The proposal as submitted is incomplete, contains incorrect details and does not consider the effects on the actual wildlife that resides in the development site or fully consider the council commissioned flood study in the area from 2023. More details in my submission letter attached. Thank you

Dear Prity Cleary, Senior Planning Officer,

Please find attached my submission in opposition of the proposed State Significant Development at 1-5 Nelson Road, Lindfield.

I earnestly request that you inspect my Clients' properties and the immediate locality.

I would be very pleased to facilitate your access to my Clients' properties.

Kind regards,

Tony Mody

We support additional housing supply in principle, but we oppose the proposed development, which is not suitable for the site at 1 – 5 Nelson Road (Site). Our key reasons for opposing the development include:
• it is inconsistent with a good planning outcome and in conflict with the alternative planning scheme proposed by Kuring-Gai Council (Council), which has widespread community support;
• its adverse impact from a heritage perspective on heritage items in the vicinity and the Heritage Conservation Area (HCA) of which the Site forms part;
• conflict with the character and streetscape of the neighbourhood, including the adverse visual impacts of such a large proposed building envelope;
• its height, bulk and density;
• its adverse impact in terms of overshadowing and loss of solar access and privacy on adjacent and other neighbouring properties;
• the lack of transition, in terms of height and density, to the neighbouring residential properties;
• the loss of tree canopy and biodiversity that will result; and
• its adverse impact on traffic and parking in Nelson Road and surrounding streets, during construction and after completion.

We expand on these objections as follows.

NOT A GOOD PLANNING OUTCOME; INCONSISTENT WITH AND TAKES NO ACCOUNT OF THE COUNCIL’S ALTERNATIVE PLANNING SCHEME
• The State Significant Development Application (SSDA) has been lodged to take advantage of the Transport-Oriented Development SEPP (TOD) notwithstanding the alternative planning scheme proposed by the Council (TOD Alternate Preferred Scenario) which was exhibited for 3-weeks in April 2025. The Secretary’s Environmental Assessment Requirement (SEARS) issued to the applicant is dated 8 May 2025, after the TOD Alternate Preferred Scenario was endorsed by the Council for exhibition on 31 March 2025.
• If approved this development would be entirely inconsistent with the TOD Alternate Preferred Scenario and with the key objectives of Council that underpin the TOD Alternate Preferred Scenario. The Site is entirely outside the area covered by the TOD Alternate Preferred Scenario. The TOD Alternate Preferred Scenario has been the subject of extensive community consultation and very careful consideration by Council (and we understand that Council staff have in developing the TOD Alternate Preferred Scenario consulted with NSW Planning staff). In particular, the proposed development is contrary to the following principles, which we endorse:
o there should be a graduated shift down in height as buildings radiate out from the train station (not a ‘donut’ effect);
o impact on heritage items should be minimised;
o transition impacts should be managed effectively, with zoning/density changes that are ‘mid-block’ or along property boundaries avoided and an acceptable interface between areas of different density;
o building heights should be appropriate; and
o impact on tree canopy should be minimised.
The proposed development would undermine achievement by Council of these objectives and be a very poor planning outcome for the Site. Not only is the Site entirely outside the area covered by the TOD Alternate Preferred Scenario, but two of the three properties comprising the Site are outside the TOD zone.
• The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and associated documents have not considered the TOD Alternate Preferred Scenario and they should have. The proposed development would represent a significant overdevelopment in terms of bulk and scale compared to likely future development under the TOD Alternate Preferred Scenario. It is our understanding that the applicant has an obligation to consider and take into account the TOD Alternate Preferred Scenario as the desired future character of the area.

HEIGHT, BULK AND DENSITY; AFFECT ON NEIGHBOURING PROPERTIES
• The height and bulk proposed are inappropriate for the Site. The three dimensional and other diagrams that appear in the documents on exhibition demonstrate the grossly disproportionate size of the development relative to the existing surrounding properties. The height to 32.35 metres is above the permissible height of 28.6 metres and will substantially exceed even the height permissible under the R4 zoning for properties across Nelson Road from the Site that is proposed in the TOD Alternate Preferred Scenario. The size (height, bulk and density) is grossly disproportionate to the surrounding residential properties.
• There is no sensitive interface with the neighbouring dwellings to the north, east and south of the Site.
• The shadow diagrams that are included in the proposal indicate a degree of shadowing that is unacceptable, particularly for the properties on Tryon Road adjacent to the Site.
• There is in the EIS inadequate assessment of the visual impact on, and view loss from, adjoining and surrounding residential properties.
• The proposed development would dominate, and have an overbearing effect on, the surrounding streetscapes.
• Neighbouring properties that are overlooked by the buildings will suffer a substantial loss of privacy.
• Rooftop communal spaces will mean loss of privacy for surrounding properties and noise in the evenings (potentially late into the night).

ADVERSE IMPACT ON HERITAGE ITEMS AND HCA
• There is no resemblance between the proposed building envelope and the existing built character of surrounding properties.
• The Site is entirely within the Crown Blocks Conservation Area HCA. The heritage value of that HCA will be undermined and substantially diminished if the development proceeds.
• The Site is in the vicinity of heritage items located at Nos 6 and 8 Lightcliff Avenue and 9 Nelson Road, Lindfield. If the development were to proceed, the heritage value of those heritage items would be substantially diminished, the amenity of those living in the heritage items would be substantially reduced and the financial value of the heritage items would be adversely affected. This would be inequitable to the owners of those properties who cannot demolish or materially alter their properties and so their development potential is limited.

TREE CANOPY, BIODIVERSITY AND RIPARIAN LAND
• The Biodiversity Values Map (BV Map) available at NSW Planning Portal Spatial Viewer identifies No 5 Nelson Road and some properties surrounding the Site as land with high biodiversity value.
• The number and nature of trees to be removed will result in a material reduction in tree canopy.
• Boundary planting will not hide the stark facades of the buildings, nor attract the bird and other wildlife that the current tree canopy on the Site attracts.
• Part of the Site is riparian land and the Site is impacted by flooding. Altering natural watercourses is likely adversely to affect neighbouring properties.

TRAFFIC AND SERVICES
• The EIS is inadequate due to the lack of assessment of the cumulative impact on traffic and services of the proposed development and other developments in the vicinity of the Site, including the other developments nearby for which this applicant is also the applicant.
• The cumulative impact on traffic in Nelson Road and other proximate streets arising from the proposed development and other proximate development applications must be considered. Similarly the cumulative impact on other facilities, such as water and waste water, must also be considered.
• Pedestrian safety will be an issue, particularly during construction. The proximity to Cromehurst School, and the nature of the student population at that school, make this particularly important.

NOISE AND DISRUPTION DURING CONSTRUCTION
• The proposal involves excavating three levels below ground. This will involve extensive noise, dust and disruption to traffic over an extended period. While the proposal only seeks consent for the building footprint and envelope, with physical demolition and earthworks forming part of the subsequent Detailed SSDA, the decision makers on the current application must consider the impacts that approval of three levels below ground will involve.

INADEQUATE CONSULTATION
• We live within 500 metres of the Site, but we received no notice of this application from the applicant. We had no opportunity to participate in any early consultation that occurred.

I strongly oppose the Concept Proposal for a residential flat building with infill affordable housing at 1 - 5, Nelson Road, Lindfield (Site) for a number of reasons, including that:
• as with the other SSDs proposed within 200m of my home, the required early consultation process was entirely inadequate – I received no notice of this application from the applicant even though I live within 200 metres of it
• the proposed development is inconsistent with a good planning outcome and in conflict with the alternative planning scheme proposed by Kuring-Gai Council (Council), which has widespread community support (TOD Alternate Preferred Scenario)
• the Site is outside the area covered by the TOD Alternate Preferred Scenario and two of the three properties comprising the Site are outside the TOD
• the Site is entirely within a heritage conservation area (HCA)
• its height, bulk and density will produce yet another eyesore
• there would be a lack of transition, in terms of height and density, to the neighbouring residential properties
• there would be significant adverse impact in terms of overshadowing and loss of solar access and privacy on adjacent and other neighbouring properties
• the loss of tree canopy and biodiversity will be a loss for everyone, both now and in the future
• the proposed development will conflict with the character and streetscape of the neighbourhood, including the adverse visual impacts of such a large, angular and dense building.
I expand on some of my objections as follows:
• The documents on exhibition demonstrate the grossly disproportionate size of the development relative to the existing surrounding properties. The size, bulk and density are disproportionate relative to the R2 zoning for adjacent and neighbouring properties that is proposed in Council's TOD Alternate Preferred Scenario.
• The proposed height to 32.35m, which is above the permissible height of 28.6m, would dwarf adjacent single or two storey homes and even substantially exceed the proposed height for properties on Nelson Road opposite the Site that are covered by the TOD Alternate Preferred Scenario, which is 18.5 metres. The proposed height is completely inappropriate for the Site.
• There is no sensitive interface with the neighbouring dwellings to the north, east and south of the Site, particularly the heritage item to the east.
• The shadow diagrams that are included in the proposal indicate a degree of shadowing that is unacceptable, particularly for the adjacent properties on Tryon Road.
• The proposed development would dominate, and have an overbearing effect on, the surrounding streetscapes, and the three heritage items that are in close proximity.
• Neighbouring properties that are overlooked by the buildings will suffer a substantial loss of privacy.
• Rooftop communal spaces will mean loss of privacy for surrounding properties and the potential for noise issues, especially at night, and resulting in community disputes.
• Part of the Site is riparian land and the Site is impacted by flooding. Altering current natural water courses is likely adversely to affect neighbouring properties.
• Part of the site is identified as “Biodiversity” on the Terrestrial Biodiversity Map. High value biodiversity would be lost and/or at risk. There is no justification provided for that loss of biodiversity other than, in essence, ‘this is an SSDA’.
• Boundary planting will not hide the stark facades of the buildings, nor attract the bird and other wildlife that the current tree canopy on the Site attracts.
• The applicant fails to take account of the cumulative effect of the proposed development and the surrounding future developments, including the other developments nearby for which this applicant is also the applicant. The cumulative impact on traffic in Nelson Road and surrounding streets, and on other facilities, such as water and waste water, will be considerable and must be considered.

My view is that the scale of this project is totally unsuitable to this location. My understanding is that it is also in fact in contravention of existing Zoning rules.
This is a residential area of low rise houses many of which are very fine heritage type houses. We cannot simply destroy all of this.
It is also close to a special needs school.
A building of this size is ridiculous and will totally overpower the surroundings and destroy the privacy of many people.
I am not against all development but it should be low rise and be designed to fit in with the surroundings.
I am quite shocked that the State Government can interfere like this with local planning without apparently any consideration of the impact.
Local infrastructure is already stretched with traffic etc already at the limits. Access to and from the Pacific Highway and other major roads is a nightmare for significant portions the day. This development and others like it which are being forced through will only make this situation more dire.

Against the project. It does not fit the character of the suburb. Near a school and not safe for students