Submission with comments attached as Word document

• Its a 10storey building with excessive bulk and size.
• With another SSD for 24-28 Middle Harbour Road, it will completely isolate the single storey dwelling at number 22 MHR.
• It does not meet the required setbacks
• It has 4 areas of communal space on the roof that will generate excessive noise
• There are numerous inaccuracies and inconsistent data in the Environment Impact Statement.
• The 10 storey development will have an unacceptable impact on neighbouring properties.
• It does not fulfill the objective of the TOD controls in Chapter 5 of the Housing SEPP which is to ensure development is of an appropriate bulk and scale.
• The building design includes a long 41m façade of 10 storeys to Middle Harbour Road without any open central space to visually reduce its bulk in the context of the existing streetscape.
• The habitat of the endangered species Large-eared Pied Bat (Chalinolobus dwyeri) is cited as using this site.
• The development site is over 550 metres walking distance from Lindfield Station. At 31m this is higher than Council’s Preferred scenario limits for this site.
• The site is part of the overflow from the Highway ridgeline into Gordon Creek and then Middle Harbour. The 15 m excavation will disturb and alter the flow of water increasing the flooding in an existing flood prone area.
• More than half the existing trees will be removed.
• The proposal does not provide sufficient details of the affordable housing it includes and guarantees that it will always stay affordable housing in an affluent area.

refer to attachment.

Please see the attached submission objecting to the project

I believe the council's alternative plan for the TOD program should be accepted by the state governemnt. The proposal for this large development in Middle Harbour Road has not been considered in the context of the area and other properties surrounding it. Those properties adjacent to the property will be completely over whelmed by the sheer size of this property. The council's alternate plan has been well thought out and delivers more dwellings in a way that is sympathic to the unique environment of Ku-Ring-Gai. Large blocks of units have been put on the west of the highway where the natural slope of the land can be used for better views, light and ventilation (ie more energy efficient). This has been done well in Gordon. Areas of historical significance on the east side can be maintained.

I oppose the proposed development, which is not at all suitable for the site at 16-20 Middle Harbour Rd (Site). My main reasons for opposing the development include:
• it is inconsistent with a good planning outcome and in conflict with the alternative planning scheme proposed by Kuring-Gai Council (Council), which has widespread community support (TOD Alternate Preferred Scenario)
• its height, bulk and density;
• the lack of transition, in terms of height and density, to the neighbouring residential properties;
• its adverse impact in terms of overshadowing and loss of solar access and privacy on adjacent and other neighbouring properties;
• the stranding of number 22 Middle Harbour Road (MHR) between two 9 storey developments that would result if the SSD application for 24, 26 and 28 MHR is also approved;
• its adverse impact from a heritage perspective on the Trafalgar Heritage Conservation Area (HCA);
• the loss of tree canopy and biodiversity that will result; and
• conflict with the character and streetscape of the neighbourhood, including the adverse visual impacts of such a large, angular and dense building.

This applicant did not engage in any early consultation with me notwithstanding that I live in MHR in the block between Lindfield Avenue and Trafalgar Avenue.
I expand on some of my objections as follows:
• The floor space ration of 3.16:1 substantially exceeds the FSR of 1.8:1 proposed for the Site in the TOD Alternate Preferred Scenario. The bulk and density proposed are inappropriate for the Site.
• By its own admission, the Proposal is only ‘largely compliant’ with setback requirements – it should be fully compliant.
• There is no sensitive interface with the neighbouring dwellings to the east, west and north of the Site.
• The shadow diagrams that are included in the proposal indicate a degree of shadowing that is unacceptable.
• The proposed development would dominate, and have an overbearing effect on, the surrounding streetscapes.
• Neighbouring properties that are overlooked by the buildings will suffer a substantial loss of privacy.
• Rooftop spaces will mean loss of privacy for surrounding properties and noise in the evenings (potentially late into the night).
• The Site is adjacent to number 22 MHR, which is between the Site and the site covered by SSD-82548708 (24, 26 and 28 MHR). Leaving it (a single storey residence) stranded between two SSDs of 9 storeys is neither equitable to the owner of number 22, nor a good planning outcome as that property would on its own be too small for any redevelopment taking advantage of the TOD or the TOD Alternate Preferred Scenario.
• Number 18 MHR is land with high biodiversity value that is particularly sensitive to impacts from development and clearing). Removal of a tree with high biodiversity value from number 18, and the removal of 27 other medium or low category trees indicated in the EIS, is unacceptable.
• Boundary planting will not hide the stark facades of the buildings, nor attract the bird and other wildlife that the current tree canopy on the Site attracts.
• The heritage value of the Trafalgar HCA will be undermined and substantially diminished if the development proceeds.
• The applicant has argued that the proposed development is compatible with what might be built on surrounding properties in the future under the TOD, yet it fails to take account of the cumulative effect of the proposed development and the surrounding future developments. The cumulative impact on traffic in MHR and surrounding streets during and after construction, and the cumulative impact on other facilities such as water and waste water must be considered.
• The Site is opposite number 9 MHR, which is a stranded Heritage Item. The heritage value of 9 MHR is already in danger of being significantly undermined by immediately adjacent development applications (an SSDA on one boundary and a DA on the other. The proposed development would further undermine any heritage value attributable to 9 MHR, and result in multi storey developments on three sides. This would be a very poor planning outcome.

I wish to raise my concerns regarding the proposed multi-level development at 16–20 Middle Harbour Road, Lindfield, as I believe it could have a number of unintended consequences for the surrounding area. One of the key issues is the potential impact on nearby heritage-listed homes, which contribute significantly to the character and cultural value of the neighbourhood—this development risks isolating them and diminishing their prominence. The scale and height of the proposal appear inconsistent with the existing low-rise streetscape, and may not sit comfortably within the heritage context that defines much of Lindfield. For residents of 22 Middle Harbour Road, the development would place them between two large apartment blocks, with another across the street, creating a sense of enclosure that could affect both amenity and property value. Privacy, noise, and overshadowing are genuine concerns, especially with limited setbacks and transition zones that don’t seem to offer sufficient buffering. The area already experiences traffic congestion, and additional dwellings could exacerbate this, along with pressure on parking and local infrastructure such as stormwater and sewer systems. There’s also the environmental aspect—many trees would be lost, which could affect local biodiversity and the tree canopy that’s so valued in this part of Lindfield. Finally, the proposal seems to diverge from Ku-ring-gai Council’s preferred planning principles, particularly in terms of respecting heritage and biodiversity. I hope these points will be carefully considered in the assessment process.