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

The proposal will overload local facilities - schools, medical and other health facilities
The project height is inconsistent with existing dwellings
The project is at odds with the councils preferred development scenarios regarding height restrictions etc
The proposal overlooks existing dwellings some of which are heritage listed and local historical significant
The proposal is completely incompatible with the local area and is not in the public interest

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. 3. 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.
4. Proposal is 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.
5. The development will 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.

The proposed height of the building is a complete invasion of privacy for the current residents of the street and in particular those that are on the direct boarders. The street is so beautiful to drive down and see lovely tall trees and heritage houses - an apartment block would completely ruin this. This will also cause an excess amount of traffic (on an already too busy street). The extreme size of the proposed plan will also be a huge strain on the local services .

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 effect 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.

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.

I object to this development on the following grounds -

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 of 35 meters 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)

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 effect 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.

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.

This proposal is highly inappropriate and inconsistent with the character of the neighbourhood. Stanhope Road is a serene, leafy residential street with predominantly low-rise, detached homes that contribute to the area’s unique charm and heritage. Introducing high-rise structures into this environment would drastically alter the streetscape and significantly erode the character that residents and the broader community deeply value.

My key concerns are as follows:

1. Visual Impact and Overshadowing:
The proposed buildings would tower over surrounding homes, directly overlooking private backyards and invading the privacy of long-standing residents. The excessive height will also cast significant shadows, reducing natural light and detracting from residents’ enjoyment of their homes. Our family home on Stanhope Road would be significantly impacted and the idea of having people looking down into the once private backyard horrifies me.

2. Traffic and Safety:
A development of this scale will bring a considerable increase in local traffic, particularly on Stanhope Road and surrounding streets, which are not designed to handle such a volume. Increased congestion, noise, and safety risks, especially for pedestrians and children, are inevitable outcomes.

3. Property Value and Amenity:
The introduction of high-density buildings will negatively affect local property values, not only due to the change in character but also due to the potential loss of amenity, privacy, and tranquillity. Residents who have invested in this area for its peaceful and attractive environment will be disproportionately impacted.

4. Precedent for Future Inappropriate Development:
Approving a development of this scale sets a dangerous precedent and may open the door to further unsuitable high-rise proposals in Killara and other quiet residential suburbs.

While I understand the need for increased housing, such goals must be balanced with community wellbeing, appropriate scale, and thoughtful urban planning. This proposal fails to meet those criteria.

Stanhope road is one of the few beautiful, heritage listed areas of Sydney. Driving down this road is like stepping back in time to a different era of Sydney. Adding multiple high rise buildings to this street will forever destroy the beauty and history of the area. There are plenty of locations that don’t involve destroying the history of the city that would be more suited to development.

Additionally, this road is already very busy. It’s used as a thoroughfare for residents accessing homes further back from the pacific highway and adding a significant number of additional vehicles will threaten the safety of those already living along this road by increasing the risk to their safety when attempting to drive out of their driveways.

The project should be considered under the Council TOD scheme to protect the heritage of the area.

I am an apartment owner and resident at 10 Marian Street Killara and object on the following brief grounds. I reserve the right to amend / add to this submission prior to the closing date .
1. Excessive building height.
The proposed maximum height of 35 m would adversely impact all 39 apartments at 10 Marian Street along the northern boundary of the proposed development. Stepping down the maximum height towards Stanhope Road may minimise the visual impact of the massive development when viewed from street level. But this completely ignores the impact on existing residents of 10 Marian Street.
2.Abuse of Affordable Housing provisions.
The developer is attempting to use these provisions to grossly over develop the site and earn excessive profits in the process while totally disregarding the character of the Killara neighbourhood.
3.Zero addition to the existing amenity.
The proposed development would add nothing to the amenity of the area around Killara station. It needs to be noted that there is no Killara town centre and all residents of the development will have to travel to Lindfield or Gordon to buy basic household supplies.
4.Increased traffic congestion and on-street parking.
The addition of 168 resident cars plus 27 visitor cars would create significant traffic problems. Stanhope Road already carries heavy am and pm traffic flows in conjunction with widespread on- street parking.
5.Increased stormwater runoff.
The proposed increase in site coverage would result in a serious increase in stormwater runoff, particularly in the event of a major storm event. This has the potential to cause flooding of neighbouring property.
6.Potential loss of existing Leylandii tree hedging.
The existing significant Leylandii trees along the northern boundary of the proposed development provide residents of 10 Marian street with an effective visual screening of the existing Stanhope Road properties. Whatever the final outcome of the Development Application, it is essential that all assurances given by the developer regarding retention of these trees are rigidly enforced. The reality is that developers typically provide comforting assurances but then totally disregard them during construction at minimal financial penalty. Serious penalties must be included in any approved application for any breach of the landscape plans.

I strongly support his proposal and have some commentary to provide.

1. I support this proposal as it is close to public transportation. We need more housing supply as we are in a housing crisis.
2. Gas is a fossil fuel, as there are more efficient and less costly to the environment and for people who will live in the apartments, its use should be reconsidered. If gas is to be used for cooktops and hot water, then apartment owners will be forced to pay for a separate daily connection fee to use the gas cooktop and for hot water they will be paying an estimated additional $479 a year (https://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/how-sydneysiders-could-save-730-a-year-by-ditching-gas-20240325-p5feyf.html). You can find evidence to show that hot water heat pumps are more efficient than gas hot water heating and that induction cooktops are more efficient than gas cooktops. Gas is also a fossil fuel, has potential health impacts when used as part of cooking.

Please do not approve until the state and the council has reached an agreement as it will affect the long term living conditions of the flora, fauna and the existing residents as well as the heritage values of the area

The project should be allowed to deviate from the 28.6m height limit.

Even with the 6m height variation above the 28.6m height limit the project only achieves a FSR of 2.2, which is well below the maximum FSR permitted of 3.25. This highlights that this request to variate from the maximum height is not out of the developers desire to maximise their profit, and it is to primarily appease local residents and reduce the impact on heritage sites, which is in the public interest.

The local community cannot expect that this development to preserve the heritage of a site by reducing the heights of buildings near the heritage site and HCA's, whilst also stay under the 28.6m height limit. This would not be in the wider public's interest, as it significantly reduces the apartment yield for this development, reducing housing supply in a housing crisis.

It should also be noted that existing heritage controls within this area and across NSW are often used to stifle development to prevent changes in demographics or the character of local areas. As Paul Scully said, cities are not museum's, so areas within cities should be able to change overtime, as is what should occur within the TOD precincts on the north shore. If residents are serious about protecting the heritage of a site, they should have no problem with allowing the maximum height to be exceeded in a part of the development in order to reduce the visual impact of a development on a heritage item.

If the department is not satisfied that these grounds are enough to permit the extra height, the developer or a future developer will have to increase the height of the building fronting the street to ensure that the development is feasible, which will take time, increase the visual disruption to the heritage building, and delay the delivery of housing, which is not in the public interest as we are in a housing crisis.