Objection to Residential Development with affordable housing 11-19 Middle Harbour road Road Lindfield (SSD-82900461)

Dear Sir/Madam:
I have reviewed the public documents regarding the 11-19 Middle Harbour Road, Lindfield development project (hereinafter referred to as the "Project") and believe that the Project is seriously overdeveloped. Therefore, I object to the current design and development plan of “theProject" for the following reasons:

1. “The Project” does not conform to the preferred alternative to TOD recently proposed (hereinafter referred to as the “Preferred Alternative”) by the Ku-ring-gai Council (hereinafter referred to as the “KRG”).
2. “The Project” has a significant adverse impact on the adjacent Heritage Item.
3. The setbacks around“the project” do not meet the relevant planning requirements, exacerbating the obstruction and privacy issues of neighboring buildings..
4. The impact of “the project” on the existing green environment
5. Impact of rainwater discharge and flood risks of " the Project"
6. The participation process of the "project" proposal has fundamental flaws and does not meet the statutory requirements. The lack of necessary community communication makes it impossible to achieve an effective and mutually beneficial balance between project construction and the public interests of the community.
7. Local infrastructure is seriously overloaded, with serious traffic and safety impacts
Regards
SHAN

Dear SSD Assessment Team,

I am writing to formally object to the proposed State Significant Development on Middle Harbour Rd, Lindfield NSW 2070. As a owner of 21 Middle Harbour, I have serious concerns about the potential environmental, social, and infrastructural impacts of this project.

1. Impact on Local Traffic and Safety
Middle Harbour Rd is already under considerable traffic pressure during peak hours. Introducing a high-impact development will significantly worsen congestion, compromise pedestrian safety, and create unacceptable risks for school children, elderly residents, and cyclists who regularly use the area.

2. Loss of Local Character and Amenity
Lindfield is a predominantly low-density, leafy suburb with a distinct heritage and community feel. The proposed development’s scale and density are incompatible with the existing streetscape and will permanently alter the neighbourhood’s character.

3. Environmental and Biodiversity Concerns
The site and surrounding areas contain mature tree canopies that provide critical habitat for native birdlife and contribute to urban cooling. Large-scale removal of vegetation will harm biodiversity, increase heat retention, and exacerbate stormwater runoff issues.

4. Strain on Local Infrastructure
Existing public amenities, including parking, public transport capacity, and community facilities, are already limited. The proposed development would place further strain on these services without adequate investment in infrastructure upgrades.

5. Precedent for Overdevelopment
Approval of this proposal risks setting a precedent for future developments of a similar scale in other low-density residential zones across Ku-ring-gai, undermining local planning controls and community expectations.

For these reasons, I strongly urge the Department to refuse the current proposal. I request that alternative, smaller-scale plans more consistent with the area’s character and infrastructure capacity be considered.

Thank you for considering my submission.

Yours sincerely,
Dr Eric Song
Middle Harbour Rd
Lindfield NSW 2070

I strongly support his proposal and have some commentary to provide.
1. I support this proposal as it is close to public transportation and shops. We need more housing supply as we are in a housing crisis.
2. The applicant like in SSD-82899468 has proposed the same gas cooktop and gas hot water system and therefore I strongly encourage the use of induction or standard electric cook-tops be used as well as heat pump hot water instead of gas appliances. This is because gas is a fossil fuel, as there are more efficient and less costly to the environment and for people who will live in the apartments, its use should be reconsidered. If gas is to be used for cooktops and hot water, then apartment owners will be forced to pay for a separate daily connection fee to use the gas cooktop and for hot water they will be paying an estimated additional $479 a year (https://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/how-sydneysiders-could-save-730-a-year-by-ditching-gas-20240325-p5feyf.html). You can find evidence to show that hot water heat pumps are more efficient than gas hot water heating and that induction cooktops are more efficient than gas cooktops. Gas is also a fossil fuel, has potential health impacts when used as part of cooking.

I strongly object to this development, particularly the in fill affordable housing component.
Poor, lazy, uneducated, drug addicts do not belong here!
Lindfield has always been a high class suburb full of extremely hard working people. The residents have sacrificed alot to be here (as property prices are very high). It is a beautiful, safe suburb with like-minded, determined, educated people.
Allowing dole bludgers in the area is absolutely disgusting. They should not be allowed to live in expensive suburbs.
It will reduce our property prices and bring alot more crime.
This idea is absolutely disgraceful shame on you state government for suggesting this- just to increase your voter base in these electorates.

The proposed development poses serious and far-reaching concerns for the local community, heritage preservation, and environmental integrity of the area. It threatens to isolate and undermine the cultural value of heritage-listed homes, eroding the historical character that defines the neighbourhood. The excessive scale, height, and poor design are grossly incompatible with the established low-rise streetscape, disrupting the visual harmony and reducing privacy for surrounding residents due to inadequate setbacks and transitional planning.

Moreover, the project will exacerbate existing traffic congestion and parking shortages, placing further strain on public infrastructure, including stormwater systems and transport networks that are already under pressure. The environmental consequences are alarming: significant loss of tree canopy and destruction of critical wildlife habitats cannot be justified. Importantly, the proposal fails to respect both the area’s heritage significance and unique biodiversity. In light of these cumulative impacts, the development must be reconsidered or rejected to protect the integrity of the community and its landscape.

I object to the above proposed development in Lindfield as follows:


Isolation of Heritage Homes
The development will adversely impact the heritage values and culture of the heritage listed homes nearby the proposed development site.

Impact on Local Character
The height, scale and design of the proposed development are excessive and out of keeping with the surrounding low-rise streetscape and heritage context.

The setbacks and transition zones are grossly inadequate and reduce the privacy of numerous nearby residences.

Traffic and Parking Concerns
The proposed development will worsen traffic congestion for the area.

Environmental Impact
Precious tree canopy and vital wildlife habitats will be destroyed. Many trees will be destroyed.

Infrastructure Strain
As current infrastructure including stormwater, sewer, transport system and parking are already strained, the proposed development could cause further problems.

Inconsistent with Ku-ring-gai Council’s Preferred Alternative Scenario
The proposal ignores the Council’s key planning principles and ignores the surrounding heritage significance and value of the area, together with the site’s specific biodiversity value.

I object to the above proposed development in Lindfield as follows:

Isolation of Heritage Homes
The development will adversely impact the heritage values and culture of the heritage listed homes nearby the proposed development site.

Impact on Local Character
The height, scale and design of the proposed development are excessive and out of keeping with the surrounding low-rise streetscape and heritage context.

Should the proposed developments proceed (including 11-19 Middle Harbour Road, Lindfield; 16-20 Middle Harbour Road Lindfield; and 24-28 Middle Harbour Road, Lindfield), my property amongst these proposed developments will change from a highly desirable property to become unattractive. This will also impact the value of my property negatively and considerably.

The setbacks and transition zones are grossly inadequate and reduce the privacy of numerous nearby residences.

Traffic and Parking Concerns
The proposed development will worsen traffic congestion for the area.

Environmental Impact
Precious tree canopy and vital wildlife habitats will be destroyed. Many trees will be destroyed.

Infrastructure Strain
As current infrastructure including stormwater, sewer, transport system and parking are already strained, the proposed development could cause further problems.

Inconsistent with Ku-ring-gai Council’s Preferred Alternative Scenario
The proposal ignores the Council’s key planning principles and ignores the surrounding heritage significance and value of the area, together with the site’s specific biodiversity value.

I understand NSW state is trying to lodge more residents by building high rise, however the system seems disorganised and offensive to local residents.
1, future high rise doesnt care lower houses, by blocking their sun access and privacy, can you imagine how much agony to each householder? physically and financially. Can you believe people are losing freedom even in their own home by living in Australia?
2, pacific high way is jammed badly already, all vehicles will flow into traffic soon after squeeze/struggle out from nearby small streets.
3, I have visited many countries in Europe, their towns are full of local culture and tradition, should we borrow some ideas and preserve our traditional culture?.
God bless Australia and Lindfield

I am writing to express my strong objection to the Concept SSD proposed by Castle Hill No.7 Pty Ltd, (SSD-82900461)
• Overshadowing cannot be assessed. Shadow Diagram DA402,403 did not have a true depiction of the surrounds. With such distorted representation of the neighbouring properties and no window placements, it is not possible to assess the true extend of overshadowing. It is also possible to assess if it has satisfied SEARs requirement on solar access let along whether it achieved Good Design Principles or satisfied ADG 2F requirements.
• Heritage Impact on Heritage Item 142 was not addressed. “Concept Plans” were used as an excuse by the applicant to avoid addressing any controls around development next to a heritage item. How can the visual impact be assessed when there is no definite proposal on design, material and colour scheme?
• Traffic Impact Underestimated
o Traffic analysis was done on a Thursday over two hours. However, highest traffic volume happens on Tuesdays and Wednesdays. The “peak hour” time chosen by the consultant was in fact “off peak” especially in the afternoon. 4:15pm is when school pick up subsides and real peak hour hasn’t started. To base an entire traffic analysis on such a small sample of data does not seen to be sufficiently scientific.
o The report states that Middle Harbour Rd records approximately 1600 vehicles on a typical weekday. However, it did not specify if this data was recorded based on one-day observations or over a period of time. It’s an overly simplistic statement to make with no substantiation.
o Cumulative traffic impacts in the report only included one development on Middle Harbour Rd, namely, 24-28 Middle Harbour Rd. However, there are two other development applications that are being proposed. These are,
 16 & 18-20 Middle Harbour Road Lindfield
 5 & 7 Middle Harbour Road Lindfield
There are other developments in close proximity to this site which were omitted. The cumulative impact should be assessed in aggregate as given the current traffic condition, vehicles, especially buses, have trouble turning right from Middle Harbour onto Lindfield Ave in peak hour time. Given the number of proposed developments along Middle Harbour Rd, one could envisage vehicles having trouble getting onto Middle Harbour Rd from their own apartment building!
• Riparian zone being overlooked completely. Council letter to DPHI dated 5 May stated clearly that “Part of the subject site is identified as “Category 3a Riparian Land” under Clause 6.4”. However, it was stated boldly in the Geotechnical Report (Appendix 13) that “The site is not in an area of riparian lands and further assessment is not required.” This casts doubt over the credibility of the entire report if such a glaring mistake can be made.
• “Landmark Group confirm that Landmark Group Property Management Pty Ltd, registered as a community housing provider under the National Regulatory System for Community Housing, will be managing the affordable housing at the site for a minimum of 15 years from the date of issue of the Occupation Certificate” (Appendix 7) However,
o Landmark, being the developer of this project, is registering Landmark Group Property Management Pty Ltd , part of Landmark Group, to be the CHP?
o In NSW, CHP should be a non-profit organisation. Is it the case with Landmark Group Property Management Pty Ltd?
Architectural design is the essence of any development. The lack of detail in the architectural plans of this proposal meant that the SEARs requirements cannot be satisfied. No assessments (eg. overshadow/solar/noise/visual impact) can be made because there is simply no information to substantiate such conclusion. The integrity of the planning process would be severely compromised if such process sets a precedent. It is for this reason that I believe this proposal should be rejected.