Residential flat buildings with infill affordable housing -10, 14 and 14a Stanhope Road, Killara

Dear Government
We appreciate the Government’s broader vision to encourage housing around transport hubs. However, the proposed development on Stanhope Road raises serious concerns that we believe need closer attention. PLease read below ....

Most notably, the height of the building is well beyond what’s allowed under current planning controls. The proposal exceeds the R2 Low Rise Residential Zoning limits by almost four times, and even under the more flexible TOD Housing SEPP, it’s still over the limit by more than 22%. A 10-storey high-rise simply doesn't align with the intent of a low- to medium-rise precinct. This scale is completely out of character with the area and difficult to justify in this location.

As well as the height and scale, there are broader implications for local infrastructure that haven’t been adequately addressed. The Killara area, including Stanhope Road, is already under pressure when it comes to essential services. Killara school especially is operating near or at capacity, and medical services in the area are limited. A development of this size would place additional strain on both education and healthcare systems—services that are vital for maintaining quality of life in the community.

We also feel the community engagement process didn’t meet expectations. Many residents were unaware of the proposal until it was well into the process, and as a result, haven’t had a fair chance to review or respond to it properly. The low turnout at the developer’s information session on 3 April reflects that.

Stanhope Road is also one of Killara’s most valued heritage streets, and the proposed building sits directly among homes with significant historical value. Unfortunately, the heritage context hasn’t been meaningfully considered in the current design.
There are also real concerns about the impact on surrounding homes—ranging from overshadowing and loss of privacy to general amenity issues for more than 50 neighbouring properties. These are not small matters for residents who’ve lived in this community for decades.
Finally, the submitted Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) includes several inconsistencies and lacks clarity on key elements—particularly around building size and affordable housing provisions. Given these issues, we believe the best course of action is for the current proposal to be withdrawn and reworked. This would give the community the opportunity to engage meaningfully, and allow for a development that better reflects the area’s character and infrastructure capacity.

I urge the Government to consider these concerns carefully as part of the assessment process and reject the development.

Sincerely
Celia Taylor

• Stanhope Road is one of Killara’s most important Heritage areas. This development takes little or no consideration of heritage issues and/or the heritage homes at 1A, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 12 and 18 Stanhope Road., which surround the proposed site. The Heritage Impact Statement has fundamental flaws.
• The development has a combination of huge visual impacts, overshadowing, loss of privacy and loss of amenity issues for more than 50 residences directly to the north, south, east and west of the proposed development.

The proposal significantly breaches the height limits for the R2 Low Rise Residential Zoning (by almost 4 times) and breaches the heights allowed under the Transport Oriented Development (TOD) program by over 22%.
• The Government’s aim was to develop low/medium-rise buildings around transport hubs. This is a high-rise development which is completely incompatible with the locality and hence, is not in the public interest. The mass and scale of this development is totally out of proportion to the street and suburb in general.
• Stanhope Road is one of Killara’s most important Heritage areas. This development takes little or no consideration of heritage issues and/or the heritage homes at 1A, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 12 and 18 Stanhope Road., which surround the proposed site. The Heritage Impact Statement has fundamental flaws.
• The development has a combination of huge visual impacts, overshadowing, loss of privacy and loss of amenity issues for more than 50 residences directly to the north, south, east and west of the proposed development.
• The Community Engagement on this project was not undertaken correctly. Hence, many residents were unaware of the proposal until well after its lodgement on 9th May on the SSD site. As a result, residents and other interested parties have not had sufficient time to adequately read, understand and respond to the proposal. The lack of numbers at the developer’s so called “drop-in” session on 3rd April reinforce the breach of the community engagement process.
• There are critically endangered Sydney Blue Gum trees on the site, which are at risk if the development proceeds.
• The deep soil of 7% is far below the Ku-ring-gai Council required amount.
• The Developer’s EIS submission contains multiple major contradictions and omissions. It is impossible to understand the actual size and scale of the proposed development as well as what level of benefit the affordable housing is proposed. It needs to be fixed, and the process recommenced from the beginning to give residents a chance to understand same.

• The proposal significantly breaches the height limits for the R2 Low Rise Residential Zoning (by almost 4 times) and breaches the heights allowed under the Transport Oriented Development (TOD) program by over 22%.
• The Government’s aim was to develop low/medium-rise buildings around transport hubs. This is a high-rise development which is completely incompatible with the locality and hence, is not in the public interest. The mass and scale of this development is totally out of proportion to the street and suburb in general.
• Stanhope Road is one of Killara’s most important Heritage areas. This development takes little or no consideration of heritage issues and/or the heritage homes at 1A, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 12 and 18 Stanhope Road., which surround the proposed site. The Heritage Impact Statement has fundamental flaws.
• The development has a combination of huge visual impacts, overshadowing, loss of privacy and loss of amenity issues for more than 50 residences directly to the north, south, east and west of the proposed development.
• The Community Engagement on this project was not undertaken correctly. Hence, many residents were unaware of the proposal until well after its lodgement on 9th May on the SSD site. As a result, residents and other interested parties have not had sufficient time to adequately read, understand and respond to the proposal. The lack of numbers at the developer’s so called “drop-in” session on 3rd April reinforce the breach of the community engagement process.
• There are critically endangered Sydney Blue Gum trees on the site, which are at risk if the development proceeds.
• The deep soil of 7% is far below the Ku-ring-gai Council required amount.
• The Developer’s EIS submission contains multiple major contradictions and omissions. It is impossible to understand the actual size and scale of the proposed development as well as what level of benefit the affordable housing is proposed. It needs to be fixed, and the process recommenced from the beginning to give residents a chance to understand same.

There are more but these are the major issues.

• The proposal significantly breaches the height limits for the R2 Low Rise Residential Zoning (by almost 4 times) and breaches the heights allowed under the Transport Oriented Development (TOD) program by over 22%.
• The Government’s aim was to develop low/medium-rise buildings around transport hubs. This is a high-rise development which is completely incompatible with the locality and hence, is not in the public interest. The mass and scale of this development is totally out of proportion to the street and suburb in general.
• Stanhope Road is one of Killara’s most important Heritage areas. This development takes little or no consideration of heritage issues and/or the heritage homes at 1A, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 12 and 18 Stanhope Road., which surround the proposed site. The Heritage Impact Statement has fundamental flaws.
• The development has a combination of huge visual impacts, overshadowing, loss of privacy and loss of amenity issues for more than 50 residences directly to the north, south, east and west of the proposed development.
• The Community Engagement on this project was not undertaken correctly. Hence, many residents were unaware of the proposal until well after its lodgement on 9th May on the SSD site. As a result, residents and other interested parties have not had sufficient time to adequately read, understand and respond to the proposal. The lack of numbers at the developer’s so called “drop-in” session on 3rd April reinforce the breach of the community engagement process.
• There are critically endangered Sydney Blue Gum trees on the site, which are at risk if the development proceeds.
• The deep soil of 7% is far below the Ku-ring-gai Council required amount.
• The Developer’s EIS submission contains multiple major contradictions and omissions. It is impossible to understand the actual size and scale of the proposed development as well as what level of benefit the affordable housing is proposed. It needs to be fixed, and the process recommenced from the beginning to give residents a chance to understand same.

I am writing to formally register my strongest possible objection to the above-mentioned development application, which proposes the construction of a 10-storey high-rise residential building within what has historically been, and should remain, a low-density heritage residential precinct of significant cultural, architectural, and community value.
FUNDAMENTAL INCOMPATIBILITY WITH HERITAGE CHARACTER
The proposed development represents a catastrophic departure from the established built form and heritage character that defines this neighbourhood. This area has evolved over decades as a cohesive low-rise residential enclave, characterized by single and double-storey dwellings that reflect the architectural vernacular and settlement patterns of our local history. The streetscapes maintain a human scale that preserves sight lines to mature canopy trees, allows natural light penetration to gardens and public spaces, and creates the intimate pedestrian environment that residents have come to cherish and expect.
A 10-storey tower would constitute an alien intrusion into this carefully preserved urban fabric, creating an overwhelming sense of enclosure and fundamentally altering the essential character that makes this neighbourhood both liveable and historically significant. The scale differential between existing housing stock and the proposed development is so extreme as to render any claims of sympathetic integration completely untenable.
PLANNING POLICY CONTRADICTIONS
This proposal appears to directly contravene multiple layers of established planning policy designed specifically to protect heritage areas from inappropriate overdevelopment. Local heritage overlays, residential zoning provisions, and strategic planning frameworks have been deliberately crafted to ensure that new development respects existing character while accommodating reasonable growth. The proposed building height exceeds these parameters by such a margin that approval would effectively render existing planning controls meaningless and set a dangerous precedent for similar inappropriate developments throughout the municipality.
The cumulative impact of approving developments that so blatantly disregard established planning principles would be the systematic erosion of the planning system's integrity and the community's confidence in proper development assessment processes.
INFRASTRUCTURE AND AMENITY IMPACTS
The introduction of a high-density residential building into an area planned and serviced for low-density occupation will place unprecedented strain on existing infrastructure networks. Local roads were not designed to accommodate the significant increase in vehicular traffic that would inevitably result from concentrating multiple dwelling units in a single location. The additional burden on stormwater systems, electricity networks, and telecommunications infrastructure could compromise service reliability for existing residents.
Furthermore, the parking requirements for such a development, regardless of how they are met, will fundamentally alter the streetscape character. Whether through extensive basement excavation that affects neighbourhood drainage patterns and tree root systems, or through increased street-level parking demand that eliminates the current spacious, garden-dominated street presentation, the transportation impacts alone justify refusal of this application.
AMENITY AND PRIVACY CONCERNS
The height and bulk of the proposed building would create severe amenity impacts for surrounding properties through overshadowing, overlooking, and visual bulk effects. Residents who have invested in their properties based on reasonable expectations about neighbourhood character and their ongoing amenity enjoyment would find their outdoor spaces rendered unpleasant or unusable during significant portions of the day.
The privacy implications are equally serious, with upper-level apartments capable of direct surveillance into the private outdoor spaces and even internal areas of neighbouring homes. This represents an unreasonable intrusion that no existing resident should be compelled to accept, particularly when such impacts result from development that exceeds appropriate scale parameters.
ENVIRONMENTAL AND SUSTAINABILITY CONCERNS
The environmental impact of constructing such a substantial building in an established low-density area extends beyond immediate construction disruption. The loss of deep soil planting opportunities, the heat island effects of increased building mass, the disruption to local microclimates, and the precedent for similar development throughout the area could cumulatively transform the neighbourhood's environmental character in ways that reduce liveability and sustainability.
Mature vegetation, which contributes significantly to local biodiversity, stormwater management, and urban cooling, would be threatened both directly through site clearance and indirectly through changed growing conditions caused by altered wind patterns and shadowing from the tower.
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION AND DEMOCRATIC PROCESS
The scale and impact of this proposal demand the most rigorous community consultation and assessment processes. Residents deserve meaningful opportunity to understand and respond to development proposals that will fundamentally alter their living environment. Any approval process that does not include comprehensive community engagement, independent expert assessment of heritage impacts, and transparent consideration of alternatives would represent a failure of democratic planning principles.
CONCLUSION AND REQUEST
For all the reasons outlined above, I respectfully but firmly urge the responsible planning authority to refuse this application in its entirety. The proposed development is fundamentally inappropriate for this location and cannot be modified or conditioned to achieve acceptable outcomes. The heritage character, established amenity expectations, infrastructure limitations, and community values at stake require protection through decisive rejection of inappropriate development proposals.
I request that this objection be given full consideration in the assessment process and that I be notified of any community consultation opportunities, expert reports, or decision-making meetings related to this application.
The precedent set by this decision will reverberate throughout our community for decades to come. I trust that the planning authority will demonstrate its commitment to heritage protection, appropriate development assessment, and community amenity by refusing this inappropriate proposal.

I strongly object to the proposed development due to its excessive height and scale, which is entirely inconsistent with the surrounding neighbourhood. The proposed 10-storey building significantly exceeds the local character and planning guidelines, particularly given that surrounding properties to the east, west, and south are detached dwellings, and the maximum allowable apartment building height in Killara is typically limited to five storeys. This development would be double that, creating a built form that is grossly disproportionate to the existing streetscape and residential R2 zoning.
The site is located within a designated Heritage Conservation Area and sits in close proximity to at least nine heritage-listed houses along Stanhope Road. The proposal fails to adequately assess or mitigate the impact it will have on these important heritage properties, including one single home that is fully enveloped by the proposed development and is itself heritage-listed. The scale and visual dominance of the building will directly diminish the character and value of these heritage homes, undermining the conservation objectives of the area.
Kind Regards,
Sebastian Waters

I support the project

The proposal significantly breaches the height limits for the R2 Low Rise Residential Zoning (by almost 4 times) and breaches the heights allowed under the Transport Oriented Development (TOD) program by over 22%.
• The Government’s aim was to develop low/medium-rise buildings around transport hubs. This is a high-rise development which is completely incompatible with the locality and hence, is not in the public interest. The mass and scale of this development is totally out of proportion to the street and suburb in general.
• Stanhope Road is one of Killara’s most important Heritage areas. This development takes little or no consideration of heritage issues and/or the heritage homes at 1A, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 12 and 18 Stanhope Road., which surround the proposed site. The Heritage Impact Statement has fundamental flaws.
• The development has a combination of huge visual impacts, overshadowing, loss of privacy and loss of amenity issues for more than 50 residences directly to the north, south, east and west of the proposed development.
• The Community Engagement on this project was not undertaken correctly. Hence, many residents were unaware of the proposal until well after its lodgement on 9th May on the SSD site. As a result, residents and other interested parties have not had sufficient time to adequately read, understand and respond to the proposal. The lack of numbers at the developer’s so called “drop-in” session on 3rd April reinforce the breach of the community engagement process.
• There are critically endangered Sydney Blue Gum trees on the site, which are at risk if the development proceeds.
• The deep soil of 7% is far below the Ku-ring-gai Council required amount.
• The Developer’s EIS submission contains multiple major contradictions and omissions. It is impossible to understand the actual size and scale of the proposed development as well as what level of benefit the affordable housing is proposed. It needs to be fixed, and the process recommenced from the beginning to give residents a chance to understand same.

I object to this development on the following grounds :

1. Excessive height compared with the surrounding buildings causing shadowing, loss of privacy and visual changes not in keeping with the existing street scape of Stanhope Road. The height proposed actually exceeds the TOD proposal by over 22% and significantly breaches the height limits for the R2 Low Rise Residential Zoning (by almost 4 times).

2. The development isolates and towers over adjacent homes some of which are Heritage listed. Stanhope Road currently has no unit blocks so the change will be dramatic. The overshadowing, loss of privacy and loss of amenity issues affect more than 50 residences directly to the north, south, east and west of the proposed development. While the Government’s aim was to develop low/medium-rise buildings around transport hubs this is a high-rise development which is completely incompatible with the locality and hence, is not in the public interest.

3. Not consistent with the Ku-ring-gai Council’s Preferred Scenario which recommends a maximum height of 12 meters in this area rather than the 35 meters proposed in this application.
Cause further overloading of services including local schools (enrolments in numerous schools in Ku-ring-gai already above their maximum designated maximum numbers) as well as medical and other health services.

4. Cause further overloading of services including local schools (enrolments in numerous schools in Ku-ring-gai already above their maximum designated maximum numbers) as well as medical and other health services.

5. Stanhope Road is already parked out on both sides and is actually quite narrow. This means that even now traffic passing in opposite directions in the street does not actually fit. This street will be totally impassable with tradie vehicles and then the new residents and visitors once the proposed development would be completed.

On the grounds this is in a Heritage conservation area

I object to this development on the following grounds:

1. Excessive height compared with the surrounding buildings causing shadowing, loss of privacy and visual changes not in keeping with the existing street scape of Stanhope Road. The height proposed actually exceeds the TOD proposal by over 22% and significantly breaches the height limits for the R2 Low Rise Residential Zoning (by almost 4 times).

2. The development isolates and towers over adjacent homes some of which are Heritage listed. Stanhope Road currently has no unit blocks so the change will be dramatic. The overshadowing, loss of privacy and loss of amenity issues affect more than 50 residences directly to the north, south, east and west of the proposed development. While the Government’s aim was to develop low/medium-rise buildings around transport hubs this is a high-rise development which is completely incompatible with the locality and hence, is not in the public interest.

3. Not consistent with the Ku-ring-gai Council’s Preferred Scenario which recommends a maximum height of 12 meters in this area rather than the 35 meters proposed in this application.

4. Cause further overloading of services including local schools (enrolments in numerous schools in Ku-ring-gai already above their maximum designated maximum numbers) as well as medical and other health services.

5. Stanhope Road is already parked out on both sides and is actually quite narrow. This means that even now traffic passing in opposite directions in the street does not actually fit. This street will be totally impassable with tradie vehicles and then the new residents and visitors once the proposed development would be completed.

- significant breach of height limits for R2 Low Rise Residential
- goal/aim of the government was to increase affordable and low to medium rise housing near transport hubs. This proposed development will be NEITHER affordable or low to medium rise
- there is nothing even close to this massive scale of development in Killara or surrounding suburbs, so it is out of character and proportion
- community engagement on this project was NOT undertaken legally

Buildings will cause shadowing and will exceed the TOD proposal by over 22%.
Ku-ring-gai Council's preferred scenario of maximum height of 12 meters rather than 35 meters proposed in this application.
Infrastructure including roads, water, electricity is already inadequate without the numerous units which are proposed.
Schools to maximum capacity, medical and other health services.
Parks and green space will be compromised.
Parking for commuters by rail is inadequate.

The proposal significantly breaches the height limits for the R2 Low Rise Residential Zoning (by almost 4 times) and also breaches the heights allowed under the TOD program by over 22%.
The Government’s aim was to develop low/medium-rise buildings around transport hubs. This is a high-rise development which is completely incompatible with the locality and hence, is not in the public interest.
Stanhope Road is one of Killara’s most important Heritage areas. This development takes little or no consideration of heritage issues and/or the heritage homes at 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 12 and 18 Stanhope Road., which surround the proposed site.
The development has a combination of huge visual impacts, overshadowing, loss of privacy and loss of amenity issues for more than 50 residences directly to the north, south, east and west of the proposed development.
The Community Engagement on this project was not undertaken correctly. Hence, many residents were unaware of the proposal until well after its lodgement on 9th May on the SSD site. As a result residents and other interested parties have not had sufficient time to adequately read, understand and respond to the proposal. The lack of numbers at the developer’s so called “drop-in” session on 3rd April reinforce the breach of the community engagement process.
The Developer’s EIS submission contains multiple major contradictions and omissions. It is impossible to understand the actual size and scale of the proposed development as well as what level of benefit the affordable housing is proposed. It needs to be fixed and the process recommenced from the beginning to give residents a chance to understand same.

Letter of Objection – Proposed Development at Stanhope Road, Killara

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing to express my strong objection to the proposed development on 10, 14 & 14a Stanhope Road.

The proposed 10-storey building significantly breaches the planning rules. It is almost four times the permitted height for the R2 Low Rise Residential Zoning, and it also exceeds the height limit under the TOD Housing SEPP by more than 22%. These are not small variations—they are major breaches that completely ignore the intent of these planning controls. The Government’s aim with the TOD program was to encourage low to medium-rise buildings near transport hubs. This high-rise development does not fit that goal and is clearly out of place in this quiet, low-rise residential area.

In addition, the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) submitted by the developer is not acceptable. It contains many contradictions and missing details, including unclear information about the true size of the project and how much affordable housing is actually planned. The document is difficult to understand, and it does not give residents enough information to properly assess the proposal or its impacts.

A development of this scale, based on an incomplete and confusing EIS, should not be allowed to proceed. I ask that this proposal be rejected, and that any future plans follow the proper rules and respect the character of our community.

Thank you for considering my concerns.

Sincerely,
Beverly Allen

Objection to Proposed Development at 10, 14 & 14a Stanhope Road

Dear Sir/Madam,

As someone who’s lived in this area for a long time, I feel I need to speak up about the proposed development on Stanhope Road. This project is a big step away from the planning rules that have helped make our area such a great place to live.

The Height Is Way Over the Limit

The proposed building is 10 storeys high—almost four times what’s allowed for this low-rise residential zone (R2). On top of that, it goes more than 22% over the height limit set by the Government’s TOD Housing SEPP program. These aren’t small changes—they’re major breaches of what’s supposed to be allowed. The TOD guidelines are meant for low to medium-rise buildings around transport hubs, not high-rise towers like this one. A building of this size just doesn’t belong in this neighbourhood.

It Will Put a Lot of Pressure on Local Services

Apart from ignoring the rules, this development would add more pressure to local infrastructure, which is already under stress:

Schools are already full or close to it. Adding many more families in one spot would only make that worse.
Healthcare in the area is limited. With more people moving in, it’ll be even harder for locals—especially older residents—to get timely care.
Traffic and parking are already a problem on Stanhope Road and nearby streets. A development of this size would bring more cars, more congestion, and more frustration for everyone.
Community life would be affected too. This is a peaceful area, and dropping a high-rise building in the middle of it would completely change the character of the street and how people live here.
In short, this development is too big, in the wrong place, and puts too much strain on the community. I ask that you reject this proposal and protect the neighbourhood we all value so much.

Kind regards,
A concerned local resident

It is imperative that this planning proposal be rejected, given the significant and multi-faceted breaches it entails, which render it wholly inappropriate for the local area and contrary to the public interest.
    •    Excessive Height and Zoning Breaches:
The proposed development dramatically exceeds the height restrictions designated for R2 Low Rise Residential Zoning—by nearly fourfold—and also surpasses the limits stipulated under the Government’s Transport Oriented Development (TOD) program by over 22%. Such blatant non-compliance undermines the integrity of the planning framework and sets a dangerous precedent for future overdevelopment.
    •    Incompatibility with Government Intent and Local Character:
The TOD initiative was designed to encourage low- to medium-rise developments around transport hubs. This proposal constitutes a high-rise structure that is grossly disproportionate to the existing built environment. Its mass and scale are entirely at odds with the surrounding streetscape and the broader suburban context, rendering the development fundamentally incompatible with the character of Killara. Allowing this development would directly contravene the intended objectives of the TOD program and public planning principles.
    •    Heritage Impact:
Stanhope Road is a recognised heritage precinct and home to a number of significant heritage properties, including 1A, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 12, and 18 Stanhope Road. The proposed development fails to give adequate consideration to the heritage value of these properties. The accompanying Heritage Impact Statement is deeply flawed and fails to acknowledge or mitigate the risks posed to this culturally and historically important area.
    •    Adverse Impacts on Surrounding Residences:
The proposal would severely affect over 50 neighbouring properties through substantial visual intrusion, overshadowing, loss of privacy, and general amenity degradation. These negative externalities are unacceptable in any context, let alone in a low-rise residential area such as this.
    •    Deficiencies in Community Engagement:
The consultation process has been grossly inadequate. Many residents were unaware of the development until well after it was lodged on the State Significant Development (SSD) website on 9 May. The developer’s single “drop-in” session on 3 April was poorly publicised and poorly attended, highlighting the failure to engage meaningfully with the community. As a result, residents have not had sufficient time or opportunity to properly examine and respond to the proposal.
    •    Threat to Critically Endangered Flora:
The site contains Sydney Blue Gum trees, which are classified as critically endangered. Their protection should be a paramount consideration. Proceeding with the development as proposed places these ecologically valuable trees at significant risk.
    •    Non-Compliance with Environmental Requirements:
The proposed development offers only 7% deep soil area, well below the standards required by Ku-ring-gai Council. This shortfall compromises the ecological sustainability and liveability of the development.
    •    Misleading and Deficient Environmental Impact Statement (EIS):
The developer’s EIS is riddled with contradictions and omissions. As currently presented, it is virtually impossible for residents to ascertain the true size, scale, and implications of the proposed development. The vague references to affordable housing benefits lack sufficient detail, further obscuring the proposal’s actual community value.

The proposal represents a substantial breach of planning regulations, exceeding the R2 Low Rise Residential Zoning height limits by nearly four times. It also surpasses the height allowances under the TOD Housing SEPP program by more than 22%. These deviations are not minor—they are significant and undermine the intent of the Government’s policy, which aims to encourage low- to medium-rise developments near transport hubs. A 10-storey high-rise is entirely inconsistent with this vision and clearly out of step with the character of the local area. It is, therefore, not in the public interest.

Stanhope Road is one of Killara’s most significant heritage precincts. The proposed development shows little, if any, regard for the area's heritage value or for the numerous heritage-listed homes nearby at 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 12, 17, and 18 Stanhope Road. This lack of consideration is deeply concerning. So is the lack of consideration for 12 Stanhope Road

Furthermore, the development will have severe visual impacts, including overshadowing, loss of privacy, and a reduction in residential amenity for more than 50 properties surrounding the site. These are not isolated effects—they directly affect the daily lives of many residents in every direction from the proposed building.

There are also serious issues with the community engagement process. Many residents were unaware of the proposal until well after it was lodged on the SSD site on 9 May. This delay has left insufficient time for the community to properly review, understand, and respond to the application. The very low turnout at the developer’s so-called “drop-in” session on 3 April is further evidence that the engagement process was fundamentally flawed.

In addition, the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) submitted by the developer contains several major contradictions and omissions. As it stands, it is nearly impossible to determine the actual size, scale, and scope of the development or understand how much affordable housing is included. Given these serious shortcomings, the current submission should be rejected. The developer must be required to restart the process to ensure residents are properly informed and have a fair opportunity to participate.

Yours sincerely
Kellie O'Keeffe

To the relevant authorities,

Regarding the application for the proposed development of 135 residential units to 10, 14 & 14a Stanhope Road, Killara, I object to the proposal in its current form.

I do not believe that the proposal adheres to the minimum controls set out in the Housing SEPP and Ku-ring-gai Local Environment Plan. These controls are vital in ensuring new development, however necessary in a housing crisis, meets the minimum standards that are considered acceptable to preserve amenity and protect the existing ecological environment as best as possible.

My family has lived on Stanhope Road for 10+ years, and while I don’t personally live in the area, I write to object given the risk of significant loss of existing amenity to not only my family’s home but neighbouring homes that have enjoyed the abundance of natural light and leafy outlook of Stanhope Road for so long.

I refer to the Strategic Environmental Assessment Report (SEAR) provided by the applicant and the relevant points as listed under the Issue and Assessment Requirements of the SEAR:


6. Built Form and Urban Design
Demonstrate how the proposed built form (layout, height, bulk, scale, separation, setbacks, interface and articulation) addresses and responds to the context, site characteristics, streetscape and existing and future character of the locality. Where relevant explain and illustrate the application of any bonuses under an EPI.

A maximum building height of 22m is set by Clause 155 of the SEPP (Housing) 2021 (Maximum building height and maximum floor space ratio, within Chapter 5 - Transport Oriented Development).

A bonus concession of 30% additional maximum height is allowed under Clause 18 of the SEPP if the development has a minimum 15% of GFA as affordable housing (which the proposal does contain). This would put the maximum building height at 28.6m.

The proposed maximum height is 36m. This is a 25.8% variation to the maximum bonus height, or a 63.6% variation to the maximum height without the bonus. This is a gross non-compliance with the relevant legislative requirements and is not justified in the Clause 4.6 variation request.

It should be noted that while the Clause 4.6 variation request notes the maximum proposed building height as 35m, the architectural plans (drawing DA300 - Section Sheet 1) measure 36m from existing ground level to top of building (RL149,300). The applicant’s own Pre-DA submission notes the proposed maximum height as 36m.

The applicant’s Clause 4.6 variation request seeks to argue that the height control is unreasonable or unnecessary. In acknowledging that the proposed design sits up to 6.4m above the bonus maximum height, the arguments that the development would be suited to a potential future character of the area is unacceptable as it is impossible to predict the built form of the surrounding area, which may never be substantiated. It also argues that by sitting below the maximum height plane at the front of the site, they are justified in protruding above the maximum height plane at the rear of the site. Not only is this proposed argument ridiculous but the method of justification is unfounded, with no precedent being provided as to how or why this should be entertained as justification in breaching the maximum bonus height limit.

I request that the maximum height plane of 28.6m be enforced as is intended by the legislated controls established in the Housing SEPP, which would include deletion of the top two floors of Building 2 and 3.


14. Trees and Landscaping
If the proposal involves impacts to trees, provide an Arboricultural Impact assessment that assesses the number, location, condition and significance of trees to be removed and retained including:
any existing canopy coverage to be retained onsite.
tree root mapping. if the proposal involves significant impacts to tree-protection zones of retained trees identified as being significant

While the proposed development notes that the significant established trees in the North-East corner of the are to be retained (T8, T10 and T11), the Arborcultural report provided notes that the required pruning of T10 & T11 would be so significant that retention of the trees would likely be unsuccessful (i.e. they will die) and “the removal of the trees may be the most feasible option for the submission”.

Alternatively, the design can be amended to have a large enough setback from the significant trees to ensure that their health is maintained.

The arborist’s report also notes that “often on sites where the development activities are considered significant, retaining trees like these is in vain”.


Having witnessed the number of birds that sit in these trees, the removal of these 20m+ tall trees would be a significant loss not only to the ecological health and biodiversity of the local area, but to the natural amenity of all surrounding properties that enjoy the outlook of gumleaf against the blue sky.



For these reasons I believe that the proposed development in its current state should not be approved without significant alterations to its design to ensure the existing amenity that makes this site and the surrounding sites so uniquely special be maintained to the existing and future residents of Killara.