Submission attached

Submission attached

The project is out of scale for this street. This is a heritage conservation area with a number of heritage listed houses. To plonk a ten story development in the middle of it is quite obscene. This has only happened due to the incompetence of the Council and State Government for appropriate planning of housing - the gap between the TOD (and it's various changes) and Council's own plans has allowed this development to slip through. If you want to approve this scale and type of development in this street then rezone the entire street for it. Do not allow for one development like this in the middle of the rest.
I am in favour of infilling and more development closer to transport, as well as for the creation of more affordable housing. I would like the department and Council to do a better job of planning this out coherently and sensibly.
The consultation on this development process has been a farce. Even this system to make a submission is terrible - I had to register twice (first time I did not get an email confirmation). Then it sent me around in circles telling me my profile wasn't set up correctly and I should log in again. I was about to give up after the 10th try and then it somehow let me in. This is really not good enough for the Department of Planning. It's almost like you have deliberately created a difficult and onerous process for making a submission in order to avoid submissions. I am highly my technically competent and if I struggled with it I wonder how elderly neighbours would manage. Do better!
The other objection I have for this proposal are:
- inadequate traffic management. This street is already at capacity as it is a rat run through the suburb. There is no consideration for how another 200 cars on this street would not make the situation substantially worse
- the design is not respectful of the heritage conservation area. I have to get permission to change my front fence, yet you will allow a modern apartment building to be built in the same street
- the properties are in the direct flight path of a large colony of bats - this does not appear to have been taken into account in terms of the loss of the trees they nest in
- this proposal is billed as affordable housing but I would question how much affordable housing is actually included in the proposal and if it really meets the definition of affordable housing or just a cynical use of this in order to get extra floor space ratio.

Dear Adela,

I am writing to express my strong objection to this proposed development which would be entirely non-compliant under Council's Preferred Scenario. No doubt, these fast-tracked applications seek to bypass Councils' legitimate processes, thus undermining the Court-Mediated Agreement between Council and the NSW Government. Unlike the TOD, Council's Preferred Scenario was the result of a lengthy community engagement process which locals were afforded the opportunity to participate in.

I am supportive of development in Ku-ring-gai which duly conforms with Council's Preferred Scenario.

I note other points specific to this proposed development as well.

The height and density are significant - proposal for 10 storeys and 135 apartments which will obviously be visually jarring in lieu of the surrounding site.

There will be significant impacts to heritage, with 9 neighbouring heritage properties, and the proposed development site being contained in a Heritage Conservation Area.

Current infrastructure is not adequate to account for the increased density, especially the local roads infrastructure. There are already significant parking and traffic congestion issues in the area, and this will only be exacerbated with the addition of 195 car spaces.

I also note that despite the EIS discussing the proposed development site as being "a short walk to Killara Village" no site exists to my knowledge. I further note that the EIS contains no information about the impact on Killara High School and other local primary schools. I note that instead, the EIS merely mentions the locality of "schools" as a matter for consideration. The EIS lacks comprehensiveness in this way. For example, I am interested to know about the enrolments at Killara High School and whether they have further capacity for student intake.

Thank you.

I object to SSD-81890707 - Residential flat buildings with infill affordable housing -10, 14 and 14a Stanhope Road, Killara. This development is inappropriate for Killara, not in the public interest, it contradicts Ku-ring-gai Council’s Preferred Alternative Scenario for Killara, and prioritizes corporate profit over community well-being.
I urge the NSW Planning to reject Stanhope Road Residence Holdings Pty Limited’s proposal and adopt Ku-ring-gai Council’s approach, which, unlike the NSW Planning TOD or, the Stanhope Road SSD, was developed after extensive community consultation.

I object to this project in its proposed form.
Currently it appears that the developer has taken the view that any development is likely to be approved. Elements which concern me are:
!. The extent to which height variations have been used to maximise available building mass. The allowable variations should be capped at the standard in the planning ratios.
2. The dominance of the highest towers at the rear of the property. Emphasis is given to the streetscape and the visual effect of the buildings from that view.
3. There are drainage and fire access issues which need to be addressed. I am not qualified to comment but these matters need to be addressed.
4.Traffic & parking both during and after the construction phase. I suggest that the whole north side of Stanhope Road between Pacific Highway and Culworth Avenue be designated No Parking during construction hours to ensure near normal traffic flows in what is at times quite congested due to heavy use of on street parking on both sides.
5. I suggest that provision of traffic lights be required at the intersection of Pacific Highway, Fiddens Wharf Road and Stanhope Road to ensure safety
6. Such traffic lights will assist the imposition of 195 parking spaces in this development and the resultant traffic.
7. Construction traffic will add to existing congestion, in Stanhope Road, Pacific Highway and feeder streets.
8.I leave it to others to cover the more technical details. My perspective is that this development is an overreach in terms of its ambition.

Objections to this project are outlined in the attached document