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

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

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

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

Proposed Development in Stanhope Road

General Comments:

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

By accepting the proposed scale of this project, the consent authority would ignore the character of the area. Densified and affordable housing is acceptable, but this project is overkill, being too high and imposing on the neighbourhood.

I accept the need of the TOD to increase the density of housing and supply of affordable housing around Killara Station. However, that should not be a licence to damage the character of the area and needs to be a sensitive development. This proposal is inappropriately out of scale for the battle-axe site and its surroundings.

If the development is to proceed, I request the consent authority rejects this architectural form ,requires a lower maximum height, and reduces the number of apartments to a sustainable scale. That revised architecture would hopefully address:

· the need for a greater set-back from the rear neighbours;

· require less excavation;

· provide vehicular access at ground level to the rear buildings for fire and services access; and

· on grade visitor parking


Build Form

The proposed maximum height of 35 m is excessive and would adversely impact all adjacent 39 apartments at 10 Marian Street, along the northern boundary.

The developer is attempting to use the Affordable Housing provisions to grossly over-develop the site, presumably for maximum profitability, and in the process totally disregards the character of the Killara neighbourhood. At the very least the Variation Request must be denied.

Stepping down the maximum height towards Stanhope Road may minimise the visual impact of the massive development when viewed from street level, but this completely ignores the impact on existing residents of 10 Marian Street.

Traffic and Parking impact

The increased traffic will increase danger, congestion and on-street parking.

The Proposal includes an estimate of around 20,000 tonnes of demolition and excavation material to be trucked off the site. This would have to use Culworth Avenue, which is not up to standard or safe.

Stanhope Road already carries heavy am and pm traffic. Access to and from the Pacific Highway at Stanhope Road is already at capacity and is unsafe. The additional burden of construction traffic and a further addition of 168 resident cars plus 27 visitor spaces would create an increased traffic and safety problem. The carparking proposed is scaled back for the TOD concessions but it is unlikely to be adequate for a development with a large number of 3- and 4-bedroom apartments, where typically, owners have more than one car. The basement level of visitor carparking is inconvenient and is likely to result in visitors parking on the street in Stanhope Road, which because of being parked out, would inevitably result in council imposing future parking restrictions – a retrograde and unnecessary consequence for the local community.

Stormwater

Increased stormwater runoff. The proposed increase in site coverage would result in a serious increase in stormwater runoff, particularly in the event of a major storm event. This has the real potential to cause flooding of neighbouring property, particularly 10 Marian Street, which Council plans indicate is in a potential flood zone. The stormwater Trunk Main passing through 10 Marian Street is already compromised, given its pipe size reduces as it flows towards Culworth Avenue. There is a real risk of blockages and consequential flow would rise out of the manholes causing an above ground flow and flood, with certain flooding of the basement in Marian Street.

Screening

Potential loss of existing Leylandii tree hedging. The existing significant Leylandii trees along the northern boundary of the proposed development provide residents of 10 Marian Street with an effective visual screening of the Stanhope Road properties. It unfortunately would cause significant shading to the lower level Block C residents under the current architectural proposal, and so I am concerned about its protection and longevity.

Whatever the final outcome of the Development Application, it is essential that all assurances given by the developer regarding retention of these trees are rigidly enforced. Developers often provide comforting assurances but then totally disregard them during construction and thereafter at minimal financial penalty. Serious penalties must be included in any consent approvals for any breach of the landscape plans.

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

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing to strongly object to the proposed development at 10–14A Stanhope Road, Killara (SSD-81890707). This proposal raises significant concerns regarding heritage protection, sound planning principles, and the established character of our community. It is clearly at odds with Ku-ring-gai Council’s preferred alternative for Transit-Oriented Development (TOD), which prioritises the preservation of the Stanhope Road Heritage Conservation Area.

There are several key issues with this proposal:

The development would be located immediately adjacent to the heritage-listed property at 12 Stanhope Road, which would be visually dominated and isolated due to the excessive height and bulk of the proposed building.

It includes the demolition of the heritage-listed home at 14 Stanhope Road, further eroding the architectural and historical integrity of the conservation area.

The proposed use of a battleaxe block for a ten-storey, high-density development is highly inappropriate and represents poor urban planning. The site has limited street access and is wholly incompatible with the surrounding residential context.

If approved, this would be the only ten-storey building on the eastern side of Killara, standing in stark contrast to the area’s established low-rise character and setting a concerning precedent.

Additionally, while the proposal is being marketed as “affordable housing,” there is a lack of transparency around whether it will truly deliver housing that is affordable to those who need it. Many residents are concerned that this is simply a case of developer opportunism, masquerading as a public good.

In summary, this development undermines the aims of the heritage conservation framework, disrupts the cohesive character of the streetscape, and conflicts with the community’s expectations and the established planning logic for the area.

For these reasons, I urge the Department to reject SSD-81890707.

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

Dear Sir or Madam,

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for considering my submission.

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

Dear Sir/Madam,
This proposal raises serious concerns in terms of heritage protection, planning integrity, and community character. It is directly at odds with Ku-ring-gai Council’s preferred alternative scenario for the Transit-Oriented Development (TOD), which supports the preservation of the Stanhope Road Heritage Conservation Area.
Key issues include:
- The proposed development is adjacent to a heritage-listed property at 12 Stanhope Road, which would be visually overwhelmed and isolated by the scale and form of this development.
- It involves the demolition of a heritage conservation home at 14 Stanhope Road, eroding the architectural and historical continuity of the area.
- The use of a battleaxe block for a high-density, ten-storey development is not only inappropriate but represents poor urban planning practice. It is an unsuitable site with limited street access and a completely incompatible context.
- If approved, this would be the only ten-storey development on the entire east side of Killara, standing in stark contrast to the established low-rise residential character of the suburb.
Additionally, while the development is framed as providing "affordable housing," it is unclear whether it will deliver genuinely affordable outcomes for those in need. Many in the community are concerned that this is simply a case of developer-driven opportunism, disguised under the banner of public benefit.
This proposal undermines the intent of the heritage conservation framework and threatens the cohesive streetscape that residents value. It represents an overreach that lacks alignment with local context, planning logic, and community expectations.
For these reasons, I strongly urge the Department to reject SSD-81890707 (10-14A Stanhope Road Killara).