I record that I have not objected to quite a number of other SSDs. To be clear, that means I still expect that the Department will rigorously assess those other developments to ensure that they meet all requirements. It should not be for the community to be required to call out gaps or breaches.
In relation to this development, that expectation is also the same. I repeat objections of others but, without limiting that, particularly wish to raise the heritage concerns.

The Minister and the Department have explicitly said that any development in an HCA (as well as not involving removal of contributory items) needs to improve and enhance the heritage values of the location. The proposed development is in as well as immediately adjacent to a HCA and a heritage item. It does nothing (or inadequately minimal) to address these values.

New infill buildings and designs must:

1. Be no higher than neighbouring heritage buildings

2. Recognise the predominant scale of the setting and respond sympathetically

These are from the government’s own guidelines (Design Guide for Heritage and Designt in context: Guidelines for development in the historic environment).

The impact of an inappropriately scaled building cannot be compensated for by building form, design or detailing." (page 19, Design in context: Guidelines for infill development in the historic environment (nsw.gov.au).

Contrary to those requirements:

1. the proposal involves the demolition of a contributory item.
2. the proposed plans do nothing to demonstrate and reflect the garden settings of the 1- 2 storey heritage homes surrounding it in the HCA.
3. The proposed plans, adjacent to a Heritage item, are higher than the neighbouring heritage item. This is just plain impermissible.
4. Adversely affects views to and from heritage items in the area.

If permitted, it makes at best a mockery and at worst a lie of the Department's and Government's publications purporting to give people comfort that developments on TOD or saved TODs would still involve heritage considerations and would need to improve and enhance the heritage values of a location.

Please refer to attached objection

Please find attached my objection to the above submission.

Thank you for the opportunity to make a submission regarding this proposed development.
We have lived with our family at 42 Stanhope Road, Killara for 40 years. While we do not object to increased housing based on the Ku-ring-gai Council’s award winning alternate TOD plan which was adopted by the NSW Government, we do object to this development.
The reasons for our objections are:
1. The development is out of character with the heritage character of the street and will negatively impact the streetscape, especially as it adjoins heritage listed properties.
2. The proposed number and height of the units (exceeding maximum permissible heights) is completely unacceptable to the area and will significantly impact the character of the area and the tree-lined street-scape and is at odds with this Heritage Conservation Area.
3. The number of units with 117 car spaces will increase the traffic and will impact the access to the Pacific Highway and traffic flow along Fiddens Wharf Road to the south as well as down Stanhope Rd and Springdale road to the east. These roads are not designed for large traffic flows. I contend that there will also be inadequate street parking for extra cars which will further impact the area.
4. The loss of trees for the development is completely unacceptable in light of climate change and the need for cooling tree canopies and air quality.

We strongly object to this development for the reasons above, and especially as Ku-ring-gai Council’s alternate TOD has increased housing beyond that required by the NSW Government.

The developer submits that its amended proposal meets planning rules (such as height or floor space ratio), and therefore it must be approved. That is not correct under NSW planning law.
The Land and Environment Court has confirmed that a development can still be refused if it causes serious harm to heritage, streetscape, or neighbourhood character, even where it might technically complies with numerical controls.
The Court has refused a redevelopment proposal in a heritage area because the impacts on heritage character were unacceptable — despite arguments that the planning controls allowed development. The Court has made it clear that heritage impacts matter more than numbers.
What this means for the development at 10, 14, 14a Stanhope Road is that:
• Proximity to Killara train station does not automatically make very tall or dense development appropriate.
• Being “within planning limits” does not override heritage protection.
• Decision-makers must assess whether a proposal is actually suitable for its location, especially in heritage-sensitive streets.
For sites like 10, 14, 14a Stanhope Road the real issue is not just height or floor space on paper .
— it is that development of this scale does not fit the heritage context, streetscape, and character of the neighbourhood and the future controls which apply to the Stanhope Road streetscape under the Ku-ring-gai Preferred Scenario.
Therefore the law allows and requires the Secretary DHPI to refuse this SSDA.

Perfect location for this development near public transport and the Pacific Highway

12 January 2026
Re:
SSDA-81890707 — 10, 14 & 14A Stanhope Road, Killara
Objection to Amended SSD submission
1. Purported Compliance with Numerical Controls Does Not Immunise a Development from Refusal
Even where a development purports to comply with quantitative planning controls, the consent authority remains under a mandatory obligation to consider the likely environmental impacts of the proposal pursuant to s 4.15(1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (“EP&A Act”).
It is well established in NSW planning law that compliance with numerical standards does not confer any immunity from refusal where a proposal would cause unacceptable impacts on heritage significance, streetscape character, or amenity. Environmental impacts under s 4.15(1)(b) remain decisive considerations in the proper exercise of the consent authority’s discretion.
2. Recent Authority — 26 Salisbury Pty Ltd v Woollahra Municipal Council [2024] NSWLEC 1119
In 26 Salisbury Pty Ltd v Woollahra Municipal Council [2024] NSWLEC 1119, the Land and Environment Court refused a development application involving demolition and redevelopment within the Balfour Road Heritage Conservation Area.
The Court confirmed that:
• development affecting heritage items or contributory buildings requires careful and rigorous heritage analysis;
• demolition or redevelopment is not rendered acceptable merely because planning controls may otherwise permit development; and
• heritage impacts may warrant refusal where they are insufficiently justified or would undermine the significance of the heritage conservation area.
That decision illustrates the Court’s continuing willingness to refuse development on heritage impact grounds notwithstanding apparent compliance with planning controls. While the case concerned a development application rather than State Significant Development, the legal principle applies equally — and with greater force — to SSDs, which remain subject to assessment under s 4.15 of the EP&A Act.
3. Heritage Impact as a Determinative Consideration — Skermanic Pty Ltd v Blue Mountains City Council [2024] NSWLEC 1031
In Skermanic Pty Ltd v Blue Mountains City Council [2024] NSWLEC 1031, the Land and Environment Court confirmed that heritage impact is a determinative consideration under s 4.15(1)(b). Even where redevelopment is theoretically permissible, consent must be refused if the proposal would result in unacceptable heritage harm.
Critically, the Court rejected arguments that redevelopment pressure, housing demand, or general strategic planning objectives could override site-specific heritage impacts. This principle directly undermines reliance on strategic housing narratives — including transit-oriented development objectives — where those objectives are pursued at the expense of identified heritage significance.
4. Heritage Harm Is Not Cured by Mitigation or Design Modulation
In Skermanic, the applicant argued that heritage impacts could be mitigated through design changes and conditions. The Court rejected that contention, emphasising that:
• heritage harm must be assessed in substance, not minimised by mitigation rhetoric; and
• once the setting, curtilage, and contextual relationship of a heritage item are fundamentally altered, the impact is unacceptable and irreversible.
This reasoning is directly applicable to the Stanhope Road proposal, where the heritage assessment relies heavily on landscaping, setbacks, visual screening, and stepped massing. As Skermanic confirms, such measures do not neutralise heritage harm where bulk, scale, and dominance permanently alter the heritage setting, particularly where tall buildings overwhelm lower-scale heritage items.
5. Setting and Context Are Integral to Heritage Significance
A critical aspect of Skermanic is the Court’s emphasis on heritage setting and context, not merely physical alteration of heritage fabric. The Court accepted that a development may be unacceptable even where the heritage item itself is retained, if:
• the new development overwhelms the item;
• the historic context is lost; or
• the heritage item becomes visually or spatially subordinate.
At Stanhope Road, the proposed development would introduce buildings more than three times the height of surrounding and adjacent heritage dwellings, fundamentally altering the scale, rhythm, and character of the heritage streetscape. Retention of heritage items without preservation of contextual integrity amounts to heritage destruction by another means.
6. Planning Controls and Permissibility Are Not Decisive
Importantly, both Skermanic and 26 Salisbury confirm that zoning, permissibility, and numerical standards do not compel approval. The existence of planning controls allowing development does not justify consent where heritage impacts are unacceptable.
This directly undermines the applicant’s reliance on “saved” TOD provisions, numerical compliance arguments, and proximity to Killara Station. Heritage harm may lawfully outweigh strategic planning objectives, particularly where local character and conservation objectives will be undermined under the DPHI-endorsed Ku-ring-gai planning controls applicable to Stanhope Road.
7. Defective Heritage Impact Statement — Failure to Assess Impacts on 12 Stanhope Road and the Heritage Conservation Area
The applicant’s Heritage Impact Statement — 10, 14 & 14A Stanhope Road, Killara is methodologically deficient and cannot be relied upon by the consent authority.
7.1 Failure to Assess Impacts on 12 Stanhope Road (Locally Listed Heritage Item)
The Heritage Impact Statement fails to adequately assess the impact of the proposed ten-storey apartment building located immediately behind and overshadowing the locally listed heritage item at 12 Stanhope Road.
In particular, the assessment:
• fails to meaningfully analyse the overbearing bulk, scale, and height of the rear building in relation to the heritage item;
• does not address the loss of visual prominence, legibility, and heritage setting of 12 Stanhope Road when read from both the public domain and its immediate context; and
• inadequately considers the effects of overshadowing, enclosure, and dominance, treating these impacts as secondary or capable of mitigation.
The retention of a heritage item is not determinative where its setting and contextual relationship are fundamentally compromised. The Heritage Impact Statement fails to adequately address this principle.
7.2 Failure to Assess Setting, Curtilage, and Spatial Relationships
The Heritage Impact Statement adopts an impermissibly narrow approach by focusing primarily on visual mitigation measures. In doing so, it:
• treats visual screening, landscaping, and setbacks as determinative of heritage acceptability;
• fails to assess setting, scale dominance, curtilage, spatial relationships, and contextual integrity; and
• ignores established heritage principles that heritage impact is not confined to direct physical alteration of a heritage item.
This approach is inconsistent with established heritage jurisprudence, which recognises that once a heritage item’s setting is overwhelmed or rendered visually subordinate, the heritage impact is unacceptable and irreversible.
7.3 Failure to Address Non-Congruence with the Heritage Conservation Area
The Heritage Impact Statement also fails to address the non-congruence of the proposed building addressing Stanhope Road with what will remain a Heritage Conservation Area under the DPHI-endorsed and legislated Ku-ring-gai planning controls.
In particular, it does not properly assess:
• the incompatibility of the proposed scale, massing, and typology with the established fine-grain residential character of the conservation area;
• the erosion of historic streetscape rhythm, scale transition, and built-form hierarchy; and
• the precedent effect of introducing a built form fundamentally inconsistent with the conservation objectives of the area.
7.4 Legal Consequence
By treating visual mitigation as a substitute for substantive heritage analysis, the Heritage Impact Statement fails to address mandatory considerations under s 4.15(1)(b) of the EP&A Act. It does not provide a legally adequate basis for concluding that heritage impacts are acceptable.
As confirmed by Skermanic Pty Ltd v Blue Mountains City Council [2024] NSWLEC 1031, heritage harm is not cured by landscaping, screening, or design modulation where bulk, scale, and dominance fundamentally alter the heritage setting. The same principle applies here.
Accordingly, the Heritage Impact Statement is materially deficient, and reliance upon it would expose any approval of SSDA-81890707 to a high risk of judicial review.
Although the above authorities concerned development applications rather than SSDs, the legal principles apply with equal — if not greater — force to State Significant Development, because:
• SSDs must still be assessed under s 4.15 of the EP&A Act;
• heritage impacts are mandatory considerations; and
• the Secretary and the Independent Planning Commission must ensure decisions are legally robust.
Approval of SSDA-81890707 in the face of clearly identified and unacceptable heritage impacts would expose the decision-maker to a high risk of judicial review on grounds including failure to consider relevant matters, legal unreasonableness, and inconsistency with established heritage jurisprudence.
8. Conclusion
The Land and Environment Court has repeatedly confirmed that compliance with numerical planning controls does not justify approval where heritage impacts are severe, irreversible, or inconsistent with the objectives of applicable planning instruments. The reasoning in 26 Salisbury and Skermanic provides clear authority for refusal of the Stanhope Road SSD, notwithstanding reliance on TOD objectives or claimed numerical compliance.
For these reasons, the proposal fails under s 4.15(1)(b) of the EP&A Act and should be refused.