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

I unequivocally object to the proposed development. This proposal is fundamentally flawed, deeply unsuitable for our community, and will inflict severe, irreversible damage on Gordon’s character, environment, and liveability.

Misleading and Disingenuous Justification
The proposal is fundamentally dishonest, riddled with errors, misleading statements, and unsubstantiated generalisations. It clearly prioritises developer profit and housing supply over critical planning considerations, disingenuously framing an unsuitable project as a public necessity. This narrative attempts to bypass rigorous assessment, demonstrating an undue disregard for the community's wellbeing and sustainable urban development.

Excessive Scale and Incompatible Design
This development represents egregious overdevelopment, a 'mini-city' that will tower over Gordon. Its excessive height and footprint are wholly disproportionate to the surrounding low-rise streetscape and cherished heritage context. The proposal overtly breaches TOD (Transit Oriented Development) building height guidelines, creating severe visual privacy issues, extensive overshadowing, and inadequate setbacks. The poor, box-like design is entirely unsympathetic to local heritage, creating an abrupt and jarring interface with existing low-rise homes, clearly prioritising maximum density and profit over harmony.

Environmental Destruction
The proposal mandates environmental vandalism: 62 trees – over 50% of the site's existing canopy, including mature and Federation-era specimens – will be destroyed. This mass removal will decimate vital wildlife habitats and directly contradict the relevant authority's commitment to environmental preservation for this site.

Inconsistent with Strategic Planning
The proposal flagrantly disregards the relevant authority's own strategic planning, which explicitly excluded this site from development due to its surrounding heritage significance and specific biodiversity value. This deliberate omission by the developer undermines sound planning principles and the considered future vision for Gordon.

Disregard for Heritage Significance
Gordon’s deep heritage, dating back to the 1830s, and the State-earmarked Gordondale Heritage Conservation Area (HCA), are completely ignored. The development’s justification relies on a "perceived future density" rather than respecting the area's significant historical context and surrounding heritage homes. This development will irrevocably diminish Gordon’s historical integrity and character.

Absence of Meaningful Community Engagement
The developer’s complete failure to undertake any meaningful community engagement breaches social impact requirements. No webinars, no community briefings, ignored emails, and no enquiry line demonstrate a blatant disregard for affected residents and our legitimate concerns. This lack of engagement is unacceptable and reflects contempt for the community that will bear the brunt of this development.

Exacerbating Traffic Congestion
The proposal's fanciful claim of "no impact" on traffic is utterly baseless. This high-density development will undeniably worsen congestion at the already severely burdened Pacific Highway entry point in Gordon, creating an unmanageable traffic nightmare for local residents and commuters alike.

No Community Benefit
Crucially, this proposal offers no improvements to local amenities or tangible benefits to the existing local community. It is a purely commercial venture, designed for maximum profit, lacking any reciprocal public investment or infrastructure that would mitigate its immense negative impacts.

I urge the relevant authority to reject this development proposal outright. It is fundamentally flawed, detrimental to Gordon, inconsistent with responsible planning, and demonstrably serves only the developer's financial interests at the expense of our community.

I write to formally object to the proposed development currently under consideration in Gordon. This proposal represents an overreach in both scale and intent, with substantial deficiencies in urban design, environmental responsibility, and planning integrity. It fails to meet acceptable standards for sensitive development and is incompatible with the established character and planning principles of the area.

1. Flawed Planning Rationale

The development is primarily justified through broad claims about the need to increase housing supply. While housing provision is a valid planning goal, it cannot be used to justify poor planning outcomes. The documentation supporting the proposal relies heavily on unverified assertions and generalisations, with minimal reference to actual site constraints, strategic local planning priorities, or the specific heritage and environmental sensitivities of Gordon.

This selective rationale reflects a disingenuous approach—one that prioritises expedience and density over good planning and long-term community value.

2. Disproportionate Scale and Height

The proposed built form is fundamentally at odds with the existing character of Gordon. The scale, height, and density of the proposal create an overwhelming mass that starkly contrasts with the surrounding low-rise residential context. The development would introduce two imposing towers into an area dominated by single dwellings and heritage architecture, without providing any meaningful transition between built forms.

Setbacks are inadequate, overshadowing and privacy impacts are understated, and building heights exceed the thresholds typically permitted under Transit-Oriented Development principles. The result would be a bulky, dominating structure with severe and irreversible impacts on visual amenity and neighbourhood character.

3. Poor Architectural Response

The architectural design is unsympathetic and utilitarian, reflecting a generic high-density typology that fails to acknowledge the distinctive aesthetic of the Gordon precinct. The proposed development reads as a profit-driven exercise in maximising yield rather than a thoughtful addition to the urban landscape.

There is no attempt to visually or materially integrate the proposal with the Federation and interwar character of the surrounding area. It creates a stark and disruptive interface with adjacent homes, both physically and visually, undermining the established cohesion of the neighbourhood.

4. Irreversible Environmental Harm

The proposed clearing of over 60 trees—more than half the total on-site vegetation—represents an unacceptable environmental loss. Many of these trees are mature natives or exotic specimens of significant age and ecological value, forming part of Gordon’s broader green corridor.

Such large-scale vegetation removal would destroy valuable habitat, reduce local biodiversity, and directly contradict Council’s commitments to urban canopy protection and sustainability. Once removed, these ecological assets cannot be replaced within a single development lifespan.

5. Heritage Disregarded

The proposed development fails to properly acknowledge the historical significance of the surrounding area. Gordon contains some of the earliest surviving residential patterns in Ku-ring-gai, and the location is in proximity to the Gordondale Heritage Conservation Area—a precinct identified for its heritage and landscape value.

Rather than engage with this context, the proposal is framed around a speculative interpretation of future desired density, unsupported by planning controls or community consultation. The heritage impact assessment is superficial and insufficient, and fails to respond to the unique character of the locality.

6. Inconsistency with Council’s Planning Vision

The proposal directly contradicts Ku-ring-gai Council’s Preferred Alternative Scenario for the precinct, which intentionally excludes this site from future high-density redevelopment. This exclusion is based on a clear understanding of the site’s environmental and heritage sensitivity.

The developer has selectively ignored this planning direction and has instead positioned the proposal in isolation, without reference to broader strategic frameworks. Such an approach undermines the planning process and compromises the credibility of the development assessment.

7. Community Voices Ignored

There has been no meaningful effort by the developer to engage with the community. No public briefing sessions have been offered, no open consultations conducted, and no transparent lines of communication made available. Enquiries have been disregarded, and the absence of a social impact assessment speaks volumes.

This failure to engage is a serious breach of community participation expectations under the Department of Planning’s own guidelines. Developments of this nature and magnitude demand early, honest, and sustained consultation with those most affected. That has not occurred here.

8. No Tangible Public Benefit

Finally, the proposed development offers no demonstrable benefit to the existing community. It does not enhance public infrastructure, deliver affordable housing, or contribute meaningfully to local open space. The social and environmental costs of the development far outweigh any perceived benefit in additional dwellings.

This proposal advances private interests without returning value to the public realm—a fundamental failing in any planning context.


Conclusion

This is a poorly conceived, poorly justified development that is fundamentally incompatible with the context, character, and strategic direction of Gordon. It threatens heritage, harms the environment, disregards residents, and sets a damaging precedent for future planning decisions.

I respectfully urge the relevant authorities to reject the application in its current form. A more balanced, sensitive, and integrated approach is required if development is to occur in this location.

I wish to lodge a formal objection to the proposed development in Gordon. The scale, design, and impact of this proposal are entirely inappropriate for the location and represent an unacceptable departure from responsible, context-sensitive planning.
Excessive Scale and Visual Impact
The proposed height and bulk are wholly out of character with the surrounding low-rise residential area. The development would dominate the streetscape and irreversibly alter the established built form. Setbacks are inadequate, transitions to neighbouring properties are harsh, and privacy and overshadowing impacts are significantly understated.
Poor Urban and Architectural Design
This is not a design that responds to its surroundings. The box-like massing of the towers prioritises density over quality, character, or integration. It introduces a jarring interface with adjacent heritage dwellings and shows no sensitivity to Gordon’s historic fabric.
Destruction of Tree Canopy and Habitat
The removal of over 60 trees, including many mature native and historically significant specimens, is completely unacceptable. These trees form part of Gordon’s identity and ecological fabric. Their loss would degrade local biodiversity and contradict Council’s stated environmental objectives.
Ignored Heritage and Planning Frameworks
The proposal disregards the site’s proximity to heritage conservation areas and makes no genuine effort to acknowledge the historical context. It also conflicts directly with Ku-ring-gai Council’s Preferred Alternative Scenario, which clearly excludes this site from high-density redevelopment due to its environmental and heritage value.
Lack of Community Engagement
There has been no proper community consultation. No briefings, no webinars, and no opportunity for residents to meaningfully engage with or respond to the proposal. This failure to engage the public breaches basic planning expectations and social impact guidelines.
No Meaningful Public Benefit
This proposal is a private development for private gain. It provides no community facilities, no infrastructure upgrades, no public space, and no social or affordable housing. Its benefits are purely commercial, while its impacts are social, environmental, and irreversible.

The proposal is inappropriate in both scale and substance. It disregards heritage, harms the environment, excludes the community, and contradicts the local planning vision. I urge the this application in its current form be rejected.

Good Day,
I STRONGLY object to this development.
The excessive height and footprint of this development contributes to significant overshadowing and the setbacks are grossly inadequate.
The building design is poor, and is unsympathetic to the surrounding heritage character of Gordon.
The development will lead to environmental destruction and loss of wildlife habitats.
The proposal ignores Ku-Ring-Gai Councils' preferred alternative scenario.
The proposal ignores the hertiage significance of the area, which dates back to the 1830's.
There has been a complete lack of community engagement.
The proposal will significantly impact traffic in the area - there are many chokeholds that already contribute to congestion.
These SSD proposals ALL seem to focus on developer profit, with no consideration for the community. SSD proposals are opportunistic and manipulative.

There are many elements of this project which are deeply concerning to me. The quick rush to put through this proposal and the lack of thought for the community is very upsetting to me and I hope that the NSW Major Projects Planning Committee take these opinions into consideration when reviewing the project proposal.

Firstly the block-like design of these two towers are unsympathetic to the natural surroundings and the local heritage character and will be jarring to the area. There is no consideration given for visual harmony, privacy or heritage cohesion. This design is concerning with the height and insufficient setbacks which will be an intrusion of privacy, particularly on houses on the low side of Burgoyne Street. This will be even more evident with the loss of at least 62 trees which will also impact on noise and the tree canopy of the area which is special to the area. Additionally, the proposal does not consider the heritage value of the houses in the area, with some dating back to the Federation era and have been earmarked for preservation.

There has also been no community engagement on this development, with no forums to discuss the plans and add suggestions and limited ability to contact the developer with no responses. This is a direct breach of the DPHI‘s Social Impact requirements and does not address the local community’s concerns. This is evident with the lack of community based amenities within the design, where no green spaces or playgrounds have been incorporated to benefit the community or the project‘s residents.

The environmental impact of this project on the area’s flora and fauna will be devastating. The site includes an area which has been protected for its biodiversity value and given its proximity to an Ironbark Eucalyptus reserve which is an animal highway into multiple national parks, this is of great concern. The area of East Gordon is known for its flying fox population and other native animals such as echnidnas, king parrots, kookaburras and cockatoos have crucial habitats which are facilitated by the luscious tree canopy and key biodiversity areas. In removing these habitats and replacing them with large buildings with limited green spaces, this will have a significant impact on these plants and animals which make the Gordon East area unique.

Thank you for your consideration of these concerns for this submission. I urge that the NSW Major Project planning committee consider the negative effects of this proposal on existing residents.

I am very upset with this development proposal. I have lived in this area for over 20 years and I am deeply concerned about the implications of the project, should it be approved. I urge the city planners to properly scrutinise this development as it is rushed and exploitative of the TOD planning legislation and has the capacity to harm the environment and heritage of the area which will negative both pre-existing residents and the residents of the new development.

Below are my concerns with the proposal.
1. It is inconsistent with Kuringai Council‘s Preferred Alternative Scenario. The council has been in many meetings with the community and been thoughtfully looking into sustainable and effective planning for the area of Gordon and explicitly excludes this area from development for a number of factors. The developers have clearly not consulted the surrounding community and do not understand the needs and wants of the community whilst creating this proposal.

2. The excessive height and footprint of these buildings of over 100 apartments breaches the TOD building heights and is a concern for privacy and its residential footprints. With the number of trees being cut down on a narrow street like Burgoyne Street, the height of the building will no doubt be a privacy concern for current residents and it is not setback adequately enough to allow for this. Being on the high side of the street, it will further impact on sunlight and be a significant increase in noise, both in the building stages and with so many new residents moving into a small space which is ill equipped to handle this adjustment. The surrounding apartments in the area are low density apartments which blend much more seamlessly into the surrounding streetscape which does not appear to be considered by the developer in this project.

3. With the destruction of many trees, including many native and mature trees, this will dramatically reduce the tree canopy which is typical of the Kuring-gai area leading to a loss of wildlife habitat (particularly the fauna rich site on the corner of Pearson Ave and Burgoyne Street). With a reserve nearby and a flying fox population which is reliant on the tree canopy as part of its habitat, it is deeply upsetting that such an environmental loss could occur with this development proposal.

4. Many of the houses in this area date back to Federation or further and the development of this area diminishes the significance of these beautiful buildings. Both Kuring-gai council and the state have earmarked the “Gordondale HCA” for preservation, which is in direct opposition to the development plans.

5. Sustainable and realistic solutions to what will be a traffic flow catastrophe have clearly not been discussed within this development proposal. With congestion between the main intersection onto Pacific Highway and the intersection of Park Ave and Pearson Ave already at dangerous levels during peak hour, an additional 100 cars (as 100 car spaces are proposed), will result in unsolvable gridlocks. Given many people commute from the Northern Beaches and catch the train from Gordon, there is already insufficient parking in the area and the traffic flow is already difficult to manage. There have been no solutions put forward on how to ensure that this is addressed with the addtional cars.

I urge the planning committee to strongly consider these ramifications and reassess this submission to allow inputs from the community in which it affects.

I am very concerned about this project. Having been a resident of the area my entire life, this thoughtless and ill-planned development does not take into consideration the important and special aspects of the area. The speed in which this development proposal was created and submitted suggests a lack of planning and poor quality design that has the potential to lead to catastrophic failures for the area and for its residents. The proposal contains many errors, misleading statements and unsubstantiated generalisations in favour of the development and profit making, over the housing needs it is claiming that it meets.


I am particularly concerned about the traffic flow with the proposal that there will be over 200 car spaces and 100 apartments. Currently, I have noticed that after the development of the apartments on Pearson Ave, there is already an increase in the traffic across the intersection of Park Ave and Wenona Ave/Pearson Ave towards Pacific Highway which is dangerous for pedestrians and drivers. I am concerned that traffic flow has not been discussed nor added in this proposal and has the potential to lead to many accidents and inefficient commutes which defeats the purpose of building more residences near the train station.

Additionally the proposed development is excessive and disproportionate to the type of housing and apartments in the area. It will tower over the surrounding low-rise streetscape and heritage context. It has not taken into account key flora diversity areas and is likely to have a large environmental impact to the area which is next to an Ironbark Eucalyptus reserve and a large population of flying foxes. Over 62 trees will be destroyed on site which will eradicate the precious tree canopy which is signature to the area and lead to a massive increase in noise production and loss of environment.

Moreover, this development fails to consult the community on its needs, 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. No community webinars, spaces or briefings have been considered and emails ignored and no enquiry line has been provided.

Finally, it is concerning that this large development does not include any community amenities. Gordon has enough amenities currently for its population, however with the influx of residents to this area from this development, it appears that there has been no consideration for their needs as a community and how they will be met.

I make this submission in the strongest possible terms to object to the proposed development in Gordon. This application is a textbook example of overreach—disregarding local planning controls, environmental protections, and community values in pursuit of excessive density and private profit.
A Gross Overdevelopment
The proposed height, massing, and density are completely out of scale with the surrounding area. This is not a modest intensification—it is an attempted insertion of a high-rise enclave into a low-rise, heritage-rich neighbourhood. Such an abrupt and jarring intrusion is unacceptable and unjustifiable. The breach of building height controls, the inadequate setbacks, and the sheer bulk of the towers would overwhelm the streetscape and cast long, literal and figurative shadows over the community.
Architecturally Offensive
The design is a blunt, profit-driven construct that ignores the context in which it sits. It is visually aggressive, functionally generic, and utterly unsympathetic to the local character. The neighbouring homes—many of which are heritage-listed or of historic significance—will be dwarfed and devalued by this inappropriate intrusion. This is not architectural progress; it is aesthetic vandalism.
Environmental Destruction
The proposed removal of over 60 trees—many of them mature, ecologically important, and historically significant—is nothing short of environmental recklessness. This loss would permanently damage the area’s biodiversity and green canopy, in direct contradiction to Council’s stated environmental commitments. No number of potted plants or ‘green initiatives’ can justify or compensate for this irreversible destruction.
Heritage Ignored, History Erased
The site sits in close proximity to established heritage conservation areas and forms part of a broader precinct with deep historical roots dating back to the 1830s. Yet the proposal shows blatant disregard for this legacy. The developer relies on vague notions of “future desired density” rather than engaging with the actual heritage value of the site and its surrounds. This is not planning—it is erasure.
Undermines Council and Planning Integrity
This development runs directly contrary to Ku-ring-gai Council’s Preferred Alternative Scenario, which explicitly excludes this site from intensified development due to its environmental sensitivity and heritage significance. The developer has cherry-picked data and ignored strategic plans to manufacture a narrative in favour of the proposal. Such conduct undermines public trust in the planning process.
No Community Consultation, No Social Licence
There has been zero meaningful consultation with the community. No briefings, no transparency, and no attempt to listen to those most affected. Emails have gone unanswered, questions ignored, and no proper channels for engagement provided. This is not merely poor practice—it is a deliberate sidestepping of social responsibility.
No Benefit, All Burden
This proposal offers nothing to the community. No social infrastructure, no public open space, no affordable housing, no improvement to local amenities. The impacts—on traffic, environment, heritage, and liveability—are real and severe. The benefits? None, beyond commercial gain for the developer.

This development is wrong in principle and wrong in practice. It is excessive, destructive, and opportunistic. It sacrifices local character, community wellbeing, and environmental integrity for short-term gain. It must be rejected.

I am writing as a concerned local resident to express my strong and unequivocal objection to the proposed development. This submission outlines serious concerns regarding the integrity of the proposal, its excessive scale, its disregard for community values, and its destructive environmental and social consequences. The development, as it currently stands, should not be approved.

1. Misleading and Disingenuous Proposal Documentation
The planning documentation is littered with factual inaccuracies, misleading generalisations, and unsubstantiated claims. It relies heavily on a narrow argument for increased housing supply—presented as an overriding imperative—while intentionally downplaying or omitting critical planning considerations such as environmental conservation, traffic impact, heritage protection, and community integration. This selective justification undermines the integrity of the planning process and should be treated with caution.

2. Excessive Height and Scale – Towering Over Gordon
The scale of the proposed development is grossly disproportionate to the existing low-rise residential character of Gordon. The excessive height and bulk of the two towers represent a ‘mini-city’ dropped into a suburban streetscape, resulting in a visually jarring and incompatible presence.

The proposal blatantly breaches Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) height controls, offers inadequate setbacks, and significantly underrepresents overshadowing and visual privacy impacts. It fails to provide any acceptable transition between the proposed high-rise forms and the surrounding homes, many of which are heritage-listed or located within designated conservation areas. Such an aggressive insertion into a sensitive area is inappropriate and unacceptable.

3. Poor Design Quality and Lack of Local Sensitivity
The proposed built form is a generic and unsympathetic box-type structure, designed primarily to maximise floor space and developer profit rather than contribute positively to Gordon’s urban fabric. It shows no architectural sensitivity to the area’s unique Federation and interwar character and offers no visual or material references to the established heritage context.

The interface between the proposed towers and adjacent low-rise dwellings is abrupt and offensive—creating a stark and alienating divide that compromises visual harmony, privacy, and neighbourhood character.

4. Environmental Destruction
The development will result in the destruction of at least 62 trees—more than 50% of the existing site canopy—including mature native, exotic, and historically significant trees, some dating back to Federation times. These trees form part of a vital green corridor that supports local biodiversity and mitigates urban heat impacts.

Such large-scale clearing contradicts the stated environmental priorities of Ku-ring-gai Council and the NSW Government, especially in the context of increasing concern around tree canopy loss and climate resilience. The irreversible environmental damage is neither justified nor compensated for in the proposal.

5. Inconsistent with Ku-ring-gai Council’s Preferred Planning Scenario
The proposal directly contradicts Ku-ring-gai Council’s strategic planning, including its Preferred Alternative Scenario, which deliberately excludes this site from future high-density development due to its heritage significance and biodiversity value. The developer’s planning documents ignore this position entirely, misrepresenting the site as suitable for intensive redevelopment. This is a fundamental flaw that undermines the credibility of the proposal.

6. Failure to Acknowledge Local Heritage
The proposal demonstrates a complete disregard for the heritage significance of the surrounding area, including some of the earliest established properties in Ku-ring-gai dating back to the 1830s. It ignores the presence of heritage-listed homes and the nearby Gordondale Heritage Conservation Area (HCA), an area earmarked by the State for protection.

Instead of responding to the existing character, the developer justifies the proposal by citing a “future desired density” which is neither grounded in current planning instruments nor supported by the community or council.

7. Lack of Community Engagement
The developer has made no genuine attempt to engage with the local community. There were no community briefings, no webinars, no local meetings, and no accessible enquiry mechanisms. Email enquiries have gone unanswered. This clear disregard for community participation is a breach of the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure’s (DPHI) own Social Impact Assessment requirements.

A development of this scale and impact must be subject to rigorous public consultation. Its failure to do so renders the proposal incomplete and unacceptable.

8. Traffic Congestion and Safety Impacts
The proposal’s claim that it will have no adverse impact on the surrounding traffic network is fanciful and baseless. The proposed access and egress onto the already congested Pacific Highway will create serious bottlenecks and exacerbate safety risks for both vehicles and pedestrians.

Local roads are already overburdened during peak hours, and the increase in vehicular traffic from hundreds of new residents and service vehicles will compound existing issues. No credible traffic mitigation strategy is presented.

9. No Community Benefit
There are no tangible benefits to the local community in the proposed development. No public open space is provided. No enhancements to local amenities or infrastructure are included. No affordable housing contributions are made. It is a purely profit-driven project with no public interest rationale. Approving such a development would set a dangerous precedent that ignores the needs and values of local residents.

Conclusion

This proposal is deeply flawed—factually, architecturally, environmentally, and procedurally. It is entirely inappropriate for the site and community. I urge Council and relevant authorities to reject this development application in its current form and demand a vision that respects Gordon’s heritage, environment, and community identity.

In my opinion, the design, height, and overall square metre footprint of this development is completely excessive in every respect. In no way does it suit the streetscape nor the general character of Gordon, and I'm certain the developers would be aware of this fact. This area of Sydney's north shore has always been known and renowned for it's greenery and trees comprising of both native and exotics. If this development goes ahead, multiple trees will be lost, resulting in a detrimental and negative biodiversity impact to the area.
It is my understanding that Ku-ring-gai council has submitted a preferred alternative scenario to this proposal. It is patently obvious to all, that the development is completely disproportionate in size and height compared to the local surroundings. Many of which are heritage listed dwellings.
Due to the proposed height and size of the development , the impact on the reduction of sunlight on these surrounding properties will be catastrophic. The developers appear to have disregarded this most important fact.
I can for-see multiple problems with this proposed development by Develotek, which in it's current form, totally unsuitable for this particular area of Sydney's North Shore.
My husband and I chose to live in this area of Sydney 35 years ago because of it's beauty and uniqueness, which I feel is now in danger of being completely destroyed. Eventually turning into a "concrete jungle."
I have to ask...Is a development of this gigantic size and structure really necessary on this site?
I respectfully urge the NSW planning portal to please reconsider this development proposal.
Thank you.

There is heritage significance. The building is excessively high compared to its surroundings neighbourhood. There is already significant traffic in that area as it’s close to pacific highway. Adding this residential building would exacerbate this. Addditionally 62 trees would be destroyed causing environmental destructions. Ku-ring hai council has explicitly excluded this site from development

We live in the heritage listed house at 12-14 Park Ave in the Gordondale HCE, located 5 metres from the proposed development and have lived here for 15 years. Please find our feedback as follows and requests for modifications to the proposal.

1. Excessive Height
The proposal exceeds the maximum height limit and should be reduced to reduce visual impact to neighbouring HCA and heritage properties.

Also the area shown in red in the attached diagram provided by the developer would not be the case in the case of our property at 12-14 Park Ave since it is a heritage property directly behind. We request Height of Building B should be reduced to mitigate the transition impact. We request building should be reduced to 4-5 storeys and stepped down on the South side.

Also we wanted to highlight that the entire Gordondale HCA directly behind the development with the Ku Ring Gai council revised TOD is to be zoned as R2.

2. Inadequate set back on Southern side. View Impact & overshadowing to Heritage Properties in Gordondale HCA.

The following statement from the developer appears to be incorrect:
“The proposal also transitions to the rear and side boundaries with wide and deep landscaped setbacks, retaining most of the existing vegetation on site and introducing a network of densely planted side setbacks and large recreational communal open spaces for the enjoyment of future residents”. The set back on the southern side is only 6m. There is inadequate transitions on this southern side of the site along Burgoyne lane. Also practically all of the large trees are removed on the southern side, which would have created a better buffer. Any tree planting on the southern side could take decades to mature.

Burgoyne Lane is very narrow lane, please note there is no kerb or guttering. The 6m set back from the rear of our heritage property on Burgoyne lane and height transition is inadequate considering the sudden change to 7 storeys to our single story heritage property. There will also be overshadowing to the rear of our property.

We request a larger setback on the southern side as well as reduction in building height to less than 5 storeys on the southern side.

3. Environmental Amenity - Significant Adverse Visual Privacy impact for neighboring HCA properties to the south

The following statement from the developer appears to be incorrect : “nos 12-14 Park Avenue is unlikely to have significant views from the rear across the subject site given that is single storey and well setback from the rear boundary” and “The principal view corridors out of these items are orientated away from the subject site”. We currently have direct and clear views of the rear properties, as well as losing our views over the tree canopy beyond Burgoyne street.

The view impact will be significant to properties on the south side such as our property at 12-14 Park Ave, with the 7 storey building directly behind and removal of major screening trees. Very few trees are preserved on the South Eastern side. As can be seen in the attached diagram the proposed development towers over the properties to the rear on the southern side with most trees removed on the southern side, significantly adversely affecting properties in the Gordondale HCA. The proposal mentions mitigated visual impact to the north and westerly sides of Burgoyne street and Pearson ave, but the proposal overlooks the impact on the southern side.

Changes to the proposal should be taken to reduce impact on visual privacy of HCA properties to the south. HCA properties would have 7 storey’s overlooking the backyards, living rooms and bedrooms of neighboring single storey properties on the HCA such as 12-14 Park Ave. We request similar measures as those proposed to be taken on the Eastern side to protect the Heritage property no 9 Burgoyne St, such as balcony screening etc.

Also we request consideration of more trees on the southern side. It could take decades for any replacement trees to mature. On the site 62 of the 115 trees will be removed, with practically all trees on the south eastern side removed. The two large established Native trees #139 and tree #145 in particular should be preserved to preserve more tree canopy on the southern side and help mitigate visual impact.

4. Environmental Heritage Impact
As mentioned above the proposed 7 storey development directly adjoins the Gordondale HCA, only separated by a very narrow Burgoyne lane with no kerbs or paths. As above the set back should be increased and maximum height reduced on southern side adjoining heritage listed properties.

5. Inconsistent with Ku Ring Gai Revised TOD / “Future Envelope” in Adjoining HCA As Shown in Develppers diagram is Incorrect

The proposed development is inconsistent with the Ku Ring Gai revised TOD plan which zones the proposed development site as R2.

The EIS for the proposal in several documents states that “lots within the Gordon Estate Conservation Area that are not individually listed items, are subject to the provisions of Chapter 5 (‘Transport oriented development’) of the Housing SEPP and thus permit residential flat buildings to a height of 22m and FSR or 2.5:1” however in the Ku Ring Gai council revised TOD the complete Gordondale HCA is zoned as R2. In this case the red “potential future envelope would not the case” and in any case would not apply to heritage properties in the HCA.

The proposal EIS also states “Currently, these sites are stately, large-footprint, single residential dwellings occupying single or double lots such as the case of 12-14 Park Avenue. However, due to their deep lots, limited mature vegetation and presence of large tennis courts in their backyards, these properties may redevelop as part of amalgamations with the adjacent TOD SEPP lots” – we don’t believe this to be the case, certainly in light of Ku Ring Gai Council revised TOD and the Gordondale HCA.

Any development’s response to the context must consider existing and future development on adjacent properties.

6. Vibration during construction
Appropriate vibration monitoring and management should be implemented during construction particularly in light of 100 year old+ Heritage properties adjoining the site.

Please find attached document which submission which also includes the diagrams mentioned

Thank you

My husband and I were horrified to learn from FOKE about the "proposed 7,000+ sqm development on Burgoyne Street, Burgoyne Lane, and Pearson Avenue, Gordon, by Develotek Property Group, featuring multiple ill-planned 8-storey towers, over 100 apartments, and nearly 200 parking spaces. 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." This area is known for its large, beautiful homes and there are multiple trees on the proposed site. If it goes ahead it will result in a significant loss of tree canopy in this area. We are vehemently opposed to the proposed development, the fact that it's being "rushed" and that the Ku-ring-gai community is largely unaware of it. It's the whole of our community that will be affected by the precedent set by such ill-placed development that is totally out of keeping with the area, not just a few neighbours. The State Government CLAIMS to be enhancing heritage and enviromental protection - but this flies in the face of that. There are brown sites and plenty of other suitable sites for developments such as these. Gordon's leafy, quiet green belt is NOT one of them.

This development is the epitome of destroying a suburb and community. The proposal has so many faults, it begs the question how it progessed this far. The issures are flagged below (but are not limited to)
- no community beenefit with no improvements proposed to local ammenities
- based on expected capacity, the traffic issues already faces on park street will be exponentially impacted. Such a development would require state government inclusion of double carriage ways and flyovers BEFORE construction
- the monstrosity pays no respect to the heritage nature of the surrounds
- ithere is no plan for where the 62 trees being cut down will be replaced. There should not be a net reduction in our carbon footprint of such a development.
- From a brief perusal, it is obvious the proposal is littered with misleading statements, errors and unsubstantiated commentary

My primary concerns relate to the devastating impact on the tree canopy and local wildlife, as well as the severe traffic congestion and infrastructure strain.

The proposed development will result in the removal of significant trees, causing irreversible damage to the local ecosystem. The destruction of mature trees not only depletes biodiversity but also exacerbates urban heat island effects and reduces the overall environmental quality of the area.

Additionally, the intersection near 3-9 Park Avenue leading to the Pacific Highway is already a high-traffic zone with substantial congestion during peak hours. Adding another 100 apartments in a single development will significantly worsen traffic conditions, making it nearly impossible to move around this already busy intersection.

Thank you for considering my submission. I trust that the Council will uphold its commitment to balanced and sustainable development.

As a long term resident, who has lived in Gordon since 1975, and raised my family here, I strongly object to the proposed rape of the Gordon through this amenity destroying multi storey over development. This development will put significant additional strain on existing infrastructure that is already overstretched for the existing population of the area as well as those who enter and exiting the municipality via the Pacific Highway during peak times. It will create a precedent to initiate further over development of Gordon and, within a relatively short period of time, this community will end up with significant overbearing development similar to that in St Leonards and Chatswood.
The proposal offers no 'value adding' to local community amenity. It does not properly address or respect local community concerns that have been referenced by Ku ring gai Municipal Council on numerous occasions. It is excessively disproportionate to the surrounding low rise properties and will be an architectural obomination when it comes to form, overshadowing and assimilation with surrounding heritage buildings and low rise developments.

strongly urge that this State Significant Development (SSD - 78775458) application at 3-9 Park
Avenue, Gordon by developer CPDM be refused in full.
The project must be put on hold indefinitely until an agreement is reached between Ku-ring-gai
Council and the NSW State Government regarding the planning future of the area. It is entirely
inappropriate and premature for this proposal to proceed while the community has actively
participated in consultation for the new Ku-ring-gai Draft Local Environment Plan (LEP), which is
scheduled for public exhibition by the Minister for Planning on 22 May 2025.
Allowing this SSD to go ahead while the LEP is still under review would seriously undermine
community trust and planning integrity.
In addition, the proposal should be refused on the following grounds:
- Loss of sunlight and excessive overshadowing: The development will significantly reduce sunlight
and cast long shadows over surrounding residential properties, impacting quality of life and
residential amenity.
- Severe traffic congestion: The scale of the development will worsen traffic conditions, particularly
along the Pacific Highway and Park Avenue, potentially turning the latter into a permanent traffic
bottleneck.
without any clear strategy to retain or protect existing greenery. There is no proper assessment of
the impact to root systems, which poses long-term risks to the local environment and urban canopy.
This development represents overreach, poor planning coordination, and environmental disregard.
For the benefit of the community and the integrity of the planning process, I ask that the proposal be refused without delay

I strongly object to the proposed development of over 100 residential units across the road from my residence. The scale and nature of this project are grossly incompatible with the existing character of Gordon and raise several critical concerns.

1. Failure to Adequately Address SEAR Requirements
The proposal falls short of meeting the key requirements outlined in the Strategic Environmental Assessment Report (SEAR). The documentation provided lacks the necessary depth and transparency in assessing the environmental and community impacts of such a large-scale development. It is evident that the environmental implications—particularly those relating to traffic, noise, and landscape—have not been thoroughly considered.

2. Disregard for Heritage Value
The proposed site includes land with recognised heritage significance. Yet, the development application shows a clear oversight of this status, risking irreversible damage to Gordon’s historical and cultural fabric. Any plan that ignores the preservation of our suburb’s heritage undermines both the law and the identity of the community.

3. Impact on Local Amenity and Character
This project would drastically alter the visual and social character of Gordon. The suburb is defined by its leafy streets, low-rise dwellings, and village-like charm—elements that would be overwhelmed by a dense apartment complex. Residents choose Gordon for its unique appeal; this development would erode that very identity.

4. Traffic and Congestion Concerns
Traffic around Gordon Station and Park Avenue is already at unsustainable levels during peak hours. Introducing a development of this scale, without any credible infrastructure upgrades or traffic mitigation strategies, will further congest roads and compromise pedestrian safety. This represents not only a planning failure but a serious public safety issue.

5. Additional Environmental and Amenity Issues

Noise and Vibration: The proposed construction and long-term occupancy will generate considerable noise and vibration, disrupting the peace of surrounding homes and schools.

Water Management: There is insufficient planning around stormwater disposal and water quality protection. The site’s topography and existing drainage systems may not be capable of supporting additional runoff.

Loss of Trees and Landscaping: The development threatens the removal of significant mature trees and green cover, further diminishing local biodiversity and tree canopy, which Gordon is renowned for.

I urge the relevant authorities to reject the application and demand a development plan that respects the area’s character, infrastructure limitations, and environmental constraints.

I am writing to share my concerns regarding the proposed development project in Gordon. This area holds deep heritage significance, with a history stretching back to the 1830s as one of Ku-ring-gai’s earliest settlements. I worry that the project could unintentionally affect the historical character that defines Gordon, and I believe that safeguarding this legacy is vital for our community.
Another point of concern is the potential impact on traffic along the Pacific Highway, which already experiences significant congestion. While I recognize the developer has considered this issue, I think additional measures might be needed to prevent further challenges for those who rely on this route daily.
Lastly, I’d hoped to see more evident benefits for Gordon’s residents, such as enhancements to local amenities or infrastructure. With the possible loss of mature trees and other environmental considerations, I believe the project could do more to contribute positively to our community’s well-being and sustainability.
I respectfully encourage the authorities to weigh these concerns carefully and reject this project to align more closely with preserving Gordon’s heritage, beauty, and livability for the future.

I am deeply concerned by the potential impact to traffic conditions on the road around the area and the likely increased to number of commuters at Gordon station with the introduction of such a large number of apartments. As is, the peak hour traffic on Park Street and Werona Avenue next to the train station is already very heavy every morning and the train stations are always packed. It seems that whoever has planned for this project has not done any due diligence to validate the detrimental impact such a large apartment project will have on the environment, existing residents and commuters most of whom are students. I strongly urge the relevant authority to properly consider these factors and not err on the profitability side.