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

Subject: Objection to SSD Proposal at 10, 14 & 14A Stanhope Road, Killara (SSD-81890707)
Dear Planning Assessment Officer,
I am writing to object to the proposed State Significant Development (SSD-81890707) at 10, 14 and 14A Stanhope Road, Killara. This proposal for 135 apartments is excessive, out of character with the area, and poses serious issues in terms of traffic, heritage, environmental impact, and planning compliance.
As a resident in the Stanhope Road Conservation Area, I was drawn to the street by the Federation-era homes, tree-lined streets, and quiet residential character that make this part of Killara so unique. This development would irreversibly damage that character and heritage.
While this is a personal submission, I support the expert assessments submitted by resident Jeffrey Bresnahan, including reports from a town planner, two heritage consultants, and an ecologist. I also support the concerns raised by the Stanhope Road Residents Association.
Main Concerns
1. Traffic and Road Safety Hazards
• Stanhope Road is already narrow, with limited visibility and space for two cars to pass. It cannot safely support nearly 200 extra vehicle movements per day.
• The proposed driveway at 14 Stanhope Road would funnel significant traffic onto a street used by pedestrians, cyclists, and school children, increasing the risk of accidents.
• Key intersections (e.g., Werona Ave and Pacific Hwy) are already constrained and unsuitable for the increased traffic. Culworth Avenue, which connects to Pacific Highway via Lorne Street, is a single-lane road and will become heavily congested.
• Transport for NSW uses Stanhope Road for train replacement buses. Additional traffic will obstruct this important public transport function.
• The developer’s suggestion to restrict right turns during peak hours does not solve the problem—it simply pushes traffic onto other unsuitable local streets.
• There is no traffic study or modelling provided for a traffic light at the Pacific Hwy intersection, even though this would become essential.
2. Heritage and Character Loss
• 14 Stanhope Road is a significant Federation home in a Heritage Conservation Area under Ku-ring-gai’s LEP. Its demolition would undermine local and state heritage protections.
• The property has strong historical value due to its association with Dr Margaret Hentze, a pioneering female academic of state significance who was considered a home-grown celebrity. This association meets the threshold for heritage listing under Criterion (b) of the Heritage Act.
• The proposed buildings will overwhelm nearby heritage homes, especially No. 12 Stanhope Road, which would be “stranded” on two sides, losing privacy, light, and amenity.
• The design and scale (up to 10 storeys) are completely out of step with the area's low-density character.
3. Environmental Impact and Tree Removal
• The development threatens several mapped areas of Critically Endangered Ecological Communities (CEEC), including Sydney Blue Gum and Turpentine-Ironbark Forests.
• Reports are inconsistent about tree removal, but most trees—including mature canopy trees—are likely to be lost.
• No fauna studies have been carried out, despite the known presence of species such as the Grey-headed Flying Fox and Glossy Black Cockatoo.
• The loss of urban canopy will worsen heat, reduce biodiversity, and degrade local amenity—contrary to Ku-ring-gai’s Urban Forest Strategy and the environmental aims of the EP&A Act.
4. Overreach of Transport-Oriented Development (TOD) Principles
• The site is more than 400m walking distance from Killara Station and only eligible for moderate increases under the TOD Program.
• The proposal exceeds appropriate height, bulk and scale limits, without regard for infrastructure, heritage, or local character.
• No binding planning agreement for the delivery of affordable housing as required under the Housing SEPP 2021 is provided in the SSD documentation.
5. Community Consultation and Procedural Fairness
• Most residents were unaware of the proposal until after it was formally lodged. The consultation process was insufficient for a development of this scale.
• The State Government and Ku-ring-gai Council are still finalising TOD Scenario 3B for Killara. Approving this development now would pre-empt that process and undermine genuine community input.
6. Infrastructure and Social Impact
• The development will place further pressure on already stretched services, such as Killara High School, which is at capacity.
• Local medical and recreational facilities are limited and not equipped to handle the increase in population from 135 new apartments.
• There is an absence of retail facilities in Killara, which will invariably result in residents using their cars to travel to Lindfield or Gordon for essential services and shopping.
7. Misleading or Incomplete Information
• The Environmental Impact Statement downplays the environmental and heritage value of the site and uses inconsistent elevation references to make building heights appear compliant.
• Mischaracterising endangered forest communities as “common” is misleading and contrary to ecological science and legislation.
Requested Actions
I respectfully ask the Department to refuse this SSD application in its current form and defer any decision until Kuring-gai TOD Scenario 3B is finalised and legislated.

To the relevant authorities,

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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



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

Dear Sir/Madam
This proposal comes at a time when Kuringai Council is very close to finalising an alternate TOD plan that will deliver the required number of new dwellings required by Government to assist with housing supply. This proposal is inconsistent with the alternate plan and would have devastating permanent impacts on the neighbourhood.
The height, bulk and scale of this proposal (being 3 x 10 storey apartment buildings) bears no relationship to its surroundings.
There is nothing of this scale between Gordon and Roseville which are predominantly low rise homes, or at most, some max 5 storey small scale apartment buildings. The proposal ignores the established character of the locality and will have a massive and dominating visual impact. It is located partially in a heritage conservation zones with nine heritage listed homes in the street. It will lead to the destruction of endangered Blue Gum High Forest and Sydney Turpentine-Ironbark Forest which provide habitat for flying foxes and black cockatoos. There is no Killara village so there are no amenities nearby nor has any provision for additional, required infrastructure been made.
This is yet another example of an opportunistic, one-off over-development designed to maximise developer profits at the expense of the local neighbourhoods forever. It is not supported by the vast majority of residents nor Council, and should be rejected.
Thank you for considering my objection.

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

1 June 2025
Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure
Via Online Submission Portal
Subject: Objection to SSD-81890707 – 10, 14 & 14A Stanhope Road, Killara
Dear Sir or Madam,
I am writing to object to the proposed development at 10, 14 and 14A Stanhope Road, Killara (SSD-81890707).
Although I do not live on Stanhope Road, I visit family there regularly and have spent a great deal of time in the area over the years. I have always admired the quiet, tree-lined street, the well-preserved Federation and interwar homes, and the overall character that makes this part of Killara so special.
This development would change all of that.

The proposed buildings—10 storeys tall—are simply far too big for this neighbourhood. The current height limit is 22 metres, and these towers are over 35 metres high. That’s nearly double the height of most buildings in the area. Nothing in Killara comes close to that scale, and it would completely overwhelm the surrounding homes and streetscape.

This part of Killara is a Heritage Conservation Area, and for good reason. The houses, gardens, and streets have been carefully preserved for decades. Introducing massive apartment towers right in the middle of this area would do irreversible damage to its historic value and charm. It would also directly affect several nearby heritage-listed homes.

Stanhope Road is already narrow and busy, especially during school drop-off and pick-up times or when there are rail replacement buses running. Adding 135 apartments would lead to hundreds of extra car movements every day. It’s just not safe or practical on such a constrained street. This will also create serious problems for nearby intersections like Stanhope Road and Pacific Highway, which are already struggling to cope.

One of the things I value most about this part of Killara is the tree canopy and natural setting. Birds and native animals are a common sight in this area. This proposal would involve clearing a large number of mature trees—some over 50 years old—destroying habitat and reducing the area’s green cover.

Finally, I’m very concerned that this development is being pushed through under the State Significant Development pathway, bypassing local planning rules and community consultation. I understand that Ku-ring-gai Council is working with the State Government on a better, more suitable plan for areas like this. Approving this development now would be premature and unfair to both residents and the planning process.

Please Reject This Proposal
This development is not in keeping with the character of Killara. It’s too big, too intrusive, and too damaging to the heritage and environment of the area.
I urge you to reject SSD-81890707 and instead support a development approach that respects the heritage, scale, and natural setting of this beautiful and much-loved part of Sydney.
Yours sincerely,

This development is completely out of keeping with this beautiful suburb. As an owner in an adjoining suburb, all applications of this nature should be assessed by local council in accordance with council's alternative plan to the TOD.

As a resident of Stanhope Road for the last 3 years, I was drawn to this area by its charm, intact Federation architecture, and residential character. I formally object to State Significant Development Application SSD-81890707 for residential flat buildings at 10, 14, and 14A Stanhope Road, Killara. The proposed 135 apartments and 10-storey buildings are fundamentally inconsistent with established planning controls and the existing character of Killara.
________________________________________
My objection is based on the following critical planning concerns:
1. Excessive Scale and Character Inconsistency: The proposed 10-storey height is fundamentally inconsistent with Killara's predominantly 1-2 storey residential character and existing tallest building (5 storeys). The proposed towers would become the tallest structures in Killara, dominating the built environment and contravening the Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2015 (KLEP 2015) and State Government's TOD rezoning controls which provide for maximum height of 22 metres.
2. Irreversible Heritage Damage: The development is situated within the Stanhope Road Heritage Conservation Area (HCA). The proposal will irrevocably damage the HCA's character and negatively impact adjacent heritage-listed dwellings, including 12 Stanhope Road.
3. Significant Environmental Degradation and Loss of Tree Canopy: The application proposes the removal of endangered and mature trees, many integral to the Ku-ring-gai tree canopy, a recognized ecological and visual asset. This action would:
o Contradict the aims of the Ku-ring-gai Urban Forest Policy and Biodiversity Strategy 2030.
o Destroy habitat for protected and locally significant fauna, including Kookaburras, Galahs, Rosellas, Echidnas, and Ringtail Possums.
o Accelerate urban heat island effects and significantly reduce the suburb’s environmental resilience.
4. Unacceptable Traffic and Road Safety Impacts: Stanhope Road, Werona Avenue, and Culworth Avenue are already narrow and congested. The projected 195 additional daily vehicle movements will severely exacerbate congestion, create safety hazards for pedestrians and vehicles, and impede emergency services. Stanhope Road's role as a vital train replacement bus route means the development will detrimentally affect public transport. The proposed "no right turn" signage is inadequate and will merely displace traffic issues to other unsuitable local streets. The absence of comprehensive traffic impact studies for a necessary intersection signal at Stanhope Road/Pacific Highway highlights a critical planning deficiency.
________________________________________
Conclusion
This SSD application is flawed, non-compliant with planning controls, and inappropriate for Killara. It will result in permanent damage to the area's heritage and character, degrade the local environment, and create unsustainable traffic impacts.
For these reasons, I urge the NSW Department of Planning to refuse SSD-81890707 in full.
Thank you for your consideration.

The proposed high rise residential development will be built on 3 lots that will be adjacent to low rise residences and is located in an R2 Low Density Residential Zone and Heritage Conservation Area. High density residential buildings should be built in R4 Zones.
The height of the building should not exceed the maximum height according to Ku-ring-gai Council's J2 9.5 requirement.
The proposed development should not adversely affect the heritage significance of the surrounding houses.
The following items should be addressed in the design of the building:
a. Noise of traffic entering and leaving the site.
b. A stormwater management system should be installed to avoid any adverse impact on the land to which the development is to be carried out on, adjoining properties, waterways, & groundwater systems.
c. Due to the high number of flats, extra electrical power supply will be required that may impact the current electrical supply to this residential area.
d. Overshadowing other residential houses due to the height of the building.
e. Suitable fire truck access to the development.
f. Windows on upper levels should be located on the building facades that do not overlook the adjacent residences to provide privacy to the adjacent residences.
The development will be out of character with the rest of the housing on the street .
Street Parking is already limited and with so many flats that are proposed may have more than the allocated on site parking, the street parking will be made worse.

I am making objection to the proposed development at 10, 14, and 14A Stanhope Road, Killara.
As I understand the plan is to change a three large residential lots into a complex comprising 135 apartments.
I am a regular visitor to my friend who lives at Stanhope Road, the parking on that street is already at full capacity, especially on weekdays when the construction workers carry out work there. I have to drive around to look for car parking space and usually I have to park very far from my friend’s house.
Another issue is the traffic congestion entering and exiting Pacific Highway at the rush hours, imaging if you are adding another 135 apartments on that street, the traffic congestion is going to be much worse.
Adding to my objection is the construction is going to damage quality and the heritage characteristic of the properties on the Stanhope Street. The 135 apartments will change Stanhope Street from a quiet street with heritage characteristic into a busy densely populated area which affect the daily life of residents who have settled there for long time.
I object to this SSDA and hope you consider my views.

I object to this project mainly on environmental and heritage grounds.
It will impact significantly on the Blue Gum High Forest and Sydney Turpentine-Ironbark Forest which are listed the NSW Threatened Entity Profiles (critically endangered). A development of 10 stories including the removal of trees and shade must be significantly detrimental. Habitat for native birds, insects and animals will be removed, and additional cars will likely create congestion and resultant increase in pollution.

In addition it will likely reduce solar access for existing residents and degrade the heritage value of the area (there are multiple heritage listed homes in the street). The visual impact on the area will be significant and hugely damaging.

Thank you.

Please see the attached documents for my comments on the proposal.

I wish to make a submission to object to SSD-81890707 Residential Flat Builidngs with infill affordable housing 10,14 and 14a Stanhope Road, Killara 2071 NSW.
I live in neighbouring suburb of Roseville and have lived there for just over 20 years.
This development in Killara, lodged under the NSW Government's TOD planning controls, should not go ahead it does not conform to Kuringgai Council's Preferred Scenario for the TOD. NSW TOD planning were introduced without any public consultation and were to be replaced with Council's Preferred Scenario. The Council has done extensive planning and public consultation and has come up with a plan which better suits the values and objectives of the community and takes into consideration the preservation of heritage conservation areas, environmentally sensitive areas, minimises tree canopy impact, and manages building height transitions, while delivering the NSW Government's expectations on housing.
I want my State Government to listen to its residents and Kuringgai Council's views on the TOD planning controls. While we all understand the need for more housing, there needs to be thoughtful planning and consideration towards individual areas, and plans for more infrastructure before allowing over development to damage a community.
I support Kuringgai Council's Preferred Scenario to TOD.

Please find attached reasons for my objection to the project.

Dear Sir or Madam,
I am writing to express my strong objection to the proposed Stanhope development for several reasons:

Environmental Concerns
The proposed site includes critically endangered Blue Gum High Forest and Sydney Turpentine-Ironbark Forest, both listed on the NSW Threatened Entity Profiles as of May 2025. The Heritage Impact Statement indicates that all trees on the site will be removed, which is unacceptable given the environmental significance of these forests.

Heritage
The development is situated in a Heritage Conservation Area (HCA) and there are numerous heritage-listed homes on Stanhope Road. This development will degrade the historical value of the HCA and undermine the character of the area.

Mass
The scale of this project is unprecedented in Killara and is completely out of keeping with existing developments. Other apartment buildings in Killara are a maximum of five storeys, so this development will have a massive visual impact on the skyline for the entire suburb.

Amenities
Contrary to the reports, there is no Killara Village and no shops in the immediate vicinity; the closest shops are in Lindfield and Gordon. The impact on local schools and the lack of car parking during construction will significantly affect the ability of residents and visitors to find parking. Once completed, Stanhope Road will be more congested.

Overriding Council Plans
The proposed development is out of step with Ku-ring-gai Council’s preferred planning scenario. The Council has developed a strategic plan through extensive community consultation and technical analysis, which demonstrates that the housing targets can be met without compromising the character or heritage of the area. The imposition of the State Government's development targets without regard for these local frameworks risks undermining the qualities that make suburbs like Killara both liveable and sustainable.

State Government Should Not Decide Local Residential Planning
While the State Government is responsible for setting broad housing and infrastructure targets, it cannot fully understand or account for the unique planning context and infrastructure constraints of individual council areas. Local councils have developed their planning frameworks over decades through detailed studies, heritage assessments, and sustained community engagement. This local knowledge is critical in ensuring that growth is managed in a way that respects the area's character, environmental sensitivity, and infrastructure capacity. Imposing top-down development targets without regard for these long-standing local frameworks undermines the principles of local governance and community involvement.
For these reasons, I respectfully urge the Council to reject the proposed development in its current form.
Yours sincerely,
Marshall Brentnall
ROSEVILLE NSW 2069

I am writing to formally object to the proposed development currently under consideration in Killara. I have been a resident of this suburb for the past eight and a half years and have lived in Sydney since 1995. I am deeply concerned by the apparent lack of foresight in protecting the unique heritage and character of our northern suburbs.

Killara, like many of its neighbouring areas, is rich in architectural and cultural heritage. It is disheartening to see proposals that disregard this legacy and threaten to erode the very qualities that make our community so special. The current development proposal, in my view, is entirely inconsistent with the heritage values that should be preserved and celebrated.

Furthermore, the proposed site is located on Stanhope Road, one of the busiest thoroughfares in the area. This road serves as a critical link for residents and commuters travelling to and from the Pacific Highway. Introducing a major development in this location would significantly worsen traffic congestion, compromise road safety, and reduce the overall livability of the area.

While I am not opposed to increased housing density near transport hubs—particularly around Killara station where it has already been thoughtfully implemented—this specific proposal is ill-conceived. It fails to take into account both the heritage significance of the area and the practical realities of local traffic flow.

I urge you to reject this proposal and to ensure that future developments are guided by a genuine respect for community values, heritage preservation, and sound urban planning principles. It is essential that the voices of local residents are heard and taken seriously in shaping the future of our neighbourhood.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Please refer to the attached with my objections to this development and the development process conducted by the developers.

This project would not be allowed under the Ku-ring-gai Council Preferred Scenario which will soon be agreed between the State Government and Council. It also leaves stranded houses around it due to heritage listings.

This project should not be allowed as it will provide very poor planning outcomes.

I write to express my unequivocal opposition to the proposed ten‐storey, 135‐apartment building with 195 car spaces on Stanhope Road, Killara. This project is patently inappropriate and driven purely by developer greed, yielding zero benefit to genuine housing affordability. My key objections are as follows:

Overwhelming Mass & Scale
– At ten storeys, 135 units, and 195 parking spaces, there is nothing of comparable size between Gordon and Roseville. Other Killara apartment buildings top out at five storeys. This tower will dominate the skyline, dwarfing the surrounding single- and two-storey homes and erasing the suburb’s human scale.

Severe Solar Access Impacts
– Existing residences at 12, 8, and 6A Stanhope Road will be plunged into shadow. Their morning and winter sunlight—essential for heating, comfort, and mental well-being—will be irreparably compromised. This loss of solar access directly undermines residents’ quality of life.

Destruction of Critically Endangered Forests
– The site harbors Blue Gum High Forest and Sydney Turpentine–Ironbark Forest, both listed as critically endangered by NSW (May 2025). According to the Heritage Impact Statement, “all trees” will be removed. Eradicating these rare ecosystems is unacceptable and contravenes every principle of environmental stewardship.

Heritage Conservation Area Degradation
– Located within a designated Heritage Conservation Area, the proposal sits adjacent to nine heritage-listed homes. A ten-storey slab will degrade the historical fabric, obliterating the visual harmony that defines this precinct. Such irreversible damage to our cultural legacy is indefensible.

Lack of Local Amenities & Services
– Contrary to developer claims, there is no “Killara Village” within walking distance—closest shops are in Lindfield. Furthermore, Killara High School, local primary schools, and preschools are already operating at capacity. This surge of 135 additional households was not factored into any impact assessments, jeopardizing educational services.

Construction & Parking Nightmare
– During the many months of construction, available street parking will vanish as heavy machinery and tradespeople vehicles occupy every spare space. Once completed, 195 on-site parking spaces mean hundreds more daily car trips on Stanhope Road, clogging our narrow lanes and endangering pedestrians and cyclists.

This proposal does nothing to advance housing affordability: it markets luxury apartments at premium rents or sale prices. The developer stands to profit handsomely, while the local community bears all the costs—overburdened infrastructure, environmental ruin, and loss of heritage.

I do, however, support increasing housing supply in Ku-ring-gai—provided it is done responsibly. Ku-ring-gai Council’s alternative Transit‐Oriented Development plan offers a measured approach: it locates new homes where infrastructure can support them, transitions density gradually, and preserves both our heritage and critical ecosystems. If the goal is genuine affordability and sustainable growth, that plan is the only reasonable path forward.

For the sake of our environment, heritage, and community well-being, I urge you to reject this oversized, misplaced development and champion the Council’s alternative TOD framework instead.

Sincerely,

Scott Yuan

This objection is on behalf of my wife and myself.
I totally support the objection submission by the Owner of Unit 59 10 Marian Street Killara.
I will not waste time by repeating the details here.
Stanhope Road traffic and parking is a major, major issue.
Off street parking is another major issue.
We support the Ku-Ring Gai Council proposal for accomplishing the Governments 400m radius plan.
10-11 stories is massive overdevelopment.
Any resident at the back of the proposal will have a grandstand view of any activities we undertake at the rear of our unit. It is unacceptable.

I write to object to the proposal to build 135 apartments on the existing lots of 10, 14 and 14A in Stanhope Road, Killara. A developer has bought three plots with existing residences and proposes to demolish them and build 135 apartments of up to 10 storeys. That indicates a seismic change to the current peace, convenience and character of Stanhope Road.
When considering this development application, I ask that you also consider the needs of the existing residents both in Stanhope Road and the immediate locality:
1. Stanhope Road is a beautiful street and a tribute to the gracefulness of Killara. The building of 135 apartments in this street that is lined with elegant houses, some heritage listed, will create an eyesore.
2. The incremental foot traffic will be many times more than exists today and local amenities such as doctors, schools, shops and transport will be challenged to support the enlarged community.
3. The incremental road traffic will be many times more than exists today. Possibly as many as 270 additional cars will use Stanhope Road creating noise pollution, congestion, queues particularly onto Pacific Highway on weekday mornings and parking issues as, inevitably, some apartment owners will prefer to park in Stanhope Road rather than in their own parking spots.
4. At the individual level, existing owners will be unable to avoid many nuisances such as more noise, air pollution, congestion, sunlight deprivation and wind -tunnelling. Their right to privacy will be comprised as they will be constantly over-looked.
The need for additional housing, particularly apartments, in Sydney is understood. However, to build 135 apartments in Stanhope Road is inconsistent with the surroundings and is therefore the reason for this objection. Any developments proposed in Stanhope Road should complement the street’s existing character and be appropriately sized so that the needs of existing residents are sympathetically considered.