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

I object to the proposed project at Park Avenue in Gordon. I grew up on the north shore of Sydney and have had much enjoyment in the leafy streets with beautiful heritage houses. I continue to greatly enjoy walking in those streets, even though I currently live in the Australian Capital Territory. Park Avenue Gordon is one of the lovely streets to walk along, with gorgeous trees and stunning heritage homes. I appreciate the need for more housing that is close to transport hubs. However, I would urge that the height of such developments is limited, to avoid detracting from the ambience of such lovely streets. If this development and others like it in the area could be limited to three storeys, that would be ideal, from my perspective. Where I live in Turner in Canberra, apartment buildings are limited to three storeys and it makes it a place that everyone can enjoy, with a leafy aspect and lots of birds. I very much hope that this development can be kept to a low level so that everyone can enjoy the beautiful street, the treescape and the magnificent homes.

This project has bypassed Council regulations so as to increase the heights to 9 storeys but on the ridge will be much higher, without any graded levels to the surrounding low rise housing.
-The buildings are very poor aesthetics with dreadful boxy appearance, akin to cheap quality housing of the 70s.
There has been no attempt to build with materials that reflect the heritage buildings nearby. My children could do a better job with Duplo. There are no design features of merit. Kuringgai Council wants to supply prospective developers with clear design guidelines. This SSD is trying to avoid the Council standards we wish to apply to highrise to make it more aesthetic and rush this through, bypassing Council design standards
-The quality and liveability of Gordon is the buildings are subservient to the magnificent tall trees. They provide cooling and a buffer to the built environment and animal habitat
Without proper setbavks, where will tall tree planting happen?
- No provision has been made to provide community facilities or open space to offset this increased population.
We have no playgrounds or active sports facilities north of Robert St.
You cannot add so many people to a suburb then try and retrofit open space and community land
-We have received no information regarding traffic management which is already bottlenecked at corner Park/Pearson Avenues and Park/Werona and will be further strangled by 100 apartments and their cars.
They need to drive children to daycare and school and not everyone works in the city. Essential workers must drive to workplace.
We strongly object to the scale and heights of this building, the poor design , minimal setbacks for tall trees or traffic mitigation or community facilities.
The developer should be asked to reduce height, scale and provide tall canopy trees

I object to the project.

Following legal proceedings in the Land & Environment Court Council has engaged in it alternative scenarios consultation which contained extensive feedback from the community prior to 17 December 2024.

On 25 March 2025 Council put forward its preferred alternative scenario and subsequently put on exhibition on or about 1 April 2025 the Preferred Scenario for public comment. This process was referred to the mediation agreement and Council is now at the stage of considering the alternative planning scheme being possibly adopted at a meeting of Council on 23 May 2025 following a public forum tomorrow.

The continued lodgement of applications for SEARs and EIS in Kur-ring-gai Council area in such an uncertain planning environment creates confusion and frustration for the community. They are not simple documents. It also waste the resources of Council and the DPHI in having to respond to such applications whilst an alternative planning scheme is being finalised and has the potential outcome of diverting scare public resources away from other applications throughout NSW which are not in a district where an alternative planning pathway is being considered and progressed.

Further given the applications are using the in fill affordable housing pathways they could create bad planning outcomes for the broader community if the DPHI December 2023 practice note is not strictly applied to them.

Of concern is that ultimately these projects all appear to be offering the minimum required GFA for affordable housing (and 2% of GFA in perpetuity). This % offered should be significantly more, noting this project only seems to be offering 5 affordable housing apartments in perpetuity (ie of approximately 261m2 in total so 52m2 each it would appear from the EIS). For those 5 affordable housing apartments, the applicants appears to seek a 30% uplift in GFA. This additional GFA for limited affordable housing in perpetuity has significant impacts on aspects such as amenity of the site and adjoining land noting the buildings height scale and bulk that will result in what appears to be 2 additional floors from the GFA uplift as is contained in the EIS. This mechanism also permits applicants to bypass Council.

The EIS also states that "the construction program is estimated to have a duration of approximately two years". Based on what has occurred in the past in the District with construction timelines and actual apartments delivered, it would be appreciated if this statement could be considered based on what has occurred on other projects undertaken by the applicant.

Thank you

The proposal is grossly excessive and does not recognise heritage values of the area
Further the infrastructure including Park Ave is not suitable to this size development
Further the design is very poor and not suited to the area
Other comments in attachment

This is an overbuilt project which is not consistent with the TOD or with the alternative development plan proposed by Ku-ring-gai Council. In particular:
x Inconsistent with Ku-ring-gai Council’s Preferred Scenario: The proposal blatantly ignores key
planning principles and is inconsistent with Council's Preferred Scenario, supporting new housing without
sacrificing our heritage and natural environment, determined following consultation with the community.
x Isolation of Heritage Homes: Positioned adjacent to and opposite heritage sites dating back to the 19th
century within a HCA, the development will destroy the heritage value and culture of our neighbourhood.
x Excessive Height and Poor-Quality Design: At a height of 9 storeys (over 30 metres), this will be the
tallest structure on the east side of Gordon, causing significant overshadowing and disrupting sightlines
with inadequate transition zones and set-backs to adjacent homes and streets whilst reducing the privacy
of numerous residences. The design is an extremely poor box type structure lacking any modulation or
heritage recognition and will be a hideous stain on Gordon.
x Devastating tree canopy and wildlife impact: This development alone will involve the destruction of at
least 50 established trees, impacting the natural landscape and destruction of the habitats of native
species such as Kookaburras, Rosellas, Galahs, and Echidnas.
x Traffic and Infrastructure overload: With 100 apartments in this single development, this development
together with others to come will compound an already traffic choke point entering the Pacific Highway plus
local streets. Further our already strained stormwater, sewerage, transport systems, and parking will suffer
further.

My son, his wife and my 5 Grandchildren live in a 1880s beautifully renovated Council supervised Heritage Listed home at 16 Park Avenue Gordon. This home is directly opposite the proposed 9 story development at 3 - 9 Parke Ave Gordon.
Park Avenue is a beautiful tree lined street of special heritage value, it is however a main traffic access road connecting the local community, schools etc to the Pacific Highway and there are often long delays and considerable traffic congestion
I therefore submit that this building is not suitable for this location.

I object to the project due to the following reasons :

1. Isolation of the Heritage homes : positioned next to the and opposite heritage sites dating back to the 19th century within a HCA , the development will destroy the heritage value and the culture of the our neighbourhood.
2. Excessive Height and poor quality design : The height of 9 storeys ( over 30 metres) will be tallest building on the east side of Gordon , causing significant overshadowing and disrupting sightliness of inadequate transition zones and setbacks to adjacent homes and street whilst reducing the privancy
3 .Traffic and infrastructure overload. with 100 apartment in this single development will compound an already choke point entering the pacific highway plus local streets . The current infrastructure is designed for local density residence area , our already strained stormwater , sewerage , transport systems and parking will suffer further .
4. No community benefits : The development offered nothing to the community instead , it only will destroy Gordon's heritage and natural environment .

I don’t object to housing development in Gordon or even Park Avenue. However, I have concerns about the proposed plans for 3-9 Park Avenue Gordon.

Firstly, the scale and height of the proposed development are too large. This would be the first development of its kind in the area. It is surrounded by many low-rise suburban homes. The size of the development, especially its location on a ridge, would overwhelm the existing houses on the surrounding streets.

Secondly, the project DA appears to be rushed to avoid the impact of Ku-ring-Gai Council’s more considered approach to planning in the area. The council’s preferred scenario for the development in the Gordon area calls for a smaller development of this site. They are expected to propose larger-scale developments at different sites with graded transitional downsizing as development moves closer to individual low-rise housing zones.

The council is working as fast as possible, in consultation with the local community, on plans for increased housing in the area. High-quality planning is essential for developing liveable communities for our growing population.

The Ku-ring-Gai Council plans will be put to the state government soon. I believe development of this site should be delayed to ensure it complies with the local council plans and rezoning.

Thirdly, I feel that the community engagement has been insufficient. The environmental impact statement mentions consultation with neighbours, but I am an owner of a heritage-listed home located immediately to the east of the proposed development site. Despite this, I have not received any direct communication. The only consultation I have had is a leaflet in my letterbox and a community webinar I signed up for. I did receive a reply to an email I sent.

4. My local heritage-listed property is at risk of isolation due to this development and others as predicted in the EIS. I believe the developers should offer to incorporate my house and its substantial block into this site. This would demonstrate their commitment to the local community and potentially allow for an increase in the development’s size.

5. The development will negatively impact the value of our property. It will lead to a loss of privacy, increased noise, traffic congestion, and disruption of community cohesion and the social fabric of the neighbourhood.

7. The design and height of the building do not align with the existing architectural style of the neighbourhood. Our house has late Victorian style, while others in the street have Federation style. More could be done to make it blend sympathetically into the streetscape.

Please see attached objection submission.

Please find attached my detailed objection to this proposal.

As a nearby resident in Gordon, I strongly object to this proposed development. It seems the developer is seeking to rush through this application before mediation between Ku-ring-gai Council and the State Government regarding sustainable development options is finalised. The proposal blatantly ignores key planning principles and is inconsistent with Council’s preferred scenario.
Importantly, the project is of poor design, unattractive in appearance and excessive and overbearing in size. This concentration of such a large number of apartments on a single site will lead to considerable traffic and infrastructure overload.

Subject: Formal Objection to CPDM’s Proposal at 3-9 Park Avenue, Gordon
To the Planning Authority,
I am compelled to formally register my objection to the proposed development by CPDM at 3-9
Park Avenue, Gordon (SSD - 78775458). This proposal appears to elevate commercial interests
at the expense of the surrounding heritage and significance of the area, representing one of the
first Ku-ring-gai Municipalities.
It appears the project is an attempt to exploit 'affordable housing' and 'Transport Oriented
Development' schemes to expedite permissions for a massive apartment complex which is at
odds with the local heritage character and context (both adjacent and directly opposite the site)
which the Government has prioritised to remain. This intent undermines comprehensive urban
planning principles focusing on social, historical, and environmental needs.
Key concerns include:
Towering Heights: At nine stories, the building will dominate its landscape, negatively affecting
low-rise existing heritage structures through visual intrusion and domination, with no
consideration for visual harmony, privacy, or proper heritage cohesion.
Unsuitable Design: The design features a bulky, uninspired box-like form that harshly contrasts
with the existing streetscape, driven purely by the aim to maximise occupancy.
Heritage Concerns: There is insufficient recognition of the area’s rich historical tapestry and its
built environment from the 1830s, disregarding NSW Heritage Manual requirements on
contextual respect, recent press from NSW Heritage Minister Penny Sharpe, and the call for
better heritage protection measures as part of feedback from Ku-ring-gai Council’s recent
survey1
.
Contradicting Council Plans: Diverging from Ku-ring-gai Council’s preferred future scenarios,
this proposal undermines meticulously consulted strategies to support sustainable
development alongside enhancing housing supply.
Community Input Ignored: The development dismisses substantial community feedback
concerning its impact on nearby heritage sites, while assessments obscure potential negative
social effects (e.g. excludes Visual Impact assessment from heritage homes immediately
opposite the proposal).
Traffic and Safety: The proposed density will exacerbate congestion at the Pacific Highway
entrance, compounding existing traffic pressures and safety risks, as underscored in recent
Council surveys2
.
Environmental Assault: The loss of a 35+ tree canopy will irrevocably harm local biodiversity,
including endangered native species.
Deficient Community Gains: Ultimately, this proposal offers minimal benefit to local residents
and endangers Gordon's cherished natural and historic identity.
Gordon warrants a more considered approach!
Regards,
Darryl Smith

Nothing looks more out of keeping with the surrounding streets than this enormous structure. It is such an overbearing building that will no doubt be the beginning of the end of any attempt to introduce more housing in the area that blends with the existing character of the suburb. The thought of every single tree being removed is too awful for words. Park Street is already a traffic bottle neck and a further 130 or more cars will make the queues to join the Pacific Highway even longer. And where is the planned infrastructure to provide services and facilities for all these extra residents?

To Whom It May Concern,

I strongly object to the proposed development by CPDM (Developer) at 3-9 Park Ave Gordon (SSD - 78775458). The proposal, as outlined in the exhibition documents, prioritises profit over the protection, respect, and preservation of the area's existing heritage and community well-being.

This proposal represents a set of excessive and overbearing high-rise apartments, far out of keeping with the suburb's low-level profile. It's ridge top position, will create a long-lasting eye-sore in what is a largely heritage suburb and offers no amenity to the local area.

The Developer's application clearly demonstrates that all design aspects have been manipulated to maximise density, with the aim of emotionally appealing to the Government's focus on housing supply and affordability as the primary justification for approval.
My son's family reside directly opposite the development on Park St, in a lovingly restored, significant heritage building that they have fully restored to enhance the area's heritage values.

We have many objections to this proposal including:
• Excessive Height: The 9-story, 30+ metre height is excessive, representing the tallest structure on the east side of Gordon. This will have a disproportionate and overbearing impact on surrounding heritage properties and the HCA, including inappropriate transition impacts, destroyed sightlines, and loss of privacy for numerous residences.

• Poor-Quality Design: The design is a poorly executed box-type structure, unsympathetic to the local heritage context and streetscape. It focuses on maximising density, creating an abrupt and jarring interface between high-rise apartments and existing low-rise heritage dwellings, with no consideration for visual harmony, privacy, or heritage cohesion.

• Disregard for Heritage Significance: The proposal fails to adequately consider its impact on the area's existing heritage value and significance, dating back to the 1830s, including heritage-listed properties opposite the site. The NSW Heritage Manual and relevant case law emphasise the importance of context, streetscape, and visual setting, considerations ignored in this proposal. This is further reinforced by the community's support for stronger heritage preservation, as shown in Ku-ring-gai Council's recent survey.

• Inconsistency with Council's Preferred Scenario: The proposal disregards key planning principles and is inconsistent with Ku-ring-gai Council's Alternative Preferred Scenario, developed after extensive community consultation, which the Developer acknowledges would more "appropriately manage local character and transitions in scale."

• Selective Community Feedback and Inaccurate Social Impact Assessment: Critical community concerns regarding the development's incompatibility with adjacent heritage sites and the HCA have been strategically ignored. The Social Impact review also underestimates the negative impact on the community.

• Traffic Overload: With 100 apartments, this development, combined with others, will worsen the existing traffic choke point entering the Pacific Highway from Park Avenue, creating related safety issues. This concern is further supported by the community feedback in Ku-ring-gai Council's recent survey.

• Devastating Tree Canopy and Wildlife Impact: The development will necessitate the destruction of over 35 trees, impacting the natural landscape and destroying the habitats of native species such as Kookaburras, Rosellas, Galahs, and Echidnas.

• Lack of Community Benefits: This project offers no benefits to the existing community, instead, it only serves to destroy Gordon's heritage and natural environment.

After an eight-year search, my son chose 16 Park Avenue, Gordon, in December 2023, as the perfect heritage home to raise their five young children. He has spent the last 12 months significantly restoring this home, recognizing and honouring the area's heritage values, not only for our benefit, but for the broader community. "Kelven," was built 150 years ago with 19th-century bricks, and the preserved character of the surrounding streets were crucial factors in the decision.

While we recognise the need for more housing, the proposed high-density development on Park Ave, Gordon is unacceptable. It demonstrates a blatant disregard for the impact of development on existing heritage, the surrounding streetscape, and the considerable personal investment they have made in purchasing, restoring, and maintaining the property, which is subject to strict heritage regulations.

We are deeply concerned that the State Government can approve developments that will irrevocably alter the character of the neighbourhood and significantly devalue their home, despite their commitment to preserving its heritage. We are baffled by the blanket planning legislation that disregards the historical significance and value of heritage dwellings.

CPDM's proposal threatens to destroy Park Avenue, Gordon, rendering claims of heritage recognition and conservation completely disingenuous. We are now facing the prospect of being surrounded and overshadowed by disproportionate, unsympathetic, and out-of-context multi-story apartment towers, despite the Government's stated commitment to preserving the HCA.
The State Government's website clearly states that new developments in a HCA must enhance heritage values. How can this principle be ignored when a proposal is directly adjacent and immediately opposite heritage properties and a HCA?

CPDM's proposal starkly illustrates a shift where developers benefit from an expedited approval process, while heritage property owners face significant disadvantages, with their lifestyle concerns seemingly disregarded, despite their role in preserving assets of ‘State significance’.

SSD-78775458, 3-9 Park Ave, Gordon 2072 is totally unviable and I appeal to your better self/selves to refuse it because:

> The inevitable increase to the already gridlock of cars, trucks and monster school buses in Park Avenue all day and late into the evening negotiating intersections with Werona Ave, Pearson Ave and Wade Lane to enter and leave the Pacific Highway will make all movement, walking included, very dangerous activities. It might have deserved the name avenue in the early days but that description is a misnomer today and I defy any traffic engineer to remedy the problem.

> The Government can wish what it will but the car will remain an essential, e.g., young and very often almost adult children get driven to school these days—there might be a boogy man on the train!

> Nine or ten storeys built on the highest area east of the Pacific Highway at the northern end of the Gordon town precinct is too high.

> Nine or ten storeys of boxy towers is too high in any street blessed with eight (but should be nine) heritaged-listed houses, including the home for 49 years of Dr Bradfield of Sydney Harbour Bridge fame, a separate garden memorial to him, and a church.

> Two handsome heritage-listed houses—No. 14, a beautifully intact California Bungalow and No. 16, a two-storey Federation built in 1894, which from 1938 to 1963 was a cottage hospital then a nursing home until 1981 and, very recently ,has been lovingly restored to as exact as possible original features—stand opposite the SSD sites. And another, No. 11, built 1898 in Victorian Gothic style and once the home of members of the Penfold (publishers) family, is right next door to the SSD site. All three will be severely impacted by overshadowing, loss of privacy, downright domination and cruel dwarfing, deprivation of light and ambience, not forgetting the demeaning of beautiful No, 11.

>Nos 14 and 16 are at risk of being sandwiched between high rise if another, SSD 8239545, isn’t quashed for its obvious similar inappropriateness.

>The narrow Park Lane (former dunny truck facility) that is access to the back yards and several garages to houses fronting Park Ave and garages of all Khartoum Avenue’s houses will be greatly impacted given the news that the plan of this SSD is to use Park Lane for garbage collection and other services. Dunny service to single family houses was one thing, but expecting this now more built on laneway to accommodate service to 100 plus apartments is sure to cause trouble.

>The advent of developer-favoured FRS upbuild for the promise of Affordable Housing is a nonsense if, as reliably advised, it is only for 15 years that will go in a flash and after which it is inevitable that those tenants will be out on the street because it is almost a certainty that rental or purchase of that accommodation will then be UNaffordable for any but the well heeled.

> This SSD and its companions are a blatant display of the power of the development industry that unfortunately far too often produces shoddy products and that automatically reflects badly on it’s government bedfellows.

> The houses marked for demolition in this SSD-78775458 slaughter nearly all nestle—almost hidden—by vegetation, much of it being native species, and this vegetation is providing shelter and nurture for native fauna that will be displaced with little hope of finding new shelter given the Government’s development blitz that will destroy Ku-ring-gai ‘s capacity to continue to be at least one of the lungs of Sydney. And, this nature will be decimated without any millions of dollars remuneration.

>News of the many millions of dollars being promised, be it with intricate conditions, to owners for their homes in this case and to owners involved in all the other SSDs seems to be very manipulative, tenuous and, sadly, will cause whole streets of houses to slowly decay, look unkempt and unsightly as has happened many times before once properties are in the hand os developers who have bitten off more than they can chew, as all too often is their wont.

>The SSD bunrush is very bad planning that is fostering great dissension in previously harmonious neighbourhoods and will be infamously remembered as the Minns /Scully Government’s Wrecking Ball.

Yours sincerely,
Carolyn Darby

please find the attachment of my objection

Have you visited Gordon recently?
If so , you would be aware that most of the highrise development has been along the Pacific Highway,close to the railway line and to the west of the suburb. The proposed development will destroy the heritage value and culture of our neighbourhood,especially as it is positioned so close to heritage sites dating back to the 19th century ,including for example the Gordon Preschool building and Annie Wyatt's cottage in Park Avenue.Annie Wyatt was the founder of the National Trust. There are just so many other heritage sites that will be overshadowed by this ugly 9- storey building.

In addition, this building will become the tallest structure in the area,causing significant overshadowing, and will involve the destruction of at least 50 established trees, destroying the habitats of native species including kookaburras, galahs and many others.

I can only imagine the traffic congestion this development will bring - 128 car spaces, 100 apartments! The access to Gordon station will become a total gridlock. It is a major access point to so many schools on the North Shore train line, including St Ives High, Ravenswood,Knox, PLC and so on. Currently, the local streets close to Gordon station are parked out everyday so where will the overflow of cars from this block of units park? The entry to the units itself will be dangerous to drivers and pedestrians alike.

A few planter boxes of annuals on small box -like balconies, nine storeys high, will never replace the beautiful natural environment that Gordon currently enjoys.It will just be an unpleasant 'blot' on the horizon and is inconsistent with the heritage architecture and historical values of Gordon.

Dear Sir/Madam,
As a local resident of Gordon, I wish to express my concerns regarding the proposed large-scale residential development at Park Avenue.
While I acknowledge the importance of increasing housing supply, this particular proposal of such concentrated form of high-density development (100 units) would result in excessive building heights and an unsustainable concentration of residents in one location. This is likely to place considerable strain on local traffic conditions and existing infrastructure, which are not equipped to accommodate such a sharp increase in population density.
I believe residential development in Gordon should be approached in a more balanced and distributed manner as being compliance with the existing Transit Oriented Development (TOD) planning controls—permitting a Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of 2.5:1 and a maximum building height of 21 metres—which provide a more suitable framework for sustainable development in this area.
For these reasons, I respectfully object to the proposal development at Park Ave, Gordon. I urge the NSW Planning Department to implement the current TOD planning controls and promote a more measured and equitable approach to residential growth across the Gordon area.
Yours sincerely,
Lee Green

Please see attached.

The proposal is excessive for the area and will destroy the heritage values and culture of the area
Being submitted as state significant development is strange given there is noting significant except it provided additional housing
The size of the development needs to be significantly reduced and the design substantially improved recognising the local community and adjacent housing