I made a submission previously and none of the responses to submissions and amendments satisfy my concerns about the impact of the development on the neighbourhood. These include the height of the building, the impact on traffic in the area and the impact of a major storm event on the property at the rear of the building which is already in a flood planning area.

Please find attached my objection letter dated 12 January 2026 and original objection letter dated 3 June 2025

This SSD will be a terrible development for Killara.

It is more than 3 times higher than the surrounding houses and includes a 10 storey building right behind a heritage listed house. It is in an area of many important heritage-listed items, and will irreversibly damage one of Sydney's best-preserved heritage areas. An eyesore such as this development will destroy the heritage and greenspace that Killara is known for.

Killara is a quiet suburb with no town centre and although it has a train station, it does not have services such as shops. This development will create a massive increase in traffic along the main access point for Killara residents to get to the Pacific Hwy. Already there are accidents occurring along this section of Stanhope Road due to it being too narrow to adequately accommodate street parking on both sides and cars , buses and trucks going in both directions. Add in a huge number of new apartments and this will become complete gridlock for all traffic going to and from the east side of Killara.

There are no schools within walking distance of this development and the local schools are NOT on the trainline, so any students housed in this development will catch buses. This totally defeats the idea of the TOD, and just adds more buses to already overcrowded roads.

Calling housing in Killara "affordable" is a joke. The developers are using this to increase the size of the development with no actual impact on housing essential workers such as nurses and teachers. It has been well documented recently that developers are only looking at the North Shore and the Eastern Suburbs because that is where they make big profits, NOT because they can provide housing at an affordable cost for those who need it.

The NSW Government needs to stop feeding the greedy developers and start taking action that will both help the housing crisis and also look after the irreplaceable heritage and natural environment. This development should be categorically rejected.

Please find attached the Friends of Ku-ring-gai Environment Inc (FOKE) submission.

I record that I have not objected to quite a number of other SSDs. To be clear, that means I still expect that the Department will rigorously assess those other developments to ensure that they meet all requirements. It should not be for the community to be required to call out gaps or breaches.
In relation to this development, that expectation is also the same. I repeat objections of others but, without limiting that, particularly wish to raise the heritage concerns.

The Minister and the Department have explicitly said that any development in an HCA (as well as not involving removal of contributory items) needs to improve and enhance the heritage values of the location. The proposed development is in as well as immediately adjacent to a HCA and a heritage item. It does nothing (or inadequately minimal) to address these values.

New infill buildings and designs must:

1. Be no higher than neighbouring heritage buildings

2. Recognise the predominant scale of the setting and respond sympathetically

These are from the government’s own guidelines (Design Guide for Heritage and Designt in context: Guidelines for development in the historic environment).

The impact of an inappropriately scaled building cannot be compensated for by building form, design or detailing." (page 19, Design in context: Guidelines for infill development in the historic environment (nsw.gov.au).

Contrary to those requirements:

1. the proposal involves the demolition of a contributory item.
2. the proposed plans do nothing to demonstrate and reflect the garden settings of the 1- 2 storey heritage homes surrounding it in the HCA.
3. The proposed plans, adjacent to a Heritage item, are higher than the neighbouring heritage item. This is just plain impermissible.
4. Adversely affects views to and from heritage items in the area.

If permitted, it makes at best a mockery and at worst a lie of the Department's and Government's publications purporting to give people comfort that developments on TOD or saved TODs would still involve heritage considerations and would need to improve and enhance the heritage values of a location.

Please refer to attached objection