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

I state my objections to the SSD -82395459 development application and their EIS as follows:
1. SSD vs Ku-ring-gai (KRG) planning process
a. The process of this SDD is to bypass KRG planning and democratic community consultation possess. The only legitimate reason for the SSD to override the Councils planning scenario is the SSD project value and not the typical State Significance, as outlined in the purpose of SSDs on the NSW Government website. The application does not propose extraordinary public benefit nor strategic merit. SDDs typically are of State significance and include large scale industrial, infrastructure and mining developments and do not include stand-alone residential developments.
b. The KRG “Preferred Scenario” delivers greater housing numbers than the State TOD and aligns with local infrastructure capacity, environmental and heritage conservation, and has consulted the community. The preferred scenario concentrates development on the ridgeline of the Pacific Hwy and is not intrusive to the heritage and environmentally sensitive Conservation Residential Area (CRA) on Stanhope Road Killara.
c. The Council process remains under consideration utilising consultative and democratic process. The local process should be able to reach its conclusion and not be autocratically bypassed by the State Planning Minister.
d. The SSD is proposed within a KRG CRA where individual households have been approached by developers. Good planning would see high rise development on the transport corridor at the Pacific Hwy and as illustrated in the preferred scenario proposed by KRG. Poor planning would see development amongst single residential lots like the consolidated SSD site on Stanhope Road, Killara. The transport corridor has existing walk-up residential strata developments which comprise multiple owners. The only possible outcome to approach individual East side residences in the SSD is to generate division amongst neighbours and provide an easier consolidation of sites for the developers.
e. We note there are multiple out of area submissions to other proposed SSDs in the KRG area. How is this possible that people outside of our area know about the submission and we have only found out via our community-based group opposing poor planning.
f. There has been significant consultation between the developers and the State Govt prior to any consultation with the KRG nor its residents. Therefore, the State Govt priorities are dictatory, misleading and illustrate an autocratic response and not a democratic planning process.
g. It is apparent that the authoritative way the SSDs are being forced upon our suburb is in reaction to the Federal Govts bribe of additional funding to States to provide additional housing – at any cost. There is a real cost and loss of amenity to the existing local community and environment. Once these heritage homes and trees are demolished there is no turning back and the amenity of the area, due to poor and lazy planning, will be lost forever.
h. As the infill affordable housing proponent of the SSD is not permanent, the overall significance of the development is not in line with usual SSDs. The use of “infill affordable housing” is therefore not transparent, is grossly misleading and is only used by The State Government to the bypass KRG preferred scenario.
2. When considering an increase in population and density, good planning should ensure that that community is granted additional services like schools, transport, hospitals etc. Not considering this is counter intuitive to the assessment of a SSD whereby the impact of local community, including environment both natural and built and the social and economic impacts need to be considered.
3. Dispute of Developer’s application and EIS
a. Poor Urban Design Principles
• The EIS does not reflect a high standard under the SSD section 5.3. It does not provide justification and evaluation of the project having regard to economic, environmental, and social impact nor illustrate the principles of an ecologically sustainable development.
• The application does not contain technically robust assessment of the impacts of the project and therefore is not accurate. The EIS and application should accurately provide data collection, feasibility of mitigation measures or adaptive management, illustrating methods used to project impacts and criteria for evaluating the acceptability of the impacts. The data collection on the transport, traffic and social impact assessments are outdated, fascicle and not accurate. Therefore, the accuracy and data collection of the overall application must be questioned.
• The proposed development illustrates poor design interface by enabling 30+ metres buildings against single level residences. Good urban planning principle would have adequate regard for the interface zone between multi story development and single dwellings.
• The proposed development is set against a Heritage item at 112 Stanhope Road which is unfair and poor planning.
• The proposed building material to be used for cladding the residential towers is not in keeping with the Killara surroundings. A blonde brick depicts 1970’s or 2020’s design and the local Roseville residences depict 1900 and 1920 building materials and colours.
• The 10 storey building at the rear of the site will overshadow the Southern aspect of Marion Street and that valley will be dark and wet.
b. Affordable housing not permanent
A 30% bonus on height is awarded for meeting affordable housing targets. A concern is that the allowance for affordable housing in the development is not permanent. Hence the bonus is awarded on a temporary affordable housing solution.
The affordable Housing element is not permanent and therefore does not truly represent affordable Housing. The Affordable Housing is only used to claim SSD status and to bypass the KRG planning process. This does not represent true affordable housing over the long term.
Conclusion The application SSD-82395459 should not be approved.
• The KRG preferred scenario provides a better outcome in terms of housing numbers and would not have a development of the scale and bulk in a sensitive and Local CRA.
• The preferred scenario must occur before any SSD projects are considered. It is not acceptable to consider both SSDs plus the preferred scenario.
• There has been a failure in process with a lack of community consultation.
• The destruction of any mature trees is unacceptable.
• The basis of the design on affordable housing is not permanent and therefore misleading and not really the true and honest basis of the SSD – infill affordable housing.
• The pushing through of an SSD over local preferred scenarios can only be concluded to benefit developers and not the local community.
• There will be significant increase in traffic congestion.
• The use of SSD for this approval undermines public confidence in fair, democratic and transparent planning processes.

I am writing about my concern for SSD-81890707, the proposed development to build a 135 apartment block at 10, 14 & 14a Stanhope Road, Killara. I have lived at 4a Stanhope Road since 2013, so for 12 years I have enjoyed the peace, calm & privacy of beautiful stanhope Road. The intended development - an In-fill Affordable Housing, does not suit the Killara area at all. Firstly, Stanhope Road is one of the premium streets in Killara. Also including Springdale, Arnold and Hastings Streets are some of the more stunning streets on the North Shore and these intended buildings are just not suited here. The height of these buildings are not in keeping with the character of Stanhope Road. The height is nearly 23% higher than legally allowed.  It just doesn’t make sense. Why on earth would you put a sky scraper in our stunning street? It does not suit the landscape at all. Why would you destroy these heritage homes and the character of this area? And this proposal appears not to comply with the R2 Low Density residential zoning. The developers haven’t given any real reason for needing the extra height. On top of that, they’re already getting a 30% bonus for in-fill housing, which means the total increase is actually around 59%—that’s 35 metres instead of the allowed 22. A 10-storey building would be way out of scale for the area, especially since the tallest building in Killara right now is only five storeys. There’s also no gradual transition in height between this huge development and the much smaller single- and double-storey homes on Stanhope Road.

The over sized height of this tall building will cast large shadows over the trees, limiting growth and taking away from the "Leafy North Shore". The shadows will make all our homes cold. We bought in this area here because of the privacy, and gardens we could all share. This development will destroy this and our Killara Heritage Conservation Areas.
I also want to put on record that the community was not informed of this build, and that the developer didn't not share the intentions for the build until it was submitted to the SSD. This is certainly not community engagement as the proposal suggested. 
The parking and traffic along Stanhope Road is already too busy and with multiple cars already parked on the roadside, driving down this street is tight. Any builders trucks will cause massive issues, and there will be more and more accidents. Any new residents will park along Stanhope road and cause more issues, increasing pedestrian safety issues and accidents. 

Please don't let future generations wonder why these bad choices and decisions were made for some greedy developer. And while I understand that development must happen, there are places better suited to tall buildings like this in-Fill housing, such as Chatswood and Artarmon.

The loss of sun, trees and calm around my neighbourhood isnt ok.
Please do the right thing by the residents and don't approve this development. 

I submit that the SSDA should NOT be approved.

George Toomey
4A Stanhope Rd, Killara, NSW 2071

Please find attached my submission to object to the residential flat buildings with infill affordable housing at 10, 14 and 14A Stanhope Road, Killara.

JS
Address: 1 Kelburn Rd,
Roseville 2069
PH 0416 847 646


Objection to 10,14 14 a Stanhope road Killara

I currently live about 3 kilometres away from the site proposed.
My objection to this development is based on the fact that I do not believe it is in the public interest to have such an enormous building in a residential area.

The parking becomes untenable, and roads congested. The excess amount of traffic would create safety issues.

Privacy for ;local residents is effected enormously - with large buildings overlooking their backyards.

If there was any information sent about this I didn't receive it .

The height of this building is completely out of line with all other buildings in the area and would be an eyesore.

I am also concerned about the demolition of lovely family homes, trees and green areas that would been removed and community spaces that would be affected.

If there is a a submission by the council for a preferred scenario for the area which preserves the heritage character and still allows for some new housing. I would support this.

To Whom It May Concern:

Re: State Significant Development SSD-81890707 – Residential Flat Buildings with Infill Affordable Housing – 10, 14, and 14A Stanhope Road, Killara

My name is Joanne Hitchcock, and I live in close proximity to the site proposed for the State Significant Development (SSD-81890707). I am writing to formally object to this development on several grounds:

1. Excessive Scale and Visual Impact
The proposed construction of 10-storey apartment buildings is wholly inappropriate for this part of Killara. This area is defined by low-density housing, mature trees, and a well-established residential character. Introducing such tall and ugly development would significantly disrupt the visual and environmental harmony of the neighbourhood.
Buildings of this scale would dominate the skyline, casting shadows over neighbouring homes and creating a sense of enclosure that is completely at odds with the current suburban setting. It’s simply too tall and will be seen for kilometres away.

2. Inconsistency with Local Planning
While I acknowledge the broader need for additional housing across Sydney, and I am fully supportive of more homes in Sydney and Ku-ring-gai, this particular proposal disregards the strategic planning and detailed consultation with local residents already undertaken by Ku-ring-gai Council. The local council has invested in thoughtful, community-based planning that supports sustainable and measured growth.
This SSD application circumvents that local planning process, undermining both the council’s authority and the community’s involvement. Allowing such a development risks encouraging ad hoc and oversized projects, rather than integrated and responsibly managed urban development. It’s just a few developers making a profit grab instead of creating dwellings that fit with the area.

3. Lack of Proper Community Engagement
Many residents, myself included, only became aware of the full scope of this proposal quite recently. There has been minimal effort to engage with the local community — no letterbox notifications, no public information sessions, and no open consultation forums.
Community consultation is a fundamental part of any responsible planning process. The lack of transparency and engagement in this case is deeply concerning and erodes public trust. The developers need to engage with the community rather than trying to sneak around us.

4. Traffic and Infrastructure Impacts
The scale of the development would introduce a large number of new residents concentrated in one area rather than spread out as per the council preferred scenario. Consequently. These hundreds of additional vehicles will clog local roads, particularly around schools, which are already under pressure during peak times.
Public transport options, while available with a decent walk, are unlikely to fully offset the increase in car usage. This will lead to worsening congestion, reduced road safety, and further strain on local infrastructure that is not designed for high-density living.

5. Environmental Degradation
The site includes significant mature vegetation that contributes to the area's natural beauty and ecological health. Clearing these trees for development would result in a permanent and irreversible loss of green canopy.
I know the developers are happy to knock down these trees, but they are part of our community's identity and environmental heritage — once removed, they cannot be replaced within our generation.
________________________________________
In Summary

This development proposal is inconsistent with the character of the area, dismisses the authority of local planning efforts, and neglects critical environmental and infrastructure considerations. I urge the Department to reject this SSD application in favour of alternatives that align with community values and sustainable planning principles.
Thank you for the opportunity to make a submission.
Kind regards,
Joanne Hitchcock

My name is Chris Haynes and I live within 3 kms of the proposed development in Stanhope Road. I STRONGLY OBJECT to this development for the following reasons:

Mass, Build, Design:

This is a massive development not in keeping with the area
10 storeys, 135 apartments, 195 car spaces. Between Gordon and Roseville there is
nothing of this scale and mass .
All Other apartment buildings in Killara are a maximum of 5 storeys, this will have a massive visual impact on the skyline for the whole suburb and surrounds.
In terms of Solar access to existing homes they will be severely compromised (12, 8, 6A).

Environmental concerns:
On the site there is a Blue Gum High Forest and Sydney Turpentine-Ironbark Forest - both of which are on the NSW Threatened Entity Profiles as of May 2025 (ie they are critically endangeered). The Heritage Impact Statement provides for “all trees to be removed."

Heritage:
It is in a HCA, and there are 9 Heritage Listed Homes in the street. The development will degrade the historical value of the HCA.

Amenities:
There is no Killara Village (as the reports refer to it), no shops (closest shops are in Lindfield).
Impact on Killara High, primary schools and preschools have not been considered.
Car parking during construction - huge impact on ability of residents and visitors to find parking. Once completed, Stanhope Road will be more congested.

I have lived in this local area for 30 years and I find that the proposal would significantly change the usability and livability of this area in ways that do not increase wellbeing, nor appropriately or effectively address the reasons behind why more housing is needed in Sydney. It sets a precedent and as such requires appropriate scrutiny and consideration.

I am generally supportive of development of new housing in Ku-ring-gai and Ku-ring-gai Council’s alternative Preferred Scenario plan for TOD, but not what is proposed for this location.

Other apartment buildings in Killara are a maximum of 5 storeys, so will have a massive visual impact on the skyline for the whole suburb and surrounds. Solar access to existing homes (12, 8, 6A) will be severely compromised.

There are 9 Heritage Listed Homes in the street and the street is in a heritage conservation area. This means something to residents in these areas of the north shore. It is worth retaining as whole areas of heritage are at risk of being demolished across Sydney.

On the site there is a Blue Gum High Forest and Sydney Turpentine-Ironbark Forest - both of which are on the NSW Threatened Entity Profiles as of May 2025 (ie they are critically endangered). The Heritage Impact Statement provides for “all trees to be removed." IMHO this is completely outrageous.

I am concerned about the impact on local amenities and the congestion throughout this area as a whole. You cannot simply consider one development on its own. The whole area is under considerable population and amenity pressure, including on schools, transport and commercial premise.

In addition, it undermines the Court-mediated Agreement that Council and the NSW Government entered into; and it undermines the extensive community engagement process that we participated in.
Thank you.

Thank you for considering my comments and my objection.

I have lived in this local area for 30 years and I find that the proposal would significantly change the usability and livability of this area in ways that do not increase wellbeing, nor appropriately or effectively address the reasons behind why more housing is needed in Sydney. It sets a precedent and as such requires appropriate scrutiny and consideration.

I am generally supportive of development of new housing in Ku-ring-gai and Ku-ring-gai Council’s alternative plan for TOD, but not what is proposed for this location.

Other apartment buildings in Killara are a maximum of 5 storeys, so will have a massive visual impact on the skyline for the whole suburb and surrounds.
Solar access to existing homes (12, 8, 6A) will be severely compromised.

On the site there is a Blue Gum High Forest and Sydney Turpentine-Ironbark Forest - both of which are on the NSW Threatened Entity Profiles as of May 2025 (ie they are critically endangered). The Heritage Impact Statement provides for “all trees to be removed." This is completely outrageous.

There are 9 Heritage Listed Homes in the street and the street is in a heritage conservation area. This means something to residents in these areas of the north shore. It is worth retaining as whole areas of heritage are at risk of being demolished across Sydney.

I am concerned about the impact on local amenities and the congestion throughout this area as a whole. You cannot simply consider one development on its own. The whole area is under considerable population and amenity pressure, including on schools, transport and commercial premise.

In addition, it undermines the Court-mediated Agreement that Council and the NSW Government entered into; and it undermines the extensive community engagement process that we participated in.
Thank you.

To Whom It May Concern

Re: State Significant Development SSD-81890707 residential flat buildings with infill affordable housing -10, 14 and 14a Stanhope Road, Killara
My name is Paul Hitchcock and I live the Ku-ring-gai area . I am writing to lodge a formal objection to the above-mentioned State Significant Development (SSD) proposal.

1. Inappropriate Height and Density
The proposed development—comprising 135 apartments, ten storey buildings—is entirely out of character with the Killara area, which is predominantly made up of single and double-storey dwellings, with some low-rise apartments. The scale and bulk of this proposal is grossly inconsistent with the established neighbourhood. 10 storeys is ridiculously high, simply doesn’t fit with the suburb and will stick out as an ugly tower for decades to come.
Not only would this height result in significant overshadowing of nearby homes, but it would also severely compromise the privacy of existing residents, with apartment windows overlooking private backyards. This level of intrusion is unacceptable and unnecessary.

2. Undermining of Council’s Strategic Plan
I acknowledge the urgent need for increased housing in Sydney and am not opposed to well-considered development. However, the current proposal is not in line with thoughtful urban planning. Low rise would be more appropriate and in areas council deem acceptable, this one is not.
Ku-ring-gai Council has developed a carefully balanced housing strategy which, once endorsed by the State Government, will meet—and indeed exceed—the housing targets for this area. That plan was developed through extensive community consultation and reflects local character, infrastructure capacity, and heritage considerations.
Allowing an ad hoc, oversized , 10 level development such as this to proceed in parallel with the council’s more sustainable approach undermines good planning practice. Once the council’s scenario is adopted, this SSD should no longer be considered viable.

3. Lack of Community Engagement
There has been little, if any meaningful consultation with local residents. The Developers have seen a profit opportunity and are hastily submitting oversize apartment blocks to attempt to capitalise on this opportunity until the Kuringai council preferred scenario is adopted.
Neither I, nor my neighbours have received any information, flyers, invitations to community meetings, or surveys regarding this development. This lack of transparency is deeply concerning and suggests an attempt to avoid public scrutiny and bypass local planning controls.

4. Traffic and Parking Concerns
Killara, Lindfield and Roseville areas are already under significant traffic pressure, particularly during peak school and commuting hours. In Stanhope street, there will be additional cars that this oversize apartment block will bring into the area. Many residents will also have to park on the streets as well with many residents unlikely to rely solely on public transport. The resulting congestion on surrounding roads will further degrade the quality of life in Killara and place undue strain on existing infrastructure.

5. Destruction of Established Trees
The planned removal of many mature trees and vegetation is unacceptable. These trees have taken decades to grow and provide critical environmental, aesthetic, and community value. Their destruction for the sake of high-density development is not justifiable—especially when alternative, lower-impact housing options exist within the council’s preferred scenario.
________________________________________
In summary, this development proposal is poorly suited to the character of Killara and disregards the well-considered planning framework being put forward by Ku-ring-gai Council. I urge the NSW Government to reject this SSD and support a more integrated and community-backed approach to housing growth.
Thank you for considering my submission.

Paul Hitchcock

I strongly object to this proposal proceeding in any form based on:
- It needs to be assessed within Ku-ring-gai councils preferred planning scenario which has been developed after wide community consultation
- Its sheer size and bulk will be detrimental to the residents of the area that will need to contend with its negative impacts; privacy; overshadowing; acoustics; reduction in tree canopy
- It will result in significant traffic and parking issues
- It will irreparable impact the heritage of the area
I’m supportive of high-density residential development within Ku-ring-gai, but on the basis that it is part of an overarching policy developed in consultation with the community.

My husband and I have been residents of Stanhope Road for 34 years. The reason we chose to live in this beautiful area is because of the heritage/conservation area, the green/tree canopies. To our dismay, the area is quickly changing and not for the better. Trees are being removed by new homeowners and developers building big unit blocks similar to the proposed one mentioned above and Ku Ring Gai Council is unable to do anything about it. Stanhope Road was a beautiful, quiet tree lined street with magnificent trees on both sides. Now the trees are hacked into unrecognisable shapes with barely any canopy. The road has cars parked on both sides of the street already where the proposed development is to be sited and with the extra 135 dwellings the traffic congestion will be a nightmare! It is already difficult to drive into Stanhope Road from Pacific Highway due to congestion.
Clause 4.6 - height of building.
The proposed height of 36 metres is completely inappropriate being sited BETWEEN homes where the maximum height of them are 9.2 metres and both the bulk and visual impact grossly inappropriate.
Points 9 -23
Environmental Heritage. Living in a Heritage Conservation Area means nothing now where developers are allowed a free hand at where and what they want to build "to provide more housing" . Much more considered planning is necessary, and to site a development between Heritage listed items in the vicinity is ludicrous. This would set a precedence for other developers. We will in future have no more heritage items to leave for future generations. With 9 heritage listed items in the vicinity, the proposed development is not in the appropriate location.
Water management and electricity supplies have hardly had upgrades in the area and are not keeping up with the increased population of Killara. There are now frequent electricity outages and water supply disruptions (water pressure is already very reduced).
I strongly OBJECT to this proposed development.

This project should not be considered for approval until the Preferred Scenario has been passed by the local council. I believe they are in the final stages of the process, being a court-mediated Agreement that the Council and the NSW Government entered into. The Preferred Scenario is a result of a comprehensive process of engaging with the community and should now be upheld. Any effort to exploit this delay by a private developer is entirely inappropriate and the NSW Government needs to act accordingly.

Once the Preferred Scenario has been passed, I have no concern about future devlopment proposals being lodged.

I have been a resident of KMC area fo more that 50 years and am vehement opposed to the planned development at 10,14 & 14a Stanhope Rd Killara. There are a number of reasons for this objection.
1. The 10 story height is out of context for the area.
2. The building itself is nested between many heritage listed properties thus damaging the pleasant atmosphere of Killara and neighbouring suburbs.
3. The drainage from the site during construction and at completion will cause massive problems for 10 Marian St and the Selkirk Park area. 10 Marian St is already classified as flood prone on KMC records.
4. Traffic chaos will ensure around the area and particularly within the 2 lane (one lane after allowable parking) within Culworth Ave. This road is already a dangerous road to traverse and will become worse with the extra traffic wishing to move in a northerly direction on the Pacific Highway.
5. Insufficient parking and poor access and exit for vehicles on site.
For these reasons the project should not be approved in its current form.
Yours sincerely,
David Hagley.

By accepting the proposed scale of this project, the consent authority would ignore the character of the area. Densified and affordable housing is acceptable, but this project is overkill, being too high and imposing on the neighbourhood.
We accept the need and intent of the TOD to increase the density of housing and supply of affordable housing around Killara Station. However, that should not be a licence to trash the character of the area and needs to be a sensitive development. This proposal is inappropriately out of scale for the battle-axe site and its surroundings.
If the development is to proceed, we request the consent authority rejects this architectural form and requires a lower maximum height, and reduces the number of apartments to a sustainable scale. That revised architecture would hopefully address:
• the need for a greater set-back from the rear neighbours;
• require less excavation;
• provide some vehicular access at ground level to the rear buildings for fire and services access; and
• some on grade visitor parking

Build Form
The proposed maximum height of 35 m is excessive and would adversely impact all adjacent 39 apartments at 10 Marian Street, along the northern boundary.
The developer is attempting to use the Affordable Housing provisions to grossly over-develop the site, presumably for maximum profitability, and in the process totally disregards the character of the Killara neighbourhood. At the very least the Variation Request must be denied.
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.
Traffic and Parking impact
The increased traffic will increase danger, congestion and on-street parking.
The Proposal includes an estimate of around 20,000 tonnes of demolition and excavation material to be trucked off the site. This would have to use Culworth Avenue, which is not up to standard or safe.
Stanhope Road already carries heavy am and pm traffic. Access to and from the Pacific Highway at Stanhope Road is already at capacity and is unsafe. The additional burden of construction traffic and a further addition of 168 resident cars plus 27 visitor spaces would create an increased traffic and safety problem. The carparking proposed is scaled back for the TOD concessions but it is unlikely to be adequate for a development with a large number of 3- and 4-bedroom apartments, where typically, owners have more than one car. The basement level of visitor carparking is inconvenient and is likely to result in visitors parking on the street in Stanhope Road, which because of being parked out, would inevitably result in council imposing future parking restrictions – again, a retrograde and unnecessary consequence for the local community.
Stormwater
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 real potential to cause flooding of neighbouring property, particularly 10 Marian Street, which Council plans indicate is in a potential flood zone. The stormwater Trunk Main passing through 10 Marian Street is already compromised, given its pipe size reduces as it flows towards Culworth Avenue. There is a real risk of blockages and consequential flow would rise out of the manholes causing an above ground flow and flood, with certain flooding of the basement in Marian Street.
Screening
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 Stanhope Road properties. It unfortunately would cause significant shading to the lower level Block C residents under the current architectural proposal, and so we are concerned about its protection and longevity.
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 such developers provide comforting assurances but then totally disregard them during construction and thereafter at minimal financial penalty. Serious penalties must be included in any consent approvals for any breach of the landscape plans.

This SSD proposal fails to achieve TOD aims: it does not improve quality of life for existing or future residents. It fails to address stated TOD heritage aims that “Any new development needs to improve and enhance the heritage values of those locations”. This is contrary to TOD objectives that the proposed new development should “improve and enhance the heritage values” of this location.
The lack of shopping and other amenities in Killara and alternative transport (bus) results in residents needing to rely on a high usage of cars. Therefore the SDD proposal will fail to achieve TOD stated aims of reducing ”the need for lengthy and expensive daily commutes, alleviates the financial burden on households and curbs traffic congestion”. The proposed development does not provide a sufficient mix of apartment sizes which could provide equitable housing access.
My attached submission outlines the full set of issues which support my objection.

Subject: OBJECTION – State Significant Development Application for Residential Flat Buildings with Infill Affordable Housing at 10, 14 and 14a Stanhope Road, Killara (SSD-81890707)

I am writing to formally object to the proposed State Significant Development Application (SSD-81890707) for the construction of residential flat buildings with infill affordable housing at 10, 14 and 14a Stanhope Road, Killara.

As a concerned stakeholder in the Ku-ring-gai area, I have reviewed the proposal and its accompanying documentation. I find that this development, in its current form, is fundamentally inconsistent with the established character of Killara, poses significant environmental risks, threatens our local heritage, and fails to adequately address critical amenity impacts on the existing community.

My objections are outlined below:

1. Mass, Build, and Design – Unprecedented Scale and Visual Impact:

Excessive Height and Density: The proposal for a 10-storey building with 135 apartments and 195 car spaces is drastically out of scale with the existing urban fabric of Killara. There is no development of comparable height or mass between Gordon and Roseville. This sets a dangerous precedent for overdevelopment in a predominantly low-density residential area.
Dominant Visual Impact: Other apartment buildings in Killara are a maximum of 5 storeys. This 10-storey structure will have a massive and detrimental visual impact on the skyline, permanently altering the character and amenity of Killara and its surrounds. It will be an imposing visual anomaly, detracting from the leafy, garden suburb aesthetic that defines our community.
Severe Solar Access Compromise: The proposed height and bulk of the development will severely compromise solar access to existing homes at 12, 8, and 6A Stanhope Road, directly impacting the liveability and amenity of neighbouring properties. This is an unacceptable consequence for existing residents.
2. Environmental Concerns – Threat to Critically Endangered Ecological Communities:

Destruction of Critically Endangered Forests: The site is known to contain remnants of both Blue Gum High Forest and Sydney Turpentine-Ironbark Forest. It is critical to highlight that both of these ecological communities are listed as critically endangered on the NSW Threatened Entity Profiles as of May 2025.
Proposed "All Trees to be Removed": The Heritage Impact Statement's provision for "all trees to be removed" is deeply alarming and utterly unacceptable. This direct destruction of critically endangered ecological communities demonstrates a profound disregard for environmental protection and biodiversity conservation. Such irreversible environmental damage cannot be justified.
3. Heritage – Degradation of Heritage Conservation Area:

Inconsistent with HCA: The proposed development is situated within a Heritage Conservation Area (HCA). The street itself contains nine (9) Heritage Listed Homes. The sheer scale and modern design of this development are entirely inconsistent with the historical and architectural character of the HCA.
Degradation of Historical Value: Approval of this development would irrevocably degrade the historical value and integrity of the Heritage Conservation Area, eroding the unique sense of place that defines this part of Killara. It represents an inappropriate intrusion into a sensitive heritage landscape.
4. Amenities – Insufficient Infrastructure and Community Impact:

Lack of Local Services: The reports refer to a "Killara Village," which is misleading as there are no shops or significant amenities in Killara. The closest commercial centres are in Lindfield. This indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of the local context and raises serious concerns about the capacity of existing local infrastructure to support such a significant increase in population.
Unaddressed School Impacts: The impact of this substantial influx of residents on local educational facilities, specifically Killara High, primary schools, and preschools, has not been adequately considered or addressed in the proposal. This oversight suggests a lack of comprehensive planning for community needs.
Exacerbated Traffic and Parking Congestion: The addition of 195 car spaces and the associated vehicle movements will have a devastating impact on Stanhope Road and surrounding streets. During construction, the need for parking will cause huge disruption to residents and visitors. Once completed, Stanhope Road, already a local residential street, will become significantly more congested, impacting local amenity, accessibility, and road safety.
In conclusion, the proposed development at 10, 14 and 14a Stanhope Road, Killara, is an egregious example of overdevelopment that disregards established planning principles, environmental protection, heritage conservation, and community amenity. Its scale is entirely inappropriate for the local context, and its impacts on critically endangered ecological communities are unacceptable.

I strongly urge the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure to reject this proposal in its current form. A development of this nature would cause irreparable harm to the character, environment, and liveability of Killara.

Thank you for considering my submission.

We are owners of 24 Arnold Street in Killara and have lived in the Ku-ring-gai Council area since the 1980s. We are supportive of the NSW State Government’s objective of increasing housing in Sydney, but we object to the proposed development based on significant concerns regarding the scale, loss of amenity, and heritage and environmental impacts of this project on the broader community. The State Government’s objectives to increase housing can be better achieved by Ku-ring-Gai Council’s alternative TOD proposal, which would not see developments made in this Heritage Conservation Area, right on the outer edge of TOD border with no transition to lower density housing which surrounds it on all sides.

Some of the key reasons for our objection to the proposal are:
Scale and Density: The proposed development is a nine-storey building in an area currently characterised by low-density one and two storey houses. The introduction of such a large-scale structure is out of keeping with the established character of Lindfield and neighbouring suburbs like Killara, which are valued for their leafy, suburban environment and heritage streetscapes. There are better places to develop the proposed scale and density to achieve increased housing in the area, closer to the stations and in the areas proposed in Ku-ring-Gai Council’s alternative TOD proposal (which do not include the site of this proposed development)
Overshadowing and Privacy: The height of the building will result in substantial overshadowing of neighbouring properties and loss of light and privacy, particularly for those living in one and two storey houses surrounding the development. This is inconsistent with the expectations of residents in suburbs like Lindfield and Killara, who have chosen the part of the suburb further away from the train station for its open, private, and green environment
Severe impacts to views: The Visual Impact Assessment notes that the development will have a severe impact on views from neighbouring properties. The scale of the proposed development will dominate the skyline, reducing visual amenity for residents in adjacent areas
Heritage: The proposed development is within the Middle Harbour Road, Lindfield Conservation Area and adjacent to a number of heritage listed residences. This seems to be largely dismissed in the Heritage Impact Statement which doesn’t address how demolishing multiple houses and replacing them with a high-rise building undermines the integrity of the conservation area, adjacent low rise heritage buildings and the broader heritage values of the region, which are shared by adjacent suburbs
Impact on tree canopy: The development will result in the removal of 42 trees, with only partial replacement through landscaping. This loss of mature tree canopy will have a negative impact on the environment
Precedent for further high-density development: Approval of this project will set a precedent for similar high-rise developments in adjacent suburbs with a complete disregard for surrounding housing density, heritage and environment, accelerating the loss of local character and making no attempt to balance the heritage and natural environment which are a feature of Lindfield, Killara and surrounding suburbs.
Lack of substantive consultation: The Consultation Outcomes Report notes significant community concern regarding the height, density, traffic, loss of character, heritage impacts, and amenity impacts of the proposal. These concerns do not seem to be addressed by the proposed development. It appears that there has been cursory consultation with immediately impacted local residents and little if any broader consultation for surrounding areas directly affected by the development.

The Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure should reject this proposed development. It completely disregards key issues relating to scale, character, amenity, heritage and the environment of Lindfield, Killara, and surrounding suburbs. There are other sites in Ku-ring-Gai with excellent access to public transport which can deliver better outcomes and meet housing objectives as evidenced by Ku-ring-gai’s alternative TOD proposal.

My name is Robyn Haynes. i live in Roseville within three kilometres of the proposed development in Stanhope Road, Killara.

While I support the need for more housing and, in particular the need for affordable housing, I DO NOT support this development proposal for the following reasons:

- Killara has NO SHOPPING PRECINCT or hub, which means that every household living within this proposed development will need at least one car to get in and out of the suburb for the most basic of shopping needs. There is NO VILLAGE HUB. NO LOCAL STORE.
- This nass, build and design of 10 storeys, 135 apartments, 195 car spaces will be an eyesore in a Heritage Conservation Area. There is nothing of this scale and mass between Gordon and Roseville. Other apartment buildings in Killara are a maximum of 5 storeys, so this will have a massive visual impact on the skyline for the whole suburb and surrounds.
- Solar access to the surrounding homes (12, 8, 6A) will be severely compromised.

Environmental concurs:
- On the site there is a Blue Gum High Forest and Sydney Turpentine-Ironbark Forest - both of which are on the NSW Threatened Entity Profiles as of May 2025 (ie they are critically endangeered). The Heritage Impact Statement provides for “all trees to be removed."

Heritage:
This proposal is in a Heritage Conservation Area (HCA), and there are 9 Heritage Listed Homes in the street. The development will degrade the historical value of the HCA.

Amenities:
-The impact on Killara High, primary schools and preschools have not been considered in this proposal.
- Car parking during construction will have a huge impact on ability of residents and visitors to find parking and even drive down already overcrowded streets. Once completed, Stanhope Road will be even more congested.

I urge the state govenrment to REJECT this proposed developemnt and find another site within Ku-ring-gai council's preferred scenario. There are plent yon offer whihc will satisfy demand, affordable housing quotas and ease the burden of 'out'of place' highrise in heritage conservation areas.

I write to formally object to the State Significant Development (SSD) proposal for 10, 14, and 14A Stanhope Road, Killara. This application, seeking to transform three large residential lots into a high-density complex of 135 apartments, is fundamentally flawed on planning, heritage, environmental, administrative law, and policy consistency grounds. It is inconsistent with statutory planning instruments, severely undermines key heritage protections, and directly misaligns with both public representations and the stated objectives of the NSW Government’s housing policy. My letter of objection is attached as a pdf file to this submission.

I am writing to express my strong objection to the proposed residential flat building and infill affordable housing development at 10, 14, and 14A Stanhope Road, Killara.
As a local resident, I believe this proposal raises serious concerns in terms of design, scale, and impact on neighbouring properties and the character of the area.
Here are the key reasons for my objection:
1. Isolation of No. 12 Stanhope Road
The amalgamated site footprint completely isolates the neighbouring property at No. 12, significantly impacting its connection to the surrounding properties.
2. Overwhelming Building Envelope
The bulk and scale of the proposed development are excessive in relation to the existing built environment. The design overwhelms the street and fails to respond appropriately to its low-density heritage conservation area.
3. Severe Overshadowing
The proposal will cause significant overshadowing of neighbouring properties, especially No. 12 Stanhope Road. This will affect solar access thus reduce the amenity of outdoor spaces that local residents currently enjoy.
4. Inconsistency with the Heritage Conservation Area (HCA)
The Environmental Impact Statement (p.134) , claims that the project will be 'will be of a form and contemporary architectural style that would be consistent with the changing character of its locality. ' This statement fails to acknowledge that this section of Stanhope Road sits within a Heritage Conservation Area. The proposed façade and design do not align with the intentions of the HCA and undermine the historical, aesthetic and representative value of nearby heritage dwellings. This development detracts from the streetscape and sets a concerning precedent.
5. Misleading Visual Representations
The artist’s impressions in the visual render do not accurately reflect the impact on adjacent properties. Particularly the views from private spaces such as the rear garden, swimming pool, and tennis court of No. 12 Stanhope Road, a recognised heritage item.
6. Privacy and Amenity Concerns
The height and density of the proposed apartment block will result in a direct loss of privacy for neighbours, as well as increased noise and disruption. The peaceful enjoyment of existing dwellings in proximity will be significantly compromised.
7. Unrealistic traffic report estimation
The traffic report concludes that the development will only increase traffic by 20–26 vehicle movements during peak hours. With over 190 car spaces across 160 units, this seems highly unrealistic. The modelling does not seem to account for vehicle trips by visitors, caretakers, service providers, or deliveries — all of which are inevitable with a development of this size. In practical terms, this project is likely to saturate the capacity of Stanhope Road, creating congestion, safety concerns, and a significant change to the current traffic environment.

We urge thorough consideration of these objections. This site is fundamentally unsuitable for a development of this scale. It is situated within a Heritage Conservation Area and directly impacts many heritage-listed properties. When viewed in the context of other State Significant Developments lodged within the Ku-ring-gai Council area, there are clearly more appropriate locations where densification could occur with far less cost to the community and to municipal heritage.