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

I am writing to formally object to the proposed development currently under consideration for Stanhope Road, Killara. After reviewing the available documentation and considering the potential impacts, I believe this proposal is fundamentally flawed and should not proceed in its current form. My objections are outlined below:

1. Excessive Breach of Height Limits
The proposed development significantly exceeds the height restrictions set for R2 Low Rise Residential Zoning—by nearly four times. Even under the more flexible guidelines of the Transport Oriented Development (TOD) program, the proposal still breaches the allowable height by over 22%. This is a clear overdevelopment of the site and sets a dangerous precedent for future planning decisions.

2. Incompatibility with Government Planning Intentions
The TOD initiative was designed to encourage low to medium-rise developments around transport hubs. This proposal, being a high-rise structure, is entirely inconsistent with that vision. Its mass and scale are grossly disproportionate to the existing streetscape and the broader character of the suburb, making it incompatible with the local context and not in the public interest.

3. Heritage Concerns
Stanhope Road is one of Killara’s most significant heritage precincts. The proposed development fails to adequately consider the heritage value of surrounding properties, including 1A, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 12, and 18 Stanhope Road. The Heritage Impact Statement provided is fundamentally flawed and does not reflect the true impact on the area's cultural and historical fabric.

4. Negative Impacts on Surrounding Residences
The development will result in substantial visual intrusion, overshadowing, loss of privacy, and a general reduction in amenity for more than 50 nearby residences in all directions. These impacts are unacceptable and have not been sufficiently mitigated in the proposal.

5. Inadequate Community Engagement
The community consultation process has been poorly executed. Many residents were unaware of the proposal until well after its lodgement on 9th May. The developer’s “drop-in” session on 3rd April was poorly attended, highlighting the failure to properly inform and engage the community. This lack of transparency undermines the integrity of the planning process.

6. Environmental Concerns
The site contains critically endangered Sydney Blue Gum trees, which are at serious risk if the development proceeds. The preservation of these trees should be a priority and must be considered in any planning decision.

7. Insufficient Deep Soil Provision
The proposed development provides only 7% deep soil, which is well below the minimum requirements set by Ku-ring-gai Council. This shortfall will have long-term consequences for stormwater management, tree planting, and overall environmental sustainability.

8. Flawed Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
The EIS submitted by the developer contains numerous contradictions and omissions. It fails to clearly communicate the true size and scale of the development and does not provide sufficient detail on the proposed affordable housing component. These deficiencies make it impossible for the community to fully understand or assess the proposal. The process must be restarted to ensure transparency and fairness.

In light of the above, I respectfully urge the council to reject this proposal in its current form. It is not in keeping with the planning controls, the character of the area, or the expectations of the local community.

I object to this development on the following grounds:

1. Height, shadowing and loss of privacy concerns.
2. Visual vandalism in an area already being built out by unattractive high rise edifices.
3. Increased demand on services and anticipated growth in traffic flows on a street which is already a major thoroughfare
4. Added pressure on public transport services and on-street parking

I am writing to formally object to the proposed development of up to 9–10 storey apartment buildings in Killara, specifically along Stanhope Road. As someone who grew up in this beautiful suburb and still has close family residing in the area, I have deep concerns about the significant and irreversible changes this project would bring to a community that is defined by its heritage, greenery, and low-density character.

1. Height and Scale Incompatible with Local Character
The proposed building height of 35 metres exceeds the guidelines outlined in the Transport Oriented Development (TOD) proposal by over 22% and is nearly four times the height allowed in the R2 Low Rise Residential zoning. Stanhope Road currently has no unit blocks, and introducing such a large-scale development would be a dramatic and abrupt change. This proposal would fundamentally alter the existing streetscape and skyline, replacing it with a structure that looms over adjacent properties, including homes of heritage significance.

2. Overshadowing, Loss of Privacy, and Visual Impact
This development will cause significant overshadowing and a loss of natural light for more than 50 nearby homes in every direction. The scale of the proposed buildings would also drastically reduce the sense of privacy and quiet enjoyment that current residents expect. The leafy charm and character of Killara are defined by its open spaces, tree-lined streets, and garden settings—features that would be overwhelmed by such dense, high-rise construction.

3. Increased Congestion and Strain on Local Infrastructure
Killara’s infrastructure is already under pressure. Adding hundreds of new residents will lead to increased traffic congestion, particularly along Stanhope Road and surrounding feeder streets that are not designed to handle such volume. Public transport, parking, and road safety will all be impacted. Furthermore, local schools are already operating beyond capacity, and this influx of new residents will place an unsustainable burden on educational and health services.

4. Contradiction of Local Planning Frameworks
This proposal is inconsistent with the Ku-ring-gai Council’s Preferred Scenario for development in this area, which recommends a maximum height of 12 metres. The proposed development is almost triple this recommendation and entirely out of step with what the community has identified as sustainable and appropriate growth.

5. Not in the Public Interest
While it is understood that there is a need for increased housing supply in Sydney, the form and location of that development must respect and reflect the context of existing communities. A 3–10 storey high-rise on Stanhope Road is not in the public interest—it fails to align with local planning strategies, ignores existing infrastructure limitations, and would irreparably damage the character of a historically low-density, residential neighbourhood.

I strongly urge the responsible authorities to reject this application and consider alternative development strategies that are compatible with the unique environment and community values of Killara.
 

Having grown up next door to the proposed site, I have serious concerns for changes to the drainage killing Sydney Blue Gum trees that are mature and part of the wildlife breeding habitat. I also understand the natural underground water runoff and am concerned for the waterways down the valley. There will also be significant amounts of shade created by such a tall development that will greatly impact neighboring properties. Stanhope road has a character of space and greenery and this will begin to seriously erode the entire block.

• 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.

Dear Sir
The proposed development constitutes a significant breach of planning regulations, exceeding the height restrictions set by the R2 Low Rise Residential Zoning by nearly four times. It also surpasses the allowable height under the Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Housing SEPP framework by over 22%. These are not minor infractions—they represent major departures from established policy, which is designed to promote low- to medium-rise developments in proximity to transport hubs. A 10-storey high-rise is wholly inconsistent with this objective and starkly contrasts with the established character of the local area. As such, the proposal is clearly not in the public interest.

Stanhope Road is one of Killara’s most valued heritage precincts. The proposed development demonstrates a troubling disregard for the area’s heritage significance, including the many heritage-listed homes at 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 12, 17, and 18 Stanhope Road. The lack of sensitivity to this context—particularly the absence of consideration for 12 Stanhope Road—is alarming and unacceptable.

The visual and environmental impacts of the development would be substantial. More than 50 surrounding properties would be adversely affected by overshadowing, loss of privacy, and diminished residential amenity. These impacts are not confined to a few isolated dwellings—they would disrupt the quality of life for residents in all directions surrounding the site.

The community consultation process has also been gravely deficient. Many residents were unaware of the proposal until well after its lodging on the SSD site on 9 May, leaving them with insufficient time to thoroughly review, comprehend, and respond to the application. The notably low attendance at the developer’s so-called “drop-in” session on 3 April further illustrates the inadequacy of the engagement process.

Additionally, the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) submitted by the developer contains numerous contradictions and significant omissions. It fails to provide a clear understanding of the project's actual scale, density, and the extent of affordable housing to be delivered. Given these critical deficiencies, the current proposal should be rejected in its entirety. The developer must be required to recommence the application process, ensuring full transparency and meaningful community involvement.

Yours sincerely,
Jon R

I am writing to formally object to the proposed development at 10, 14 and 14a Stanhope Road, Killara, submitted under Submission (SUB-84706708).

As a long-standing resident of the area, I have serious concerns regarding the proposed development on the following grounds:

Non-Compliance with Height Restrictions
The proposal clearly exceeds the local planning scheme’s prescribed height limits for this area. These limits are in place to ensure consistent urban form and to protect residential amenity. Allowing this development to proceed as proposed would set a troubling precedent for further breaches, undermining the integrity of the planning controls.

Loss of Privacy
The excessive height and scale of the development will result in significant overlooking into the private open spaces and windows of adjacent properties. This is an unacceptable intrusion that will negatively affect the privacy and quality of life of nearby residents.

Incompatibility with Heritage Character
The subject site is located within an area containing numerous heritage-listed properties. The proposed design and scale are starkly out of character with the architectural integrity, scale, and streetscape values that define this heritage precinct. The development would diminish the area's historic aesthetic and potentially devalue surrounding heritage properties.

Adverse Impact on Neighborhood Amenity
Beyond the specific issues of height and privacy, the overall bulk and scale of the development are inconsistent with the low-rise, garden-suburban character of the neighborhood. This discordance will have a lasting negative impact on the visual coherence and community identity of the area.

In light of the above, I respectfully urge rejection of the application in its current form. I also request that I be notified of any public meetings or decisions related to this application, and that this objection be formally recorded.

Thank you for considering my submission.

Yours sincerely,
Jim Walsh

Will not have a positive impact on the location

To me,
1 It is not in the public interest. Mass and scale of this development is totally out of proportion to the street and suburb which has a long history of the heritage area.
2 The Heritage Impact Statement is fundamental invalid. 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.
3 The proposal was submitted only 2 weeks ago. Community Engagement on this project was not undertaken correctly. Many residents were unaware of the proposal until well after its lodgement on 9th May on the SSD site.
4 Critically endanger the Sydney Blue Gum trees on the site
5 The deep soil of 7% is far below the Ku-ring-gai Council required amount.
6 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. The Developer’s EIS submission contains multiple major contradictions and omissions.

Proposal breaches height limits for R2 low rise residential zoning

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing to object to the proposed apartment development on Stanhope Road, Killara.

Firstly, the community engagement for this project has been deeply inadequate. Many local residents, including myself, were unaware of the proposal until well after it was lodged on the SSD site on 9th May. This lack of proper communication has meant that residents have not had enough time to review, understand, or respond to the proposal in a meaningful way. The very low attendance at the developer’s so-called “drop-in” session on 3rd April is further evidence that the consultation process did not reach or involve the community as it should have.

This is particularly concerning given the sensitive location of the proposed development. Stanhope Road is one of Killara’s most significant heritage areas, home to several important heritage-listed properties at 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 12, 17 and 18 Stanhope Road. The development appears to give little or no consideration to the heritage value of this street or the unique character that makes this area so special to residents and the broader community. Neither has consideration been given for number 12 Stanhope Road.

In addition to the heritage concerns, the proposed building would have serious negative impacts on the surrounding homes, particularly 12 Stanhope Rd. It would create significant visual intrusion, overshadowing, loss of privacy, and a general loss of amenity for more than 50 homes located directly to the north, south, east, and west of the site. This level of impact on existing residents is unacceptable.

For these reasons, I strongly urge the government to reject this proposal and require the developer to properly consult the community and consider the unique character and needs of this area.

Sincerely,
S Turner

I have lived in various suburbs in Ku-ring-Gai for majority of my life . I'm objecting to this change in types of structures being built in our area. This seems to be a high-rise building plan. I was aware the Government wanted low/medium-rise development . However , this high-rise building plan is not suited to this area, in its size and in relation to the surrounding homes. Do not allow this . Sincerely, David Church

Height of the development will have a significant negative impact including:
-Shadowing on all the surrounding houses.
-Loss of privacy to properties in close proximity and even within some distance to the project.
-Increase of motor vehicles traffic and noise in a residential zone.
-Increase of number of vehicles parked on a residential street.
-Length of construction disrupting families and wildlife in the area.
-Reduction of green areas, and increase of noise during and after the construction.
-Reduce appeal of the area, with a negative impact on elder people.

*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 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.
*Developers are decimating the value of properties in this area by diminishing heritage value, nature, wildlife and by trying to to use the argument of affordable housing near infrastructure that is already burdened by current population numbers.

Areas near all North Shore train stations are already very busy, and we are experiencing a lot of traffic jams on the Pacific Highway. With much higher density expected from this development, the traffic conditions will definitely get worse. Without a major overhaul of the infrastructure in North Shore, building high-rise along the pacific highway is just a bad idea.

I oppose inappropriate development

The proposal represents a substantial breach of planning regulations, exceeding the R2 Low Rise Residential Zoning height limits by nearly four times. It also surpasses the height allowances under the TOD Housing SEPP program by more than 22%. These deviations are not minor—they are significant and undermine the intent of the Government’s policy, which aims to encourage low- to medium-rise developments near transport hubs. A 10-storey high-rise is entirely inconsistent with this vision and clearly out of step with the character of the local area. It is, therefore, not in the public interest.

Stanhope Road is one of Killara’s most significant heritage precincts. The proposed development shows little, if any, regard for the area's heritage value or for the numerous heritage-listed homes nearby at 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 12, 17, and 18 Stanhope Road. This lack of consideration is deeply concerning. So is the lack of consideration for 12 Stanhope Road

Furthermore, the development will have severe visual impacts, including overshadowing, loss of privacy, and a reduction in residential amenity for more than 50 properties surrounding the site. These are not isolated effects—they directly affect the daily lives of many residents in every direction from the proposed building.

There are also serious issues with the community engagement process. Many residents were unaware of the proposal until well after it was lodged on the SSD site on 9 May. This delay has left insufficient time for the community to properly review, understand, and respond to the application. The very low turnout at the developer’s so-called “drop-in” session on 3 April is further evidence that the engagement process was fundamentally flawed.

In addition, the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) submitted by the developer contains several major contradictions and omissions. As it stands, it is nearly impossible to determine the actual size, scale, and scope of the development or understand how much affordable housing is included. Given these serious shortcomings, the current submission should be rejected. The developer must be required to restart the process to ensure residents are properly informed and have a fair opportunity to participate.

Yours sincerely
Kellie O'Keeffe

It is imperative that this planning proposal be rejected, given the significant and multi-faceted breaches it entails, which render it wholly inappropriate for the local area and contrary to the public interest.
    •    Excessive Height and Zoning Breaches:
The proposed development dramatically exceeds the height restrictions designated for R2 Low Rise Residential Zoning—by nearly fourfold—and also surpasses the limits stipulated under the Government’s Transport Oriented Development (TOD) program by over 22%. Such blatant non-compliance undermines the integrity of the planning framework and sets a dangerous precedent for future overdevelopment.
    •    Incompatibility with Government Intent and Local Character:
The TOD initiative was designed to encourage low- to medium-rise developments around transport hubs. This proposal constitutes a high-rise structure that is grossly disproportionate to the existing built environment. Its mass and scale are entirely at odds with the surrounding streetscape and the broader suburban context, rendering the development fundamentally incompatible with the character of Killara. Allowing this development would directly contravene the intended objectives of the TOD program and public planning principles.
    •    Heritage Impact:
Stanhope Road is a recognised heritage precinct and home to a number of significant heritage properties, including 1A, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 12, and 18 Stanhope Road. The proposed development fails to give adequate consideration to the heritage value of these properties. The accompanying Heritage Impact Statement is deeply flawed and fails to acknowledge or mitigate the risks posed to this culturally and historically important area.
    •    Adverse Impacts on Surrounding Residences:
The proposal would severely affect over 50 neighbouring properties through substantial visual intrusion, overshadowing, loss of privacy, and general amenity degradation. These negative externalities are unacceptable in any context, let alone in a low-rise residential area such as this.
    •    Deficiencies in Community Engagement:
The consultation process has been grossly inadequate. Many residents were unaware of the development until well after it was lodged on the State Significant Development (SSD) website on 9 May. The developer’s single “drop-in” session on 3 April was poorly publicised and poorly attended, highlighting the failure to engage meaningfully with the community. As a result, residents have not had sufficient time or opportunity to properly examine and respond to the proposal.
    •    Threat to Critically Endangered Flora:
The site contains Sydney Blue Gum trees, which are classified as critically endangered. Their protection should be a paramount consideration. Proceeding with the development as proposed places these ecologically valuable trees at significant risk.
    •    Non-Compliance with Environmental Requirements:
The proposed development offers only 7% deep soil area, well below the standards required by Ku-ring-gai Council. This shortfall compromises the ecological sustainability and liveability of the development.
    •    Misleading and Deficient Environmental Impact Statement (EIS):
The developer’s EIS is riddled with contradictions and omissions. As currently presented, it is virtually impossible for residents to ascertain the true size, scale, and implications of the proposed development. The vague references to affordable housing benefits lack sufficient detail, further obscuring the proposal’s actual community value.

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.

I object to the project .