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.
We accept the need and intent 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 trash 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, we request the consent authority rejects this architectural form and 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 some vehicular access at ground level to the rear buildings for fire and services access; and
• some 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 – again, 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 we are 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. The reality is that such developers 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.
..

My name is Robyn Haynes. i live in Roseville within three kilometres of the proposed development in Stanhope Road, Killara.

While I support the need for more housing and, in particular the need for affordable housing, I DO NOT support this development proposal for the following reasons:

- Killara has NO SHOPPING PRECINCT or hub, which means that every household living within this proposed development will need at least one car to get in and out of the suburb for the most basic of shopping needs. There is NO VILLAGE HUB. NO LOCAL STORE.
- This nass, build and design of 10 storeys, 135 apartments, 195 car spaces will be an eyesore in a Heritage Conservation Area. There is nothing of this scale and mass between Gordon and Roseville. Other apartment buildings in Killara are a maximum of 5 storeys, so this will have a massive visual impact on the skyline for the whole suburb and surrounds.
- Solar access to the surrounding homes (12, 8, 6A) will be severely compromised.

Environmental concurs:
- On the site there is a Blue Gum High Forest and Sydney Turpentine-Ironbark Forest - both of which are on the NSW Threatened Entity Profiles as of May 2025 (ie they are critically endangeered). The Heritage Impact Statement provides for “all trees to be removed."

Heritage:
This proposal is in a Heritage Conservation Area (HCA), and there are 9 Heritage Listed Homes in the street. The development will degrade the historical value of the HCA.

Amenities:
-The impact on Killara High, primary schools and preschools have not been considered in this proposal.
- Car parking during construction will have a huge impact on ability of residents and visitors to find parking and even drive down already overcrowded streets. Once completed, Stanhope Road will be even more congested.

I urge the state govenrment to REJECT this proposed developemnt and find another site within Ku-ring-gai council's preferred scenario. There are plent yon offer whihc will satisfy demand, affordable housing quotas and ease the burden of 'out'of place' highrise in heritage conservation areas.

We are owners of 24 Arnold Street in Killara and have lived in the Ku-ring-gai Council area since the 1980s. We are supportive of the NSW State Government’s objective of increasing housing in Sydney, but we object to the proposed development based on significant concerns regarding the scale, loss of amenity, and heritage and environmental impacts of this project on the broader community. The State Government’s objectives to increase housing can be better achieved by Ku-ring-Gai Council’s alternative TOD proposal, which would not see developments made in this Heritage Conservation Area, right on the outer edge of TOD border with no transition to lower density housing which surrounds it on all sides.

Some of the key reasons for our objection to the proposal are:
Scale and Density: The proposed development is a nine-storey building in an area currently characterised by low-density one and two storey houses. The introduction of such a large-scale structure is out of keeping with the established character of Lindfield and neighbouring suburbs like Killara, which are valued for their leafy, suburban environment and heritage streetscapes. There are better places to develop the proposed scale and density to achieve increased housing in the area, closer to the stations and in the areas proposed in Ku-ring-Gai Council’s alternative TOD proposal (which do not include the site of this proposed development)
Overshadowing and Privacy: The height of the building will result in substantial overshadowing of neighbouring properties and loss of light and privacy, particularly for those living in one and two storey houses surrounding the development. This is inconsistent with the expectations of residents in suburbs like Lindfield and Killara, who have chosen the part of the suburb further away from the train station for its open, private, and green environment
Severe impacts to views: The Visual Impact Assessment notes that the development will have a severe impact on views from neighbouring properties. The scale of the proposed development will dominate the skyline, reducing visual amenity for residents in adjacent areas
Heritage: The proposed development is within the Middle Harbour Road, Lindfield Conservation Area and adjacent to a number of heritage listed residences. This seems to be largely dismissed in the Heritage Impact Statement which doesn’t address how demolishing multiple houses and replacing them with a high-rise building undermines the integrity of the conservation area, adjacent low rise heritage buildings and the broader heritage values of the region, which are shared by adjacent suburbs
Impact on tree canopy: The development will result in the removal of 42 trees, with only partial replacement through landscaping. This loss of mature tree canopy will have a negative impact on the environment
Precedent for further high-density development: Approval of this project will set a precedent for similar high-rise developments in adjacent suburbs with a complete disregard for surrounding housing density, heritage and environment, accelerating the loss of local character and making no attempt to balance the heritage and natural environment which are a feature of Lindfield, Killara and surrounding suburbs.
Lack of substantive consultation: The Consultation Outcomes Report notes significant community concern regarding the height, density, traffic, loss of character, heritage impacts, and amenity impacts of the proposal. These concerns do not seem to be addressed by the proposed development. It appears that there has been cursory consultation with immediately impacted local residents and little if any broader consultation for surrounding areas directly affected by the development.

The Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure should reject this proposed development. It completely disregards key issues relating to scale, character, amenity, heritage and the environment of Lindfield, Killara, and surrounding suburbs. There are other sites in Ku-ring-Gai with excellent access to public transport which can deliver better outcomes and meet housing objectives as evidenced by Ku-ring-gai’s alternative TOD proposal.

I write to formally object to the State Significant Development (SSD) proposal for 10, 14, and 14A Stanhope Road, Killara. This application, seeking to transform three large residential lots into a high-density complex of 135 apartments, is fundamentally flawed on planning, heritage, environmental, administrative law, and policy consistency grounds. It is inconsistent with statutory planning instruments, severely undermines key heritage protections, and directly misaligns with both public representations and the stated objectives of the NSW Government’s housing policy. My letter of objection is attached as a pdf file to this submission.

I am writing to express my strong objection to the proposed residential flat building and infill affordable housing development at 10, 14, and 14A Stanhope Road, Killara.
As a local resident, I believe this proposal raises serious concerns in terms of design, scale, and impact on neighbouring properties and the character of the area.
Here are the key reasons for my objection:
1. Isolation of No. 12 Stanhope Road
The amalgamated site footprint completely isolates the neighbouring property at No. 12, significantly impacting its connection to the surrounding properties.
2. Overwhelming Building Envelope
The bulk and scale of the proposed development are excessive in relation to the existing built environment. The design overwhelms the street and fails to respond appropriately to its low-density heritage conservation area.
3. Severe Overshadowing
The proposal will cause significant overshadowing of neighbouring properties, especially No. 12 Stanhope Road. This will affect solar access thus reduce the amenity of outdoor spaces that local residents currently enjoy.
4. Inconsistency with the Heritage Conservation Area (HCA)
The Environmental Impact Statement (p.134) , claims that the project will be 'will be of a form and contemporary architectural style that would be consistent with the changing character of its locality. ' This statement fails to acknowledge that this section of Stanhope Road sits within a Heritage Conservation Area. The proposed façade and design do not align with the intentions of the HCA and undermine the historical, aesthetic and representative value of nearby heritage dwellings. This development detracts from the streetscape and sets a concerning precedent.
5. Misleading Visual Representations
The artist’s impressions in the visual render do not accurately reflect the impact on adjacent properties. Particularly the views from private spaces such as the rear garden, swimming pool, and tennis court of No. 12 Stanhope Road, a recognised heritage item.
6. Privacy and Amenity Concerns
The height and density of the proposed apartment block will result in a direct loss of privacy for neighbours, as well as increased noise and disruption. The peaceful enjoyment of existing dwellings in proximity will be significantly compromised.
7. Unrealistic traffic report estimation
The traffic report concludes that the development will only increase traffic by 20–26 vehicle movements during peak hours. With over 190 car spaces across 160 units, this seems highly unrealistic. The modelling does not seem to account for vehicle trips by visitors, caretakers, service providers, or deliveries — all of which are inevitable with a development of this size. In practical terms, this project is likely to saturate the capacity of Stanhope Road, creating congestion, safety concerns, and a significant change to the current traffic environment.

We urge thorough consideration of these objections. This site is fundamentally unsuitable for a development of this scale. It is situated within a Heritage Conservation Area and directly impacts many heritage-listed properties. When viewed in the context of other State Significant Developments lodged within the Ku-ring-gai Council area, there are clearly more appropriate locations where densification could occur with far less cost to the community and to municipal heritage.

I have attached my objectiosn to the project. I strongly object to numerous aspects of the oversized development which is not in keeping with the area nor the Kui ring gai proposal which I support

Please refer attachment.
The project is contrary to Ku ring gai 's proposal which provides more housing in the right areas without having a major impact on our community. Nobody is against development but it needs to be managed with regard to the existing neighbourhood. One size does not fit all. The planning needs to be flexible and sympathetic to the area.