Submission regarding 1-5 Nelson Road, Lindfield (SSD-82899468)
I have strong objections to this project on the following bases:
Outside TOD Zone
The majority of this development is outside the TOD zone. This could result in a precedent to develop large scale buildings outside the TOD zone. Surely there is enough land already zoned for high density without incorporating more developments outside this zone.
Bulk & scale:
The proposed building is too big for this site and too big in relation to other homes in the street and in adjoining streets. What is to become of the houses on Tryon road. They will find it difficult to develop these properties in the future. Indeed this development is larger than any of the developments in Lindfield town centre currently.
Height transition:
There is no height transition proposed from the boundaries. Surely good planning should have a transition between zones.
Conclusion:
It is clear little thought and effort has gone into planning a sensible building that will benefit those who live within it as well as add to the community through thoughtful architecture. I hope the Council and State Government will stick to developing high density developments within the TOD area.
Kind regards

Subject: Objection to SSD-82899468 — 1–5 Nelson Road, Lindfield

To Whom It May Concern,

I am writing to strongly object to the proposed development at 1–5 Nelson Road, Lindfield (SSD-82899468).

While I support appropriate development in our community, this proposal is inappropriate and inconsistent with the character, zoning, and infrastructure of the area. My main concerns include:
1. Zoning non-compliance:
Two of the three properties are zoned R2 Low Density Residential, and therefore are outside the original TOD (Transit Oriented Development) zone. Approving this would set a dangerous precedent for overdevelopment in low-density areas.
2. Heritage impact:
The site lies within a Heritage Conservation Area. This large-scale development would irreversibly damage the heritage streetscape and character of the neighbourhood.
3. Excessive building height:
At over 32 metres, the building exceeds the maximum permitted building height. A 9-storey apartment complex in this location is completely out of scale with surrounding one- and two-storey homes.
4. Poor height transition:
There is an abrupt transition from 9-storeys to adjacent low-density homes, which will cause overshadowing, privacy loss, and visual bulk.
5. Traffic, parking, and infrastructure strain:
The development will increase traffic congestion and parking pressure on already narrow residential streets. It will also place further strain on stormwater systems, local schools, and roads, which are not designed to support such a large population increase.
6. Environmental and biodiversity concerns:
The site includes mature trees and is part of a riparian zone. The development would result in a significant loss of tree canopy and biodiversity, contrary to sustainability goals.
7. Community well-being and liveability:
Lindfield is valued for its low-density, green, and peaceful environment, which contributes significantly to the mental and physical well-being of residents. High-density developments like this would erode the very qualities that make this community healthy and liveable.
8. Process concerns:
This proposal is based only on a concept drawing, with environmental and heritage impact studies to be done after approval. This is unacceptable for a development of this scale.

I urge the Department of Planning and Environment to reject this proposal and instead encourage development that respects zoning laws, heritage values, environmental sustainability, and community character.

Thank you for considering my submission.

Sincerely,
Eva Han

Dear Sir/Madam,
I am a resident of Ku-ring-gai Council and am writing to object to the proposed Concept Development Application at 1–5 Nelson Road, Lindfield (SSD-82899468). While I do not live immediately adjacent to the site, I have a strong interest in the integrity of our local planning framework, the amenity of our centres, and the cumulative impacts of large-scale development within the municipality.

1. Height Breach and Precedent
The proposal exceeds the maximum allowable height of 28.6 metres (inclusive of the affordable housing bonus), reaching 32.37 metres. This is a significant breach of planning controls and, if approved, would set a dangerous precedent for other developments in Ku-ring-gai to exceed statutory limits, undermining the credibility of the LEP and SEPP provisions.

2. Cumulative Traffic Impacts
The Transport Impact Assessment considers only the subject site and fails to account for cumulative traffic generation from multiple developments already approved or proposed within the Lindfield growth precinct. Without a precinct-wide traffic study, the true impact on the local road network, parking availability, and pedestrian safety cannot be properly understood or managed.

3. Inadequate Vehicle Access Arrangements
The proposal relies on a single vehicular access point from Nelson Road, a narrow local street. This single entry/exit arrangement is expected to accommodate all resident, service, and emergency vehicle movements. Such a design presents clear risks for congestion, pedestrian safety, and emergency access reliability.

4. Poor Transition to Surrounding Areas
The centralised 9-storey form presents excessive bulk and scale without an appropriate transition to the lower-rise residential context of Tyron Road and surrounding streets. This abrupt change in built form is inconsistent with Better Placed design principles and Ku-ring-gai Council’s DCP character objectives.

5. Overshadowing and Amenity Loss
The proposed height and massing will cause significant overshadowing to existing properties to the south, reducing winter solar access and amenity. The overshadowing analysis provided is questionable, as it relies on assumed future development rather than the current built form, thereby understating actual impacts.

6. Communal Open Space Location
Most communal open space is located on the rooftop. While this may be functional for residents, it creates potential for noise disturbance and privacy impacts to neighbouring properties and fails to provide quality ground-level green space that could contribute positively to the public domain.

7. Planning Integrity and Community Confidence
Approving a development that so clearly breaches established controls, omits a cumulative traffic assessment, and downplays impacts on existing properties would undermine community confidence in the planning process across the Ku-ring-gai LGA.

In conclusion, I urge Council to refuse the current proposal or require significant redesign to:
• Bring the height and bulk into compliance with SEPP and LEP standards,
• Address cumulative traffic and access concerns,
• Provide an appropriate transition to surrounding development, and
• Deliver genuine amenity and liveability outcomes for both residents and neighbours.
Ku-ring-gai’s growth should be guided by strategic planning, not driven by incremental breaches of planning rules that erode the quality and character of our suburbs.

Kind regards
ZJ

This development is of a bulk and scale that is incompatible with the rest of neighbourhood. Its height exceeds maximium permittable, thus also overshadowing and threatening reasonable privacy of surrounding properties when you take into consideration the transition will be from a nine-storey high density development to mostly single storey residences adjacent to this. Such stark transitions are a 'forever' decision that you cannot simply rollback or amend/improve later.

I’m writing to convey concerns and objections with regards to development proposal at 1-5 Nelson Road in Lindfield. I live on Lightcliff Avenue, which backs on to Nelson Road and have some concerns regarding this proposed development:

1. Vicinity to Lindfield Station.

Whilst part of the proposed development site (corner of No.1 Nelson Rd) sits within the 400m radius from the train station (as per TOD) the actual shortest route possible to walk to the station, via Kochia Lane is 500m.

2. Heritage impacts.

This development is within a Heritage Conservation Area and will be directly adjacent to 2 heritage listed properties, being number 6 and 8 Lightcliff Avenue. Lightcliff Avenue has 4 heritage properties which are considered significant both individually and as a group due to the uniqueness of their designs (i.e. not traditional Federation style homes) and as such are part of a Heritage Conservation Area.

The impact of such a large development would detrimentally affect these properties, their heritage beauty, and the aesthetics of the neighbourhood.

3. Height of Development.

The proposed height of the development is inconsistent with the existing neighbourhood streetscape. It will be surrounded by single or double story homes and there is not a gradual transition to this proposed 8-9 story apartment block. The visual impact of such a development on the neighbourhood would be extremely adverse.

Even though current zoning allows for allowable heights to be increased in the already developed area between Nelson Rd and Lindfield Station, the fact is that any apartment block in this area is 5-6 stories high. This further supports the negative impact of the height of this potential development at 1-5 Nelson Rd and its incompatibility with the area.

There would be privacy issues in surrounding homes. It is a neighbourhood where children play in their backyards and many of the homes have swimming pools. The apartments would overlook these homes and the children playing.

The site is located diagonally opposite Chromehurst School for children with disabilities and will impact the privacy of the school and its children.

4. Pedestrian and Traffic Impacts.

The interaction of Tryon Rd and Nelson Rd is notoriously difficult for cars and pedestrians to navigate with the current density of housing and the road layout. If density was increased on Nelson Rd there will be a significant increase in traffic making this intersection even more difficult to navigate.

Chromehurst School currently has cars, vans and busses queuing and parking around it at drop off and pick up times. Having an apartment complex of the proposed size across the road would add to the current traffic congestion problems and increase potential dangers for pedestrians, nearby residences as well as parents and children attending the school.


5. Gordon Creeek Wildlife and Water Flow

A portion of the proposed development will be built over a creek. Gordon Creek flows on the surface from the Northwest corner off 5 Nelson Rd down along the back yard of 6 Lightcliff Ave, across the back of number 8 and down beside houses 8 and 10 Lightcliff Ave. It then travels under the road of Lightcliff Ave and through the bush around Archibold Rd to Middle Harbour. There is much wildlife in and around this creek and we have had many types of birds and ducks in the creek next door to us and in our pond in Lightcliff Ave. We also have water dragons and various frog species come from the creek into our yard and pond, with the lizards even sunning themselves around our pool.

On State and Council websites there is a riparian zone along the creek which has an exclusion zone around it of 10m. As the development will be built over the creek wild life in the area will be negatively affected if not appropriately considered.

Water flow in the creek is affected by rain and run off. There has been increased occurrences of local overland flooding over the last 20 years with creek water levels having been affected more often since the completion of multi-story developments between the Lindfield Station and Nelson Rd. A development of the size proposed would impact on the water flow in the creek and potentially further increase local overland flooding.

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