Residential Flat Building with infill affordable housing, Bent Street Lindfield

Hi Joina,
Please find attached Council's submission on SSD-78156462 12-16 Bent Street, Lindfield.
regards,
Brodee Gregory

The Statement of Heritage Impact is inadequate and should include photographs of what is intended.
The Statement of Heritage Impact does not list the qualifications of the persons conducting the assessment.
If this SSD is the approved, then the building materials in the existing houses - e.g. sandstone blocks and bricks, should be re-used - even if lining paths and garden beds.
Parking still remains a problem.

This development is inconsistent with Ku-ring-gai Council’s Preferred Scenario which supports new housing without sacrificing our natural and built heritage.
10 storeys (over 30 metres) is excessive in height and mass causing massive over shading, loss of view, privacy.
There are no transitional zones or setbacks.
This development requires the complete destruction of many established trees, impacting the natural landscape and destruction of the habitats of native species.

My comments are detailed in the attached document "Comment SSD D Palmer".
These are provided from a neutral position to be constructive comments that should be acted upon to enhance the ability to come to an objective determination regarding this project.

Ku-ring-gai’s built heritage holds unique value, and as such, should be treated to acknowledge that value.

Ku-ring-gai as a whole is of national and state heritage significance because of the outstanding quantity, quality, depth and range of its twentieth century housing, including examples by many of Australia’s prominent twentieth century architects; and the evidence it provides of twentieth century town planning and conservation philosophies.
In 1997 this led to the National Trust recommending that 27 precincts be classified as Urban Conservation Areas (UCAs) (now called Heritage Conservation Areas) – more than any other local government area in NSW.

I object to the proposed 10 storey development at 12-16 Bent St Lindfield. At a height of over 30 metres, 115 apartments, 176 car spaces and basement parking, nothing appears to be “State Significant” about this proposal. There is a lack of modulation, excessive and overbearing size, overshadowing and total inconsistency with the heritage architecture and historical values of Lindfield.

I object on the following grounds:

Inconsistent with Ku-ring-gai Council’s Preferred Scenario: The proposal ignores key planning principles and is inconsistent with Council’s Preferred Scenario (which supports new housing without sacrificing our heritage and natural environment, determined following consultation with the community).

Excessive Height and Poor-Quality Design: At a height of 10 storeys (over 30 metres), this may well be the tallest structure in Lindfield, causing significant overshadowing and disrupting sight-lines with inadequate transition zones and set-backs to adjacent homes and streets whilst reducing the privacy of numerous residences.

Devastating tree canopy and wildlife impact: This development alone will involve the destruction of many established trees, impacting the natural landscape and destruction of the habitats of native species such as Kookaburras, Rosellas, Galahs, and Echidnas.

Traffic and Infrastructure overload: With 115 apartments in this single development, this development together with others to come will compound an already traffic choke point entering the Pacific Highway plus local streets. Further our already strained stormwater, sewerage, transport systems, and parking will suffer further.

No community benefits: This project offers nothing to the community, instead, it only serves to destroy Lindfield's heritage and natural environment.

Please do not allow this development to proceed without full consideration of the impact on infrastructure, the environment and the surrounds.

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

The current proposal is incompatible with the TOD and the "Ku-ring-gai TOD alternatives" the council is working through. In particular, (quoting council meeting agenda) "Council is concerned that some proposals currently working through the SSD system might be prejudicial to any alternate scenario it might adopt. This is particularly the case where transition between different densities and housing typologies that Council might seek to apply are juxtaposed against out of scale development reflected in some current DSSD proposals."
Moreover, council also note that No 18-20 Bent Street is "considered unlikely to redevelop". These are relatively new 3 storeys townhouses to the south west of the project, which would be over shadow by the bulk of the proposed building.
The developer's EIS claims that the proposed design has "Maximum GFA Achieved without Breaching maximum Building Height", which is a complete contradiction to the fact. If the proposal does not breach maximum height, why does the developer submit the variation request (appendix 40).
The developer seeks to present the future Lindfield Village Hub (LVH) as being of similar height (9 storeys) along the future Dovers way, however, this is pure speculation. Previous designs for LVH have multiple proposals, many have open public communal space or low rise buildings (up 5 to storeys) along the south west corner (Bent Street and Dovers way). The open space and harmonious visual transition are key elements of LVH designs and it benefit the whole community. The DPHI should not allow the developer to increase the building height above the already very high 28.6m.
The Transport Assessment (Appendix 13) state that it's traffic survey was performed on 21 Nov 2024, it was done before the development at Balfour place is completed. Since the opening of Coles supermarket at Balfour street in April 2025, the local traffic volume has increased. When the residents start to occupy the apartments at Balfour place, traffic volume will increased again. A re-assignment of the project's traffic impact should be performed.
Both the TOD and the proposed Ku-ring-gai TOD alternatives adopted a lower FSR and building heights at this project's location (and it's surrounding lands along Bent Street), not enough effort has been given to align this project with the likely planning control applicable to the area.

I understand that we need development in the area but the infrastructure just will not support these large apartments. It will be detrimental to the area and cause chaos with traffic already choking these small single roads.

Subject: Objection to Residential Flat Building with Infill Affordable Housing, Bent Street Lindfield

To Whom It May Concern,

I am writing to formally lodge my objection to the proposed development project that seeks to construct a 10-storey residential flat building with 115 apartments and 176 car parking spaces adjacent to my home at Bent Street. After thoroughly reviewing the preliminary architectural plans and public development notice, I have several serious concerns that I believe warrant a comprehensive re-evaluation of this proposal.

1. Excessive Height and Associated Impacts
The proposed 10-storey structure is significantly out of scale with the surrounding low-density residential neighbourhood. Its excessive height raises serious concerns regarding:
a. Overlooking and loss of privacy: The placement of high-level windows and balconies directly facing neighbouring properties will result in intrusive overlooking into private yards and dwellings.
b. Overshadowing: The building’s height will cast prolonged shadows over adjacent properties, drastically reducing natural sunlight during the day.
c. Visual impact and landscape obstruction: The structure will obstruct the natural views currently enjoyed by the local residents and alter the overall landscape character of the neighbourhood in a negative manner.

2. Loss of Green Space and Tree Removal
The development will require the clearing of a substantial area of green space and the removal of numerous mature trees. This not only diminishes the ecological value of the site but also negatively affects the community’s access to green cover. The existing vegetation plays a vital role in:
a. Carbon sequestration and urban cooling
b. Providing habitat for local wildlife
c. Enhancing the aesthetic and environmental quality of the area
Removing these green assets contradicts broader environmental sustainability goals and sets a concerning precedent for future development in the region.

3. Increased Density and Associated Pollution
The proposal includes 115 apartments and 176 parking spaces, suggesting a substantial population influx and vehicle increase in a currently quiet neighbourhood. This scale of density will likely introduce:
a. Noise pollution: From both increased vehicular movement and human activity, particularly during evenings and weekends
b. Air quality concerns: Due to higher concentrations of vehicle emissions and reduced airflow resulting from the dense building footprint
c. Traffic and congestion: With the increase in parked and moving vehicles, existing roads may become congested and unsafe, especially for pedestrians and cyclists

4. Lack of Supporting Infrastructure
The proposed development makes no substantial effort to upgrade or accommodate the increased strain on existing infrastructure, which is already under pressure. Specific concerns include:
a. Drainage and sewage: The current stormwater and wastewater systems may not be adequately equipped to handle the added load, increasing the risk of flooding or system failure.
b. Traffic management: Local roads are narrow and not designed to handle such a high influx of daily vehicle movements.
c. Utility pressure: The increase in demand for electricity, water, and internet (including NBN services) will stretch the already limited service provision in the area.
d. Public facilities: There is a notable shortage of community amenities (parks, schools, healthcare services) in the immediate vicinity to support a population increase of this magnitude.

5. Construction-Related Disturbance
The proposed construction period will inevitably involve the deployment of heavy machinery, prolonged site work, and continuous delivery and transport operations. These activities are highly disruptive and will:
a. Diminish the daily quality of life for residents
b. Create safety risks for pedestrians and school children in the area
c. Generate dust, vibration, and noise pollution over an extended period
Given the building scale, the construction phase could last several years, compounding these issues over time.

6. Poor Placement of Electrical Infrastructure
The inclusion of a proposed electrical substation near the property boundary raises safety and amenity concerns. The lack of a sufficient buffer zone is inappropriate and creates an ongoing source of concern for neighbouring households.

Conclusion
While I understand the need for urban development and increased housing supply, such efforts must be balanced with community interests, environmental protection, and infrastructure planning. The current proposal demonstrates a lack of due consideration in these critical areas and represents a clear threat to the livability, safety, and character of the existing neighbourhood.
For these reasons, I respectfully urge the planning authority to review the current proposal or require a substantial redesign that reflects the scale, infrastructure, and environmental realities of the area.

Thank you for considering this submission.

Yours sincerely,

1. The DA provides only 28.35% deep soil landscaping—well below the 50% threshold in R4 high density area—undermining stormwater management, habitat values and the garden character that are established already. This would lead significant inconsistency with nearby residential projects controlled by Ku-ring-gai council, dividing the community.
2. Under council's preferred scenario, an FSR 2.25 (30% bonus after baseline 1.8) can be achieved to this site. The uplifted 2.25 FSR is still significantly below the proposed 3.25. The proposed project is not compatible with current and even future (i.e 15years) streetscape. The proposed 119 units would increase the traffic and parking pressure, cumulatively with other potential oversized projects (SSDs, hopefully they are all in line with council's preferred scenario).
3. The Stakeholder engagement includes the relevant parties. However, it didn't include all residents in Linfield or even LGA whereas council's preferred scenario did. The council preferred scenario is more a balanced, comprehensive, better planning scenario that takes all planning principles into account (a compromise among all residents as well).

I respectfully request that you consider the above, please refer to the council's preferred scenario as planning guide.

Thank you.

I'm writing in support of this project. In this housing crisis we need more housing of all types especially affordable housing. My grandparents lived in Lindfield when I was growing up and I can see that it is a good place for more housing.