I am writing as a resident of South Dubbo to object to the proposed multi‑dwelling housing development on the former RAAF Stores Depot site (SSD‑85461710) in its current form.

The scale and design do not fit the surrounding R2 low‑density neighbourhood and will significantly change the character of Palmer Street. The proposal places 211 dwellings on a small site, including 35 manufactured homes tightly packed along Palmer Street.

The visual impact will be severe, with a long woodland grey colourbond fence and minimal landscaping. The development will also block all heritage views to the igloo hangars and Belman Hangar, which are important to Dubbo’s history.

As a gated community, the proposal provides no public green space or shared facilities, despite South Dubbo already lacking parks and walking paths.

I am not opposed to development on this site, but the current proposal is too dense, visually intrusive, and disconnected from the community. I ask the Department to require reduced density, improved landscaping, preservation of heritage sightlines, public green space, and a design that better fits the R2 neighbourhood.
More houses in smaller area increases strain on the already strained services especially water. Whilst I understand the need for housing there are plenty of housing options around town. We do not need to add more congestion to the centre of town. I do like the idea of having some houses in the old RAAF base but 211 is way to many and having them stacked like Lego is not appealing or heritage looking at all.

I object to the project in its current form, due to the scale of the project, the visual impact of the project and the impact on existing heritage sight. Detailed submissions are attached.

I am writing as a resident of South Dubbo to object to the proposed multi-dwelling housing development on the former RAAF stores depot site (SSD-85461710) in its current form.
The scale and design do not fit the surrounding R2 low-density neighbourhood and will significatly change the character of Palmer Street. The proposal places 211 dwellings on a small site, including 35 manufactured homes tighly packed along Palmer Street.
The visual impact will be severe, with a long woodland grey colourbond fenceand minimal landscaping. The devlopment will also block all heritage views to the igloo hangars and Belman Hangar, which are important to Dubbo's history.
As a gated comunity, the proposal provides no public green space or shared facilities, despite South Dubbo already lacking parks and walking paths.
I am not opposed to development on this site, but the current proposal is too dense, visually intrusive, and disconnected from the community. I ask the department to require reduced density, improved landscaping, preservation of heritage sightlines, public green space, and a design that better fits the R2 neighbourhood.

This is further proof that Dubbo is run and/or owned by individuals who are overrun with greedy intentions. When will enough be enough for these individuals and companies because it seems their wants run rampant and can never be satiated. It's clear the community was not at the forefront of these decisions because it is highly likely these house prices and/or rental prices would be well above what the average Dubbo resisent would be able to afford and would more than likely be purchased by international buyers as it is clear that the government is allowing the privatising of most of what Australia is these days and this continues to be proven each day, with each new decision. Gross behaviour but the community will soon see where these companies lay their loyalty.

I am writing as a resident of South Dubbo to object to the proposed multi-dwelling housing development on the former RAAF Stores Depot site (SSD-85461710) in its current form.

While I support appropriate development and recognise the need for additional housing, I believe this proposal is excessive in scale and does not adequately consider its impact on the existing community or the surrounding R2 low-density residential neighbourhood.

The proposal to construct 211 dwellings on a relatively small site, including 35 manufactured homes positioned along Palmer Street, represents an overdevelopment of the land. Its density and design are inconsistent with the established character of South Dubbo and will significantly alter the streetscape.

The visual impact will be considerable. A long woodland grey Colorbond fence extending along Palmer Street, combined with limited landscaping, will create an imposing and unattractive frontage. The development will also obstruct important heritage sightlines to the igloo hangars and Belman Hangar, diminishing the visibility and appreciation of these significant reminders of Dubbo's wartime history.

The proposal also raises broader concerns about the capacity of existing public infrastructure and essential services. South Dubbo's public schools are already under pressure, and the addition of more than 200 dwellings will place further strain on education facilities. Local medical services are similarly stretched, with many residents already experiencing lengthy waiting times to access general practitioners and medical specialists. There is little evidence that these cumulative impacts have been adequately addressed.

In addition, the increased demand on existing utilities raises concerns about water pressure and the capacity of local infrastructure to service a development of this size without affecting neighbouring residents. The significant increase in population and vehicle movements is also likely to result in greater traffic, ongoing noise pollution, and a reduction in the quiet residential amenity currently enjoyed by surrounding households.

The proposed gated community provides no meaningful public open space, parks, or shared recreational facilities, despite South Dubbo already having limited access to these community assets. Rather than integrating with the existing neighbourhood, the development is inward-looking and disconnected from the broader community.

I am not opposed to redevelopment of this site. However, I believe the current proposal is too dense, visually intrusive, and places unacceptable pressure on local infrastructure and services. I respectfully ask the Department to require substantial amendments, including a reduction in dwelling density, improved landscaping, preservation of heritage sightlines, the inclusion of publicly accessible green space, and a design that better reflects the character and scale of the surrounding R2 neighbourhood. These changes would help ensure the development contributes positively to South Dubbo while protecting the amenity and quality of life of existing residents.

7/10/2025

Dear Sir/Madam,

RE: ​SSD-83431958
16-20 MIDDLE HARBOUR ROAD, LINDFIELD NSW 2070 ​

I am the house owner of 9 Russell Avenue LINDFIELD. I refer to the application SSD-83431958.

As a long-term resident of the area, I am deeply concerned about the negative impact this development will have on the character, amenity, and liveability of our neighbourhood. My submission is as follows:

**Excessive Building Height
The proposed nine (9) storey development significantly exceeds the building height limit permitted by the Ku-Ring-Gai Council Local Environmental Plan (‘LEP’) for this area. The excessive height is inconsistent with the surrounding area including recently completed developments along the Pacific Highway and Lindfield Avenue. The bulk and scale of the proposed development is visually intrusive and will dominate neighbouring properties, creating an imposing presence that is entirely out of character with the local area.

It is questionable as to whether this proposed development should be considered and meets the criteria under the SSD planning approval pathway.
The proposed development application should be amended to comply with the LEP.

**Parking and Traffic Congestion
The proposed development will significantly increase the number of residents and visitors, placing undue pressure on already limited on-street parking that is occupied by commuters. The proposed development’s basement car spaces is unlikely to offset demand given the proposed development density. This will not only inconvenience residents but also pose a safety risk, especially for children and the elderly.

**Overshadowing and Loss of Privacy
Given the height and scale of the proposed building, it will result in significant overshadowing of nearby properties. This will reduce natural sunlight and warmth into homes and gardens, particularly during the winter months. The proposed balconies and windows also raise serious concerns regarding overlooking and loss of privacy.

**Conclusion
For the reasons outlined above, I strongly object to the proposed development application. The height and bulk are inappropriate, non-compliant and detrimental to the local character, amenity and the intent of the planning framework.
I respectfully request that the Department of Planning refuse the application in its current form.

Regards

W.K. CHU

I am supportive of greater housing density around Lindfield and Gordon stations. In order to ensure the optimal development outcomes, we need to ensure the following:-
1) A co-ordinated strategic planning approach with adjoining sites
2) Appropriate shadow analysis and built form interface
3) Equitable application of planning controls

I object to the proposal for 16-20 Middle Harbour Road in its present form due to the following.
1) Lack of tree canopy protection and diminished area reserved for deep soil plantings.
The Council's alternative TOD requires that at least 50% of development sites for residential buildings be reserved for deep soil plantings. The applicant's proposal falls significantly short of a minimum 50% deep soil area and so cannot result in proper tree canopy protection, or enhancement. . Mature trees are a natural cooling system for the environment, and are particularly important in the light of the possible future warming scenarios as outlined in Australia's first National Climate Risk Assessment published just this in September. Therefore, chopping down mature trees, or not planting them where they should be planted on either this or other SSD sites, would be a deplorably short-sighted move indeed.
2) Destruction of the integrity of Ku- ring- gai Council's alternative TOD.
The cumulative effect of this development combined with the many other SSDs applications that have been or will be on exhibition, will result in anomalistic and out of place residential buildings mushrooming all over Lindfield within the TOD area thus destroying the integrity of the Council's alternative Tod, developed in painstaking consultation with Ku-ring_gai residents and now before the DPHI. I, for one, have always supported the Council's alternative TOD.
I hope that the present proposal be modified to fit in harmoniously with future surroundings and planning controls, particularly deep soils supported by the Council's TOD, before being accepted.

This proposal is fraught with inaccuracies, inconsistencies and documentation with no professional oversight of the EIS and SEARs programme. Incomplete processes in the Engagement requirements, blatantly inaccurate information in the TIA report, non-compliance with the Ku-ring-gai LEP or DCP, Housing SEPP and ADG.
It is a massive overreach in terms of the site coverage, ignores the Flood issues and the impact on 22 Middle Harbour Road where floodwaters discharge towards this site flowing first across the development site. Additionally, No. 22 Middle Harbour Rd will be an isolated dwelling with minimal development potential with a marginal financial feasibility.
The proposed development does not meet the setback and separation requirements of the Ku-ring-gai DCP or that of the ADG. It ignores the rights of neighbouring properties to solar access and privacy. It expects neighbouring properties to provide the trees for privacy from this development while ensuring that the required setbacks on the development boundaries are encroached.
The visual impact of the bulk and height of this development will dominate the vicinity. The visual impact on the surrounding area will be immense as the design does not attempt to fit into the local character of low-density homes, heritage items and Heritage Conservation Areas.
In terms of all aspects of the SEARs program this proposal has produced inaccurate and misleading information with regard to the Visual Impact Assessment, and has not engaged in community consultation in any meaningful manner.
I strongly urge you to reject this application as it will have irreversible and devastating consequences in its current form. The proposed development is patently inappropriate for the location in question given the topography, flood zone and its impact on adjacent dwellings, HCA and heritage items.