Dear Building Commission NSW,

I am writing today to address the development application for a nine-storey building at 1-5 Nelson Road, Lindfield. This is contrary to what we value as a community, the principles of sound planning, and our commitment to building a future that works for all of us. My objections are submitted on behalf of myself and are based on the following key points:

Unsustainable Location and Infrastructure Constraints: The site is not designated as a Transport Oriented Development (TOD) area. High-density developments of this nature are more appropriately located within designated TOD precincts or on sites with superior access to major transport infrastructure. This proposal will exacerbate existing strains on local infrastructure, including traffic and parking, which are already at or near capacity. Furthermore, the development would place an undue burden on stormwater and drainage systems, which are not designed to support such a high-density population.

Inadequate Local Housing Strategy and Market Suitability: We should be clear about who this development is for. The cost of existing units in Lindfield is simply out of reach for the vast majority of local families and young people looking to buy their first home. And we've seen units in other new developments, like the Easton development, sitting empty. We have to be honest: this proposal doesn't seem designed to meet the genuine housing needs of our community; it appears to be aimed at investors. We must demand that new construction serves the people who live and work here, not just market speculation.

Major Deficiencies in Regulatory and Construction Frameworks: Across New South Wales and including in Lindfield, there are too many stories of individuals and families who saved their whole lives to buy an unit, only to be left mentally and financially devastated by serious building defects. While programs like Project Intervene are a step in the right direction, they haven't yet proven to be the robust solution we need, particularly here in our local community. Approving more large-scale buildings without a firm, reliable commitment to quality and accountability is simply not a responsible path forward. We must get this right before approving large-scale major developments.

Failure to Respect Local Character and Heritage: Lindfield is not just a collection of streets and houses; it's a place with a distinct identity. The typical buildings here are a maximum of five stories high—it's a scale that works. This nine-storey proposal is a significant and inappropriate departure from that established character. It’s also important to remember that this site is located within a Heritage Conservation Area. The beauty and value of this area lie in its history and its sense of place. We cannot allow a development to undermine that heritage in a way that would fundamentally change the very essence of what makes Lindfield special.

Strain on Community Services and Local Schools: The proposed development of 167 new apartments will place a substantial and unsustainable burden on our local community services. A significant number of new residents, including families, will demand a corresponding increase in local infrastructure. In particular, we have serious concerns regarding the capacity of local schools, which are already oversubscribed. The addition of potentially hundreds of new school-age children without a plan for corresponding educational infrastructure is a failure of forward-thinking and a dereliction of our duty to provide a quality education for our children.

These are not small matters. They are fundamental to the future of our community. I respectfully request that BCNSW listen to these concerns and refuse this development application.

Yours faithfully,
ANP

Objection to Development Application for 1-5 Nelson Road, Lindfield

Dear NSW Government,

I am writing to formally object to the development application for a nine-storey building at 1-5 Nelson Road, Lindfield. This objection is based on a review of the proposal against prevailing planning instruments, local context, and public interest. The grounds for this objection are as follows:

1) Inconsistency with Local Character and Height Controls: The proposed nine-storey building is demonstrably inconsistent with the established low-to-medium-rise character of the Lindfield area. The typical building height on surrounding roads is a maximum of five stories, including the ground floor. The proposed development, at nine stories, represents a substantial and inappropriate departure from this precedent, thereby conflicting with the objectives of the planning scheme to maintain a sympathetic scale and form within the streetscape.

2) Conflict with Heritage Conservation Area Status: The proposed development is situated within a Heritage Conservation Area. The scale, bulk, and modern design of a nine-storey building are not in keeping with the historical and architectural integrity of the area. This proposal would have a significant and detrimental impact on the heritage values of the locality, which planning controls are designed to protect.

3) Inappropriate Location Outside of Transport Oriented Development (TOD) Area: The site is not designated as a TOD area. High-density developments of this nature are more appropriately located within designated TOD precincts or on sites with superior access to major transport infrastructure, such as those along the Pacific Highway. The proposed development's location will exacerbate existing strains on local infrastructure, including traffic and parking, without the commensurate public transport benefits intended for high-density areas.

4) Concerns Regarding Building Quality and Regulatory Oversight: The State of New South Wales currently faces well-documented systemic issues regarding building quality and regulatory enforcement. Recent developments have been found to contain serious defects, leaving owners with significant financial burdens and emotional distress. While initiatives such as Project Intervene have been introduced, they have, to date, failed to provide effective remedies in this locality. Approving further large-scale residential buildings without a demonstrably robust regulatory framework to ensure quality and accountability is premature and contrary to the public interest.

5) Lack of Demonstrated Housing Need and Market Suitability: The proposed development does not appear to address a genuine local housing need. The high cost of existing units in Lindfield, with two-bedroom units averaging over A$1.5 million and three-bedroom units exceeding A$2 million, makes them unaffordable for the average new homebuyer. Furthermore, there is evidence of market saturation, with apartments in recent developments, such as the Easton development, remaining unsold. This suggests that the development is not intended to meet local demand but rather to serve the needs of investors, which is not a justifiable planning outcome.

6) Inadequate Public Infrastructure: The existing public infrastructure is demonstrably inadequate to support the increased residential density of a nine-storey building. The area already experiences significant challenges with parking, and the proposal would place additional strain on stormwater and drainage systems, which are already at or near capacity.

7) Environmental and Amenity Impacts: The character of Lindfield, often referred to as the “lungs of the north shore,” is defined by its green scenery and significant tree canopy. The scale of the proposed development would necessitate the removal of trees, degrade the area's visual amenity, and undermine the environmental values that make this locality desirable. The resultant loss of open space and green cover would be a significant environmental detriment.

For the reasons outlined above, the proposed development is contrary to sound planning principles and the public interest. I respectfully request that the NSW Government refuse this development application.

Yours faithfully,
KFH

I strongly oppose the proposed development on Nelson Road. The scale and height are completely out of character with the surrounding heritage streetscape, undermining the area's historic and aesthetic value. This project would overshadow nearby homes, reducing natural light and privacy for existing residents. Local infrastructure, including roads, drainage, and public transport, is already under pressure and cannot sustain increased demand. Additionally, the removal of green space and trees would negatively impact local biodiversity and contribute to the urban heat island effect. This development prioritizes short-term gain over long-term community wellbeing and is not suitable for this location.

Prity Cleary
Assessment Officer
NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure
Submitted via NSW Major Projects Portal
12 August 2025
Dear Prity,
Re: SSD Application – 1–5 Nelson Rd, Lindfield (SSD-82899468)
I strongly object to this proposal based on my long-term, first-hand knowledge of the area, my heritage-listed home in the adjoining Blenheim Rd HCA, and my advocacy for protecting Lindfield’s heritage and amenity.
Statutory and Planning Context
The proposed 9-storey bulk, scale, and setbacks are incompatible with Lindfield’s character and zoning. Under both State and Ku-ring-gai Council’s alternative TOD, 3 & 5 Nelson Rd are zoned R2 within a HCA, making this development ineligible. Approving this before the State reviews Council’s June TOD proposal undermines community consultation and agreed planning processes.
Public Benefit
The “affordable housing” bonus is temporary (15 years) and will not address long-term affordability. With no matching infrastructure upgrades, the proposal adds density in an area already oversupplied with high-priced units, disconnected from the needs of lower-income residents.
Design and Heritage
The height and bulk will overshadow neighbouring homes, dominate the streetscape, and degrade the Crown Blocks HCA and adjoining HCAs’ heritage context. The architectural style is entirely out of place, breaches height and setback controls, and erodes Lindfield’s historic garden suburb character.
Environmental and Amenity Impacts
The removal of 29 significant trees, including critically endangered Sydney Turpentine Ironbark species, will cause irreversible loss of canopy, biodiversity, and cooling benefits. Overshadowing, noise from rooftop communal spaces, and privacy intrusions will further diminish residential amenity.
Traffic and Infrastructure
Local roads, intersections, and public transport are already at capacity, with no planned upgrades. The SSD will worsen congestion, pedestrian risks, and parking shortages. Claims of reduced car use due to train proximity are unrealistic for Ku-ring-gai residents, many of whom rely on cars for schools, work, and daily needs.
Flooding and Water Management
Part of the site lies in a flood-prone riparian zone, with historic flooding at Nelson and Tryon Rds. The geotechnical report is inconsistent with Council’s flood mapping, and increased hard surfaces will exacerbate runoff and strain old water infrastructure.
Health and Wellbeing
Construction dust, noise, and vibration threaten the structural integrity of heritage homes and the health of residents, including those with asthma. The stress of such incompatible overdevelopment erodes community wellbeing.
Given the breaches of planning controls, incompatibility with heritage and character, environmental harm, inadequate infrastructure, and poor community engagement, I urge the DPIH to reject this SSD proposal.
Kind regards,
David Hasib

I am long time resident of Lindfield and I think it is ridiculous to build such a large building amongst other single residential building . The new proposal will overshadow many existing houses in the area not to mentions create further traffic problems in an area that already suffers from congestion onto Pacific Highway .
I could understand a 2 or 3 story height limit but what is proposed is simply greedy on behalf of the developers . Have some consideration for the residents who have live in the vicinity for 20 years or more .

regards

Geordie Clark

I consider that the proposed development is too large and does not fit with the surrounding neighbourhood.
The existing houses appear to be of heritage value.
The proposed building is too high - a maximum of 5 to 6 storeys above the road would be more appropriate.
There is inadequate infrastructure in the surrounding area e.g. roads are too narrow and many would need to be "No Parking" on one side to assist traffic flow.
Building will overshadow nearby houses.

I object to this development due to many reasons.

First and foremost, how can a development be approved without proper environmental and heritage impact studies being done?

The roads in the area are not adequate to accommodate the extra traffic. The whole Tryon Road, Nelson Road intersection and roads are always busy and Tryon Road always full of parked cars currently.

The height is excessive and not in keeping with surrounding single and double storey homes. The height transition is unacceptable and exceeds the maximum permitted building height. There will be overshadowing of roof top solar on surrounding homes or make it not possible to be done in the future, and will affect the privacy of surrounding homes who bought these homes in good faith, not expecting a building of this immense scale.

My understanding is that it is within a Heritage Conservation Area, R2 in the revised TOD. How can it be thus be approved?

Objection to Concept Development Application: 1–5 Nelson Road,
Lindfield NSW (SSD-82899468)
Dear Sir/Madam,
I am writing as the owner and long-term resident of 38 Tyron Road, Lindfield, to formally object to the proposed Concept Development Application at 1–5 Nelson Road, which directly adjoins my property. While I support responsible urban renewal that aligns with planning controls and reflects the character of the community, this proposal is fundamentally inconsistent with statutory requirements and the liveability expectations of the surrounding low-density neighbourhood.
I outline my key objections below:
1. Overshadowing and loss of solar access
The shadow diagrams clearly demonstrate that my property will lose direct solar access during key daylight hours, particularly in the afternoon. This will significantly diminish residential amenity, natural lighting, and thermal comfort during the winter months.
The submitted shadow diagrams and “Eye of the Sun” studies are misleading. They rely on speculative future developments rather than the existing low-rise dwellings to assess overshadowing impacts. This misrepresentation downplays the true extent of solar access loss and visual intrusion to my property and neighbouring homes. The shadow diagrams for example do not show the degree of overshadowing which will also fall on my rear living room windows.
I bought my current home due largely to the beautiful sunlit environment. There are panoramic views of the surrounding verdurous suburbia. Although I welcome gradual change to the built environment, the proposed development will block the sun and the scenery. Had I known the kind of environment planned for Tryon Road, I would never have bought in this area.
2. Excessive Height and Visual Bulk
The proposal exceeds the maximum permissible height of 28.6 metres (including the 30% affordable housing bonus), reaching up to 32.37 metres — effectively an entire additional storey. This height breach represents a clear overdevelopment of the site, undermines the integrity of the planning framework, and sets a concerning precedent for future non-compliant developments.
The proposed 8–9 storey built form, immediately adjacent to my low-rise dwelling, is visually overbearing and entirely out of character with Tyron Road’s established low-rise identity.
3. Inadequate Setbacks and Building Separation
The development provides only 6–9 metre side setbacks, which fall drastically short of the 24-metre minimum separation required between buildings over 25 metres in height. This deficiency fails to preserve privacy, outlook, and amenity, and disregards the need to accommodate future redevelopment of adjacent sites.
4. Unacceptable Privacy Impacts
The building’s height and insufficient setbacks introduce direct lines of sight from upper-level balconies and windows into my backyard and living areas. No meaningful visual screening is proposed, resulting in a serious loss of privacy.
Of further concern is the inclusion of a communal rooftop terrace at level 8, positioned directly above and opposite my home. This raises significant risks of overlooking, noise disturbance, and late-night activity — particularly during evenings and weekends — with no mitigation proposed.
Importantly, the proposed development does not include adequate information about the location and design of proposed windows and balconies. I have significant concerns about overlooking, and my fears are not allayed by the deficient current plans.
5. Traffic, Access, and Safety Risks
The proposal relies entirely on a single vehicular access point from Nelson Road, a narrow and already congested local street. The Transport Impact Assessment fails to account for cumulative impacts from other projects within the Lindfield growth precinct.
This arrangement raises serious concerns regarding:
• Increased traffic congestion
• Safety of pedestrians (including schoolchildren and elderly residents)
• Emergency vehicle access and response times
6. Incompatibility with Local Character and Poor Transition
The development does not provide a suitable transition from high-density built form to the surrounding low-scale housing. The abrupt height, massing, and visual bulk are inconsistent with the Better Placed design principles and fail to meet the local character objectives of Ku-ring-gai Council’s DCP.
To make my objection clearly, the surrounding neighbours have collectively put together a "Errors and Inadequacies" document, I am one of the contributors and the document is submitted by my neighbour David, which forms part of my submission.
Conclusion
For the reasons outlined above, I respectfully request that the state government refuse this application in its current form, or at minimum, require substantial amendments to ensure:
• Compliance with height and setback controls
• Protection of residential amenity and privacy
• Accurate representation of overshadowing impacts
• A safe and functional traffic and access plan
• A more context-sensitive transition to surrounding neighbourhood character
I trust that State government will give due consideration to the concerns of local residents and uphold the planning controls designed to preserve the integrity and liveability of Lindfield.
Yours truly

Our property, located immediately adjacent to the site, will suffer significant loss of natural sunlight due to the building’s excessive height. Our north-facing backyard — a key aspect of our residential amenity — will be overshadowed for large parts of the day, reducing its usability and liveability.
The proposed design will result in severe overlooking from upper floors into our backyard and internal living areas. This constitutes an unacceptable loss of privacy and breaches common planning principles for the protection of neighbouring residential amenity.
The proposed 9-storey building is excessive in height and mass compared to the surrounding low-density dwellings. It'll be dramaticlly stand-out compared to the 2-storey houses around it.
For the reasons above, I strongly object to this proposal.

11 August 2025

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

I would like to submit my objection to the current proposal being for 1-5 Nelson Road, Lindfield, SSD-82899468 for a 9 storeys, 167 apartments, 3 levels of basement parking with 251 parking spaces.

I have resided in the Lindfield area for the past 28 years and have witnessed many changes over this timeframe, most of them to the benefit to the community and it’s growth and development. I have also witnessed nice apartments built in keeping with the area and aesthetics, that blend into the landscape and surrounds of the suburb.

I am personally familiar with the many streets and the character of Lindfield, having used car parks, done drop offs at various schools, caught public transport, visited local shops and parks, chatted to business owners and residents, so I do have a complete understanding of the area and it’s diversity and community spirit. The objection here is the size and the scope of the development that will impact the neighbourhood where developers are filtering structures into local communities, causing disharmony, uncertainty, anger and frustration of what is being forced upon the residents and their streets and families. Not to mention the signficant impact on aging amenities, such as roads, water, schools and medical.

I see no benefit to the community of this dwelling other than to further enhance frustration and congestion especially during a.m. and p.m. peaks, along with school drop off times with already overcrowded roads.

No benefit of constructing a 9 storey building (with 1 x 34 bedrooms, 2 x 98 bedrooms, 3-4 x 35 bedrooms) in the middle of suburban streets, which can’t possibly “blend” into the area and does nothing for the community, only to congest it further with all the other developments proposed for the area currently.

I am all in favour of aiding the housing situation. However to build to excessive dimensions, that put greater strain on the already aged infrastructure does nothing to alleviate the situation only making it worse in the middle to long term.

The removal of Turpentine Ironbark trees seems unnecessary, along with building along the Riparian Corridor and next to two heritage item homes is totally out of character.

The proposed construction of this apartment block further puts excessive strain on our infrastructure, water, schools, transports, roads, parking, medical facilities and other amenities, especially with an excessive height of over 32 metres, which exceeds the maximum height of the building.

I object to this proposal in it’s current format as it does nothing to enhance the character of Lindfield and will not improve the standard of living and only further congest the suburb with unwanted issues that come with suburban living. The only group that blantantly seem to benefit from these proposals, are the developers and potential investors or land bankers.

Kind regards