit of the community and the integrity of the planning process, we ask that the proposal
be refused without delay

please see attachment

During peak hours every working day, the Pacific highway is heavily congested, and the Gordon train station line frequently experiences service disruptions. increasing residential capacity along this fragile rail corridor is therefore inappropriate.

I and my family strongly object to the development of the proposed 9 storey development at 3-9 Park Avenue, Gordon. This project will not benefit Gordon residents nor the people who may want to reside therein for the following reasons:
. There is already a traffic and infrastructure overload, and this will compound the problem with already strained storm water and sewerage systems
. Kuring-gai Council's preferred scenario has been ignored although the council developed it after extensive consultation with the community of which we partook. We welcome more housing in line with Kuring-gai's Council's principles of Planning.
. This project has excessive height (> 30m) and is of poor design. It will cause significant overshadowing to adjacent homes and streets
This development will destroy 50 established trees significantly causing destruction of native species and obviously greatly impacting the natural landscape. This will be an eyesore for both the current and any new residents.
We request a comprehensive review by an independent panel.

I am writing in strong support of the SSD at 3–9 Park Ave, Gordon, and more broadly, the objectives of the Transport Oriented Development (TOD) program.

It is disappointing—but unfortunately not surprising—that many of the objections come from the same vocal minority, particularly Friends of Ku-ring-gai Environment (FOKE), a group that has consistently opposed all forms of development across the area. Their opposition is ideological, not practical, and fails to engage meaningfully with the urgent need for sustainable urban planning.

Similarly, the Council has used this process to push its own alternative vision, one that appears motivated more by political positioning than public interest. In the Council’s public digital survey, residents did not support the alternative scenario, yet the Council selectively interpreted the data to support its agenda, ignoring written submissions.

I support the development at 3–9 Park Ave because it aligns with the key principles of TOD: increased housing density near public transport, sustainable urban growth, and a meaningful response to the growing need for affordable housing. It is precisely this kind of project—located within walking distance of Gordon Station—that should be prioritized.

By contrast, the Council’s alternative proposals place high-density housing in illogical locations, such as near Bunnings, which is not within 400 metres of the station and therefore undermines the very purpose of TOD. Their proposed lowering of the Floor Space Ratio (FSR) makes development economically unviable, removing any incentive for landowners or developers to engage in the housing supply challenge constructively.

The SSD at 3–9 Park Ave represents good planning. It leverages proximity to existing infrastructure, contributes to housing supply, and aligns with long-term strategic goals. I urge the Department to continue supporting this project and uphold the integrity of the TOD vision.

Please see attached

As a resident of Gordon I am concerned about the development of Gordon and in particular at this stage SSD 78775458. I understand the need for more housing but am acutely aware that we run the risk of over development with this property and other similar developments.
- This development exceeds the initially outlined plans by council in height and size. - There appear to be no community facilities outlined to compensate for the large number of new residents , eg schools and parks to support families, children and pets living in the apartments.
- There is no compensation outlined for wildlife which will be adversely affected by this build.
- Traffic is already overwhelming the existing streets and the large number of cars that accompany a development of this size has not been addressed by the developer or council. History shows that for appartments built near stations, an expectation exists that residents won’t have cars but this is incorrect.
-There is already a precedent for higher level appartments on the western side of the highway where the land is sloped and therefore minimising the impact on the skyline. Would this not be a more sensible option? As opposed to building a high rise on the highest point of the suburb where it becomes a dominant feature in the suburb.
-My other concern is that there appears to have been no consideration of the historical significance or cultural aspects of the area. Is this something the council has considered and if so what value is placed on maintaining the culture and historical aspects of the suburb. The tender provided appears to offer no compliment to the existing suburb.
-Finally the proportion of “affordable” houses appears small and it is unclear how this quota will be maintained to ensure affordable housing for key workers over time. It is also unclear what criteria will be used to ensure affordable housing goes to key workers.
There appears to have been no consultation with residents in the area and the issues I have outlined appear to have not been fully considered or addressed.

Hi Joina,
For abundant caution, please find attached a copy of Council's submission in relation to SSD-78775458 for Park Avenue, Gordon, which was uploaded earlier today.
regards,
Brodee Gregory

I object to the proposed development on the following grounds:

Heritage Impact
* The b9 storey building is directly alongside a Heritage Item as well as radically impacting the HCA (of which my home is a contributing item). The design is hideous, without setbacks or consideration for the character of the HCA. There is no transition zone.
* My property was constructed on basic sandstone footings placed on a very heavy clay. I anticipate that major structural works will cause damage to my building and cause significant noise pollution due to very thin federation glass windows and loose fitting timber panes.

Isolation of Properties
* Site isolation at 2 Park Lane, 11 Park Avenue and 1 Park Avenue are against the ‘site isolation’ control in Part 3 of the Ku Ring Gai DCP and will cause ongoing issues for these properties as well 91 Werona Avenue.

Environmental Impact
* Canopy: The canopy must be protected for the wildlife including birds, flying foxes and possums.
* I have observed Echidna on the other side of the street and believe an environmental study has not adequately considered migratory patterns of local species.

Traffic and Infrastructure
* Park Avenue and Pearson/Werona Avenue are extremely congested on a daily bases. Last weekend when railway busses were operational on Werona Avenue the situation was even more dire than usual. Traffic during and under construction must be addressed by the state prior to any approval of such major developments in the area.
* The water infrastructure on Park Avenue is already compromised. My stepdaughter and I have made multiple complaints to Sydney Water over the years regarding leaks. Several years back a Turpentine crashed through 18 Park Avenue because an ongoing leak undermined the root structure. After that was addressed a new leak appeared and continued to re-appear with concerning regularity outside 12-14 Park Avenue. We anticipate this will be an ongoing problem until major works are conducted and thus it is nonsensical to permit large developments on the street at this point in time.
* Increased density will impact parking in the area during construction as well as long-term once residents move in. Ku-Ring-Gai Council has denied my stepdaughter’s application to install a crossing at our property. As a result I rely on street parking for level access, however, this change will mean that I will be unable to access and leave the home independently.
* Pedestrian access in the area is extremely dangerous. I experience near misses walking with my collator at designated crossings on a weekly basis. Having read Council’s TOD report it is clear that the actual accidents do not in any way reflect the situation around Park Avenue and the Werona/Pearson Avenue intersection.
* Aged care residents of the Anglican Retirement Home regularly use this street for access to the Gordon Centre. How do the developers propose to maintain safe access during construction?

2.

Tree removal and habitat destruction
The proposal includes the removal of 35 trees on site and one tree adjoining the site on Park Lane.
The removal of 35 mature trees is completely unacceptable in the midst of a climate crisis. Mature trees take years to grow and cannot just be replaced. They provide shelter for people and wildlife and the habitat destruction of 35 trees should not be taken lightly. The removal of a few trees is already terrible for the environment, but the removal of 35 trees is truly devastating. We are living in a climate catastrophe and it is abhorrent that the government should not enforce building designs and methods that preserve existing trees to the maximum extent possible. This is indefensible. It is also laughable given the state government’s recent posturing about the spat of ‘tree vandalism’ and call for public submissions about the level of recriminations for tree destruction. Yet this Applicant will be allowed to demolish 35 trees all in the name of profit. The Ku-ring-gai local area is known for its tree canopy and its wild-life and the environment is a key issue for constituents in this area. The SSDAs which have been submitted appear to have no or little respect for the existing environment, the habitat destruction, and are not concerned with the impact of demolition of existing environments on climate change. Have we not as a society done enough damage to the environment? This is not future-proofing our State. There are ways to build which are sensitive to the environment and do not require the same level of authorised environmental destruction as this SSDA seeks.

Manipulation of SSDA process and affordability concerns
This SSDA is a blatant attempt to bypass local government controls and attempts to retain the local character and care for the environment. The use of the state significant development process is clearly a way for developers to ignore the desires of the local community and to bulldoze their way to profit. They do not care about the community, or about providing affordable housing. They do not care about building standards and given, as the Applicant notes, there is no design excellence requirement in this area, there is no requirement for them to care about building standards. The plethora of poorly build apartments across Sydney should be a warning. Moreover, if a special levy is required to fix poor building work, how is that outcome practical for affordable housing tenants. The Council is seeking to implement a design excellence clause, however, the application by the developer for a SSD circumvents this requirement.

Further, this building will also not be ‘affordable’ for the non-affordable housing buyers and accordingly will not assist opening up the housing market to young people or key workers. Based on estimated development cost of $75M and a standard developer profit margin of 15%, the 69 non-affordable housing apartments will need to sell for estimated $1.25M. That is not affordable.

SSDAs should only be allowed for state significant development. A development that provides the least amount of affordable housing possible and only to take advantage of the affordable housing uplift is not state significant and should be subject to the same council requirements as other developments.

Overshadowing
The environment plan says: 'The development delivers a built form that responds positively to the desirable elements of the existing local character…'

The application also states:
'Overshadowing/Solar Access: Careful consideration will be given to solar access and overshadowing of residential properties in the vicinity of the site. Preliminary shadow analysis prepared by PTW shows two hours of solar access can be maintained to neighbouring residential dwellings (to the south on Park Lane). Analysis has also been included of the potential future context, which demonstrates future building envelopes would be capable of achieving minimum ADG solar access requirements.'

These statements are incongruous. It is unclear how blocking off solar access of all but 2 hours in a day is taking into consideration the local community or surrounding environment. The current residences in the area are between 1 and 2 storeys. Allowing a build of this size to proceed is making a mockery of any concerns for local character or the neighbouring properties.