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

I have been vising family in the street for the last 13 years and can say that it is a beautiful street with huge heritage value. It would be such a shame to have a development of this scale, bulk and size built here. The street is a connector street that is very busy. Access to the Pacific Highway travel North particularly is insanely busy and impossible to exit. One can only imagine how an additional 135 units coming and going from this street will impact the traffic flow. Parking in the street is extremely difficult and often at capacity. Additional cars from 135 units plus visitors to these units will be ridiculous on a street that is only 300 metres long with more than 21 driveways.

The proposed development comprises 10 storeys, 135 residential apartments, and 195 car parking spaces. This scale and intensity of development is unprecedented in the corridor between Gordon and Roseville. Currently, the apartment buildings in Killara do not exceed five storeys in height. As such, this proposal represents a dramatic departure from the established built form and character of the suburb. The increased building height and bulk will result in a dominant visual presence on the skyline, impacting not just the immediate vicinity but the broader suburban landscape. Additionally, solar access to existing residential properties at 12, 8, and 6A Stanhope Road will be significantly diminished, affecting residents’ quality of life and property values.

The development site is home to ecologically significant vegetation, including remnants of Blue Gum High Forest and Sydney Turpentine-Ironbark Forest. Both are listed under the NSW Threatened Species profiles (as of May 2025) as critically endangered ecological communities. The submitted Heritage Impact Statement indicates that all trees on the site are to be removed, a measure that would result in irreversible environmental degradation and the loss of important biodiversity. This is of grave concern, particularly given the increasing need to preserve native vegetation in metropolitan areas.

The site falls within a designated Heritage Conservation Area (HCA) and is located on a street that contains nine heritage-listed residences. The introduction of a large-scale, high-rise development in this context would undermine the heritage values and established character of the area. The scale and form of the proposal are incompatible with the historical fabric of the neighbourhood, and its approval would set a damaging precedent for future development in heritage precincts.

The construction phase is likely to result in significant disruption to local traffic conditions, particularly regarding on-street parking availability for residents and visitors. The existing road network, especially Stanhope Road, is not designed to accommodate such an increase in construction-related traffic. Once the development is completed, the additional 195 vehicles associated with the apartments will contribute to long-term congestion, further straining the existing road infrastructure.

Contrary to statements in the development reports, there is no defined “Killara Village” in the immediate area. There are no retail or commercial services nearby, with the closest shops located in Lindfield. This raises significant concerns regarding the adequacy of local infrastructure to support such a large influx of new residents. The impact on educational institutions, particularly Killara High School, local primary schools, and preschools, has not been adequately assessed or addressed in the proposal.

Destroying beautiful and unique houses to create apartments is a mistake. The Upper North Shore is renowned for its big houses and leafy environment and should be preserved for future generations to admire and aspire to. The one size fits all that the TOD makes is a mistake. If the TOD has its way there will be no houses near the train stations. The TOD is a blunt instrument. Better to have suburbs where apartments prevail and suburbs where houses prevail. Unfortunately the best Federation and Californian Bungalow houses on the North Shore are predominantly near train stations. It would be a great pity to lose all these to the TOD. It reminds me of the fights in the 1970s to preserve the Rocks in the Sydney CBD - today people realise it would have been a great mistake to put high rise in the Rocks. It will be the same with the classic homes of Killara, Gordon, Lindfield and Roseville.

Please refer to attached below 2 off

This objection is from the Strata Management Committee for 10 Marian Street and represents the interests of all 60 apartment owners, in particular the 39 apartments in blocks C, D and E that share the northern boundary of the proposed development.
General Comments:
The NSW in-fill affordable housing provisions “ require the consent authority to consider the character of the local area or the desired future character for areas under transition.”
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 10 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. 

Refer to attachment.

Covering letter and detailed technical submission attached.

I have lived in Killara for over 10 years, my family have been living in the area since the 1910s. Provision of additional housing is part of Sydney and Ku-ring-gai’s ongoing development. However this proposed development appears to abuse current planning controls and inflict unreasonable loss of amenity on neighbours and the community.
A summary of my objection to the development is that the development scale is overdevelopment for the locality that is not justified by being sufficiently close to Killara railway station to reasonably relate to TOD (though within the TOD maps as currently set by State government). There is a further abuse of process where even with exceeding planning heights with “affordable housing”, there is then a plan to further exceed planning heights. Finally, the impacts of the development, and those of the precedent it establishes is weakly or minimally explored.
If a generational change in planning controls has just been enacted by the State government which increases the scale of development throughout Sydney, why is it reasonable for even those controls to be exceeded with this development?

Why is this an unreasonable development?
SEAR 1 – Land use zoning is R2 Low Density residential . The Statutory Compliance Table fails to outline compliance or lack thereof against existing zoning and then justify the TOD zoning overlay. This lack of diligence in the submitted materials should require review and assessment under SEPP.
An example of the lack of diligence:
Statutory compliance table, page 3, Objectives of the Zone – Objective: To provide for the housing needs of the community within a low density residential environment. The submitted response reads:
“The proposal will facilitate the redevelopment of the site for the purposes of residential development comprising 135 apartments, including 26 affordable units, which will contribute to additional housing supply and diversity to support and meet the housing needs of the community.” This lazy text does not address “low density residential environment” at all, and therefore fails to assess the development against KLEP (whether or not it is being over-ridden).
Statutory compliance table, page 3, Objectives of the Zone – Objective: To provide for housing that is compatible with the existing environmental and built character of Ku-ring-gai. The submitted response reads:
“It is noted that the proposed development is at a higher density than the adjacent properties along Stanhope Road. The scale and design of the development references the higher density residential flat buildings located immediately to the north and east of the site and is consistent with the aims of Chapter 5 and Chapter 2 of the Housing SEPP.”
Again, this response is misleading – the 10 storey development is far larger in scale that the 5 storey buildings immediately to the north and east of the site.
SEAR 6 - There is no reason for the street front housing at # 14 to be developed in such an unsympathetic way. The proposal lacks any sensitivity to the Killara locality’s heritage buildings that sit on the street at numbers 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 12 and other houses on the street and locality. Instead it seeks to transition Stanhope road (which is >400m from the railway station) to being multi-storey apartment blocks – outside of the reasonable proposals by council to meet accommodation targets.
SEAR 7: We live locally and have seen large numbers of native birds (kookaburras, magpies etc) foraging in green spaces. The redevelopment of 10,14, 14a wipes out habitat for animals who use lawn areas etc for foraging. There is no significant environmental offset proposed for the 135 apartments. No significant planting of canopy trees etc. Other developments in the area retain deep soil access and plant canopy trees.

Clause 4.6 Request to Exceed Planning Height of Buildings
The request to exceed planned building heights makes a mockery of the development process. The height exceedance will overshadow Stanhope road and neighbouring properties, creates unreasonable height basis for future development in the area. The justification for the height lacks reasonable context when other developments in the area are considered and where developments are stepped in line with original landform. The >20% exceedance and citation of GM Architects Pty Ltd v Strathfield Council [2016] NSWLEC 1216 at [85]… to justify the reasoning almost proves that it is unreasonable. A minor exceedance may je justified on balance, but a design seeking to exceed on most buildings in the development is an abuse of that concept.

Again, the submission by the proponents fails to assess and justify the development against requirements appropriately.

Proposed Development in Stanhope Road

General Comments:

The NSW in-fill affordable housing provisions “ require the consent authority to consider the character of the local area or the desired future character for areas under transition.”

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.

I accept the need 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 damage 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, I request the consent authority rejects this architectural form ,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 vehicular access at ground level to the rear buildings for fire and services access; and

· 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 – 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 I am 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. Developers often 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.

As a resident of Stanhope Road, I treasure the aesthetic beauty of our local area and particularly the houses on my street, Stanhope Rd. Many of these houses are heritage listed and with good reason.
This proposal is for buildings that are completely out of character with the surrounding housing. The dwelling density and high rise housing is incompatible with the local area and there has been little or no consideration given to the heritage issues in immediate proximity of the proposed building site. The proposal breaches by more than three times, the height limits for the R2 Low Rise Residential Zoning and even breaches, by more than 20%, the heights allowed under the TOD program.
Therefore, I oppose this development.

I object to the project because it is much too big and overshadows all the other apartments and houses in the area.

Dear Sir or Madam,

I am writing to formally object to the proposed development project for the following reasons:

1. Inconsistency with Council’s Preferred Scenario
According to the Council’s preferred scenario—which takes into account community feedback, local character, heritage considerations, and appropriate transition—this site is clearly not suitable for high-density development. The presence of surrounding 9 heritage-listed items within 50m radius on the same street further reinforces that it is only appropriate for low-rise zoning, such as single dwelling houses.

2. Excessive Floor Space Ratio and Building Height
The proposed FSR of 3.25 and building height of 33.07 metres are vastly greater than the area's current planning controls, which permit an FSR of 0.3 and a maximum height of 9.5 metres for lot 14, FSR of 0.85 for 10 and 14A. Such a scale would severely impact the surrounding area by disrupting solar access, diminishing sunlight, and altering the established character of nearby properties—raising significant transition concerns.

3. Inadequate Deep Soil Provision
The proposal includes only 23% deep soil, far below the required 50%. This shortfall undermines essential urban design principles including tree canopy retention, biodiversity support, and effective stormwater infiltration.

Given the above concerns, I strongly urge that this project be rejected. The Council’s preferred scenario is the result of 18 months of collaborative work between the Council and the community, and it should be respected in future planning decisions.

Thank you for considering my submission.

I would like to raise two main objections to the proposed development – one in relation to aesthetics and the other concerning traffic flow.
Aesthetics
I appreciate that increased accommodation is a necessity. However, the proposed 10 or 11 stories are far too high and totally against the character of the surrounds.
They will tower over all properties and look straight down on my property in 10 Marian St.
I would suggest they be restricted to 5 stories, in line with other properties in the area.
Traffic Flow
The intersections of Pacific Highway, Fiddens Wharf Road and Stanhope Road presents major traffic flow problems at the current time, where queues for turning traffic flow into the through lanes.
Fiddens Wharf Rd. is a major connector to and from Ryde Rd.
The addition of possibly another 200 cars from this area will create even further difficulties at this particular intersection, leading to the need to install traffic lights. There is currently no spare street parking and this will be exacerbated by the proposal.
I would also suggest you would need to open up further right hand turns from the Pacific Highway heading north.
During the construction phase of several years the trucks arriving and departing will create a nightmare. If they use the Highway this will create further problems as mentioned above.
Culworth Avenue is not a suitable Road with its light surface, no gutters on one side and provision for traffic in only one direction at a time. The bridge over the railway at Stanhope is too narrow.

Director – Planning Assessments
Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure
GPO Box 39
Sydney NSW 2001
Email: [email protected]
Re: Objection to State Significant Development (SSD) Proposal at 10, 14, and 14a Stanhope Road, Killara NSW 2071

Dear Planning Assessment Officer,
I write to lodge a formal objection to the proposed State Significant Development at 10, 14, and 14a Stanhope Road, Killara. This proposal raises significant concerns across planning compliance, heritage protection, environmental sustainability, traffic and safety, procedural fairness, and public policy consistency. For the reasons set out below, I submit that this application should be refused.

1. Irreversible Heritage Loss
The demolition of 14 Stanhope Road would cause irreparable harm to the area’s heritage fabric:
• The property is a contributory item in a Heritage Conservation Area under the Ku-ring-gai LEP 2015.
• It possesses historical and aesthetic significance, and its loss would permanently alter the character of Stanhope Road.
• Courts have consistently held — as in Moore Theological College v Sydney City Council [2015] NSWLEC 165 — that heritage must be seriously considered and not brushed aside for development convenience.

2. Improper Use of TOD Uplift
The development misuses Transport Oriented Development (TOD) incentives:
• The site lies in the 400–800m catchment from Killara Station, which warrants moderate uplift — not the high-density scaling proposed.
• The TOD Program requires developments in this range to be context-sensitive and appropriately scaled, not high-rise.
• This proposal ignores those parameters and overreaches with bulk and height unjustified by transport infrastructure.
• In Telstra v Hornsby Shire Council [2006] NSWLEC 133, the Court stressed the need for environmental and contextual harmony in development decisions — principles flouted here.

3. Misleading Policy Representation and Procedural Unfairness
The government’s description of this type of development as “mid-rise” is misleading:
• The Minister’s 21 February 2025 statement refers to mid-rise housing as “3–6 storeys,” and Planning NSW guidance aligns with this.
• Yet the proposal reaches 11 storeys — well beyond what the public was led to expect.
• Mischaracterising such developments as “mid-rise” undermines informed public engagement, casting doubt on the legitimacy of consultation.
• In SZSSJ [2016] HCA 29 and Plaintiff M61/2010E v Commonwealth [2010] HCA 41, the High Court confirmed the need for accurate, reliable administrative conduct during public consultation processes.

4. Flawed community consultation
• Additionally, the developer included a photograph of me without my consent in the "Engagement Outcomes Report" (Appendix 17, page 6). This image was taken and published without permission, and I was not informed that my likeness would be used in project documentation. The unauthorised use of my image calls into question the transparency and integrity of the community consultation process. It suggests that the engagement was not conducted in good faith and further underscores the procedural deficiencies of the proposal’s public consultation.

5. Excessive Bulk and Height
The scale of the development grossly violates local planning controls:
• The Ku-ring-gai LEP 2015 caps building height at 9–10.5 metres — appropriate for a low-density suburb.
• This application proposes a height of over 36 metres, almost double the maximum, and without acceptable justification.
• Section 4.15(1)(a)(i) of the EP&A Act mandates consistency with statutory planning instruments.
• The NSW Land and Environment Court in Randwick City Council v Micaul Holdings Pty Ltd [2007] NSWLEC 225 held that significant breaches of planning controls warrant refusal unless exceptional circumstances exist — none are evident here.

6. Environmental Impact and Urban Forest Loss
The project proposes widespread tree removal, contradicting sustainability goals:
• Numerous mature canopy trees would be lost, reducing biodiversity, shade, and climate resilience in a suburb with an established green character.
• This contradicts the Ku-ring-gai Urban Forest Strategy and violates Section 1.3(d) of the EP&A Act, which requires sustainable and ecologically sound development.
• The precedent in Boener v Sydney Water Corporation [2005] NSWLEC 101* confirms that unjustified loss of established vegetation is a valid ground for refusal.

7. Dangerous Traffic and Access Outcomes
The development threatens the safety and accessibility of the local road network:
• The projected increase in traffic (nearly 200 vehicle movements daily) funnels through a narrow residential street ill-suited to such loads.
• This creates risks for pedestrians, limits emergency vehicle access, and undermines residential amenity.
• Under Section 4.15(1)(e) of the EP&A Act, the public interest — including safety — must be prioritised.
• As held in Zhang v Canterbury City Council [2001] NSWLEC 4, traffic impacts can be fatal to an application’s merits.

8. Inadequacies and Errors in the Environmental Impact Statement
The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) submitted with the proposal is flawed:
• It misrepresents key facts — including falsely suggesting 12 Stanhope Road is precedent for TOD development, despite it being heritage-listed and ineligible.
• It also appears to manipulate height measurements by using elevated street datum, inflating compliance.
• In Stockland v Manly Council [2004] NSWLEC 472, the Court rejected attempts to misrepresent built form through selective data presentation.

9. Premature and Prejudicial Process
The timing of the SSD is inappropriate:
• TOD Scenario 3B for Killara remains under development. Assessing this application before its release risks setting an irreversible precedent without proper community input.
• Kioa v West (1985) 159 CLR 550 affirms that procedural fairness requires affected parties to be meaningfully consulted before decisions are made.
• Advancing a project of this scale now would pre-empt and undermine the strategic planning process currently underway.

10. Absence of Social Licence and Public Support
This development lacks local support and proceeds against community will:
• Ku-ring-gai Council has formally objected to the proposal, reflecting the consistent opposition from residents and stakeholders.
• In participatory planning systems, community input is not a box-ticking exercise — it is a core part of democratic development control.

11. Breakdown in Planning Governance and Integrity
The broader governance implications are deeply concerning:
• Repeated use of “mid-rise” to describe 10+ storey towers invites public distrust in planning authorities.
• As noted in Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Teoh (1995) 183 CLR 273, public expectations created by government statements may carry legal and ethical implications.
• Planning must uphold transparency and accountability, especially when significant departures from existing controls are proposed.

Conclusion and Requests
For these reasons, I respectfully request that the Department:
1. Reject the SSD proposal outright;
2. Defer any assessment until the Ku-ring-Gai Council TOD Scenario 3B has been finalised;
3. Ensure future public communications accurately define “mid-rise” housing in accordance with government policy and common understanding.
The proposal as it stands is excessive, premature, and incompatible with both local planning instruments and broader public interest. I urge the Department to exercise caution, act lawfully, and safeguard the character and heritage of Killara.

Yours sincerely,
Resident of Stanhope Road, Killara, NSW 2071

I am a Kuringai resident of many years and a regular visitor to and user of Stanhope Road, Killara.
I am deeply shocked and saddened to think that this beautiful street, so typical of the lovely Kuringai heritage, faces potential over-development such as is contained in this application.
It is clearly completely inappropriate on many levels:-
1. Although there are multi-storey apartment buildings on the Pacific Highway at the end of Stanhope Road, there are none on Stanhope Road itself.
2. To allow buildings with up to ten storeys would be a travesty. They would stand out like a sore thumb. They would tower over the existing apartments of five storeys on Marian Street, which adjoin at the rear, and which are already at a lower street level. It would also tower over the other Stanhope Road properties, some of which are heritage listed. It will cause overshadowing and a loss of privacy to nearby residents and devalue their properties. Ten storeys would also significantly exceed the maximum height recommended by Kuringai Council. It is also contrary to the TOD proposed limits.
3. To add an additional 135 homes would create extra traffic and increase the burden on already overloaded local facilities such as schools, medical practices and other allied health services.
Over the last decade and more we have seen our lovely Kuringai heritage eroded with the destruction of many beautiful old homes, only to have them replaced by ugly, overly large apartment buildings. We have also seen a lowering of construction standards and oversight of such projects all over Sydney.
Infrastructure has failed to keep up with the increasing population. Quality of life is being eroded at an increasing pace.
Please let’s maintain the dignity of Stanhope Road.

To: The NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure
Re: Submission Opposing the Residential Flat Building Development at 10, 14 & 14A Stanhope Road, Killara (SSD Proposal)

Dear Sir/Madam,

I write to formally object to the proposed development for residential flat buildings incorporating infill affordable housing at 10, 14 and 14A Stanhope Road, Killara.

1. Traffic Management and Safety Concerns
Stanhope Road is already under considerable traffic pressure as it serves as a well-used cut-through for vehicles bypassing the Pacific Highway and accessing Fiddens Wharf Road. It is a narrow, predominantly residential street that cannot accommodate the increased traffic volumes, congestion, and road safety issues this development will undoubtedly create.

The proposed high-density development will add significant vehicle movements from residents, service vehicles, and construction traffic. This will further compromise pedestrian safety, increase noise pollution, and degrade the livability of an otherwise quiet suburban street.

2. Inconsistency with Heritage Character
Stanhope Road is home to several heritage and character dwellings, forming part of the established historical and architectural identity of Killara. Introducing a 10-storey residential flat building in this context is completely at odds with the existing streetscape and would severely diminish the suburb’s cultural and visual appeal. The scale, bulk, and intensity of the development are entirely out of character with the existing built form.

3. Contrary to Ku-ring-gai Council’s TOD Draft Plan
This proposal directly contradicts Ku-ring-gai Council’s current Draft Transport Oriented Development (TOD) Plan, which proposes a measured and locally-sensitive approach to housing growth. The TOD plan encourages context-appropriate densification around transport hubs, but not at the expense of local amenity, traffic flow, and heritage conservation. The current SSD proposal disregards this balance entirely.

This premature and overly intense development undermines Council’s authority and community-informed strategic planning processes. Approving this application would set a dangerous precedent for future high-rise incursions into historically low-density, character-filled neighbourhoods like Stanhope Road.

4. Conclusion
While I support the intent to increase housing supply and affordability, such initiatives must be integrated thoughtfully and in collaboration with local planning authorities. This proposal fails on multiple fronts—traffic impact, heritage erosion, community character, and non-compliance with Ku-ring-gai Council’s TOD plan.

I urge the Department to decline this development application in its current form.

Yours sincerely,

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 streetscape of Stanhope Road.
> 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 will 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.
> this development 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.
> this 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.

We have lived in Killara for 8.5 years and have been concerned for some time about how busy Stanhope road is. There is a constant flow of traffic as local residents and tradesmen use it as the main access between Killara and the Pacific Highway. There are also cars regularly parked on Stanhope between the railway line and Pacific Highway which adds to the congestion. The proposal for 135 apartments will increase the traffic to the Pacific Highway and will have a major impact on noise, traffic flow, safety of pedestrians and congestion at peak hours and with only 195 parking spaces, inevitably more cars will park on the road. We are also concerned that Stanhope is one of Killara's most important heritage areas and this development takes little or no consideration of heritage issues with heritage homes at 1A, 2,3,4,5,6,7,12 and 18 surrounding the proposed site.

I object the building of the apartments as it will create bottlenecks necks on such a tight road as Stanhope road. It will create a build up on a road where there are only houses, ruining the look and feel of the Stanhope road community.

This proposed development is a complete aberration and will destroy the character of Killara. It is too high, too close to our apartment complex, likely to destroy the environment and will potentially flood the basement of one of our buildings. It also fails to take into account the new TOD alternative that has been created by Ku-ring-gai Council.