If this development proceeds if will have a substantial detrimental impact on the adjoining historic property, Eryldene. The size of the proposed development will have a detrimental effect on the historic camellia collection and the garden in general. Eryldene is historically important as an example of the work of architect William Hardy Wilson and the garden reflects the pioneering work of EGWaterhouse. The proposed development would threaten the historic camellias by casting shade detrimental to their wellbeing. The proposed development would also cause undue stress to the adjoining streets where parking is at a premium especially when Eryldene is open to the public.

To: Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure 2 September 2025

Subject: Objection to State Significant Development (SSD-83478456)
at 21, 23, 25 Mcintosh Street and 55 Werona Avenue Gordon

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing to formally object to the proposed State Significant Development (SSD-83478456) at 21, 23 & 25 Mcintosh Street and 55 Werona Avenue, Gordon. Lot A DP 339345, Lot 5 in DP 6515557, Lot 1 in DP 167505 and Lot 11 DP 1078667.

I am the owner and together with my wife and family are the current residents since 1984 of a Heritage Listed Federation property in Gordon. Our property as well as our surrounding neighbours would be significantly affected if this proposed development was to proceed.

The application for this development of a Residential Flat Buildings with in-fill affordable housing is, in my opinion, ill-conceived and inadequately planned. It does not align with existing local Council planning guidelines, disregards the character of the local area, and fails to consider current infrastructure capacity of our area, or the feedback of the local community. It also overrides and blatantly ignores the seven planning principles set out by Ku-ring-gai Council.

The Council’s preferred alternative scenario submitted to the State Government, has been developed based on Council’s own proven, long standing and existing planning guidelines and controls and through in depth, detailed and open thorough engagement and consultation with the residents of Ku-ring-gai. Approaching future development within Ku-ring-gai in this way has maintained the character of the local areas which has continued to attract residents as a sort after wonderful desirable place to live and raise a family. The Council’s alternative preferred scenario aims to support and even exceed the NSW State Government new housing requirements for our area. This has been achieved without sacrificing our heritage and natural environment.

The following are the key points in support of the reasons for my objection to this projected development and the dangerous precedent that may result for future proposals if this development is approved as a SSD by the State Government.

1. Excessive Height and Footprint. Completely unreasonable scale without consideration of the incompatible height transition between neighbouring housing causing extreme visual dominance, erosion of the area’s character, overshadowing, loss of privacy, unreasonable density to name a few.

2. Traffic congestion and inadequate existing infrastructure to safely handle the projected increase in residents in and around the area as a result of the proposed development.
Page 1 of 6

3. Environmental destruction of the existing area. Loss of the leafy tree canopy, established gardens and open space, wildlife habitat and contradicting the Council and residents’ commitment to environmental preservation.

4. Manipulative and opportunistic attempt to exploit affordable in fill housing and TOD planning legislation in order to fast tract inappropriate developments by maximising density and the profits of Developers’ and of the residents of the acquired properties.

5. Ignores Heritage importance. The proposed development is located adjacent to and close to Heritage listed homes as well as the Nationally significant “Eryldene Historic House and Garden”. Protecting Heritage listed properties for future generations’ enjoyment and history, requires care, planning and transition zones. The proposed development fails to delivery totally on all these.

6. Demolition and destruction of well constructed, well established and well maintained properties that are an ongoing valuable asset to the area. It is outrageous for a substantial property such as 55 Werona Avenue to be bulldozed to be replaced by a concrete tower which is completely out of character and overshaddows the surrounding area.

7. Ku-ring-gai is known as the “GREEN HEART” and “THE LUNGS OF SYDNEY” due to the abundant leafy tree cover. It is the responsibility of us all to look after our Planet for generations to come and not reduce biodiversity by the destruction of mature trees and leafy cover.

8. Significant concentrated activity and noise levels for nearby residents due to the unreasonable density of the 165 apartments on one site.


RECOMMENDATION and CONCLUSION

In reference to my above concerns, I respectfully request that the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure:

▪ Reject the current proposal in its present form.
▪ Reconsider the proposal to be in line with with Ku-ring-gai Council’s TOD Preferred Alternative Plan.


Thank you for viewing and considering this submission as well as the attachment.

Yours sincerely,
40+ years Resident of Gordon
2 September 2025
Page 2 of 6
ATTACHMENTS

State Significant Development (SSD-83478456) at 21, 23 & 25 McIntosh Street and 55 Werona Avenue, Gordon. Lot A DP 339345, Lot 5 in DP 6515557, Lot 1 in DP 167505 and Lot 11 DP 1078667.


Further dialogue on my reason for the objection to this proposed development

1. Excessive height and footprint which is disproportionate and inconsistent to the surrounding low rise streetscape (one to two storeys), open landscaped gardens and overrides the seven planning principals set out by Ku-ring-gai Council which aims to support new housing without sacrificing our Heritage and natural environment. Although the buildings will vary in height, reaching up to the proposed 8 storeys, the development has been literally "plonked" on a small parcel of land in the middle of and with no regard to some well established surrounding19 century homes and gardens as well as Local Heritage buildings, including the Nationally Significant “Eryldene Historic House and Garden”. The height of the 8 storey building would cause significant overshadowing and disrupting sight lines with inadequate transition zones to adjacent properties. The scale and density is completely out of proportion with Gordon's established character, visual harmony, privacy, Heritage cohesion and infrastructure capacity.

2. Traffic congestion will dramatically increase around the area from the proposed development of approximately 165 new apartments with approximately 191 car spaces together with the already increasing through traffic from the entry and exit points from the Pacific Highway, Rosedale Road, Park Avenue, Mcintosh Street and Werona Avenue. This will greatly compound the high traffic movements in the vicinity of the proposed project. Adding to the congestion in the vicinity of the Pacific Highway, Werona Avenue, Rosedale Road and Park Avenue would be the currently proposed; SSD - 78775458 project at 3-9 Park Avenue (100+ apartments), proposed SSD - 82395459 development on Burgoyne Street, Burgoyne Lane and Pearson Avenue (100+ apartments), 1 & 1A Edward Street & 25-27 Rosedale Road (136 apartments), proposed SSD-85838457 Rosedale Road & Edward Street 233 apartments. To date there would be approximately over 730 additional apartments destined in the East Gordon area alone. The SSD - 83478456 project also offers no improvements to local amenities or benefits to the local community and will only impose additional overload on schools, transport, road grid lock, sewage, stormwater, power supply and increased safety issues of the increase in population movements around the local Gordon area.

3. Environmental Destruction of devastating tree canopy with the destruction of approximately 50+ mature trees and wildlife impact through loss of habitats for Kookaburras, Rosellas, Galahs, Red-tailed Black Cockatoos and White Cockatoos.


Page 3 of 6

4. Manipulative and Opportunistic - This proposal is an attempt to exploit affordable in-fill housing and TOD planning legislation to gain additional height for a project and fast tracked for approval by the State Government. This can only be aimed at emotionally targeting the Government housing supply and affordability angle as the imperative for its approval. Affordable Housing has been used as a loophole to get SSD approval and bypass Local Council planning principles which aim to support new housing without sacrificing our Heritage and natural environment. The Federal and State Governments need to address the current and future immigration policies as the current infrastructures and planning for our towns and cities has not been addressed to accommodate the 500,000 or more new arrivals each year seeking a place to live.

The State Government has in the past few years spent BILLIONS of dollars in creating infrastructure to the West of Sydney. Why then aren’t the State Government now looking at providing additional housing opportunities in that area to justify the expenditure of that money? Does this not support the State Government principles of their TOD planning legislation i.e. The State Government’s own wording defining TOD is “to encourage the construction of well-located, affordable housing and jobs in walkable communities within close proximity to public transport hubs”. Does this not support the BILLIONS of dollars spent in providing the new transport hubs? Otherwise the money has been spent on a white elephant project if the Government does not attract a large increase in population in those areas so as to utilise the transport hubs created and the NSW tax payers’ money spent! Targeting the North Shore line is already at capacity especially during peak hours and would require significant upgrading and expansion in order to safely handle the increase in additional population.

5. Ignores Heritage importance and fails to consider the significance, disregard and impact on four surrounding Heritage listed properties, two of which abut two of the project in question boundaries.

6. The Demolition and Destruction of properties earmarked with this project are well established, well constructed and maintained

o: Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure 2 September 2025

Subject: Objection to State Significant Development (SSD-83478456)
at 21, 23, 25 Mcintosh Street and 55 Werona Avenue Gordon

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing to formally object to the proposed State Significant Development (SSD-83478456) at 21, 23 & 25 Mcintosh Street and 55 Werona Avenue, Gordon. Lot A DP 339345, Lot 5 in DP 6515557, Lot 1 in DP 167505 and Lot 11 DP 1078667.

I am the owner and together with my wife and family are the current residents since 1984 of a Heritage Listed Federation property in Gordon. Our property as well as our surrounding neighbours would be significantly affected if this proposed development was to proceed.

The application for this development of a Residential Flat Buildings with in-fill affordable housing is, in my opinion, ill-conceived and inadequately planned. It does not align with existing local Council planning guidelines, disregards the character of the local area, and fails to consider current infrastructure capacity of our area, or the feedback of the local community. It also overrides and blatantly ignores the seven planning principles set out by Ku-ring-gai Council.

The Council’s preferred alternative scenario submitted to the State Government, has been developed based on Council’s own proven, long standing and existing planning guidelines and controls and through in depth, detailed and open thorough engagement and consultation with the residents of Ku-ring-gai. Approaching future development within Ku-ring-gai in this way has maintained the character of the local areas which has continued to attract residents as a sort after wonderful desirable place to live and raise a family. The Council’s alternative preferred scenario aims to support and even exceed the NSW State Government new housing requirements for our area. This has been achieved without sacrificing our heritage and natural environment.

The following are the key points in support of the reasons for my objection to this projected development and the dangerous precedent that may result for future proposals if this development is approved as a SSD by the State Government.

1. Excessive Height and Footprint. Completely unreasonable scale without consideration of the incompatible height transition between neighbouring housing causing extreme visual dominance, erosion of the area’s character, overshadowing, loss of privacy, unreasonable density to name a few.

2. Traffic congestion and inadequate existing infrastructure to safely handle the projected increase in residents in and around the area as a result of the proposed development.
Page 1 of 6

3. Environmental destruction of the existing area. Loss of the leafy tree canopy, established gardens and open space, wildlife habitat and contradicting the Council and residents’ commitment to environmental preservation.

4. Manipulative and opportunistic attempt to exploit affordable in fill housing and TOD planning legislation in order to fast tract inappropriate developments by maximising density and the profits of Developers’ and of the residents of the acquired properties.

5. Ignores Heritage importance. The proposed development is located adjacent to and close to Heritage listed homes as well as the Nationally significant “Eryldene Historic House and Garden”. Protecting Heritage listed properties for future generations’ enjoyment and history, requires care, planning and transition zones. The proposed development fails to delivery totally on all these.

6. Demolition and destruction of well constructed, well established and well maintained properties that are an ongoing valuable asset to the area. It is outrageous for a substantial property such as 55 Werona Avenue to be bulldozed to be replaced by a concrete tower which is completely out of character and overshaddows the surrounding area.

7. Ku-ring-gai is known as the “GREEN HEART” and “THE LUNGS OF SYDNEY” due to the abundant leafy tree cover. It is the responsibility of us all to look after our Planet for generations to come and not reduce biodiversity by the destruction of mature trees and leafy cover.

8. Significant concentrated activity and noise levels for nearby residents due to the unreasonable density of the 165 apartments on one site.


RECOMMENDATION and CONCLUSION

In reference to my above concerns, I respectfully request that the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure:

▪ Reject the current proposal in its present form.
▪ Reconsider the proposal to be in line with with Ku-ring-gai Council’s TOD Preferred Alternative Plan.


Thank you for viewing and considering this submission as well as the attachment.

Yours sincerely,
40+ years Resident of Gordon
2 September 2025
Page 2 of 6

ATTACHMENTS

State Significant Development (SSD-83478456) at 21, 23 & 25 McIntosh Street and 55 Werona Avenue, Gordon. Lot A DP 339345, Lot 5 in DP 6515557, Lot 1 in DP 167505 and Lot 11 DP 1078667.


Further dialogue on my reason for the objection to this proposed development

1. Excessive height and footprint which is disproportionate and inconsistent to the surrounding low rise streetscape (one to two storeys), open landscaped gardens and overrides the seven planning principals set out by Ku-ring-gai Council which aims to support new housing without sacrificing our Heritage and natural environment. Although the buildings will vary in height, reaching up to the proposed 8 storeys, the development has been literally "plonked" on a small parcel of land in the middle of and with no regard to some well established surrounding19 century homes and gardens as well as Local Heritage buildings, including the Nationally Significant “Eryldene Historic House and Garden”. The height of the 8 storey building would cause significant overshadowing and disrupting sight lines with inadequate transition zones to adjacent properties. The scale and density is completely out of proportion with Gordon's established character, visual harmony, privacy, Heritage cohesion and infrastructure capacity.

2. Traffic congestion will dramatically increase around the area from the proposed development of approximately 165 new apartments with approximately 191 car spaces together with the already increasing through traffic from the entry and exit points from the Pacific Highway, Rosedale Road, Park Avenue, Mcintosh Street and Werona Avenue. This will greatly compound the high traffic movements in the vicinity of the proposed project. Adding to the congestion in the vicinity of the Pacific Highway, Werona Avenue, Rosedale Road and Park Avenue would be the currently proposed; SSD - 78775458 project at 3-9 Park Avenue (100+ apartments), proposed SSD - 82395459 development on Burgoyne Street, Burgoyne Lane and Pearson Avenue (100+ apartments), 1 & 1A Edward Street & 25-27 Rosedale Road (136 apartments), proposed SSD-85838457 Rosedale Road & Edward Street 233 apartments. To date there would be approximately over 730 additional apartments destined in the East Gordon area alone. The SSD - 83478456 project also offers no improvements to local amenities or benefits to the local community and will only impose additional overload on schools, transport, road grid lock, sewage, stormwater, power supply and increased safety issues of the increase in population movements around the local Gordon area.

3. Environmental Destruction of devastating tree canopy with the destruction of approximately 50+ mature trees and wildlife impact through loss of habitats for Kookaburras, Rosellas, Galahs, Red-tailed Black Cockatoos and White Cockatoos.


Page 3 of 6

4. Manipulative and Opportunistic - This proposal is an attempt to exploit affordable in-fill housing and TOD planning legislation to gain additional height for a project and fast tracked for approval by the State Government. This can only be aimed at emotionally targeting the Government housing supply and affordability angle as the imperative for its approval. Affordable Housing has been used as a loophole to get SSD approval and bypass Local Council planning principles which aim to support new housing without sacrificing our Heritage and natural environment. The Federal and State Governments need to address the current and future immigration policies as the current infrastructures and planning for our towns and cities has not been addressed to accommodate the 500,000 or more new arrivals each year seeking a place to live.

The State Government has in the past few years spent BILLIONS of dollars in creating infrastructure to the West of Sydney. Why then aren’t the State Government now looking at providing additional housing opportunities in that area to justify the expenditure of that money? Does this not support the State Government principles of their TOD planning legislation i.e. The State Government’s own wording defining TOD is “to encourage the construction of well-located, affordable housing and jobs in walkable communities within close proximity to public transport hubs”. Does this not support the BILLIONS of dollars spent in providing the new transport hubs? Otherwise the money has been spent on a white elephant project if the Government does not attract a large increase in population in those areas so as to utilise the transport hubs created and the NSW tax payers’ money spent! Targeting the North Shore line is already at capacity especially during peak hours and would require significant upgrading and expansion in order to safely handle the increase in additional population.

5. Ignores Heritage importance and fails to consider the significance, disregard and impact on four surrounding Heritage listed properties, two of which abut two of the project in question boundaries.

6. The Demolition and Destruction of properties earmarked with this project are well established, well constructed and maintaine

Height and number of units overbearing in such a space dominating local houses. McIntosh st is parked out Monday- Friday and there is only one side of the street available otherwise there would be grid lock. The units are right on the intersection. Parking for the units seems inadequate. Where are the spaces for visiting community nurse, meals on wheels, Coles and woolies vans as according to the state government summary on the development the units will be filled with oldies from the local area who are taking up houses at present. As for garden space around these units it is minimal. Why not look at the units we already have to see what works, units with a sense of community, outdoor space etc. and plenty of solar saving options.

Objection to SSD-83478456 — Residential Development with In-fill Affordable Housing, 21, 23 & 25 McIntosh Street and 55 Werona Avenue, Gordon

To: NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure
From: Owner, 11 Kalang Avenue, Killara
Date: 9th June 2026

I object to this amended proposal in the strongest possible terms.

I am not a planner. I am a resident who actually walks these streets, and I want to tell you what I see — because it does not match the tidy picture in the applicant's reports.

Anyone who stands on McIntosh Street on a weekday morning knows the truth: it is already parked out, kerb to kerb, all through work and school hours. Between commuters walking to Gordon Station and the Ravenswood school run, the street and the surrounding network are at saturation now, today, before a single new apartment exists. The Transport report's neat figures do not describe the road I know. Dropping 151 apartments and years of a multi-storey construction site into this already-overloaded network is not a "manageable" impact — it is an unpredictable shock to local traffic and safety that nobody will be able to reverse once it is built.

What makes this worse is that, under the rules our community now lives under, this development should not be happening here at all. This land is zoned R2 low-density residential, where apartment buildings are prohibited under Ku-ring-gai's own planning controls. The only reason a nine-storey block can even be proposed here is a State "Transport Oriented Development" pathway that Ku-ring-gai Council — backed by its residents — fought hard to replace. Those State rules were replaced in November 2025 by Council's own gazetted plan, and under that plan the sites around this development are no longer identified as apartment / TOD sites; the surrounding streets are intended for low-scale housing that fits the neighbourhood. In other words, this proposal is a leftover of a scheme the community has already rejected, kept alive only because it was lodged before the door closed. It is being pushed through on a technicality, against the plan now in force — and it is the neighbours who will live with the consequences forever.

Let us be honest about what is really happening here. A small number of landowners and their developer stand to make a great deal of money, and to secure that profit they are willing to sacrifice the safety, character and liveability of an entire neighbourhood — along with the mature trees, the canopy, and the endangered Sydney Turpentine-Ironbark Forest on the site, which cannot be replanted once it is gone. The people who will inherit the overshadowing, the traffic, the lost trees and the diminished amenity are the families who live here now and the families who come after us. That is not a fair trade, and it is not in the public interest.

And here is the part that tells you exactly how seriously our voices were taken. The community made submission after submission about excessive height and bulk. The applicant "listened," went away, and came back with an amended scheme that is taller — now up to nine storeys and 30.95 metres — with an extra half-level of apartments and a communal terrace added on the roof. We asked them to make it smaller; they made it bigger. If that is what "responding to submissions" looks like, then the consultation was never more than a box-ticking exercise. They did not weigh the community's concerns — they doubled down on them, at our expense. A process that answers objections about height by adding height is not genuine engagement; it is contempt for it.

I respectfully ask the Department to refuse SSD-83478456. It is the wrong building, in the wrong place, under rules the community has already replaced.

If the Department is not minded to refuse it, I ask that approval not be granted until, at a minimum: an independent traffic and parking review is undertaken against real on-street conditions; construction vehicles and worker parking are banned from surrounding residential streets; the height and bulk are genuinely reduced rather than increased; and the loss of trees and endangered vegetation is independently assessed and avoided. I also ask the Department to give real weight to the fact that this proposal is out of step with the planning framework Ku-ring-gai now lives under, and that the applicant's amended scheme responded to community objection by making the very impacts we raised worse.

Yours sincerely,

Owner, 11 Kalang Avenue, Killara
Xuting Qiu

I object to SSD-83478456 as the owner of 12 Forsyth Street — a CDC-approved two-storey dwelling currently under construction that directly adjoins the southern interface of the site. This submission updates my earlier submission on this application. I do not object to affordable housing in principle. I object to this amended built form because the applicant's own amended documents identify material, unresolved impacts on my property.

SOLAR ACCESS (ADMITTED). The Response to Submissions and Amendment Report admits that 12 Forsyth Street experiences additional overshadowing, that not all parts of the dwelling receive two hours of direct sunlight between 9am and 3pm on 21 June, that the nominated 25sqm private open space does not fully satisfy the prescriptive controls, and that the proposal does not achieve full compliance with the solar access controls for 12 Forsyth Street in its current form. These impacts must be assessed against my lawfully approved (CDC) two-storey building envelope. The applicant's Stormwater Plans (Appendix P) still wrongly describe my property as a "Single Storey Brick Residence Under Construction," while the architectural plans treat it as two-storey. The shadow and amenity baseline is therefore internally inconsistent and must be independently re-verified against my approved plans.

THE "FUTURE REDEVELOPMENT" EXCUSE IS BASED ON SUPERSEDED CONTROLS. The applicant seeks to excuse the overshadowing by asserting 12 Forsyth sits in a low-and-mid-rise housing area where a future apartment building is anticipated. That relies on the superseded State-led TOD controls. Ku-ring-gai Council's alternative TOD controls were gazetted on 14 November 2025 and replaced the State TOD controls for Gordon and Killara. Under the current controls, 12 Forsyth Street is not within an area that permits residential flat building / apartment development. There is therefore no permissible future apartment redevelopment of my property to compare against. Amenity impacts must be assessed against my existing lawful low-density dwelling, and cannot be discounted by reference to a redevelopment that the planning framework no longer permits.

BUILDING C AND HEIGHT. Building C is the southern interface and the amended scheme intensifies it: Building C GFA increases to 8,495.51sqm with a half-level of roof-level residential accommodation and rooftop communal open space. The overall maximum height is 30.95m (Building A) and Building C is 30.57m — both exceed the 28.6m limit that already includes the 30% affordable-housing bonus. The Clause 4.6 variation, sought primarily to deliver rooftop communal open space, should not be supported where it coincides with admitted solar non-compliance to my home.

CONSTRUCTION NOISE AND VIBRATION. Appendix O places 12 Forsyth Street in Noise Catchment Area 3 and predicts all major construction stages exceed the 75 dB(A) Highly Noise Affected Management Level — 104 dB(A) demolition, 94 dB(A) excavation, 95 dB(A) tower construction, 94 dB(A) external works. Detailed noise planning and monitoring are deferred, and precise vibration assessment is said to be not possible at this stage. Saturday 7am–3pm works exceed Ku-ring-gai's 8am–12 noon guidance.

GROUNDWATER. Appendices T, U and V confirm groundwater will be encountered, a drained basement is proposed, dewatering is expected for up to ~9 months, long-term seepage will continue for the service life of the structure, and initial water-quality testing records exceedances. No property-specific assessment is provided for 12 Forsyth Street.

OTHER UNRESOLVED MATTERS. Stormwater and subsoil drainage coordination deferred; Sydney Turpentine-Ironbark Forest / PCT 3262 CEEC impacts; visitor parking shortfall (5 spaces against an approximately 25-space DCP benchmark); approximately 42,500 tonnes of spoil and potential asbestos; multiple BCA performance solutions; and the legally constrained Werona Avenue access handle.

REQUEST. I request refusal. If the Department is not minded to refuse, the application should be substantially redesigned and re-exhibited — materially reducing Building C, removing or relocating its rooftop communal open space, increasing the southern setback, and providing independently verified, plan-based solar and privacy analysis for the approved two-storey dwelling at 12 Forsyth Street — together with strict deferred-commencement and operational conditions for solar access, privacy, noise, vibration, groundwater, stormwater, tree protection and construction management. My full grounds and a document-by-document issue register are in my attached submission.

More traffic, congestion

I wish to formally object to the proposed construction of a 9-storey, 165-unit apartment block in our quiet residential street. While recognising the need for additional housing, this development is entirely inappropriate for the location and will cause irreversible harm to the character, amenity, and environment of Gordon.

1. Inconsistency with Ku-ring-gai Council’s planning principles
The proposal disregards the Council’s Preferred Scenario, which seeks to provide new housing without undermining heritage and the natural environment. This plan was established through consultation with the community and reflects a balanced vision that this development ignores.

2. Impact on heritage homes and neighbourhood character
The site directly adjoins and faces heritage properties within a Heritage Conservation Area. Introducing a nine-storey block here will irreparably diminish the cultural and historical value of the precinct, isolating heritage homes and undermining the established residential character of the street.

3. Excessive bulk, height, and poor design quality
At over 30 metres, the proposed building would be the tallest structure east of Gordon, dominating the streetscape, overshadowing homes, and intruding on privacy. With minimal setbacks and no meaningful transition to surrounding houses, the sheer scale and box-like design are wholly unsympathetic to the neighbourhood.

4. Destruction of tree canopy and wildlife habitats
The loss of approximately 50 mature trees will strip away one of Gordon’s defining features — its green canopy. This also threatens the habitats of native wildlife such as kookaburras, rosellas, galahs, and echidnas, causing lasting ecological damage.

5. Overload on traffic and infrastructure
An additional 165 dwellings on this small site will intensify congestion at the Pacific Highway choke points and spill excess traffic into local streets. Essential infrastructure — stormwater, sewerage, public transport, and parking — is already under strain and cannot reasonably absorb this scale of development.

6. Lack of community benefit
This project provides no tangible benefits to the local community. Instead, it undermines the very qualities — heritage, greenery, and liveability — that make Gordon distinctive.

This proposal is wholly unsuitable for the location and conflicts with the Council’s long-term vision for sustainable development. I urge Council to reject the application in order to preserve Gordon’s heritage, natural environment, and community character.