Residential Flat Buildings (x 2) at Burgoyne Street, Burgoyne Lane and Pearson Avenue, Gordon

Dear Sir/Madam,
I am writing to lodge my objection to State Significant Development SSD-82395459 proposed at 3A, 3B, 5A and 7 Burgoyne Street, 1 and 3 Pearson Avenue, and 4 Burgoyne Lane, Gordon. As a local resident, I am deeply concerned that this proposal will significantly degrade the character, amenity, and livability of our neighbourhood. The addition of over 100 new residents will further overwhelm local roads during peak hours—an already chaotic and unsafe situation. Moreover, the proposed building will block natural sunlight and ruin the outlook from my ground floor unit, directly impacting my quality of life. The attached submission outlines these and other issues, including overdevelopment, environmental damage, and incompatibility with local planning controls. I respectfully urge the Department to reject or significantly amend the current proposal.

I believe this project is totally inappropriate in this area for the following reasons:
1. It will generate traffic in an area not designed for such volume of traffic. E.g the intersection of Park Ave and Pearson Ave is dangerous to traffic travelling up Pearson Ave and onto Park Ave.
2. The size and height of the project is completely out of keeping with the neighbouring low rise residential area. There is no buffer zone between the 8 storey project and single storey adjoining homes.
3. There will be many trees removed in the development and it is the tree canopy that draws many people to want to live in this area.
4. The proposed development is contrary to local council guidelines and the council’s preferred scenario. It has not been subject to any community input prior to the project being proposed.
It would seem to me that this project is a hastily prepared, opportunistic attempt to exploit the need for additional housing in Sydney.

There are too many apartments in the project which will lead to severe congestion at the nearby cross streets, especially around the railway station area.

There are many reasons why this development proposal will have an enormous negative impact on the surrounding streets where it is planned.
The developer has been able to use a loophole/carrot that the government has allowed, and will be able to increase the height and dimensions of the building greater that if they had applied through council, to build the project.
The proposed hight and location, at the top of a hill, across the road from a children's kindergarten, and close to the intersection of Park avenue, will will create enormous traffic problems, and escalate the difficulties of reaching other parts of gordon on the corner of Park Ave and Pearson Ave. CHAOS WILL OCCUR. The traffic will be a nightmare, and the developers claims that it's not a problem is not true.
The destruction of approximately 50% of the current large trees will have an enormous effect on the wildlife who live nearby, in Richmond Park. There are wallabies, echidnas, Owls, and even lyre birds who have been seen in the local area.
The design itself has little to offer in the way of enhancement. It is poor quality, and focusses on maximising density, in order to enhance the Developers profits. The building will be like shags on a rock, between a collection of low rise dwelling, with no consideration for visual harmony, privacy or heritage.
The building proposal has had no community involvent, and has been sprung on local residents in the hope that it could slip by unnoticed. DPHI had requirements that developers canvas local areas about building proposal, and this has not happened.
The community will NOT befit from this development, only the developer will. There is a risk, if this development proceeds, without major changes, that a precedent is set.
Council explicitly excluded this site from development, due to the surrounding heritage significance of the area, and is counter to the State governments wishes to preserve the Gordondale's HCA. heritage.
There has been no information regarding infrastructure that is planned to accommodate all the extra resident this development will bring to Gordon. The proposal needs to be rethought, and go through normal Ku-ring Gai council planning processes, without trying to sneak through, by other means, which only enhance the financial returns to the developer.

To whom it may concern.
I have been a resident of Gordon for the past 48 years and would like to lodge my objection to this project.
I believe a development of this size, at this site, to be highly overbearing, unsuitable and totally inconsistent with Ku-rung-gai council's strategy and planning principles.
My key objections are as follows:
*The proximity of the site to Richmond Park and Stony Creek poses significant risk to the biodiversity value of the area.
*Traffic in this area is problematic as it is, particularly during peak times. A development of this size in that location would be frankly catastrophic in terms of the traffic impact.
* The environmental impacts would be significant, considering the number of trees requiring removal and the associated disruption to local wildlife habitats.
I do not believe this development to be in the community's best interests and in fact counter-productive to the aims of the local council.
Regards
Guy Freeland

Please find attached detailed submission of objection.

Hi Delia,
Thank you for your email. Please find attached a copy of Council's objection relating to SSD 8239549 at Burgoyne Street, Pearson Avenue and Burgoyne Lane.
regards,
Brodee Gregory

I firmly oppose the proposed development. It is an oversized, insensitive, and harmful project that poses a serious threat to the character, environment, and livability of Gordon.
The proposal is grossly out of scale with its surroundings. Two large towers, far exceeding established height limits, would dominate a low-rise, residential area. This kind of massing is inappropriate and disruptive, creating an abrupt and overwhelming interface with neighbouring homes. There is no effort to transition the scale or respect the visual rhythm of the street. The design is generic and profit-driven, showing no consideration for local heritage or community identity.
Equally unacceptable is the environmental damage. The proposed removal of 62 mature trees is an act of ecological vandalism. Many of these trees are native or historically significant, and their destruction would permanently diminish the green canopy that defines Gordon. The environmental report conveniently downplays the impact, but no amount of landscaping will compensate for the loss of mature trees and habitat.
There has also been no meaningful community engagement. Residents have been ignored—there were no public briefings, no consultation sessions, no transparency. This lack of process reflects a disregard not only for local voices but also for planning obligations under state and council guidelines.
The traffic impact is another clear failure. Local roads, especially the Pacific Highway intersection, are already congested. Claiming that a high-density development would have “no impact” is plainly dishonest.
This proposal offers no tangible benefit to the community—only strain, loss, and degradation. It does not deserve approval.

I write to express my unequivocal opposition to the proposed development. This proposal is grossly inappropriate, environmentally destructive, and completely inconsistent with the established character, planning principles, and community expectations for Gordon.
The development’s scale is alarming. It proposes an urban form entirely at odds with the surrounding neighbourhood—two bulky, high-rise towers that would dominate the skyline, overshadow nearby homes, and obliterate any sense of visual cohesion. The built form shows blatant disregard for height controls, transition zones, and established design guidelines. Instead of integrating with its context, the proposal imposes itself, creating a stark and unbuffered divide between dense high-rise blocks and adjacent single-dwelling residences. This is not responsible or contextual development—it is speculative overreach.
Equally concerning is the environmental harm. The development would see the removal of 62 trees—many of which are mature, significant, and ecologically valuable. Their destruction would result in the permanent loss of green canopy, wildlife habitat, and natural cooling. In a suburb like Gordon, known for its trees and green space, this level of environmental degradation is not only unacceptable but directly contradicts Council’s long-standing environmental objectives and the community’s clearly expressed values.
The proposal also shows complete disregard for heritage. Gordon’s history is not incidental—it is foundational to its identity. The site lies near the Gordondale Heritage Conservation Area, and yet the development makes no genuine effort to acknowledge or respect this. Instead, it threatens to overwhelm and visually erode the surrounding historic homes and established landscape.
What’s more, the community has been completely shut out of the process. There has been no real engagement, no opportunity for local residents to contribute to the discussion, and no responsiveness to concerns. This lack of transparency reflects poorly on the developer and undermines the legitimacy of the proposal.
There is no evidence of any public benefit. No infrastructure upgrades, no affordable housing, no community space—just an oversized, out-of-place development that will burden local roads, degrade the environment, and compromise heritage.
This is the wrong development in the wrong place. I urge the panel to reject it entirely

I write to object in the strongest possible terms to the proposed development. It is a project that so thoroughly disregards the physical, environmental, and social context of Gordon that its approval would represent a grave failure of planning responsibility. This proposal is not an exercise in thoughtful urban growth. It is a reckless overdevelopment that delivers nothing to the existing community while stripping away much of what makes Gordon liveable and unique.
The sheer size of the development is an affront to the surrounding environment. Two oversized towers of excessive height and massing will dominate the local landscape, with no meaningful setback or transition to neighbouring low-rise dwellings. It will cast long shadows over adjacent homes and open spaces, and completely erode the existing human-scale character of the suburb. The design is generic, visually harsh, and entirely unsympathetic to its context. It is not about place-making or thoughtful integration—it is an aggressive land use grab designed for maximum yield and profit.
The heritage implications alone should be reason enough for refusal. The site sits in immediate proximity to the Gordondale Heritage Conservation Area and other heritage-listed properties, and yet this development pays them no respect. It would impose a jarring, modernist bulk that overwhelms and devalues the area’s historical landscape. Gordon’s identity is closely tied to its early colonial and Federation-era development, and this proposal would all but erase that narrative in this part of the suburb. The development’s own documentation fails to meaningfully assess these impacts and instead attempts to gloss over them with vague generalities about “future character.”
The environmental toll is staggering. Over 60 mature trees are slated for removal. These are not only ecologically significant but form part of the green canopy that defines Ku-ring-gai. The destruction of this vegetation—much of it native, some of it irreplaceable—is a direct attack on local biodiversity, urban cooling, and aesthetic amenity. Council’s own policies emphasise the importance of preserving tree cover on this site. Ignoring those policies for the sake of a developer’s bottom line is unacceptable.
In terms of process, the proposal is equally deficient. There has been no sincere attempt at community consultation. There were no community meetings, no letterbox drops, no public webinars, and no open line of communication to answer resident concerns. This lack of transparency suggests a calculated effort to minimise scrutiny and maximise developer control over the narrative. It flies in the face of Departmental guidance on Social Impact Assessment and community engagement.
The traffic and infrastructure burden must also not be ignored. The Pacific Highway corridor through Gordon is already strained during peak hours. To claim that this high-density development will have negligible traffic impact is to ignore the daily experience of residents. Increased congestion, longer delays, and greater danger to pedestrians and cyclists are all inevitable if this development proceeds. Yet none of these consequences have been seriously addressed.
There is no public benefit in this proposal. No new infrastructure, no affordable housing, no green space. Just private luxury apartments that do nothing to meet real community needs. If allowed, this development will set a dangerous precedent for future overdevelopment in other environmentally and historically sensitive parts of Ku-ring-gai.
For the sake of Gordon’s heritage, environment, and liveability, I strongly urge you to reject this proposal in full.

To: The Secretary, Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure
Re: State Significant Development SSD 82395459 (Burgoyne St, Burgoyne Lane and Pearson Ave, Gordon) – Objection

Dear Secretary,
I write to object to the above SSD on multiple grounds.

First, the proposal plainly conflicts with Ku-ring-gai Council’s recently endorsed alternative TOD scenario. At its extraordinary meeting of 5 June 2025, Council resolved to adopt a revised zoning and control plan for Gordon and submit it to DPHI. Under that scheme, the Burgoyne Street site remains in the existing R2 Low Density Residential zone with a 9.5m (two-storey) height limit – in stark contrast to the multi-storey residential flat buildings now proposed. (For example, Ku-ring-gai’s own background notes show that under current LEP standards R2 land is limited to 9.5m/2-storeys, whereas the State’s TOD controls would allow up to 22m/5-6 storeys.) The proposal thus does not reflect or implement the Council’s preferred scenario, but instead pursues a much higher-density outcome that Council explicitly rejected.

Second, this application demonstrates procedural unfairness and a circumvention of local strategic planning. At the time the application for SSD-79276958 was submitted, Ku-ring-gai Council had already commenced public consultation and strategic planning for a locally tailored TOD framework. The premature submission of this application appears calculated to lock in favourable planning settings and to frustrate Council’s legitimate planning processes. The application of savings provisions in these circumstances undermines the principle of local self-determination in planning matters, circumvents the intent of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) to provide for orderly and transparent strategic land use planning, and denies the community a meaningful voice in determining the future built form and character of its neighbourhood.

Third, the savings provisions are being misused to impose unjust planning controls. Ku-ring-gai’s TOD report recommended that DPIH should not “save” SSD applications under the old controls given their significant inconsistency with the Council’s preferred plan. Nevertheless, the Department’s change of policy on 17 May 2025 confirms that all SSD applications (including this one) with existing SEARs will simply be “saved” until 13 June 2025. In effect, this freezes the current TOD rules (which permit approx. 9 storeys) and preempts the new local strategy. This is improper: it will apply obsolete planning controls instead of assessing the proposal under the draft council-endorsed LEP, and it undermines the local planning process by sidelining the fresh Council initiative.

Fourth, the use of savings provisions in this case is inconsistent with the statutory objects of the EP&A Act, including:
• Section 1.3(c): To promote the orderly and economic use and development of land,
• Section 1.3(e): To protect the amenity of the existing built environment,
• Section 1.3(f): To promote the sustainable management of heritage, and
• Section 1.3(g): To facilitate ecologically sustainable development.

Assessment of this SSD under superseded controls fails to reflect the current planning priorities and strategic needs of the area, and conflicts with the intent of Council’s emerging LEP reforms. By rushing ahead under the savings clause, it flouts the Act’s mandate to balance environmental, social and economic factors and to allow genuine public involvement. In particular, the project’s disregard for heritage and natural values runs counter to the sustainable development object: Council developed its alternate scenario “to preserve important built heritage and the natural environment”, yet the current proposal pays scant regard to these values.

Fifth, the Department has failed to properly consider a draft environmental planning instrument. Pursuant to section 4.15(1)(a)(ii) of the EP&A Act, the consent authority must consider “any draft environmental planning instrument that is or has been placed on public exhibition.” The Council’s alternative TOD planning proposal, though not yet gazetted, has progressed significantly and constitutes a relevant draft instrument. To the extent that the Department fails to meaningfully consider that proposal and instead defers entirely to outdated controls, the assessment may be affected by legal error.

Sixth, the heritage context at 9 Burgoyne Street has not been respected. The neighbouring property at 9 Burgoyne Street (“Eudesmia”) is a heritage-listed dwelling under the Ku-ring-gai LEP (Item I1). Good planning practice requires that new development adjoining a heritage item should respect its scale and setting, typically by stepping down in height. Instead, the proposed flat buildings would present an abrupt juxtaposition to the two-storey heritage house. This fails to provide any appropriate transition in built form. Ku-ring-gai Council has already objected to the State’s TOD controls on precisely these grounds, noting they are “poorly thought-out” and risk impacting on heritage items and conservation areas. Mayor Kay has likewise emphasized that the Council’s preferred scenario “provides greater protection for heritage” and “improves transitions between different building heights”. Allowing the present SSD to proceed under outdated controls would defeat those protections.

Seventh, the SSD is manifestly inconsistent with the balanced development approach that Council and the Mayor are pursuing. Council’s own alternate scenario was developed “through community feedback” and is aimed at delivering housing in a manner that responds to local concerns. By contrast, Mayor Kay has warned that most current SSD proposals in the rail corridor “are not aligned to our preferred scenario and do not reflect the holistic and balanced approach to new housing development that we are seeking”. In short, the present application epitomises the very sort of high-density infill that the community and Council have tried to avoid.

Finally, the application of savings provisions here disenfranchises the community. Public participation is a core object of the Planning Act, and the community has already made its views clear through the extensive TOD consultation process. Freezing the relevant controls until after the council has presented its alternate scheme denies residents any real say on these proposals, effectively privileging political expediency and developer interests over proper local engagement.

There is reason to believe that the SSD classification and the reliance on savings provisions have been used to pre-empt and nullify local planning controls, and advance politically expedient housing targets at the expense of proper planning process and community input. These actions give rise to a reasonable apprehension of misuse of power, amounting to an improper purpose under administrative law.

For these reasons, I submit that SSD 82395459 should not be assessed under the old TOD controls but under the planning framework that reflects the Council’s endorsed scenario. Accordingly, I respectfully request that the Department:

1. Discontinue reliance on outdated planning instruments by disapplying the savings provisions for this proposal.
2. Reassess the SSD proposal under the draft TOD planning proposal put forward by Ku-ring-gai Council, in line with section 4.15 of the Act.
3. Pause or revoke the SSD pathway pending review of whether its classification is appropriate or justified.
4. Provide written confirmation that future SSD assessments will not be used to override legitimate community planning efforts.

Should these requests not be actioned, I reserve all rights to pursue legal review, including proceedings in the NSW Land and Environment Court, on the basis of:
• Procedural unfairness,
• Improper statutory purpose, and
• Failure to consider relevant matters under the EP&A Act.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. I trust that the Department will recognize the fundamental inconsistency of the savings based approach with both the Council’s adopted strategy and the statutory planning objectives, and will act to ensure that this development is assessed in a fair, sustainable and orderly manner.

Sincerely,

References: Ku-ring-gai Council news and reports; Ku-ring-gai Local Env Plan (heritage listing);
Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, s 1.3 objects (as annotated).

I have studied the plans
Objection To BULK
This SSD is a huge monolith ,compromising 2 large buildings dominating the street
This is out of character with the low rise opposite and will dominate the street on the high side of Pearson and also Burgoyne st.
The building heights are substantially higher than 6-8 storeys of the TOD
THERE IS AN EXISTING HIGHRISE OPPOSITE IN PEARSON Avenue -The Pearson-that is much lower than this proposed SSD and blends seamlessly into the streetscape and although it too is adjacent to low rise is much less dominating.
We have accepted The Pearson as it is lower , the storeys are stepped back and blends well with gardens in front and mix of brown bricks and Sandstone
DESIGN
The design is of SSD 82395459 is shocking.
No attempt has been made to use materials that mirror surrounding architecture
The stark white balconies will be seen from all angles and contrast glaringly with the trees and low rise heritage streetscape
The buildings should be LOWER with use of bricks, sandstone and black trims that disappear.
This building is so white it is reminiscent of BEACH side apartments
It does not speak of any attempt to create a design that would be acceptable to surrounding residents and to the character of our suburb and Kuringai
There should be far fewer apartments, buildings set well back from street,stepped down to create less dominance and made of materials that blend far more sympathetically
Tall trees should be preserved as they house birds,bats and other wildlife and are part of adjoining Richmond forest canopy
ENVIRONMENTAL
The existing blocks are densely treed and as such the houses are invisible
Kuringai is renowned for its gardens and trees
This SSD will decimate the vegetation and tall trees will not be in all parts of the development.
The loss of canopy and greenery is devastating to wildlife
The nearby Richmond forest should be recognised and tall trees preserved
TRAFFIC
The Pearson Ave and Park ave intersection is bottlenecked at certain times of the day and Pearson Ave is a rat run from Mona Vale Rd.
No traffic studies have been done by the developer and we are aware of long waits to get to the station car parks from Pearson Ave by people coming from other suburbs
The Gordon preschool access road is already tight and will be compromised by increased cars from this site.
100 apartments is too many for this area of Gordon, ringed by major roads and outlet roads clogged.
This is a health risk and also accident risk

OPEN SPACE
Where will all the people in 100 apartments go for recreation, fitness, sport or play areas.
Our whole suburb east of railway is serviced by only 4 tennis courts and one small playground squeezed in next to the courts.
There are no plans for a district park or sporting facilities East Gordon to service a dramatic increase in population.
This SSD will further strain the pressure the TOD apartments are placing on our nonexistent open space and community facilities.
On the grounds of no open space we believe the number of dwellings and excessive height is inappropriate in this position, especially as the Councvil is proposing development all the way down Pearson Ave plus massive highrise in the Gordon Centre.
This is excessive development,favouring the developer with no provision for traffic, environment, open space or liveability.
The appearance of the building is completely out of character to Gordon.
It is excessive in number of apartments given that Gordon is facing a huge population increase thanks to Council plans for Gordon, and they have extended highrise OUTSIDE the TOD 400m down Pearson Avenue
On the above grounds we believe the heights and number of apartments should be reduced as a compromise to receiving housing unsupported by infrastructure and traffic nightmares that will heavily disadvantage residents

this proposal ignores critical planning principles and the councils own preferred alternative scenario which specifically protected this site from development due to the heritage significance and value of the surrounding area. together with site's biodiversity value.
1. the excessive height and footprint of this tower is disproportionate and excessive to the surrounding low-rise streetscape and heritage context. TOD building heights are breached.
2.poor quality design , box type structure across towers unsympathetic to the surrounding local heritage character with a focus on maximising density and the develop's profit.
3. Environmental destruction. 62 tree alone will be destroyed >50% of street on-site.
4. the proposal overtly ignores key planning principles and council's scenario which explicity excluded this site from development.

This project is seeking to exploit affordable in-fill housing and TOD planning legislation to deliver excessing and overbearing high rise apartment towers fast tracked for approval whilst blatantly ignoring critical planning principles and the local Councils own Preferred Alternative Scenario. The Council’s scenario specifically protects this site from development due to the heritage significant and value of the surrounding area and site biodiversity value.

The proposal is littered with errors, misleading statements and unsubstantiated generalisations biased in favour of the development, with justification purposely centered on housing supply as the imperative for its approval with undue regard for critical planning consideration.

Large areas of Gordon including the area of the proposed development have Heritage Significance and Value and significance dating back to the 1830’s. The Ku-ring-gai Council has gone to great lengths to protect the surrounding heritage homes and the Gordondale HCA which the state has earmarked for protection. As property owners in Gordon, we have been required to comply with planning and maintaining our homes in compliance with the HCA principles which have often come at significant cost and effort from which the Heritage and aesthetic values of the area leverage. This type of development will destroy those values and out efforts over many years.

This proposal involves poorly designed box structures towering 8 stories high and associated with the clearing of large numbers of trees on site is incompatible with heritage significance and value of the area and its biodiversity value. There has been no planning imperative to maintain the heritage significance of the area, enhance or maintain the aesthetics of the site.
The area around the Gordon Railway Station is already a congested Pacific Highway entry point. This proposal (when also considered with similar proposals for the area) continues to maintain somewhat fancifully that there will be no impact on the surrounding traffic network.

The height and footprint of this development is excessive and its design in conflict with the surrounding local heritage character. The focus seems to be one of maximizing density and Developer’s profit and will deliver an abrupt and inconsistent interface with the existing low-rise dwellings characteristic of the area.

The lack of appropriate community engagement associated with this proposed development is appalling and breaches the DPHI’s Social Impact requirements. Whilst the need for increased housing development is recognized, this should be done in a way and with development that reflects the values and characteristics of the area and reflects the Ku-ring-gai Council’s preferred alternative scenarios which seek to maintain a balance between the conflicting demands associated with development.

I urge you to reject this proposal and require the developer to work in conjunction with and demonstrate development plans that are consistent with the local community and councils’ recommendations for development in the area.

This proposal is a manipulative and opportunistic attempt to exploit affordable in-fill housing and TOD planning legislation to have excessive and overbearing high-rise apartment towers fast-tracked for approval, aimed at emotionally targeting the Government’s housing supply and affordability angle as the imperative for its approval.

This proposal blatantly ignores critical planning principles and the Council's own Preferred Alternative Scenario, which specifically protected this site from development, due to the heritage significance and value of the surrounding area, together with the site’s biodiversity value.
These are my key objections:
× Misleading and Disingenuous: The proposal is littered with errors, misleading statements, and unsubstantiated generalisations biased in favour of the development, with justification purposely centred on housing supply as the imperative for its approval (with undue regard for critical planning considerations).

Towering Over Gordon: The excessive height and footprint of this ‘mini-city’ is disproportionate and excessive to the surrounding low-rise streetscape and heritage context. TOD building heights are breached, visual privacy implications materially downplayed, overshadowing significantly understated, setbacks grossly inadequate, unacceptable transition impacts given surrounding low-rise residential footprint.

Poor-Quality Design: The design reflects a poorly designed box type structure across two towers, unsympathetic to the surrounding local heritage character, with a focus on maximising density and the Developer’s profit. What is proposed is an abrupt and jarring interface between high-rise apartment blocks and existing low-rise dwellings (both adjacent, immediately opposite, and directly behind the proposal), with no consideration for visual harmony, privacy, or heritage cohesion.

× Environmental Destruction: 62 trees alone will be destroyed (>50% of trees on-site), including many native, mature, and exotic trees dating back to Federation, eradicating our precious tree canopy and vital wildlife habitats, contradicting the Council's commitment to environmental preservation of this site.

× Inconsistent with Ku-ring-gai Council’s Preferred Alternative Scenario: The proposal overtly ignores key planning principles and Council’s scenario which explicitly excluded this site from development due to the surrounding heritage significance and value of the area, together with the site’s specific biodiversity value. This has been strategically ignored within the Developer’s proposal.

× Ignores Heritage Significance and Value of Existing Location: The proposal fails to have proper regard to its impact on the existing heritage value and significance of the area (being one of the earliest settlements in Ku-ring-gai dating back to the 1830s). The development is justified through the Developer’s “perceived view” of the “future desired density” of the area, however has a blatant disregard to surrounding heritage homes and the Gordondale HCA which the State has earmarked for preservation.

× Lack of Appropriate Community Engagement: Gross failure of the Developer to undertake ANY meaningful community engagement (breaching DPHI’s Social Impact requirements) to properly respect and address the concerns of the local community and appropriately assess the social impact of the proposal (i.e. no community webinars, no community briefings, emails ignored, enquiry line not provided).

× Traffic Nightmare: The development will worsen the already congested Pacific Highway entry point, with the proposal fancifully claiming there will be no impact on the surrounding traffic network.

× No Community Benefit: The proposal offers no improvements to local amenities or benefits to the local community.

I am opposed to the proposed development on Burgoyne St and Pearson Ave, Gordon. The buildings are disproportionate in size to the surrounding area and will create extreme traffic congestion. There are only two entry points to the Pacific Hwy near this proposed development and they both already experience heavy congestion during peak times. Please do not approve this Develotek submission and insist the developer redesigns a much smaller development that meets the needs of existing Gordon residents and future residents.

please see attached

Please see attached objection.

Please find attached Council's submission objecting to SSD 8239459 at Burgoyne Street, Pearson Avenue and Burgoyne Lane, Gordon.
regards,
Brodee Gregory