We are the owners of 1 Valley Road, Lindfield. This is an objection to the proposed development at 11 to 19 Middle Harbour Road.

We are supportive of the NSW State Government’s objective of increasing housing in Sydney, which we believe will be best achieved by Ku-ring-Gai Council’s alternative TOD proposal. The proposed development sits ~500m walking distance from Lindfield Station and is not in keeping with many requirements of the council’s alternative plan which if acceptable to the State, will determine the future character of Lindfield. It is also makes no provision for transition to lower density one and two storey housing which is immediately adjacent, including two heritage conversation areas.

The materials prepared to support the proposal are substantially lacking in detail, show obvious errors (for example Figure 4 on page 17 of the EIS does not even show the correct figure), or is determined to give a false impression of the impact (e.g. the views chosen for the Visual Impact Assessment are often located many hundreds of metres away and seem to be deliberately chosen to mask the development behind existing large trees). This would appear to be a cynical attempt by the applicant to make a proposal within a certain time frame (given that new TODs are not being accepted) without providing the necessary detail for the State to assess the development.

We object to the proposed development of the following six grounds:

1. Height, density and scale – The proposed development is a nine-storey building in an area currently characterised by low-density one and two storey houses. This large scale building is significantly above the heights proposed in the Ku-ring-Gai Alternative proposal (up to 18.5m) and the floor to space ratio. The application seeks a variation to the maximum building height under Clause 4.6 of the KLEP of 33.6m. Clause 4.6 variations must demonstrate that compliance with the standard is unreasonable or unnecessary and that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify the contravention. In this case, the adverse impacts on amenity, local character and heritage outweigh the purported benefits, and the variation should not be supported

2. Loss of Visual Amenity from neighbouring properties - the development will substantially increase overshadowing and result in loss of view from for adjacent properties. The EIS states in section 6.8 that the development “will not result in any unreasonable impacts on any significant views enjoyed from surrounding properties or the public domain but the visual impact pictures have been selectively chosen to minimise the impact on the surrounding properties (either by taking the photo so far away to take advantage of the natural topography of the site from a distant or by angling the photograph to strategically view the property through mature trees).

3. Impact on heritage area and inadequate mitigation of heritage impacts

The proposed development site adjoins several significant heritage assets. It is impossible to assess the impact on the heritage assets with the detail that has been provided by the applicant but as a minimum, the height and minimal setbacks will result in a significant negative impact on the adjoining heritage areas.

4. Tree Removal and Landscaping - the Arborist Report identifies the removal of 51 trees of the 65 trees which are located within the boundary of the site, including the removal of 12 of the trees with a A1 retention value assigned in the Aboricultural Impact Assessment (the majority of the trees of significant height on the site). This will further reduce the tree canopy in Lindfield, which has a number of negative impacts on key aspects of the natural environment, including general heat in the suburb and loss of local bird life. The loss of mature vegetation will further erode the landscape character of the conservation area and the setting of heritage items. The removal of significant trees adjacent to a heritage conservation area is contrary to the objectives of both the KLEP and the Biodiversity and Conservation SEPP.

5. Procedural and Strategic Issue

• Inconsistency with Strategic Planning Objectives - the developers argue that their proposal is justified on the basis of State housing supply targets and the TOD program. However, the Ku-ring-gai Local Strategic Planning Statement and Housing Strategy emphasise the need to balance growth with protection of local character, heritage, and environmental values. The council has proposed an alternative plan to deliver more housing but in a way that is sensitive to these values. The proposal development would be of a significantly reduced height and scale under the council’s alternative plan, reflecting a more appropriate transition to adjacent density and heritage conversation areas. The application of the Housing SEPP in this context is not mandatory and should be balanced against the adverse impacts identified. The developers have also sought to make this a State Significant Project by including affordable housing but it should be noted that many of those apartments will have reduced amenity compared with others, e.g. 27% of units have less than 2 hours solar access (46 units) and 2% have no solar access (2 units).

6. Other Issues

• Traffic and Parking - the Transport Impact Assessment claims minimal impact, but the Tryon Rd intersection is already a busy intersection with the school close by so there is no way adding a 9 story apartment block with connected carpark will have a negligible impact on traffic, parking and safe pedestrian impact.
• Cumulative Impacts - the EIS states that the character of Lindfield is changing, but the cumulative impact of multiple high-density developments in or adjacent to two heritage conservation areas has not been adequately assessed.

I strongly oppose the development proposed for 11 – 19 Middle Harbour Rd (Site) for a number of reasons, including that:
• As with the other SSDs proposed within 200m of our home, the required early consultation process was entirely inadequate.
• The proposed development 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 will produce yet another eyesore.
• There would be a lack of transition, in terms of height and density, to the neighbouring residential properties.
• There would be significant adverse impact in terms of overshadowing and loss of solar access and privacy on adjacent and other neighbouring properties.
• 9 Middle Harbour Road (MHR), a heritage item, would be stranded between this development and another at 5-7 MHR. If either development is approved, there will be a significant adverse impact from a heritage perspective on the adjacent heritage item.
• The loss of tree canopy and biodiversity will be a loss for everyone, both now and in the future
• The proposed development will conflict with the character and streetscape of the neighbourhood, including the adverse visual impacts of such a large, angular and dense building.
I expand on some of my objections as follows:
• The 'early consultation' process referred to in the documents on exhibition was little more than a cynical charade. The webinar was short and uninformative. The consultancy engaged to conduct the consultation began this session approximately ten minutes late, blaming technical issues. Having allocated only half an hour for the session they opened with a noticeably over long acknowledgement of Country, followed by an extensive but simplistic explanation of TOD structure. Then, with five minutes remaining until the scheduled close, they claimed that insufficient time remained for the planned Q and A but, oh well, anyone with questions could put them in the chat. This proposal should fail on the basis that the applicant failed to provide adequate early consultation. This was more abuse of process than consultation. The Board and the State Government need to know that the inadequacy of this part of the process is common to all the SSD applications I have responded to so far. It is clearly a deliberate and planned strategy by developers to deny affected parties any real opportunity to participate.
• The documents on exhibition demonstrate the grossly disproportionate size of the development relative to the existing surrounding properties. The size, bulk and density are disproportionate even relative to the R4 zoning for adjacent and neighbouring properties that is proposed in Council's TOD Alternate Preferred Scenario.
• The proposed height to 33.6m, which is above the permissible height of 28.6m, would substantially exceed the height provided for the Site and adjacent properties in the TOD Alternate Preferred Scenario, which is 18.5 metres. It is completely inappropriate for the Site.
• There is no sensitive interface with the neighbouring dwellings to the east, west and south of the Site.
• The shadow diagrams that are included in the proposal indicate a degree of shadowing that is unacceptable, particularly for the adjacent heritage item.
• 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 communal spaces will mean loss of privacy for surrounding properties and the potential for noise issues, especially at night, and resulting in community disputes.
• The Site is adjacent to a heritage item at 9 MHR. The documents on exhibition indicate that only an inadequate 6 metre setback is contemplated from the neighbouring heritage item. If the development were to proceed, the heritage value of the adjacent heritage item would be substantially diminished.
• The Site is land with high biodiversity value that is particularly sensitive to impacts from development and clearing (see the Biodiversity Values Map (BV Map) available at NSW Planning Portal Spatial Viewer). High value biodiversity would be lost and/or at risk. There is no justification provided for that loss of biodiversity.
• 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 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, and on other facilities, such as water and waste water, will be considerable and must be considered.

Dear Madam/Sir,

My family and I live in Lindfield. We are aware that SSDs are being planned for this suburb. This email is in regard to the proposal to develop 11-19 Middle Harbour Rd.

We object to developments that bypass council planning and approvals. The scale of these developments will have a lasting and detrimental impact on the local community, environment and infrastructure. Specifically, ...
- there is little clarity about how council infrastructure and rates will be impacted by all these developments and higher population density,
- the speed and rate with which these proposals are being proposed and pushed through does not allow the local community to accept these developments at a measured pace.

Regards.

I wish to formally object to the above State Significant Development (SSD) Concept Proposal on the following grounds:

SSD Threshold Not Met:
Claimed construction cost of $68M is below the $75M SSD threshold. The application should be assessed as local development.

Misrepresentation of Public Transport Proximity:
Actual distance to Lindfield Station is ~500m, exceeding TOD eligibility. TOD incentives should be rejected.

Sunlight/Shadow Diagrams Missing:
No compliant diagrams provided, preventing proper assessment of overshadowing on neighbouring properties.

Excessive Height & Housing SEPP Bonus:
Proposed 33.6m height exceeds the 28.6m limit by 17.5%, harming amenity and local character. Height bonus use is unjustified.

Heritage Impact:
The site adjoins heritage-listed Lauradaba and Conservation Areas. Reliance on a future Heritage Impact Statement is insufficient.

Setback & Streetscape:
Encroachment forward of heritage-listed neighbours disrupts sightlines and character.

Neighbourhood Character:
Scale and bulk conflict with R2 Low Density zoning and local landscaped character.

Impacts:
Overshadowing, visual intrusion, privacy breaches, traffic/parking underestimation, and noise impacts are inadequately addressed.

Construction Impacts:
Noise, vibration, dust, and traffic impacts must be assessed now, not deferred.

Tree Loss & Biodiversity:
Removal of mature trees, including Turpentines, causes irreversible ecological loss. Biodiversity mitigation is inadequate.

Deficient Consultation:
Consultation fails NSW Community Participation Plan requirements and is inadequate for a development of this scale.


Conclusion:
The proposal fails SSD thresholds, breaches planning and heritage controls, risks environmental and amenity harm, and has not undergone adequate consultation. I urge the Department and Council to refuse this application.

Thank you for considering my submission.

Further ..... I am a deeply concerned and saddened resident of Middle Harbour Road. I am witnessing a particularly opportunistic and voracious property developer systematically carving up our heritage suburb, deploying poorly planned project solutions with little architectural merit, leading to cheaply constructed and generic mass apartment building designs with very profitable outcomes due to the outrageous 30% uplift provisions placed on these projects

This developer is capitalising on the NSW State Government’s haste to bypass a properly crafted Master Plan for the area — one that would have applied best practice design principles and sympathetic building solutions which would have enhanced and uplifted the suburb's streetscape for the benefit of the entire community ( both existing and future dwellers).

Instead we are being fed Dross, for the sack of expediency to resolve the housing pressure points and secure needed political outcomes

I write as a resident of Middle Harbour Road Lindfield to object to the proposal. Whilst I support increased housing in Lindfield, the proposed development has been rushed through to take advantage of TOD provisions before more balanced planning is achieved with the state government and local council working together. The development is inappropriate for the site and surrounding area for the following reasons:
• The proposal fails to demonstrate a high standard of environmental amenity for surrounding residential properties and other sensitive land uses.
• Potential adverse impacts include loss of privacy, reduced solar access, overshadowing, and diminished outlook for existing dwellings.
• At up to nine storeys, the development significantly exceeds the prevailing and anticipated built form of the neighbourhood.
• The excessive height will have detrimental effects on multiple streetscapes, resulting in visual bulk, overshadowing, and a loss of neighbourhood character.
• The overall size is disproportionate and incompatible with the existing and planned context.
• The proposed scale will negatively affect the current low-rise character of the area, which predominantly consists of one- to two-storey dwellings.
• The development is inconsistent with Ku-ring-gai Council’s Preferred Scenario, which seeks to integrate larger developments with smaller dwellings.
• The proposal will have a detrimental impact on the surrounding heritage fabric, eroding the historic character, architectural integrity, and visual setting of nearby heritage buildings and precincts.
• The scale, bulk, and contemporary form of the proposal are incompatible with the established heritage context.
• The projected increase in traffic generation will have significant adverse impacts on the local road network, road capacity, vehicular access, and street parking/loading availability.
• Existing street parking is already inadequate, particularly on Middle Harbour Road and Lindfield Avenue.
• Additional traffic will increase safety risks for drivers, pedestrians, and residents, especially in emergencies when access for ambulances, fire engines, or police may be impeded.
• The development will have significant negative visual impacts from adjoining properties and the public domain.
• It will result in the loss of significant vegetation and greenery, removing a defining element of Lindfield’s environmental heritage where the natural landscape currently dominates the built form.
• The loss of canopy and habitat will have irreversible impacts on the suburb’s character, amenity, and biodiversity.
• The removal of large gum trees to accommodate the development is unacceptable.
• The site is part of Lindfield’s garden suburb character and forms part of a wildlife corridor linked to Garigal National Park.
• Removal of trees and vegetation will reduce nesting, food, and shelter for birds, possums, insects, and other fauna.
• The applicant has failed to provide a comprehensive and independent ecological assessment, despite the site’s high environmental sensitivity.
• The development will cause irreversible loss of amenity and quality of life for existing residents.
• It offers no tangible community benefit while placing heavy demands on local infrastructure and services.
• The loss of trees and canopy will diminish neighbourhood identity and connectedness, contributing to environmental degradation and resident distress.
• The applicant has failed to provide critical, independent studies—covering ecology, traffic, parking, water, stormwater, sewerage, energy, and utilities—to justify the significant intensification of use.

The proposal represents an over-scaled, environmentally destructive, and socially detrimental development that is inconsistent with the existing, planned, and heritage character of the area. It fails to protect environmental values, undermines community amenity, and imposes unacceptable traffic, biodiversity, and infrastructure impacts.

This is a conservation area. Sydney should have a variety of residential densities, with some areas being higher and others lower. Residents in this suburb have paid a premium to enjoy the benefits of low-density living. We do not want this project to ruin the character of our suburb.

Submission attached