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

I object to the proposal at 24, 26, 28 Middle Harbour Rd on the basis of:

1) biodiversity impact
2) size and bulk of the proposal and the impact this will have on the nearby HCA and the overall amenity of the area
3) the impact this will have on the Council's preferred plan, most notably the intention to reduce the size of development as it moves down Middle Harbour Rd in order to reduce the impact of the HCA and other homes and to be more sympathetic with the overall street scape.

I make the following more detailed points:

The proposal involves the removal of many mature trees, including vegetation classified as Sydney Turpentine Ironbark Forest (PCT 3262), a critically endangered ecological community under the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016.

The removal of critically endangered vegetation and reliance on offsetting (ecosystem credits) does not adequately mitigate the ecological loss. Retaining only 0.03 ha of PCT 3262 will result in significant biodiversity degradation. The loss of mature trees will reduce habitat for species like the grey-headed flying fox, which is listed as vulnerable under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. he replacement planting of 30 new trees will take decades to mature and cannot immediately compensate for the ecological services provided by the existing mature trees.

The site is flood-prone and includes an overland flow path, which is proposed to be diverted around the perimeter of the site. Diverting the natural overland flow path and relying on artificial flood mitigation measures risks increasing downstream flooding and altering hydrological patterns in adjacent areas.

The removal of mature trees and construction of a nine-storey building will significantly increase impervious surfaces and contribute to the urban heat island effect. While the proposal claims a 39% tree canopy coverage, this includes immature replacement trees, which will take years to provide meaningful shade and cooling.

The construction phase involves demolition, bulk earthworks, and excavation that will generate significant noise, dust, and traffic disruptions. While mitigation measures are proposed, the bulk of the development will inevitably result in soil erosion, sediment runoff, and air quality degradation, impacting nearby ecosystems and residential areas.

The proposal undermines the heritage significance of the Trafalgar Avenue Conservation Area by introducing a building that is out of scale and character with the surrounding low-density suburban environment.

The Council's preferred plan for Middle Harbour Rd envisages a reduction in the size of development as it moves down the North side of Middle Harbour Rd. This is to reduce the impact on the HCA and the heritage items in Russel Ave and Middle Harbour Rd. It also ensures a more sympathetic merging of the new developments with the exisiting street scape more generally. This proposal will seriously undermine the intended benefits of the Council's plan and could be said to effectively render it inoperable for Middle Harbour Rd. This would place the amenity of those residences that are not able to be converted into mid-level apartments at serious risk and entail lasting loss in terms of quality of life to the inhabitants of those residences.

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

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

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

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.

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.

I strongly object to this proposed development due to its negative impact on local heritage, environmental sustainability, and infrastructure.
Heritage and Local Character: The scale and design of the development are excessive and incompatible with the surrounding low-rise, heritage-rich streetscape, undermining the area’s established character.
Traffic and Infrastructure Strain: Increased residential density will worsen traffic congestion and parking shortages, further burdening an already strained transport system and essential infrastructure.
Environmental Consequences: The project will lead to significant tree loss and destruction of wildlife habitats, diminishing biodiversity and green space within the community.
Failure to Align with Planning Principles: The proposal disregards key urban planning strategies, providing inadequate setbacks and transition zones that compromise residential privacy and diminish quality of life.
This development does not align with responsible urban planning and poses long-term risks to the community. I urge the council to reject the proposal to protect the area's heritage, livability, and sustainability.

Thank you for notifying Sydney Water of SSD-82548708 at 24-28 Middle Harbour Road, Lindfield.
Please see attached response and information sheet for the applicant.
If this response raises any enquiries, please do not hesitate to contact Sydney Water at [email protected]

I have added a submission of objection.

Whilst I can appreciate that increasing housing density across Sydney, and an increase in the overall number of residential developers, is required in the longer term, the current rate of development outstrips supply of critical government infrastructure that needs to be built BEFORE any further residential properties are built in the area.

The current nearby state schools remain over capacity, many with "temporary", though now entrenched, demountable buildings that are not fit for purpose. This is particularly the case for Lindfield Public School, which is in a state of disrepair. The addition of extra dwellings, with the children that will come with it, will only overburden the current schools -- redevelopment of the current campuses, or creation of new schools (though ?? where) are essential to maintain CURRENT basic community services. Until the school situation is addressed, planning for future population growth is premature, and will only result in further deterioration of the current inadequate service.

Health care is stretched already in NSW, and particularly in Sydney. The closest tertiary hospital to the proposed campus, RNSH, is at critical capacity and has lost the room for further expansion of its campus due to the sale of sites adjacent to it for commercial interests. Whilst the RNSH building itself was rebuilt a decade ago, the actual bed capacity for the hospital has not significantly expanded in decades, despite the existing population growth that has occurred along this corridor. There is an imminent need for major investment in expanding the current hospital & critical care infrastructure just to cope with the _current_ local population. Hornsby Hospital is further away, and is going to be challenged itself by the population growth within the high density development around the station. As above, until the local public hospital system has been rectified for current needs, planning for future population growth in Lindfield, such as along Middle Harbour Raod, is premature, and will only result in further deterioration of the current inadequate government service.

The proposed TOD corridor alongside Lindfield railway station is also highly problematic from a traffic perspective. The CURRENT traffic situation is already very challenging, due to throttle points at the two access points onto the Pacific Highway - a railway bridge on Strickland avenue and a narrow tunnel on Balfour avenue. These two routes, particularly through the tunnel, have been "choke points" for _decades_. previous creation of the currently built apartments, combine with the commercial redevelopment, has created a large increase in traffic to the point that local passage along that route can be almost non-workable in peak periods. Increasing residential density along this Lindfield avenue corridor, which the current 59-63 Trafalgar Ave proposal would create, will only add to the burden the current population faces. No thought has seemingly been had to fixed the traffic issue - before any construction of higher density dwellings can start a longer term traffic solution is required.

Lastly, there is a lack of appreciation for the cultural significance of the buildings along this precinct. Unlike Europe and the UK, Australia would seem to have little appreciation for its heritage, and is very quick to demolish buildings with character and history, which one destroyed cannot be replaced. The construction of high density dwellings out-of-character with the area will tarnish the entire Heritage Conservation Area that exists within the area. Middle Harbour Road is am extremely well-preserved locale that examples the original architecture and heritage of Kuringai -- the street should ideally be preserved as is, in keeping with the stated desire to preserve Heritage within these designated council zones.

I object to the above proposed development in Lindfield as follows:

Isolation of Heritage Homes
The development will adversely impact the heritage values and culture of the heritage listed homes nearby the proposed development site.

Impact on Local Character
The height, scale and design of the proposed development are excessive and out of keeping with the surrounding low-rise streetscape and heritage context.

Make my current property a “Sandwich Block”
As I am the owner of the house at 22 Middle Harbour Road, Lindfield, the proposed development will have serious adverse implications for me including without limitation: visual and other privacy implications; unbearable noise, worsened air quality and overshadowing of my house, front-yard and backyard.

My property will become a “sandwich block”, sandwiched between two large multi-storey apartment blocks on both sides of my house (ie the proposed multi-storey apartment block development at 16-20 Middle Harbour Road, Lindfield; and the above proposed development).

Should both proposed developments proceed (16-20 Middle Harbour Road Lindfield; and 24-28 Middle Harbour Road, Lindfield), my property at 22 Middle Harbour Road Lindfield will change from a highly desirable property to become unattractive. This will also impact the value of my property negatively and considerably.

The setbacks and transition zones are grossly inadequate and reduce the privacy of numerous nearby residences.

Traffic and Parking Concerns
The proposed development will worsen traffic congestion for the area.

Environmental Impact
Precious tree canopy and vital wildlife habitats will be destroyed. Many trees will be destroyed.

Infrastructure Strain
As current infrastructure including stormwater, sewer, transport system and parking are already strained, the proposed development could cause further problems.

Inconsistent with Ku-ring-gai Council’s Preferred Alternative Scenario
The proposal ignores the Council’s key planning principles and ignores the surrounding heritage significance and value of the area, together with the site’s specific biodiversity value.

I object to the above proposed development in Lindfield as follows:

Isolation of Heritage Homes
The development will adversely impact the heritage values and culture of the heritage listed homes nearby the proposed development site.

Impact on Local Character
The height, scale and design of the proposed development are excessive and out of keeping with the surrounding low-rise streetscape and heritage context.

Creation of a “Sandwich Block” and issues for neighbours
The proposed development will create a “sandwich block” between two large multi-storey apartment blocks on both sides of 22 Middle Harbour Road, Lindfield (ie the proposed multi-storey apartment block development at 16-20 Middle Harbour Road, Lindfield; and the above proposed development).

If the proposed development were to proceed, it will have serious adverse implications for the neighbours including without limitation: visual and other privacy implications; unbearable noise, worsened air quality and overshadowing.

The setbacks and transition zones are grossly inadequate and reduce the privacy of numerous nearby residences.

Traffic and Parking Concerns
The proposed development will worsen traffic congestion for the area.

Environmental Impact
Precious tree canopy and vital wildlife habitats will be destroyed. Many trees will be destroyed.

Infrastructure Strain
As current infrastructure including stormwater, sewer, transport system and parking are already strained, the proposed development could cause further problems.

Inconsistent with Ku-ring-gai Council’s Preferred Alternative Scenario
The proposal ignores the Council’s key planning principles and ignores the surrounding heritage significance and value of the area, together with the site’s specific biodiversity value.

This development is very well located, as it is close to residential amenities in Lindfield and to Lindfield station. The proposal also includes 20 affordable units, which will increase the amount of more affordable housing stock within an incredibly expensive area of Sydney. Without more affordable housing, younger people will continue to be driven out of the area. The applicants' concern about the impact of the additional demand on the T1 North Shore line is unfounded. The T1 North Shore line now has ample capacity for the additional residents who will move into the upper north shore TOD areas as a result of the opening of the Sydney Metro City section. Between Jan 2024 and May 2024, the T1 line as a whole had an average monthly patronage of 8.18 million people, but between Jan and May 2025, this had fallen to 5.9 million people a month. Considering the data at the link below, there is a considerable drop in patronage on the T1 North Shore line following the opening of the Sydney Metro City section.
https://www.transport.nsw.gov.au/data-and-research/data-and-insights/public-transport-trips-all-modes
The proposal also has a good amount of deep soil (28.9%), which enables the high canopy cover (39%), which reduces the impacts of urban heat and improves residential amenity. The proposal has flood constraints, particularly in the PMF scenario, which may require extra flood prevention. However, this project provides much needed housing in a well located area, and as a result it should be approved.

The house at 22 Middle Harbour Road will be sandwiched between apartments without the capacity to develop. This residential development will negatively affect the character of the suburb. The leafy appearance of the street which is also good for the environment will be demolished. This area does not have the infrastructure to support it.

I strongly object to this development. The development will isolate particular houses making an ugly mixture of low and high rise. Certain houses will not have the opportunity to develop due to the layout, such as 22 Middle Harbour Road which is planned to be between two apartments and is too small to develop an apartment by itself. This change is unfair for the existing residents who are left with devalued houses which have lost their character.

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.

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 have lived in Middle Harbour Road for the past 10 years. My home has Gordon Creek and the Riparian zone running through our backyard. This is a unique “green corridor” that supports endangered remanent a broad range of native fauna and flora.

I oppose this proposal and refute the statement that it is “sensitive to the surrounding environment”. It fails to meet the requirements of Chapter 5(b) of Transport Oriented Development. It is not: i. well designed, ii of appropriate bulk and scale. Instead it delivers negative economic, environmental and social impacts on the community.

Major areas of concern include the Built environment including design quality, built form and urban design. The excessive height, bulk, size and scale, of this development is inappropriate for the site and the locality. Impacts to these have not been minimised, in fact ever opportunity to maximise the bulk, size and scale have been employed.

Stating that it will only “Generally comply with requirements” in relation to building separation, height, floor space is not acceptable. The proposal should be rejected automatically as it does not fully comply with all requirements. In my opinion there should be no justification to obtain additional building height that exceeds the maximum due to the slope of the site – instead this should be the very reason the current proposed height should be rejected.

Of major concern is the issue of land suitability and negative environmental impacts. This is “Flood prone land” yet the flood assessment report does not take into account culumative effect of built surfaces and lose of natural ground drainage from this and the other 500+ additional units currently submitted as proposals for consideration in close proximity. Flood assessment needs to be redone, taking into account combined impact. This proposal is directly upstream of the C42 Middle Harbour Road Conservation area. I have a very real fear that my property and at least another 6-8 other properties along Middle Harbour Road HCA Gordon Creek and Riparian zone will be adversely affected by the increase in threat of regular flooding/stormwater events. Beyond economic impact of damage to property, the increase in rate and volume of water going into Gordon Creek is likely to have a significant adverse effect on what is a fragile, ecologically significant environment, destroying native flora and displacing the many native birds and animals that live in its surrounds.

The proposed loss of tree canopy is also unacceptable. In addition to the natural environment, this proposal demonstrates a complete lack of respect for the built form of the surrounding Heritage conservation area. It totally devalues the heritage buildings that both directly abut it or will end up sitting within its shadow, destroys their visual amenity and robs the community of part of its history and what makes this suburb unique. It also does not in any way make appropriate consideration of transition, proposing a 9 story mass along side single and low density housing.

Insufficient road and traffic infrastructure is a further issue. The exit points from Middle Harbour Road into Lindfield avenue are already at capacity in peak hours and the entire suburb of Lindfield, East Lindfield and Roseville will effectively come to a standstill every week day morning and afternoon if such large density developments such as these are approved without adequate off street parking and council infrastructure investment.

I support the objective of delivering affordable housing in an appropriate manner and in line with SEARS guidelines which state that it is to be sensitive to local character and environment. This proposal is not that. Ku-ring-gai Council has committed to meeting its affordable housing targets and has outlined how it would do that. The Council’s affordability housing feasibility analysis report February 2025 identified other more suitable locations in Lindfield on the west side of the highway for affordable housing closer to railway and with better road access points.

This development of 9 stories with such height and bulk, on the outer edge of the Government TOD, nestled within pre-war and heritage homes should be rejected.

Please see the attached submission

See attached submission objecting to the project