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

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

I have lived in Roseville, Killara or Gordon for 35 years.

I planned for, worked towards and committed to buying a home in Roseville for my young family and I.

I specifically chose a heritage house in a Heritage Conservation Area (HCA) attracted to the 1-2 storey garden settings and heritage. I was conscious of and attracted to the protections in place for conservation of the heritage significance of the area including fabric, settings and views.

Following stringent Council requirements, I sought and obtained Development Application (DA) approval for restoration of my home in accordance with heritage controls. This allows for renewal of the place for a new generation and the saving of the embodied energy in the place.

It is not an unreasonable expectation, and is a requirement for you to consider, that development in the HCA conserves the environmental heritage and heritage significance of items and areas and this includes fabric, settings and views.

The public interest in not undoing that in that is heightened by reflection on the fact that time and expense and effort have been, for a long time, expended by the community in furtherance of a legislative mechanism to conserve the heritage of the area.

Whether under the original Transport Orientated Development (TOD) or Council’s Preferred Scenario, it is against the public interest and the objects of the planning legislation for this development to proceed.

This particular development is inconsistent with and not sensitive to and does not preserve or enhance the HCA.

I note further below that Ku-ring-gai Council’s Preferred Scenario should be allowed to proceed under which housing exceeding the Government’s targets will be permitted. This will allow for more people to enjoy the area while preserving the very thing that makes the area attractive.

Despite the fact that the proposed development should in fact be determined under the Preferred Scenario, it also should be rejected because it is against the public interest and for the reasons set out below.

1. Heritage Impacts

I object to the proposed development which involves the demolition of houses that contribute to these Heritage Conservation Areas (HCAs). This is contrary to the position of the Minister and the Department that have stated that contributory items must not be demolished and contrary to this, the proposed development requires the demolition of these contributory items.

At a height of 10 storeys this would be by far the tallest structure on the east side of Killara and not only would this impact on overshadowing / solar access / privacy to the 1-2 storey heritage homes that surround it (including 9 Heritage Listed Homes surrounding it on Stanhope Road) but also on views of these remaining contributory items.

The Local Environment Plan (LEP) which is not turned off by the TOD states that views to and from heritage items must also be maintained and, contrary to that position, the views to and from heritage items on Stanhope Road would not be preserved at all. Current views of extensive mature tree canopy and the rooflines of 1-2 storey heritage homes would be replaced with views of a 10 storey development surrounded by a stark treeless skyline.

With its proposed 135 apartments and 195 car spaces which would be located next to and opposite beautiful heritage homes and within a HCA where houses are 1-2 storeys high is not only completely inconsistent with the heritage architecture and historical values of this HCA in Killara but it is contrary to clause 5.10 of the LEP as it does not preserve or protect its buildings, its trees or the setting and views of the areas.

The HCA , Killara and Ku-ring-gai as a whole are of national, state and local historical and heritage aesthetic significance as an area of Federation style housing. Relevant history can be found in the hundreds of heritage impact statements the planning legislation has required applicants to lodge with DAs in this area.

The Minister and the Department have explicitly said that any development in a HCA (as well as not involving removal of contributory items) needs to improve and enhance the heritage values of the location.

The proposed development does nothing to address these values.

New infill buildings and designs must:

1. be no higher than neighbouring heritage buildings; and

2. recognise the predominant scale of the setting and respond sympathetically.

These are from the Government’s own guidelines (Design Guide for Heritage and Design in context: Guidelines for development in the historic environment).

The impact of an inappropriately scaled building cannot be compensated for by building form, design or detailing." (page 19, Design in context: Guidelines for infill development in the historic environment (nsw.gov.au). Contrary to that requirement, the proposed plans do nothing to demonstrate and reflect the garden settings of the 1- 2 storey heritage homes surrounding it.

The effect of the proposed development is that it will effectively be an isolated island of an enormous modern tower surrounded by streets of 1-2 storey heritage homes.

2. Environmental Impacts

What also makes Ku-ring-gai and Killara unique and special, in addition to its built heritage is its bird life, gardens, expansive tree canopy ( ‘urban forest’ ) and green space. 690 fauna species live in Ku-ring-gai. We have many Kookaburras frequent our home each day.

The destruction of greenspace here means green space will need to be found elsewhere. That is duplicative and unproductive and that wastage is against the public interest.

This proposed development threatens this with clearing of mature trees and plants to make way for 135 apartments. On the site there is a Blue Gum High Forest and Sydney Turpentine-Ironbark Forest, both of which are on the New South Wales Threatened Entity Profiles as of June 2025. The Heritage Impact Statement for the proposed development states that “all trees to be removed."

This will in turn destroy many bird and animal habitats and also create large areas of hard surfaces which will significantly contribute to the ‘heat island effect’ increasing the heat related impacts of climate change, making increased temperatures and extreme hot weather events more severe. This would be absolutely devastating for this HCA, streets which are famous in Killara and the State for their large significant mature trees which line these streets and which are also contained in its beautiful established gardens.

In addition, the creation of large hard surfaces results in more heat, fewer trees and more water runoff and ignores existing infrastructure and overland flow limitations.

---

## Executive Summary

I am writing to formally object to the proposed high-density residential development planned for our historic low-density neighborhood. This development threatens the fundamental character, heritage, and community values that have defined our area for generations. The proposed project would irreversibly damage the intimate scale, architectural integrity, and social fabric that makes our neighborhood a cherished place to raise families and maintain meaningful community connections.

Our neighborhood represents more than mere housing – it embodies a way of life that prioritizes human-scale development, historical preservation, and the cultivation of deep community bonds. The proposed high-density development would fundamentally alter this delicate balance, transforming our tree-lined streets into urban corridors and replacing our close-knit community atmosphere with the anonymity typical of high-density living environments.

## Historic Preservation and Architectural Integrity

### Irreplaceable Heritage Assets

Our neighborhood contains numerous buildings of significant historical and architectural value, many dating back over a century. These structures represent irreplaceable examples of period architecture that tell the story of our community's evolution and contribute to its unique identity. The proposed development, with its modern high-density design, would create jarring visual conflicts with these heritage buildings, diminishing their historical context and reducing their cultural significance.

The historic buildings in our area were designed and constructed during an era when craftsmanship and attention to detail were paramount. Hand-carved woodwork, original brick facades, decorative stonework, and period-appropriate windows and doors create an architectural tapestry that cannot be replicated with modern construction methods. These buildings serve as living museums, educating current and future generations about construction techniques, design philosophies, and social conditions of earlier eras.

### Scale and Proportion Harmony

The existing low-density character of our neighborhood creates a harmonious relationship between buildings, lots, and streetscapes that has evolved organically over decades. Single-family homes, duplexes, and small apartment buildings create varied rooflines and building heights that contribute to visual interest while maintaining human scale. The proposed high-density development would introduce building masses and heights that overwhelm this carefully balanced composition, creating shadow effects, blocking natural light, and fundamentally altering the neighborhood's visual character.

The current building scale allows for adequate spacing between structures, providing privacy for residents, space for mature landscaping, and visual breathing room that contributes to the area's peaceful atmosphere. High-density development typically requires minimal setbacks and maximized building coverage, eliminating the generous spacing that currently defines our neighborhood character.

## Impact on Family Values and Community Life

### Nurturing Environment for Children

Our low-density neighborhood provides an ideal environment for raising children, with quiet streets suitable for bicycle riding, sidewalks perfect for learning to walk and play, and front yards where children can safely play under parental supervision. The current scale and design of our neighborhood encourage outdoor family activities, neighborhood friendships among children, and the kind of informal supervision that occurs when adults can easily observe and interact with children playing throughout the area.

High-density development typically brings increased traffic, reduced green space, and fewer opportunities for children to play safely outdoors. The proposed development would introduce significantly more vehicles to our quiet streets, creating safety hazards for children and reducing the peaceful atmosphere that makes outdoor family time enjoyable and stress-free.

### Multi-Generational Community Connections

Our neighborhood's low-density character facilitates the kind of inter-generational relationships that strengthen community bonds and provide valuable social support networks. Elderly residents often develop meaningful relationships with young families, providing informal childcare assistance, sharing gardening knowledge, and contributing to the sense of extended community family that characterizes our area.

The current housing stock, with its variety of sizes and price points, allows families to remain in the neighborhood as their needs change over time. Young couples can start in smaller homes and later move to larger properties within the same area, maintaining community connections while accommodating growing families. Elderly residents can downsize to smaller units while remaining close to established social networks and familiar surroundings.

High-density development often attracts more transient residents who lack the same investment in long-term community building. The anonymous nature of large apartment complexes can reduce the informal social interactions that currently strengthen our neighborhood's social fabric.

### Support for Local Institutions

Our neighborhood's stable, family-oriented population provides crucial support for local institutions including schools, religious organizations, and community groups. Long-term residents develop deep commitments to these institutions, volunteering their time, contributing financially, and ensuring continuity of programs and services that benefit the entire community.

The proposed high-density development could introduce population instability that undermines these community institutions. High-density housing often attracts more transient residents who may be less likely to invest in local schools, participate in community organizations, or contribute to the volunteer activities that sustain neighborhood institutions.

## Preservation of Leafy Green Streets and Natural Environment

### Mature Tree Canopy Protection

Our neighborhood's mature tree canopy represents decades of growth and careful cultivation, providing environmental benefits including air purification, temperature moderation, stormwater management, and habitat for local wildlife. These established trees create the leafy green corridors that define our streets and contribute significantly to property values, air quality, and overall quality of life.

The proposed high-density development poses direct threats to this mature tree canopy through construction activities, changed drainage patterns, soil compaction, and the need to accommodate larger buildings and increased parking. Many of our oldest and most magnificent trees could be damaged or destroyed, representing an irreplaceable loss of environmental resources that took decades to develop.

### Urban Heat Island Mitigation

The current low-density development pattern, combined with extensive tree coverage and green spaces, helps mitigate urban heat island effects that are increasingly problematic in many metropolitan areas. Our neighborhood's design allows for natural air circulation, provides shade through mature trees, and maintains green surfaces that absorb rather than reflect heat.

High-density development typically involves removing vegetation, increasing impervious surfaces, and creating building configurations that trap heat and reduce air circulation. This transformation would make our neighborhood significantly less comfortable during warm weather and could increase energy costs for all residents as air conditioning demands increase.

### Biodiversity and Wildlife Habitat

Our neighborhood's green character supports local biodiversity by providing habitat corridors for birds, small mammals, and beneficial insects. Mature trees, established gardens, and green spaces create an interconnected ecosystem that supports species diversity and provides educational opportunities for children to observe and learn about local wildlife.

The proposed development would fragment these habitat areas, reduce biodiversity, and eliminate many of the nature-based learning opportunities that currently enrich children's experiences in our neighborhood. The loss of green space and wildlife habitat would diminish one of the key features that makes our area special and educationally valuable for families.

## Impact on Seasonal Celebrations and Community Traditions

### Christmas Light Displays and Holiday Traditions

Our neighborhood's low-density character creates ideal conditions for the elaborate Christmas light displays that have become a beloved community tradition. Single-family homes with front yards, mature trees, and generous setbacks provide perfect canvases for creative holiday decorations that bring joy to residents and attract visitors from throughout the region.

These holiday traditions serve multiple important functions in our community. They encourage homeowner investment in property improvement and maintenance, create opportunities for neighbors to collaborate on displays, provide safe family entertainment during the holiday season, and generate positive economic impact as visitors come to enjoy our neighborhood's festive atmosphere.

The current housing stock, with its variety of architectural styles and generous lot sizes, allows for diverse and creative holiday expressions. Front porches can be decorated with lights and garlands, mature trees can support elaborate lighting displays, and spacious yards provide room for lawn decorations and themed displays that would be impossible in high-dens

Hello,

I am writing to object to SSD-81890707, as I have concerns relating to its ecological and heritage impacts.
Firstly, the proposed development will result in the removal or disturbance of significant vegetation, including Blue Gum High Forest and Sydney Turpentine-Ironbark Forest — both of which are classified as endangered and contains biodiversity significance. These native species are ecologically critical, not only for their rarity but for the habitat they provide to local fauna. The survival of these trees through excavation and construction is highly unlikely. Deep excavation for basement levels and site regrading typically results in root loss, soil compaction, and changes to hydrology — all of which are incompatible with the long-term survival of mature native canopy trees. Losing these trees would be a permanent damage to local biodiversity and contradicts the principles of ecologically sustainable development.
Secondly, I wish to highlight the heritage value of No. 14 Stanhope Road. While the property has undergone some rear alterations, its street-facing façade remains largely intact and consistent with its original early 20th-century architectural form. Many of the key features — including the roofline, materials, and decorative details — appear period-correct and contribute to the character of Stanhope Road as a whole. As such, the building has representative value as a surviving example of its era and context, and should not be dismissed merely because of non-visible changes at the rear.
In light of these concerns, I consider that it is inappropriate for the state to approve such development at the cost of heritage and ecological damage.

Resident in north shore.

This proposal has caused a great deal of stress and anxiety for my family. What was meant to be a peaceful transition into a new home on a quiet, leafy street has now turned into weeks of worry and sleepless nights since we found out about the proposal. Stanhope Road is a beautiful, character-filled street and developments like this threaten to permanently change the nature of the area.

We are extremely concerned about the overshadowing and the loss of privacy that this development would bring. The proposal’s excessive height and scale would impose directly on neighbouring properties, blocking light and overlooking private open spaces. That kind of intrusion is simply unacceptable, especially in a residential area like this.

Living here was meant to provide our family ,including elderly relatives with a sense of calm and comfort. This development undermines that entirely.

Surely someone with common sense and genuine regard for community interest would not approve such a plan.

I am over 90 years old and although I now live in a nursing home, Stanhope Road is still very special to me. I’ve always loved the leafy, peaceful nature of the street, it has a character that’s hard to find these days. I often visit and still enjoy gardening there as part of my daily exercise. It keeps me active and connected to the place I’ve called home for many years.

The idea of such a large construction project on this quiet street is deeply upsetting. The noise, dust, and disruption will make it difficult for me to continue gardening when I visit. More importantly, I fear that the peaceful charm of the area will be permanently lost.

Please consider the impact this development will have on elderly residents like me, and on the quiet, natural beauty of Stanhope Road that so many of us value.

I am an elderly resident, and my family plans to care for me in our home at Stanhope Road so I can enjoy a peaceful retirement surrounded by nature and the familiar character of our neighbourhood. However, this proposed development has caused me great distress.

The scale, noise, and disruption from such a large project would take away the quiet enjoyment of my home in my later years. The street has always been a calm and beautiful place, with heritage homes and trees that make it special. And I worry that will be lost.
This is not just about a building — it is about protecting the quality of life for people like me who have called this place home. I ask that you please consider the human impact of this development and reject the application in its current form.

I forgot to attach my submission a few seconds ago.

I hope I get it right now.

Please see attached.

Hi council,
I am writing to you today not just as a resident, but as a deeply concerned long-standing member of the family who calls 12 Stanhope Road, Killara, home. It is with considerable alarm and outright dismay that we object in the strongest possible terms to the proposed 10-storey apartment development in such close proximity to my relatives property.

This isn't just a house; it's a heritage building, a significant part of Killara's historical fabric. Its architectural integrity and historical value are undeniable. To allow a towering, modern apartment block to overshadow a property of such cultural significance is not only architecturally incongruous but also a gross dereliction of the Council's duty to preserve our local heritage. Such a development would irrevocably diminish the character and setting of a building that should be protected, not dwarfed into insignificance.

Furthermore, let's talk about privacy – or the complete lack thereof that this development would inflict upon us. Our home, like many in Killara, was designed with a certain expectation of space and seclusion. We have a private backyard, complete with a tennis court and swimming pool – amenities that are fundamental to our family's enjoyment of our home and our quality of life. The notion of a 10-storey apartment building peering directly into our private recreational spaces is utterly unacceptable. It's an egregious invasion of privacy that would render our backyard unusable and transform our cherished home into a fishbowl for hundreds of new residents. This is not just an inconvenience; it is a profound infringement on our right to enjoy our own property in peace.

Finally, and perhaps most immediately impactful for the entire neighborhood, are the traffic concerns. Stanhope Road is, to put it mildly, a narrow street. It was never designed to accommodate the sheer volume of vehicles that a 10-storey apartment complex housing a staggering 192 car spaces would generate. The idea of nearly 200 additional cars trying to navigate our already constrained local roads is frankly terrifying. We foresee immediate and severe traffic congestion, increased noise pollution, significant safety risks for pedestrians and cyclists, and a drastic reduction in the quality of life for every single resident on Stanhope Road and surrounding streets. The existing infrastructure simply cannot cope, and the thought of perpetual gridlock in our quiet, residential area is an absolute nightmare.

In conclusion, this proposed development poses an unacceptable threat to our heritage, our privacy, and the fundamental liveability of our community. We urge you, to consider the profound and negative ramifications of this project and to reject the development application. Please prioritize the preservation of Killara's unique character and the well-being of its long-standing residents over the interests of developers.

Thank you for your time and serious consideration of these critical issues.

Sincerely,

I object to SSD-81890707 — the proposed residential flat buildings at 10, 14, and 14a Stanhope Road, Killara.
What concerns me most about this proposal is how it exploits the state’s TOD policy not to deliver good planning outcomes, but to justify excessive density and poor design in an established heritage conservation area. It does so while ignoring the joint efforts of Ku-ring-gai Council and the State Government to develop a more sensible and balanced alternative TOD plan , one that better accommodates local character, community feedback, and environmental constraints.
The council’s Preferred Scenario has been publicly exhibited and is widely supported. It aims to deliver housing in a way that respects built heritage and local context. Yet the EIS for this SSD proposal makes no mention of this plan. It’s hard not to view that silence as a deliberate attempt to avoid compliance with more appropriate planning standards — particularly the lower FSR and a more sensible urban design controls. Instead, the developer appears to be using the minimum provision of affordable housing as a parachute to land overdevelopment into Killara, prioritising financial gain over thoughtful design outcomes.
The impact on the heritage value of Stanhope Road is particularly distressing. The adjacent property at No. 12 is a listed heritage item, yet the Heritage Impact Statement fails to offer any real analysis of how its setting and amenity will be degraded. Nor did the HIS adequately assess the dwelling’s (No. 12) contribution to the broader Heritage Conservation Area.
This kind of development does not reflect the collective benefit of our community or competent planning. I urge you to reject SSD-81890707 and support a vision for Killara that balances growth with character, heritage, and genuine public interest.

Submission attached

Submission attached

The project is out of scale for this street. This is a heritage conservation area with a number of heritage listed houses. To plonk a ten story development in the middle of it is quite obscene. This has only happened due to the incompetence of the Council and State Government for appropriate planning of housing - the gap between the TOD (and it's various changes) and Council's own plans has allowed this development to slip through. If you want to approve this scale and type of development in this street then rezone the entire street for it. Do not allow for one development like this in the middle of the rest.
I am in favour of infilling and more development closer to transport, as well as for the creation of more affordable housing. I would like the department and Council to do a better job of planning this out coherently and sensibly.
The consultation on this development process has been a farce. Even this system to make a submission is terrible - I had to register twice (first time I did not get an email confirmation). Then it sent me around in circles telling me my profile wasn't set up correctly and I should log in again. I was about to give up after the 10th try and then it somehow let me in. This is really not good enough for the Department of Planning. It's almost like you have deliberately created a difficult and onerous process for making a submission in order to avoid submissions. I am highly my technically competent and if I struggled with it I wonder how elderly neighbours would manage. Do better!
The other objection I have for this proposal are:
- inadequate traffic management. This street is already at capacity as it is a rat run through the suburb. There is no consideration for how another 200 cars on this street would not make the situation substantially worse
- the design is not respectful of the heritage conservation area. I have to get permission to change my front fence, yet you will allow a modern apartment building to be built in the same street
- the properties are in the direct flight path of a large colony of bats - this does not appear to have been taken into account in terms of the loss of the trees they nest in
- this proposal is billed as affordable housing but I would question how much affordable housing is actually included in the proposal and if it really meets the definition of affordable housing or just a cynical use of this in order to get extra floor space ratio.

Dear Adela,

I am writing to express my strong objection to this proposed development which would be entirely non-compliant under Council's Preferred Scenario. No doubt, these fast-tracked applications seek to bypass Councils' legitimate processes, thus undermining the Court-Mediated Agreement between Council and the NSW Government. Unlike the TOD, Council's Preferred Scenario was the result of a lengthy community engagement process which locals were afforded the opportunity to participate in.

I am supportive of development in Ku-ring-gai which duly conforms with Council's Preferred Scenario.

I note other points specific to this proposed development as well.

The height and density are significant - proposal for 10 storeys and 135 apartments which will obviously be visually jarring in lieu of the surrounding site.

There will be significant impacts to heritage, with 9 neighbouring heritage properties, and the proposed development site being contained in a Heritage Conservation Area.

Current infrastructure is not adequate to account for the increased density, especially the local roads infrastructure. There are already significant parking and traffic congestion issues in the area, and this will only be exacerbated with the addition of 195 car spaces.

I also note that despite the EIS discussing the proposed development site as being "a short walk to Killara Village" no site exists to my knowledge. I further note that the EIS contains no information about the impact on Killara High School and other local primary schools. I note that instead, the EIS merely mentions the locality of "schools" as a matter for consideration. The EIS lacks comprehensiveness in this way. For example, I am interested to know about the enrolments at Killara High School and whether they have further capacity for student intake.

Thank you.

I object to SSD-81890707 - Residential flat buildings with infill affordable housing -10, 14 and 14a Stanhope Road, Killara. This development is inappropriate for Killara, not in the public interest, it contradicts Ku-ring-gai Council’s Preferred Alternative Scenario for Killara, and prioritizes corporate profit over community well-being.
I urge the NSW Planning to reject Stanhope Road Residence Holdings Pty Limited’s proposal and adopt Ku-ring-gai Council’s approach, which, unlike the NSW Planning TOD or, the Stanhope Road SSD, was developed after extensive community consultation.

I object to this project in its proposed form.
Currently it appears that the developer has taken the view that any development is likely to be approved. Elements which concern me are:
!. The extent to which height variations have been used to maximise available building mass. The allowable variations should be capped at the standard in the planning ratios.
2. The dominance of the highest towers at the rear of the property. Emphasis is given to the streetscape and the visual effect of the buildings from that view.
3. There are drainage and fire access issues which need to be addressed. I am not qualified to comment but these matters need to be addressed.
4.Traffic & parking both during and after the construction phase. I suggest that the whole north side of Stanhope Road between Pacific Highway and Culworth Avenue be designated No Parking during construction hours to ensure near normal traffic flows in what is at times quite congested due to heavy use of on street parking on both sides.
5. I suggest that provision of traffic lights be required at the intersection of Pacific Highway, Fiddens Wharf Road and Stanhope Road to ensure safety
6. Such traffic lights will assist the imposition of 195 parking spaces in this development and the resultant traffic.
7. Construction traffic will add to existing congestion, in Stanhope Road, Pacific Highway and feeder streets.
8.I leave it to others to cover the more technical details. My perspective is that this development is an overreach in terms of its ambition.

Objections to this project are outlined in the attached document

3 June 2025
To whom it may concern,
Submission re:
SSD81890707, involving Nos 10, 14 and 14A Stanhope Road, Killara, NSW 2071 is, in my humble opinion—and I believe should appear so to any responsible human being—a crass, exploitative, extraordinarily wasteful money grab that deserves nothing but rejection by whoever in the NSW Planning Department or the Minister for Planning, The Honorable Paul Scully, adjudicates whether it is justifiable for, at least, the following reasons:

• The appalling waste that would result from the demolition of battle-axed No.10, which is only 25-years-old and a huge, solid, doubtless double-brick, “mansion” that is as large or larger than the first flats built in Ku-ring-gai in the late 1920s, has a rather rococo floor space of some 819+ sqm, 7 bedrooms, 7 bathrooms on 2,007 sqms of manicured land and, as recently as November 2021, was purchased for $16.5m and has been undergoing renovations (doubtless additions!) ever since is unconsionable to the extent of being wicked, even evil.

• How could what must be an enormous monetary offer from developer CPDM to the current, already obviously wealthy, owners to acquire No. 10 Stanhope Road, plus two more big sums to acquire No. 14, an early build updated that fetched $3.2m in 2005, and No. 14A, which is a knockdown/rebuild of only five years of age (Ku-ring-gai Council Application Lodgement CCPCA0002/19 @ 15.01.2019), being two more examples of gross wastefullness, ever result in “affordable housing”? Even if a few affordable units are mandated to secure an increased FRS, at the 15-years release of the mandate, ownership of those units will be well beyond the means of the maybe essential workers who had been fortunate enough to occupy them, or anyone on a moderate income.

• This development would completely flout the Government’s unrealistic Transport Oriented Development (TOD) concept, into which its location fits. The provision of two levels of parking, amounting to 195 car spaces for the total of 135 apartments, unlike the Government, CPDM is realistic about the survival of the motor car. However, this garaging provision is bound to prove to be insufficient and cause overflow street parking problems in the section of Stanhope Road, between the Pacific Highway and the railway line--which many residents of the cheek by jowl apartment blocks around the corner in ridiculously narrow Culworth Avenue must also use—that already struggles with a heavy traffic flow into and out of the Pacific Highway without the aid of traffic lights, even though signs direct traffic off the Highway to reach Newington College Prep School, Dalcross Wellness Hospital and Marian Street Theatre. There are lights at the junction with Werona Avenue and the backup of cars on that short section of Stanhope Road is constant. Bumper to bumper street parking overflow from the projected development would certainly cause it to be over congested.

• SSD81890707 would encroach on and overshadow a greatly admired Ku-ring-gai Conservation Area with an interesting, if complicated ,very early history (c. 1890) and a mix of substantial Federation and Inter-War style residences—significant as a reflection of the late 19th and early 20th century development of Killara built for prominent citizens, including a Justice of the Peace, medical professional, Professor of Music, lawyer, journalist/writer, female economics historian and international civil servant ,bankers, major merchants, and an insurance manager, the first president of the Killara Golf Club.

• Nine of the 21 houses in this short section of Stanhope Road are listed in the Ku-ring-gai Local Environment Plan 2015 and Nos. 2,4,6,12,18 and their neighbours would be excessively dominated and overshadowed by the height of the proposed development while across the road inhabitants of Nos 3, 5 and 7, even 21, would probably only be able to see a clear sky from their back yards, looking south.

• Protectors of and the threatened species wildlife and critically endangered Blue Gum and Sydney Turpentine Ironbark forest remnants that grace this Stanhope Road strip of the wildlife corridor that connects the Lane Cove and Garigal National Parks require more survival security than is evident will be provided in this proposal.

There is absolutely no question that an approval of SSD81890707, or any plans even remotely like it would be a catastrophy for the neighbours, nature, and the ambience of the top end of Stanhope Road, Killara. So, please, deny it.

Yours with hope,
Carolyn Darby
PO Box 595
Gordon NSW 2073

To Whom it may concern
NSW DPHI
I wish to express my strong objection toward SSD-81890707, residential flat buildings at 10, 14 and 14a Stanhope Road, Killara.
Delibrate act to use state TOD as instrument to land bad design
The first reason for my objection is that the proposal is inconsistent with Local council’s alternative TOD plan (Preffered Scenario). At the time of lodgement of the SSD the council’s alternative plan has been publicly exhibited, to the majority that this is the understanding that the alternative plan represent greater public interest. However the EIS prepared for SSD-81890707 is silent about this fact. Which would render this plan a delibrate act to avoid compliance with the preffered scenarios which would consitute a much lower FSR ratio. This will result in a much lower financial return for the project. It can be argued that the proposal is using the state’s TOD plan as a vehicle to land bad design that completely disregard existing urban fabric with the pure intention to generate profit. The argument is further evident in the proposal’s attempt to provide Minimum required number of affordable housing while maximising sellable floor area by adding extra floor height. I consider the proposal inappropriate to be approved through SSD due to its lack of attempt to consider council’s alternative TOD scenarios which inturn reflect the developer’s delibrate attempts to act against public interest and comply with KLEP 2015.
Questionable legitamacy of heritage assessment
Furthermore, The heritage impact statement (HIS) prepared for the SSD application made no attempt to conduct comprehensive analysis of the adverse impact the project will have on number 12 Stanhope, a property and an heritage item isolated by the development site. Nor did the HIS analyse the impact the development will have on the broader Heritage conservation area. The HIS is a mere description of the Heritage items to which I consider must not be accepted as sufficent analysis for determination of the application to be based on. It can be argued that this is a another delibrate act to down play the significant role of the heritage and cultural value of the built environment, that local residents and sydneysiders cherished for over a century.
Numerical satisfaction does not constitute approval
While the EIS claims the proposal meets many planning principles numerically, this does not justify approval without consideration of qualitative impacts. The residents of 12 Stanhope Road, for example, currently enjoy privacy, unobstructed views toward the rear, and substantial solar access — all of which will be severely compromised by the proposed development. The submitted shadow diagrams explicitly show a significant reduction in solar access with the exceeded height, yet the applicant has made no attempt to mitigate this impact or propose suitable alternatives. The drastic reduction in amenity and the lack of responsiveness to this concern is unacceptable. Planning and design should also consider quality of space and liveability, not just regulatory compliance.
Questionable community engagement strategies
The development proposal has also demonstrated a significant lack of meaningful community engagement. Many local residents were unaware of the project until its public exhibition on the NSW Major Projects Portal. The applicant’s engagement report claims that approximately 500 flyers were distributed; however, the effectiveness of this exercise is highly questionable. Only five residents reportedly attended the information session hosted by the applicant, raising serious doubts about the reach and clarity of the communication efforts.
Whether by design or through neglect, the 1 percent response rate is appauling. At the very least, it reflects a minimal approach to community consultation, which is especially concerning given the scale and long term impact of the proposal. A development of this significance should be grounded in transparency and genuine community conversation.

Please find attached Council's submission to SSD 81890707. Council objects to the proposed development.
regards,
Brodee Gregory
Executive Assessment Officer