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

The proposal has multiple adverse impact on the built & natural environment including:
- Unacceptable negative impact on biodiversity and tree canopy including critically endangered Sydney Blue Gum trees which will be at risk
- Disregard for heritage items and the significance of the street and area which is in contradiction to the clause 5.10 of the LEP namely “significant adverse effect” on the amenity of the surrounding area.
- Overdevelopment in terms of height, FSR, mass, open area creating issues with privacy, overshadowing and significant loss of amenity for neighbouring houses in all directions of the proposed development
-Inadequate community engagement

Date: 25-5-2025


To: Dept of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure
NSW State Government

OBJECTION TO PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 10, 14 AND 14a STANHOPE ROAD KILLARA.

I strongly object to the scale of the proposed development, for two main reasons:
1. The scale of the project
2. Traffic concerns

1. Scale

The scale of the proposed development is for almost twice the number of units that could reasonably be accommodated with considering the size of the block, the nature of the suburb, and the effect on existing property owners.

The proposed height of the units abutting our properties at 10 Marian St should comply with the normal restrictions of 5 storeys above ground level. From our apartment at the rear of 10 Marian St, we abut 10 Stanhope Rd. While there are trees to the rear of number 10, there is no guarantee that these will survive the development, and in recent years they have already thinned and we can see number 10 in part. So with a much larger height building proposed closer to our boundary, the trees will provide very little visual protection for us.

We will also suffer occupier noise, and be looked in upon. Both issues would mean a significant reduction in privacy for us.

2. Traffic:
Stanhope Road is a two lane road the often has vehicles parked both sides of the road, will become increasingly congested with another 100 to 200 cars using the road, and parking in the road. Stanhope is also a major through road from East Killara and Lindfield to the Pacific Highway.
Culworth Ave (south) is now almost fully built out with apartment blocks of the normal height (one to be completed with another 50 or more cars). Culworth Avenue (south) is used as a thoroughfare for traffic to the station, as well as being the only access to Marian St and Caithness St for traffic coming from the south along Pacific Highway. It is also the route used by railway replacement buses when trackwork is being undertaken, causing more congestion.
Culworth Avenue (south) has never been widened or upgraded, with the result that we cope with regular flooding, and because of the narrowness creating effectively a one lane road, traffic hold-ups when meeting on-coming traffic. Any increase in traffic on this road will cause major jams and very much affect the already marginal access to Marian St from the Pacific Highway.

The Government is keen to increase housing density in the area, but this must be done in accordance with the nature of the properties already built, and with regard to the traffic disruption it will cause with overdevelopment.

Yours faithfully,

David Rands

Dr David Rands
Unit 56, 10 Marian St
Killara, NSW 2071

I am writing to formally register my strongest possible objection to the above-mentioned development application, which proposes the construction of a 10-storey high-rise residential building within what has historically been, and should remain, a low-density heritage residential precinct of significant cultural, architectural, and community value.
FUNDAMENTAL INCOMPATIBILITY WITH HERITAGE CHARACTER
The proposed development represents a catastrophic departure from the established built form and heritage character that defines this neighbourhood. This area has evolved over decades as a cohesive low-rise residential enclave, characterized by single and double-storey dwellings that reflect the architectural vernacular and settlement patterns of our local history. The streetscapes maintain a human scale that preserves sight lines to mature canopy trees, allows natural light penetration to gardens and public spaces, and creates the intimate pedestrian environment that residents have come to cherish and expect.
A 10-storey tower would constitute an alien intrusion into this carefully preserved urban fabric, creating an overwhelming sense of enclosure and fundamentally altering the essential character that makes this neighbourhood both liveable and historically significant. The scale differential between existing housing stock and the proposed development is so extreme as to render any claims of sympathetic integration completely untenable.
PLANNING POLICY CONTRADICTIONS
This proposal appears to directly contravene multiple layers of established planning policy designed specifically to protect heritage areas from inappropriate overdevelopment. Local heritage overlays, residential zoning provisions, and strategic planning frameworks have been deliberately crafted to ensure that new development respects existing character while accommodating reasonable growth. The proposed building height exceeds these parameters by such a margin that approval would effectively render existing planning controls meaningless and set a dangerous precedent for similar inappropriate developments throughout the municipality.
The cumulative impact of approving developments that so blatantly disregard established planning principles would be the systematic erosion of the planning system's integrity and the community's confidence in proper development assessment processes.
INFRASTRUCTURE AND AMENITY IMPACTS
The introduction of a high-density residential building into an area planned and serviced for low-density occupation will place unprecedented strain on existing infrastructure networks. Local roads were not designed to accommodate the significant increase in vehicular traffic that would inevitably result from concentrating multiple dwelling units in a single location. The additional burden on stormwater systems, electricity networks, and telecommunications infrastructure could compromise service reliability for existing residents.
Furthermore, the parking requirements for such a development, regardless of how they are met, will fundamentally alter the streetscape character. Whether through extensive basement excavation that affects neighbourhood drainage patterns and tree root systems, or through increased street-level parking demand that eliminates the current spacious, garden-dominated street presentation, the transportation impacts alone justify refusal of this application.
AMENITY AND PRIVACY CONCERNS
The height and bulk of the proposed building would create severe amenity impacts for surrounding properties through overshadowing, overlooking, and visual bulk effects. Residents who have invested in their properties based on reasonable expectations about neighbourhood character and their ongoing amenity enjoyment would find their outdoor spaces rendered unpleasant or unusable during significant portions of the day.
The privacy implications are equally serious, with upper-level apartments capable of direct surveillance into the private outdoor spaces and even internal areas of neighbouring homes. This represents an unreasonable intrusion that no existing resident should be compelled to accept, particularly when such impacts result from development that exceeds appropriate scale parameters.
ENVIRONMENTAL AND SUSTAINABILITY CONCERNS
The environmental impact of constructing such a substantial building in an established low-density area extends beyond immediate construction disruption. The loss of deep soil planting opportunities, the heat island effects of increased building mass, the disruption to local microclimates, and the precedent for similar development throughout the area could cumulatively transform the neighbourhood's environmental character in ways that reduce liveability and sustainability.
Mature vegetation, which contributes significantly to local biodiversity, stormwater management, and urban cooling, would be threatened both directly through site clearance and indirectly through changed growing conditions caused by altered wind patterns and shadowing from the tower.
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION AND DEMOCRATIC PROCESS
The scale and impact of this proposal demand the most rigorous community consultation and assessment processes. Residents deserve meaningful opportunity to understand and respond to development proposals that will fundamentally alter their living environment. Any approval process that does not include comprehensive community engagement, independent expert assessment of heritage impacts, and transparent consideration of alternatives would represent a failure of democratic planning principles.
CONCLUSION AND REQUEST
For all the reasons outlined above, I respectfully but firmly urge the responsible planning authority to refuse this application in its entirety. The proposed development is fundamentally inappropriate for this location and cannot be modified or conditioned to achieve acceptable outcomes. The heritage character, established amenity expectations, infrastructure limitations, and community values at stake require protection through decisive rejection of inappropriate development proposals.
I request that this objection be given full consideration in the assessment process and that I be notified of any community consultation opportunities, expert reports, or decision-making meetings related to this application.
The precedent set by this decision will reverberate throughout our community for decades to come. I trust that the planning authority will demonstrate its commitment to heritage protection, appropriate development assessment, and community amenity by refusing this inappropriate proposal.

The proposal significantly breaches the height limits for the R2 Low Rise Residential Zoning by almost 4 times and breaches the heights allowed under the Transport Oriented Development (TOD) program by over 22%.
Stanhope Road is one of Killara’s most important Heritage areas. This development takes little or no consideration of heritage issues and/or the heritage homes at 1A, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 12 and 18 Stanhope Road., which surround the proposed site. The Heritage Impact Statement has fundamental flaws and the development has a combination of huge visual impacts, overshadowing, loss of privacy and loss of amenity issues for more than 50 residences directly to the north, south, east and west of the proposed development.

This development is completely out of character with the local area due to the height of the proposed buildings and the number of dwellings proposed. It is an absurd approach to planning to have Kuringai Council stating it wishes to maintain the Heritage Conservation Areas such as Stanhope Rd whilst developments such as this are deemed permissible, indeed desirable, by the State Govt.
The amount of time and money put into this development proposal and project application, along with the several other proposed DSS in Kuringai by the same development group is astounding, yet their consideration of the negative impact on the amenity, quality of life, privacy and property value of neighbouring properties is virtually non-existent. The research, data and conclusions drawn detailed in the project application read like a work of fiction when it comes to providing a true indication of the impact of this development on neighbouring properties.
The development will cause significant overshadowing of neighbouring properties - the shadow diagrams provided show that some neighbouring properties will receive virtually NO direct winter sunlight in their back gardens which will affect vegetation and tree health impacting native flaura and fauna.
The development will cause significant issues for all residents with regard to traffic levels and parking along Stanhope Rd.
The pedestrian access proposed via the existing driveway of 10 Stanhope Rd will mean that the residents of 8 & 12 Stanhope Rd will have a public, illuminated thoroughfare running beside their homes which will significantly affect their privacy, amenity and security.
This development, in it's current form, should be rejected outright by the NSW State Govt.

This development's height is excessive - 35m vs 12m which height is very close to the boundary and significantly affects amenity of residences in the area. Clearly it is inconsistent with Ku-ring-gai's rules, will lead a significant loss of privacy for a number of residences in the direct area and is inconsistent with developments in Stanhope Ave

Objection to the proposed development of 10-14-14a Stanhope Road Killara NSW

As a former resident of Killara (in close proximity to the proposed development) I am dismayed at reading through the documentation for this proposed development.

I am certainly not opposed to the redevelopment of dedicated suburban areas in order to increase housing density. Developments around Lindfield and Gordon Stations are examples of locations where increased density makes sense and offers much needed diversification, with shops and restaurants within metres of one’s residence and a station literally across the road.

By contrast, Stanhope Road does not have the same ingredients as a location for apartment buildings up to 10 floors. Yes, Killara Station is a 10 minute walk away, but there are no shops anywhere within walking distance.

On the contrary, Stanhope Road is distinguished by its frontage of heritage listed homes. These homes are characteristic of Ku-Ring-Gai as a suburb, as are many of their neighbours which haven’t been heritage listed. They are also exactly the reason why so many people have wanted to live in these suburbs for so many generations.
Grand as they may seem, these homes would be totally overshadowed by a development of this scale and height proposed in their backyard. Discounting for a minute the impact this development would have on the monetary value of said homes, their owners - present and future - would be saddled with a severe loss of amenity (such as privacy and shadowing among others) that could never be regained.

I object to this development on the grounds that it is out of place and out of character with its surroundings and that a one-off monetary gain for three property owners would cause ongoing loss and distress to many others, not in the least for their own neighbours.

• The proposal significantly breaches the height limits for the R2 Low Rise Residential Zoning (by almost 4 times) and breaches the heights allowed under the Transport Oriented Development (TOD) program by over 22%.
• 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. The mass and scale of this development is totally out of proportion to the street and suburb in general.
• Stanhope Road is one of Killara’s most important Heritage areas. This development takes little or no consideration of heritage issues and/or the heritage homes at 1A, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 12 and 18 Stanhope Road., which surround the proposed site. The Heritage Impact Statement has fundamental flaws.
• The development has a combination of huge visual impacts, overshadowing, loss of privacy and loss of amenity issues for more than 50 residences directly to the north, south, east and west of the proposed development.
• The Community Engagement on this project was not undertaken correctly. Hence, many residents were unaware of the proposal until well after its lodgement on 9th May on the SSD site. As a result, residents and other interested parties have not had sufficient time to adequately read, understand and respond to the proposal. The lack of numbers at the developer’s so called “drop-in” session on 3rd April reinforce the breach of the community engagement process.
• There are critically endangered Sydney Blue Gum trees on the site, which are at risk if the development proceeds.
• The deep soil of 7% is far below the Ku-ring-gai Council required amount.
• The Developer’s EIS submission contains multiple major contradictions and omissions. It is impossible to understand the actual size and scale of the proposed development as well as what level of benefit the affordable housing is proposed. It needs to be fixed, and the process recommenced from the beginning to give residents a chance to understand same.
• I have lived on Stanhope Road for 13 years & I am a very concerned about the traffic + noise impacts.

1. There is excessive height above the surrounding buildings (some of which are Heritage Listed) causing shadowing, loss of privacy and visual changes not in keeping with existing street scape of Stanhope Road. The height proposed exceeds the TOD proposal by over 22% and significantly breaches the height limits for the R2 Low Rise Residential Zoning (by almost 4 times)
2. With a high traffic volume of residents and visitors entering the High Rise Development, accidents would occur on the Pacific Highway turning into Stanhope Road where there are NO traffic lights. Stanhope Road is a direct feeder road through to Eastern Arterial Road so new residents would cause traffic congestion.
3. More than 50 Residences would be effected directly to the north, south, east and west of the proposed development with loss of amenity issues, overshadowing, loss of Green Space, recreational space and oxygen creating Trees.
4. It is not consistent with the Ku-ring-gai Council's preferred scenario which recommends a maximum height of 12 metres in this area rather than the 35 metres proposed in this application.
5. While the Governments aim is to develop low/medium-rise buildings around transport hubs, this is a high-rise development which is totally incompatible with the locality and hence, is not in the Public interest.

Submission from a Long-Term Stanhope Resident – Strong Objection to Proposed High-Rise Development on Stanhope Road, Killara

Having lived on Stanhope Road, Killara for 29 years, I feel compelled to express my deep concern and strong objection to the proposed development on Stanhope Road. This development represents a profound departure from the established planning principles that have shaped our community and protected its liveability for decades.

Significant Breach of Height Controls

The proposed 10-storey development blatantly violates the planning regulations that govern this area. It exceeds the height limits for R2 Low Rise Residential Zoning by nearly four times—a clear and unacceptable breach of local zoning laws. Furthermore, it surpasses the maximum building height allowed under the Government’s Transport Oriented Development (TOD) Housing SEPP program by over 22%.

This is not a case of minor non-compliance. It is a deliberate attempt to force a high-density, high-rise building into an area specifically zoned for low-rise residential living. The TOD Housing SEPP was introduced to support well-scaled, low to medium-rise housing near transport nodes—not to open the door to high-rise developments that overwhelm local character and infrastructure. A 10-storey tower is entirely out of place in this context and is not in the public interest.

Unsustainable Impact on Community Infrastructure

Beyond the obvious planning breaches, this proposal would impose serious and lasting pressure on local infrastructure—much of which is already under strain:

Schools: Local schools are operating at or near capacity. The influx of new residents from a high-density development would exacerbate enrolment pressure, reduce available resources, and negatively affect student learning environments.
Healthcare: Medical centres and healthcare services in the area are limited. A significant population increase without a corresponding expansion of services would stretch healthcare access and availability, especially for families and the elderly.
Traffic and Parking: Stanhope Road and the surrounding streets are already congested, with limited on-street parking. The addition of a high-rise development would increase traffic volumes, heighten safety risks for pedestrians and cyclists, and cause further parking shortages for residents and visitors alike.
Community Wellbeing: The sheer scale and density of this development would erode the peaceful, community-oriented nature of the neighbourhood. It threatens to transform a quiet, heritage-rich street into a high-traffic corridor, undermining the quality of life that residents have built and maintained for generations.


Conclusion

As someone who has lived on Stanhope Road for many years, I have seen firsthand how thoughtful planning can protect the integrity and wellbeing of a community. This proposal does the opposite. It flagrantly disregards zoning laws, compromises critical infrastructure, and is incompatible with the character and scale of our neighbourhood.

I urge the relevant authorities to reject this development in its current form. A project of this size and intensity has no place in an R2 Low Rise Residential area and should not be permitted to proceed under the guise of a TOD initiative.

Sincerely,
Kent Mears

The proposal is for 135 apartments and 195 car spaces across 10 storeys. The maximum height of any building in Killara is currently 5 storeys. This will significantly change the character and heritage context of the street.  The proposal significantly breaches the height limits for the R2 Low Rise Residential Zoning (by almost 4 times) and breaches the heights allowed under the Transport Oriented Development (TOD) program by over 22%. 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. The mass and scale of this development is totally out of proportion to the street and suburb in generalThe increase in traffic to the Pacific Hwy will have a major impact on noise, traffic, safety of pedestrians.  Traffic flow from the Pacific Hwy to Stanhope Road will create more of a congestion at peak hours.
Stanhope Road is one of Killara’s most important Heritage areas. This development takes little or no consideration of heritage issues and/or the heritage homes at 1A, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 12 and 18 Stanhope Road., which surround the proposed site. The Heritage Impact Statement has fundamental flaws.

This is a high-rise development which is against the Government's aim to develop low to medium-rise developments around transport hubs. The mass and scale of the development is out of proportion to the street and takes no consideration of heritage issues and/or the heritage homes at 1A, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 12 and 18 Stanhope Road. Other impacts include overshadowing, loss of privacy and loss of amenity for many residences in all directions surrounding the proposed development.

Having lived in this area for over 60 years I am concerned that Killara, as we know it , will be lost forever.
Increased traffic, impossible parking and safety of motorists and pedestrians alike. is of concern.
ALREADY THERE ARE ISUES ABOUT ENTERING AND EXITING THE HOMES in this area with safety as visibility towards the Highway
to the west and Culworth Ave to the east is often compromised by parked cars ,trucks and boats . This situation will only get worse .
With the proposed high rise, the remaining/existing properties would lose their privacy
I would hope that due consideration be given to these objections.

I object to this development on the following grounds:
- I lived in Stanhope Road , Killara all my childhood and early adult life and feel that the impact of this development will be detrimental to the surroundings homes in Stanhope Road which will be adversely affected ie. height of building proposed, loss of privacy , impact on traffic and parking in Stanhope Road
- Many homes in Stanhope Road are heritage listed and this development is not in line with the current scape of Stanhope Road
- It will cause further overloading to the services and amenities currently in high demand ie. schools , medical and allied health services, parking, shopping

Please see attached my 34 page document on the proposed development, which includes detail comments and objections.

Comments include but are not limited to the following:

1. I object to the proposed development because it is over scale for the site and too high at 11 storeys at the rear.
2. The Clause 4.6 variation request must be rejected because it is based on inaccurate and misleading information.
3. It will ruin the local environment and diminish the amenity of the area for its neighbours.
4. Stanhope Road is already unsafe, particularly its access to the Pacific Highway, and during construction it would be very dangerous.
5. Both during and post construction the road would be so parked out that its amenity for locals would be destroyed.
6. Removal of the predicted 20,000 tonnes of material to tip would have to be via Culworth and Lorne Avenues in order to access north bound traffic lights on the Pacific Highway. That is unsafe and unacceptable.
7. The stormwater discharge cannot be via 10 Marian street for the reasons detailed in the attached comments document. There is a real prospect of basement flooding at 10 Marian Street if they are allowed to discharge through that property.

Enough with the development and destroying the small pockets of green space we have. These are wildlife corridors, we already have too much hard space, enough is enough, STOP with the over development of Sydney particularly the upper north shore.

I object to the project in its present form on the basis that
1. It is far too large for the area.
2. It will impact traffic and parking in the area.
3. It will increase storm water run-off which could cause flooding at times.
4. It could result in loss of privacy for many residents of 10 Marian Street.

I am an apartment owner and resident at 10 Marian Street Killara and object on the following brief grounds. My objection is supported by the attached detailed document.

• Excessive building height. The proposed maximum height of 35 m would adversely impact all 39 apartments at 10 Marian Street along the northern boundary of the proposed development. Stepping down the maximum height towards Stanhope Road may minimise the visual impact of the massive development when viewed from Street level. But this completely ignores the impact on existing residents of 10 Marian Street.
• Abuse of Affordable Housing provisions. The developer is attempting to use these provisions to grossly over develop the site and earn excessive profits in the process while totally disregarding the character of the Killara neighbourhood.
• Zero addition to the existing amenity. The proposed development would add nothing to the amenity of the area around Killara station. It needs to be noted that there is no Killara town centre and all residents of the development will have to travel to Lindfield or Gordon to buy basic household supplies.
• Increased traffic congestion and on-street parking. The addition of 168 resident cars plus 27 visitor cars would create significant traffic problems. Stanhope Road already carries heavy am and pm traffic flows in conjunction with widespread on- street parking.
• Increased stormwater runoff. The proposed increase in site coverage would result in a serious increase in stormwater runoff, particularly in the event of a major storm event. This has the potential to cause flooding of neighbouring property.
• 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. 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 at minimal financial penalty. Serious penalties must be included in any approved application for any breach of the landscape plans.

I am an apartment owner and resident at 10 Marian Street Killara and object on the following brief grounds. My objection is supported by the attached detailed document.

• Excessive building height. The proposed maximum height of 35 m would adversely impact all 39 apartments at 10 Marian Street along the northern boundary of the proposed development. Stepping down the maximum height towards Stanhope Road may minimise the visual impact of the massive development when viewed from Street level but this completely ignores the impact on existing residents of 10 Marian Street.
• Abuse of Affordable Housing provisions. The developer is attempting to use these provisions to grossly over develop the site and earn excessive profits in the process while totally disregarding the character of the Killara neighbourhood.
• Zero addition to the existing amenity. The proposed development would add nothing to the amenity of the area around Killara station. It needs to be noted that there is no Killara town centre and all residents of the development will have to travel to Lindfield or Gordon to buy basic household supplies.
• Increased traffic congestion and on-street parking. The addition of 168 resident cars plus 27 visitor cars would create significant traffic problems. Stanhope Road already carries heavy am and pm traffic flows in conjunction with widespread on- street parking.
• Increased stormwater runoff. The proposed increase in site coverage would result in a serious increase in stormwater runoff, particularly in the event of a major storm event. This has the potential to cause flooding of neighbouring property.
• 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. 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 at minimal financial penalty. Serious penalties must be included in any approved application for any breach of the landscape plans.

We (my husband and I) object to this is a high-rise development which is completely incompatible with the locality and not in the public interest. The mass and scale of this development is totally out of proportion and character to the street and suburb in general. If approved, this development would be the tallest building in Killara. Not something to boast about.

We live outside the area, but regularly visit our family and grandchildren who reside at 5 Stanhope Road Killara. We enjoy the beauty, the native birds and wildlife that inhabit tree lined Stanhope Road.

We currently hold a disability parking permit and park safely on the street outside their home. We are concerned that our ability to park safely on the street will be severely compromised due to the huge increase in construction vehicles and trucks.

The Heritage Impact Statement has fundamental flaws because it lists a few but NOT all the heritage homes in Stanhope Road.

Stanhope Road is one of Killara’s most important Heritage areas. There are nine heritage homes - 1A, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 12 and 18 Stanhope Road, which surround the proposed site. By not listing all these homes in detail, the EIS downsizes their value.

The Developer’s EIS submission contains multiple major contradictions.

a) the number of apartments is inconsistent.
a. 135 residential apartments inclusive of 26 affordable apartments (page 23)
b. 142 dwellings (including 24 affordable units) (page 26)


b. The time frame for construction activities is inconsistent.
a. Construction activities will occur over a 24-month period once consent is obtained. (page 23)
b. Construction activities will occur over a 42-month period once consent is obtained. (page 34)

These contradictions make it impossible to understand the actual size, scale and time frame of the proposed development.

The Developer’s EIS submission contains multiple misleading statements
a) Active Transport (page 13) – the EIS states there are well established paved footpaths and a number of formal pedestrian crossings in the vicinity of the proposed development.

However: We have walked from this proposed development along Stanhope Road via Culworth Avenue to the Killara Railway Station and there are NO existing pedestrian crossings, the footpaths are uneven and rutted by tree roots. [Council frequently asked to fix uneven paths]

b) Active Transport (page 13) – the EIS states that Stanhope Road and Werona Avenue are bike friendly routes. Cyclists may travel north/south on Werona which has a 50km/h speed limit.

However: Stanhope Road has many driveways creating visual hazards for drivers reversing and thus unsafe for cyclists. Many cars park off street in Stanhope Road, making it narrow and unsafe for cyclist.

Werona Avenue is very hilly, narrow and not cyclist friendly. We drive this avenue often, but have never seen a cyclist on this route as most use the Pacific Highway.

These misleading statements paint a rosy picture and gloss over reality and existing infrastructure problems.

We (strongly object to this proposed development.