Residential Flat Building with Infill - Affordable Housing-24,26 &28 Middle Harbour Rd

Dear Ms Murimba,
We own and live at 35 Middle Harbour Road, approximately 60 meters due east from the proposed development. We have resided at this address for 13 years. We are not against sensible and well-planned development in our area and understand the need for additional affordable housing in the North Shore and Lindfield. However, we object in the strongest terms to the proposed development SSD – 82548708.

The proposed development's height, bulk and scale are completely unsuitable for the area. The applicant’s submission does not comply with SEARs and other planning and legislative requirements.

We never received the Notice of Exhibition letter from the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure to advise that the exhibition commenced on the 3rd June 2025. We only found out about the exhibition very recently from neighbours so we have not been given sufficient time to review the materials and respond by the 30th June. This is clearly unfair and the required exhibition process including communication to affected residents has not been adhered to. We have therefore not been afforded appropriate time and due process as is required for such an exhibition. We must be given a further 4 weeks to respond and the exhibition period to be extended as a result .

The reasons for our objection are as follows:

Non-compliance with SEAR for the proposed development

(a) Engagement
The engagement process with surrounding property owners and the community was inadequate and superficial. We received a basic flyer with little substantive information about the proposed development to inform residents. We were unable to provide feedback if we were not provided with sufficient detail regarding the development proposal. We live close to the site of the proposed development and we were not door knocked. There was no engagement via a webinar, workshops or meetings with residents impacted by the development. The engagement process was a purely tick the box exercise with inadequate consultation and none of the key concerns raised by the community addressed satisfactorily.

(b) Built Form, Urban Design and Environmental Amenity
The proposed built form and building height of 33.07m at its highest point is unreasonable and unacceptable. It is in breach of current height rules and given the lack of adequate setbacks will cause significant overlooking and privacy impacts to neighboring properties. It is not consistent with the draft KLEP developed by Ku-ring-gai Council. The EIS should address the draft KLEP and has not. Under the draft KLEP, the proposed development site would have a maximum height of 18.5m. The setbacks are not consistent with the streetscape of Middle Harbour Road and the proposed development will be well forward of existing setbacks. This is very bad design which gives no consideration to neighboring properties.
The Visual Impact Analysis (VIA) report prepared by the applicant does not take into account the impact to the streetscape, adjoining houses including heritage homes such as 31 Middle Harbour Road and 19 Russell Avenue as well as heritage conservation areas. The report hides the visual impacts by greying out the area and neighboring properties. The applicant would like you to believe we have no footpaths, no adjoining houses and that the area across from the proposed development is parkland - refer to page 9 of the visual impact assessment report. This demonstrates that the VIA is incomplete and flawed and misrepresents visual impacts and view loss from the proposed development. An assessment of public viewing points and private viewing points under SEARs is required and has not been completed. There will be significant visual impacts
which the applicant has failed to address impacting adjoining and nearby properties. Consequently, the applicant has not met this and other requirements under SEARs with respect to built form, urban design and environment amenity and cannot demonstrate there is a high level of environmental amenity for any surrounding residential or other sensitive land uses.

(c) Flood Risk
The site is located within a known overland flood path, flowing north west to south east across the property and into the Gordon Creek riparian zone. The proposed development including the excavation and construction of an underground car park raises major concerns relating to stormwater management, flood risk during peak rainfall and long term impacts on the Gordon Creek riparian zone which flows into Middle Harbour as well as neighboring properties. It is well established that development at the front section of 28 Middle Harbour Road was unsuitable due to these factors. Furthermore, the study prepared by the applicant will lead to their words "limited flood impact to neighboring properties." This is a completely unsatisfactory response and the flood impacts including downstream impacts to Middle Harbour must be assessed in more detail. The Department and NSW government would be liable for flood impacts to neighboring properties and any environment impacts if they ignored and did not critically assess these risks.

In summary, the SSD application fails to meet all the SEARs requirements with a significant number of adverse effects on adjoining properties and nearby heritage houses. These include a substantial increase in adverse overlooking and visual and streetscape impacts due to the bulk, scale and height of the proposed development. Of significant concern is the potential for increased flood risk which has not been adequately addressed by the applicant.

Yours sincerely,
Mr and Mrs Fijan

Attachment below

We are the owners of 1 Valley Road, Lindfield. This is an objection to the proposed development at 24 to 28 Middle Harbour Road.

We are supportive of the NSW State Government’s objective of increasing housing in Sydney, which we believe will be best achieved by Ku-ring-Gai Council’s alternative TOD proposal. The proposed development sits ~550m walking distance from Lindfield Station and is not in keeping with many requirements of the council’s alternative plan which if acceptable to the State, will determine the future character of Lindfield. It is also makes no provision for transition to lower density one and two storey housing which is immediately adjacent, including two heritage conversation areas.

We object to the proposed development of the following six grounds:

1. Height, density and scale – The proposed development is a nine-storey building in an area currently characterised by low-density one and two storey houses. This large scale building is significantly above the heights proposed in the Ku-ring-Gai Alternative proposal (up to 18.5m) and the floor to space ratio. The application seeks a variation to the maximum building height under Clause 4.6 of the KLEP up to 33m. Clause 4.6 variations must demonstrate that compliance with the standard is unreasonable or unnecessary and that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify the contravention. In this case, the adverse impacts on heritage, amenity, and local character outweigh the purported benefits, and the variation should not be supported

2. Overshadowing and Privacy - the development will substantially increase overshadowing of adjacent properties. The EIS erroneously notes in 7.1.7.3 that “the extent of additional overshadowing of the adjoining properties is considered to be entirely reasonable given the locality adjacent to a town centre and the current planning controls”, seemingly failing to accurately place the development which is 550m from Lindfield station walking distance and surrounded by one and two storey residential dwellings and two heritage conservation areas. The EIS notes in 7.1.7.4 that the proposed building is not compliant with all setbacks and ADG separation requirements, particularly in relation to Trafalgar Avenue, but seeks to excuse this on the basis of other development to reflect TOD provisions. Given that the development sits at the edge of areas included in the TOD, as well as Ku-ring-gai Council’s Alternative Proposal, this seems an incorrect justification for such non-compliance. Cumulatively these aspects will mean a significant loss of privacy due to the height, scale and proximity of new dwellings as well as several hundred new residents. The proposal does not adequately demonstrate that overshadowing and privacy impacts have been minimised as required by the relevant planning principles, instead noting in the the Visual Impact Study “shadow studies reveal negligible effects on neighbouring properties” – a conclusion that seems entirely unsupported by the actual impacts shown in Figure 24 of the EIS and Appendix 2.

3. Impact on heritage area and inadequate mitigation of heritage impacts

• The proposed development site is within the boundary of the Trafalgar Avenue Heritage Conversation Area (HCA) and is only metres from the adjacent Middle Harbour Road, Lindfield Conservation Area
• The site is also situated either adjacent or very close to heritage listed properties at 19 Russell Avenue, 9, 31, 32A, 34 Middle Harbour Road and 1 and 3 Valley Road
• The integrity of the conservation area relies not only on the preservation of individual heritage items but also on the maintenance of the overall character, streetscape, and landscape setting, which would be substantially impacted by the proposed development in Middle Harbour Road in the size, scale and density proposed
• The State is required to consider the effect of proposed development on the heritage significance of the conservation area and adjoining heritage items
• The Statement of Heritage Impact notes repeatedly that the proposed development would “revitalise the area” and “would not engender a negative impact on the heritage significant of the subject site, the Trafalgar Avenue HCA and the heritage items in the vicinity”, stating that these can be mitigated by some communal outdoor space, materials choices (including the front fence), a photographic archive, salvaging some of the house materials for reuse elsewhere, an interpretation strategy and architectural drawings of the buildings to be demolished. This would seem a wholly inadequate mitigation given the scale and density of the proposed development, it’s proposed demolition of a building in the HCA and adjacency and proximity to other heritage sites

4. Tree Removal and Landscaping - the Arboricultural Impact Assessment identifies the removal of 22 trees, including at least 13 of which are ten metres or taller (with several near or more than 20m). This will further reducing the tree canopy in Lindfield, which has a number of negative impacts on key aspects of the natural environment, including general heat in the suburb and loss of local bird life. The loss of mature vegetation will further erode the landscape character of the conservation area and the setting of heritage items. The removal of significant trees within a heritage conservation area is contrary to the objectives of both the KLEP and the Biodiversity and Conservation SEPP.

5. Procedural and Strategic Issue

• Inconsistency with Strategic Planning Objectives - the developers argue that their proposal is justified on the basis of State housing supply targets and the TOD program. However, the Ku-ring-gai Local Strategic Planning Statement and Housing Strategy emphasise the need to balance growth with protection of local character, heritage, and environmental values. The council has proposed an alternative plan to deliver more housing but in a way that is sensitive to these values. The proposal development would be of a significantly reduced height and scale under the council’s alternative plan, reflecting a more appropriate transition to adjacent density and heritage conversation areas. The application of the Housing SEPP in this context is not mandatory and should be balanced against the adverse impacts identified. The developers have also sought to make this is State Significant Project by including affordable housing but it should be noted that many of those apartments will have reduced amenity compared with others, e.g. 11% of units have less than 2 hours solar access (10 units) and 5% have no solar access (5 units), which is a large proportion of the 20 affordable housing units

6. Other Issues

• Traffic and Parking - the Transport Impact Assessment claims minimal impact, but the scale of the development will increase local traffic and parking demand, potentially affecting the safety and amenity of Valley Road and surrounding streets.
• Cumulative Impacts - the EIS states that the character of Lindfield is changing, but the cumulative impact of multiple high-density developments in or adjacent to two heritage conservation areas has not been adequately assessed.

I write to formally object to SSD-82548708, the proposed residential flat building at 24, 26 &28 Middle Harbour Road, Lindfield, on a number of planning, environmental, and community grounds as outlined in my attached submission

I have lived in Middle Harbour Road Lindfield, approximately 240 metres to the East of the Proposed Development Site, for almost 24 years.
Although I acknowledge the need for new and affordable housing in the Lindfield area, I believe such development should be in line with Council’s Preferred Scenario, and object to this Proposal for the reasons set out in the Attachment to this submission.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on SSD application (SSD-82548708) for the proposed residential flat building with in-fill affordable housing development at 24,26 &28 Middle Harbour Road.
This submission should be considered as an OBJECITON to the proposal. The attached document gives a detailed explanation of the reasons for Council’s objection. Kind Regards,

I am writing in objection to the outlined project. My property borders 28 Middle Harbour Rd and is directly affected by the proposal. I object on the following grounds:

Community consultation has been inadequate, with limited and poorly timed engagement from the developers. Our only interaction was a single door knock, during which we were asked to share feedback about the proposed development. However, we were not provided with sufficient information to give informed feedback, nor was the timing appropriate to allow for meaningful discussion.
Despite neighboring properties having a one page letter box drop we did not receive this flyer and we are a bordering property of the proposed development.
There were no other community engagement sessions which is simply not enough community consultation to raise and have addressed the serious issues that exist for this proposed development.

Clause 8 of the Environmental Impact Statement claims that 'the design reflects the existing locality and will not result in any unacceptable visual impact.' However, this assertion is clearly at odds with the reality of the surrounding area, which consists predominantly of single- and two-story dwellings. The proposed development is vastly disproportionate in scale and character, and its placement among these smaller properties would create a significant and jarring visual impact for many residents. The sheer size and bulk of the building make it incompatible with the established street-scape and neighborhood character. Such a stark contrast threatens the visual cohesion of the area and risks eroding the community's sense of place and identity. The visual impact statement provided is a direct breach of SEARs as it does not address any of this as it is does not include any public or private viewpoints other than right on Middle Harbour Rd. There are so many other aspects it needs to consider along with acoustic impact to hundreds of properties due to the proposed application being in valley and air quality impact for residents.

This in turn combined with inadequate setback from current neighboring properties will have substantial overshadowing of private and open spaces and habitable rooms in peoples home. Simply put, the application is inadequate in terms of an assessment of view loss and visual impact n adjoining properties.

The proposed development poses a serious privacy concern for residents of 18, 20, 22, and 30 Middle Harbour Road; 50, 52, and 54 Trafalgar Avenue; and 17, 19, 21, 23, 25, and 27 Russell Avenue. Many of the proposed units would have direct lines of sight into private gardens, pools, and interior rooms of these homes. This represents a significant breach of privacy and raises safety concerns, as residents’ daily activities could be observed from neighboring units. No measures have been proposed to mitigate these impacts, and given the scale of the development, it appears unlikely that effective solutions could be implemented. Furthermore, the developer has not provided accurate or comprehensive visual impact assessments to demonstrate the full extent of the intrusion on individual properties and the broader streetscape. This loss of privacy not only affects residents’ sense of security but also undermines the comfort and enjoyment of their homes, which are central to their well-being and community life.

The significant overshadowing will lead to a loss of natural light in established gardens. This reduction in sunlight affects the growth of trees and plants, limits the ability to dry clothes outdoors, and disrupts the habitat of local wildlife such as birds and Eastern water dragons which are drawn to my sunny garden space. The proposal itself involves the removal of 18 mature trees including protected turpentine trees, combining to not only remove existing large mature trees but impact others to continue to survive and thrive with overshadowing and no sunlight. Additionally, the sheer sale of the building would obstruct views of sunsets from my property and many others, diminishing my families enjoyment of this beautiful natural gift each day.

The deep soil coverage is well below the minimum 50% requirement by Ku-ring-gai council, coming in at 27.8%. This figure is likely to be overstated as the basement parking structure (western) extends beyond the footprint of the proposed structure and violates deep soil levels.

The site lies within a designated overland flood path, which flows from the northwest to the southeast across the property and into the Gordon Creek Riparian Zone. This raises significant concerns regarding stormwater management, increased flood risk during periods of heavy rainfall, and the potential long-term degradation of the sensitive riparian ecosystem. It is essential that planning decisions prioritise ecological protection and incorporate sustainable water-sensitive urban design principles to safeguard natural waterways and biodiversity.

The application is inadequate due to the lack of assessment of the cumulative impact of the proposed development and others large scale developments on the same street. There has been no cumulative impact analysis on the impact of traffic and infrastructure services arising from the current application and others applications proximate to this site. The views of local residents should be given weight as we have personal experience of the local traffic system.

An application cannot reasonably claim that its design aligns with the future vision or uplift of the area when no such vision has been formally established. As noted, my home is located directly adjacent to 28 Middle Harbour Road, and there is no application to alter its current two-story form. Consequently, critical concerns such as overshadowing, loss of privacy, increased noise, traffic congestion, stormwater management, and inadequate infrastructure must be addressed as they directly affect the local community. The proposed development’s height, bulk, and minimal setbacks are inconsistent with conservation principles and significantly undermine the preserved character of the heritage streetscape.

The application cannot proceed until there is a clear and agreed-upon vision for the future design of the area. The current approach risks introducing disjointed, excessively tall and bulky developments alongside single- and two-story dwellings, resulting in a fragmented streetscape that negatively impacts the quality of life for many residents. The proposed development fails to properly address various SEAR's requirements. This failure to provide adequate information and to undertake a proper assessment is a breach of SSD guidelines.

Dear Minister Scully,
I support the TOD principles and Lindfield's key role contributing to housing supply. My concerns on the 24-28 Middle Harbour Rd project is its lack of consideration for the future built from and housing development potential of the surrounding precinct. Attachment is my submission for further elaboration.

See attached submission objecting to the project

Please see the attached submission

To: The Hon. Paul Scully MP
Minister for Planning and Public Spaces
NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure

Copy to: Amy Watson, Director, Affordable Housing Assessments

Subject: Concerns Regarding Proposed Development at 24–28 Middle Harbour Road, Lindfield

Dear Minister,

I am writing to raise a number of concerns about the proposed development at 24, 26 and 28 Middle Harbour Road, Lindfield. While I acknowledge the importance of delivering more housing in accessible locations, I urge the Department to consider this proposal in the context of the broader precinct and its long-term development potential.

1. Coordination with Adjacent Strategic Sites
The Middle Harbour Road site sits immediately next to a much larger and highly strategic landholding — 15–27 Russell Avenue. This neighbouring site is under active review for significant redevelopment and includes 19 Russell Avenue, which is being progressed for heritage delisting with the specific intention of enabling future integration into a coordinated Transit Oriented Development (TOD) precinct.

Given their proximity and shared development potential, it is critical that the planning approach for Middle Harbour Road be aligned with what is envisioned for the Russell Avenue land. Premature approvals on one site, without reference to the other, risk undermining the planning and design integrity of the entire area.

2. Built Form and Overshadowing Impacts
One major concern is that the proposed building at Middle Harbour Road may cast overshadowing impacts onto the future development at Russell Avenue. This could compromise design flexibility, reduce permissible height or yield on the adjacent site, and ultimately undermine the TOD SEPP’s housing delivery objectives.

It is especially important that solar access assessments for the Middle Harbour Road development are based on the future context of the area — not the current low-rise environment. Notably, we observed the solar analysis uses an extended time window (8am–4pm) rather than the standard Apartment Design Guide hours (9am–3pm), potentially overstating compliance.

3. Consistency in Planning Controls and FSR
For the TOD SEPP to be effective, planning controls must be applied consistently across adjacent sites. If the Middle Harbour Road site is granted generous FSR and height limits, then the same approach should be extended to the Russell Avenue precinct. These are equally well-located, well-sized parcels with strong redevelopment merit, and should not be constrained by inconsistent or piecemeal planning.

To ensure a fair and forward-thinking planning outcome, I respectfully request that the Department:
(A) Undertake a precinct-level review covering both the Middle Harbour Road site and the larger adjoining land at Russell Avenue;
(B) Require overshadowing analysis of Middle Harbour Road to factor in the potential future built form of the neighbouring Russell Avenue development;
(C) Ensure consistent planning controls — particularly around FSR and height — so that the strategic potential of the Russell Avenue precinct can be fully realised in accordance with TOD objectives.

I appreciate your attention to this matter. With a coordinated planning approach, this area has the potential to deliver well-integrated housing outcomes that support the State’s goals for sustainable urban growth.

Thank you,
Eric XF Huang

I live at 31 Middle Harbour Road, Lindfield, a property I own and in which I live with my husband two children. It is a local heritage item and is located less than 30 metres from the boundary of the proposed development. Our home has a line of sight to the north and west of Middle Harbour Road and so will have a direct line of sight to the proposed nine storey development from a perspective which will dominate the visual landscape.
There are a number of bases upon which I object to the proposed development set out below.
Assuming the Ku-ring-gai Council preferred alternative planning scheme submitted to the State Government for approval in June 2025 is adopted, noting that scheme meets the housing targets required by the State Government, (“Ku-ring-gai Preferred Alternative Planning Scheme”), the development site will become zoned R4 which will permit residential development of up to 5 storeys. As the proposed development is 9 storeys in height it will be an unsightly anachronism amongst permitted future developments representing a development of such an oversized bulk and scale that it is out of character with the local area when considered in context with surrounding development. This is not a good planning outcome that requires development be in harmony with the surrounding area.
Accordingly, the first objection to the development is the sheer bulk and oversize of the development, including the fact that it proposes a built height that exceeds the maximum permissible height under current regulations by over 4 metres and 15%. There is no merit in the argument that the built height needs to exceed the already generous maximum height permissible of 28.6 metres particularly where the Ku-ring-gai Preferred Alternative Planning Scheme, if approved by the State Government, will limit surrounding development to significantly lower heights.
The second objection is to the building setbacks which are minimal given the size and bulk of the development. The building set back for the part of the development that is closest to the boundary of 31 Middle Harbour Road, Lindfield is 4.4 metres, an insignificant setback that does not allow for planting of significant canopy trees to soften the harshness of the oversized development.
The third objection is on the basis that the design of the proposed development does not complement the surrounding dwellings and is out of context with the surrounding area. Further there are heritage items in the vicinity affected by the proposed development, including ours at 31 Middle Harbour Road and neither the design of the proposed development nor the proposed setbacks from the boundaries appear to consider or complement the surrounding heritage items or the surrounding Trafalgar Avenue Conservation Area (C31)(“TA Conservation Area). Accordingly, the integrity of those heritage items and other dwelling houses in the TA Conservation Area is neither being maintained or complemented by the bulk and design of the development.
The fourth objection is the misleading and deceptive report that has been lodged in support of the proposed development entitled “Preliminary Historical Heritage Assessment of 24-28 Middle Harbour Road, Lindfield, New South Wales” dated 6 May 2025 by Austral Archaeology Pty Ltd. This report is heavily flawed in the down play of the impact of the proposed development on the stated viewsheds from the perspective of the heritage item located at 31 Middle Harbour Road (listed as 143) that is located diagonally opposite to 28 Middle Harbour Road, Lindfield. The statement is made on page 8:
“Direct viewsheds between LEP site ‘Dwelling House’ (I43) and the study area were heavily obscured by the vegetation on the nature strip.”
The further statement is made on page 14 with respect to properties that include 31 Middle Harbour Road:
“However, direct viewsheds to each of the respective listings are heavily obscured, either due to the vegetation along the streetscape or within the listed property, or by the slope gradient between them. As the study area is generally beyond the visual catchment of each of the LEP listed sites, there is limited capacity for these to be impacted by the proposed development.”
These statements are demonstrably false as the vegetation on the nature strip comprises a few small jacaranda trees which lose foliage for considerable parts of the year and will not obscure the bulk of the proposed 9 storey development from the views of 31 Middle Harbour Road even during the heaviest foliated period of trees on the nature strip. Interesting, while 31 Middle Harbour Road, is the closest heritage item on Middle Harbour Road to the proposed development, no photographs have been included in the report of the viewsheds to or from that property in the report, underlining the disingenuousness of the statement made.
Accordingly, the veracity of that report is challenged in its misrepresentation of the effect of the visual impacts on the heritage item located at 31 Middle Harbour Road, Lindfield.
The fifth objection to the proposed development is that loss of the majority of the mature trees on the development site. The Ku-ring-gai Council area represents a major part of the green lungs of the Sydney metropolitan area and the loss of a significant part of that green canopy is to the detriment of all Sydney residents. Further, given the bulk and size of the development with minimal setbacks, there will be little space for significant trees to be planted as part of the development to compensate for the loss of existing tree canopy and to soften the visual impact of the bulk and size of the development. This is a poor development outcome and will add to the heat sink affect to the immediate area.
The sixth objection to the proposed development is the lack of a detailed fauna investigation into the fauna that are found in the area and the likelihood of that fauna being lost from the area. This investigation should not simply be a cursory examination into the fauna that is noticed to have its home on the proposed development site, but also fauna in the areas surrounding the proposed development. I have personally seen an echidna, powerful owls, grey headed flying foxes and numerous possums in the area, as well as numerous lizards and there can be no doubt that the construction that is proposed will by virtue of noise and vibration result in the loss of local fauna in the area that will never return. Further a 9 storey apartment building will not be conducive to flight patterns of the powerful owl and grey headed flying foxes and those species will be likely to be lost from the surrounding area.
The seventh objection to the proposed development is the impact the development will have on the riparian corridor that crosses Middle Harbour Road in front of 28 Middle Harbour Road and runs across the front of 28 Middle Harbour Road before continuing down the northern side of Middle Harbour Road towards Middle Habour. The proposed development that includes a three level basement for car parking will undoubtedly have a material and adverse effect on this natural and important waterway which has not been sufficiently investigated.
Furthermore stormwater discharge from the hard surfaces of the proposed development (as opposed to being allowed to soak into the ground) will need to flow into the stormwater drains at the corner of Middle Harbour Road and Trafalgar Avenue and then into the water way running at the front of properties on the northern side of Middle Harbour Road which will cause an additional burden on the discharge of stormwater in the local area. Already the stormwater drains at the corner of Middle Harbour Road and Trafalgar Avenue are unable to cope with the discharge of water during heavy rains and flooding is regularly seen across Middle Harbour Road during heavy weather which will only be exacerbated by the proposed development. A less intensive development catering for a smaller hard surface area, greater setbacks and improved landscaped area will reduce the likelihood of regular future flooding of Middle Harbour Road.
The eighth objection is to the negative impact of the proposed development on the parking in the Middle Harbour Road Precinct. It is inevitable that despite the parking spaces proposed for the development there will be additional cars parked on the street at a time when commuters who live a distance from Lindfield station already fill those streets with parked cars by 9.00am resulting in traffic and parking congestion.
The ninth objection is to the loss of solar access and privacy for surrounding homes that the development will cause resulting from a building height in excess of 33 metres.
The tenth objection is to the apparent lack of development expertise and development history of the developer, who will be ultimately responsible for compliance with any approval that may be given. Without a demonstrated history of the developer having successfully and compliantly completing other state significant developments, no confidence can be held that the developer will successfully and compliantly complete the proposed development in accordance with all planning and other applicable laws and approvals that are issued.
The eleventh objection to the proposed development is on the basis of the lack of infrastructure being provided by the State government to support the additional residents proposed. For example regarding schools, already Killara High School and Chatswood High School have student numbers well in excess of the Department of Education limits for those schools. Where are the children who will live in these apartments go to school with no new schools being built?
Finally, the last object is the dearth of consultation that the developer has conducted. Apart from the original single page flyer regarding the development, the developer has not engaged with us, with no door knocking, public information session or otherwise.

I write as the owner of 55 Trafalgar Avenue in Lindfield.

I object to the State Significant Development (SSD) 82548708 proposal by MHR Lindfield Investments  PTY LTD ATF MHR Lindfield Trust for 24, 26 and 28 Middle Harbour Road, Lindfield.

There are several reasons for my objection as outlined below, which also highlights non compliance with the Secretary Environmental Assessment Statement (SEARS) in some instances.

ENGAGEMENT
The community engagement undertaken by the applicant was insufficient. There were no community meetings. My neighbour across the street from me, who’s property is adjacent to the development, was not provided with the letter that was dropped in my letterbox, and was not aware of the proposed development when I mentioned it to her. It is preposterous that such a significant development can be proposed adjacent to her land, with no consultation. 
The newsletter I received indicated that further community engagement will be undertaken and no further communication, consultation or engagement took place.
The door knock campaign only found someone home at 6 neighbouring properties out of 15. The survey was available for a limited time of 14 day, insufficient time for parties to reply, especially if they didn’t receive the letter box drop and were advised late by neighbours.  

DESIGN QUALITY, URBAN DESIGN AND BUILT FORM
The design is bulky, too large and high, and not in keeping with the area. The design is not proportionate to the landscape, to allow for landscaping and noise reduction or privacy considerations. The development height, bulk and limited setback to the west is incompatible with conservation principals and undermine the current urban design and heritage of the local area. The design assumes future similar designed apartments will be in the area. This is not possible in lower lying areas due to flood levies and where houses will be stranded because no master planning was undertaken for this area in Lindfield.
The proposed development is more than 400m (550m) from the station and affordability housing uplift should not apply and the 9 story must reduce in height please. This will be more aligned to Ku-Ring-Gai Council's TOD principles and proposal.  
The drawings are insufficient, with no visual perspective drawings to assess the full impact of the proposed 9 story building on the street scape, particularly from my property at 55 Trafalgar Avenue. The height of the proposed development does not step down towards Trafalgar Avenue and the heritage conservation area and there is no transition to medium or lower density housing. There is no clarity of the final zoning between the Department of Housing, Infrastructure and Development (DPHI) and Ku-Ring-Gai Council, and the proposed building will be too high proportionate to the new zoning released by DPHI, which excludes high rise a few meters from this site.
No provision for upgrading local infrastructure, like storm water and sewerage and roads to take on increased demands of the number of new users in the area. There is also no agreement for the developer to pay for any of this.

ENVIRONMENTAL AMENITY (privacy and overshadowing)
There is no demonstration of environmental amenities from my property included. This is particularly important as another significant development is currently being assessed and is adjacent to my property at SSD 79276958.  This development will increase the number of apartments that will overlook my property and private open space. The proposed development will have multiple units face into my living room space and bedrooms. There is insufficient setbacks from 22 Middle Harbour Road with only a 2 meters to the boundary, this looks like a clear breach and unacceptable impost on privacy. There is no provision for screening and the setback makes it impossible to plan screening for privacy of adjacent properties and leads to unreasonable overshadowing. 

Overshadowing and Solar Access
My property will be overshadowed for the entire day to the north boundary if the proposed development SSD 79276958 progresses with it’s current design. The proposed development will result in overshadowing to the west of my property in the afternoon, the only sun my house and north facing solar panels could potentially receive all day. It will also cast a shadow over my private open space, late afternoon. This is not acceptable and needs to be considered alongside the neighbouring SSD 79276958, and heights decreased accordingly. At this stage my property is outside the new TOD zone’s released by DPHI and in the heritage conservation area. It is not currently part of the ‘future context with surrounding lots being redeveloped to a similar scale’ as indicated in the EIS (Section 7 page 14) and page 6 of 50 of the architectural drawings. It is only a few 100 meters away from the proposed development, and under the council’s proposal proposed developments would decline in height as it nears residential houses. It is unclear how this development will be assessed if the surrounding zoning has not been finalised by DPHI. The future context needs to be finalised and consulted on first.

VISUAL IMPACT
The proposed development is significant scale and will result in significant visual impacts. The applicant focused on the public domain and did not provide perspective from the neighbouring properties. There is no render from my property and the applicant did not comply with the SEARS. My property is a key viewpoint and no visual impact assessment was done from my property on Trafalgar Avenue. There are no photomontages or perspectives showing the proposed and future development across the street from me and this is in breach of the SEARS.

THERE IS FLOOD RISK WHEN COMBINED WITH OTHER PROPOSED DEVELOPMENTS UNDER ASSESSMENT BY DPHI
Ku-ring-gai Council required a storm water assessment for a dual occupancy development application at my property in 2022. This was costly and resulted in the redesign of the foundation of the second dwelling and an increase in cost. The report has been shared under my objection to SSD 79276958. The Flood Impact and Risk Assessment (FIRA)  indicates an overland flow path forms at the northwestern corner of the site, draining in a southeasterly direction towards my property. The runoff is to the southern direction of Middle Harbour Road, overtopping the intersection of Middle Harbour Road and Trafalgar Avenue and ultimately draining into Gordon Creek. The report did not consider impacts alongside the potential flooding impacts of SSD 79276958, which did not undertake a flood study. There is no proposal to upgrade the existing storm water infrastructure which collects water at the corner of my property. The potential impact is visible in the architectural drawings on page 4 of 50 and the cumulative impacts of the developments on storm water needs to be considered. The existing infrastructure need to be upgraded, or permeable areas need to be increased to slow the water run off. It is not clear how flooding at my property will be mitigated because of the increase in non permeable areas due to the significant introduction of non permeable / hard surface near my property. If not, there may be consequential flooding impacts to properties to the east of the proposed development and Gorden Creek. DPHI should consider this in all assessments going forward in this area, as it will exacerbate what is already proposed.

BIODIVERSITY AND LANDSCAPING
There is limited deep soil coverage and the proposal references 27.8% coverage, which is well below the 50% minimum required by Ku-Ring-Gai council. The proposal actually overstates the deep soil coverage, due to the western basement parking structure, which extends beyond the building footprint. This is in breach of deep soil zone principals. 
The proposal involves the removal of 18 mature trees, including protected Turpentine trees (PCT3262). This will have a significant adverse impact on the local wildlife in Middle Harbour Road and surrounds.

Objection to Residential Development with affordable housing 24-28 Middle Harbour road Road Lindfield (SSD-82548708)

Dear Sir/Madam:
I believe that the size and height of the Project as currently designed does not meet planning requirements.
I have serious questions about the so-called "state importance" of SSD-82548708: Developments are considered state important based on their economic, environmental or social importance to the state, and typically include educational facilities, hospitals, manufacturing facilities, tourism facilities, mining operations, infrastructure such as port facilities, waste management facilities and energy facilities. It does not include standalone residential developments.
The proposed "project" does not meet any reasonable assessment of "significance" at all. The purpose of becoming an SSD project is only to bypass the planning of the KRG Council and the democratic consultation of the community, circumvent the existing planned building area and height restrictions, and pursue a larger-scale development project to obtain maximum profits. The "project" is actually impossible to meet real social or community needs. The real beneficiaries are only developers and a very small number of owners who have obtained excess returns through land sales, not low- and middle-income workers in key positions or the community itself, or even the state government that proposed the TOD plan. The huge profits of the above-mentioned few people are based on the complete destruction of HCAs in the east of Lindfield, the beautiful and quiet green environment, and the legitimate rights and interests of the original Lindfield community residents. This is extremely unfair! ! ! It is absolutely not in line with the original intention and original intention of the state government to establish an SSD project approval mechanism.
In fact, the SSDA projects under the TOD plan currently publicly displayed on the official website of the state government are random, messy, and completely uncoordinated independent development projects. These development projects are like ugly patches on a beautiful dress, scattered all over the quiet suburban backstreets of Roseville, Lindfield, Killara, Gordon, and even brazenly standing in the center of HCAs surrounded by Heritage Items. Leading to the complete destruction of local HCAs. Under the TOD plan, the specific location of the development project will depend more on the opportunism of the developer (that is, the developer finds enough adjacent properties, is not hindered by any historical sites, and has willing and/or forced sellers), rather than on respect for the community and the conditions for truly meeting affordable housing construction.
The “Preferred Alternative” responded to the NSW Government's low- and medium-rise housing reforms and proposed a controlled growth plan that was consistent with local infrastructure capacity, heritage protection and community expectations. The applicant's use of the policy window when the State Government and KRG Council had not yet agreed on the "preferred option" to expedite the application of the "project" undermined the democratic planning process and procedural fairness, and represented an unacceptable disregard for local governance.
I therefore believe that the existing architectural design for the Project must be opposed before the Preferred Scheme is approved to protect the beautiful traditional area of Lindfield East from destructive development without detailed planning.
I write hereby and sincerely hope that you will pay attention to the above situation. Please read attached. Thank you!

Regards
SHAN

This proposal, under all criteria, is shamefully disrespectful of the various statutory documents, whether the Ku-ring-gai LEP or DCP, Housing SEPP and the ADG. It is an attempt to push the boundaries that have been set to stop such a development being accepted.
It is a massive overreach in terms of the site coverage, ignores the Riparian Land issues or any further consequences that will occur to this Flood Prone land should this development proceed. It does not meet any of the setback and separation requirements of the Ku-ring-gai DCP or that of the ADG. It ignores the rights of neighbouring properties to solar access and privacy. It expects neighbouring properties to provide the trees for privacy from this development while ensuring that the required setbacks on the development boundaries are encroached.
The visual impact of the bulk and height of this development will dominate the vicinity. The visual impact on the surrounding area will be immense as the design does not attempt to fit into the local character of low-density homes, heritage items and Heritage Conservation Areas.
The immense negative impacts on surrounding residents in terms of sunlight, privacy and amenity, the loss of heritage and the removal of dwellings from the Trafalgar Road HCA, the destruction of the mature tree canopy all support the need to reject this application.
I strongly urge you to reject this application as it will have irreversible and devastating consequences in its current form. The proposed development is patently inappropriate for the location in question given the topography, flood zone and its impact on adjacent HCAs and heritage items.

Please find attached the Friends of Ku-ring-gai Environment Inc submission opposing the development

I support the project, Sydney needs more housing to address the housing crisis and it shouldn't be obstructed by Ku-ring-gai NIMBYs

To the Hon. Paul Scully MP,

As owners of a property adjoining the development at 24-28 Middle Harbour Rd, we are objecting on the basis that the development proposal has failed to take into account the future height and density of the site at 15-27 Russell & 50-54 Trafalgar Avenue which is currently under review for significant development potential.

In line with the NSW State Government's objective to create housing growth in well-located transit locations, we ask for a strategic approach to development of the Middle Hbr development that considers the future state of the surrounding precinct, which does not prejudice the future development at the Russell and Trafalgar Avenue site on the same height and density planning controls as applicable for 24-28 Middle Harbour.

Please find an attachment outlining our concerns.

I write to formally submit concerns and comments regarding the proposed development at 24, 26 & 28 Middle Harbour Road, Lindfield, particularly in the context of its relationship to adjacent sites and the broader strategic planning objectives set out under the Transport Oriented Development (TOD) SEPP.

As a resident and directly affected stakeholder, I wish to highlight the need for coordinated and equitable planning across the wider precinct, including 15–27 Russell Avenue and 54–50 Trafalgar Avenue. These neighbouring sites form part of a large, contiguous landholding that is actively being progressed for higher-density redevelopment in line with the State Government’s housing, transport, and urban consolidation goals. Notably, steps are already being taken to delist heritage protections at 19 Russell Avenue to enable its inclusion in a cohesive TOD project.

Given this strategic context, it is critical that the current proposal at Middle Harbour Road is not assessed in isolation, but rather as part of a broader precinct-level framework that ensures consistency in building height, overshadowing, floor space ratio (FSR), and future development potential. Approving the Middle Harbour Road application without this context risks undermining the viability and yield of adjacent sites that are vital to the successful delivery of the TOD strategy in this location.

I have produced an 8 page objection document detailing my objection.
The document has been loaded as an attachment to this website "comment box" .
I post this objection on the 27th June . Please send acknowledgement of receipt of this objection.