I lived for nearly 30 years at 10 Stanhope Road and cannot believe that a project such as this is even being considered.
Primarily, from an environmental perspective the significant trees on this property and the wildlife that it maintained must be considered.
There is no reasonable way to consider that apartments built on this site are likely to be 'affordable' and suspect the use of this language is nothing short of a smoke screen to attempt to get through loop holes and legislation.
I am concerned regarding the impact on 12 Stanhope Rd, a beautifully preserved period home that has been loved and maintained for generations. The shadowing, the noise and the lack of privacy will be immense and thoroughly likely to be against many laws of both design and reasonable lifestyle.
The impact on the infrastructure of Killara and imparticular Stanhope Road will be immense. Already when a large vehicle or truck needs to go down the street, cars need to veer to the side due to parked cars. No doubt this will worsen.
The long term effects of such developments cannot be understated and once done, they are done. I hope that the reasonable people sitting on these planning committees can see the value of preserving heritage, environment and amenity. There are so many better sites for development, and these grand homes are not suitable.
I was in Artarmon recently and the vast scale of industrial businesses taking up valuable land near the city is ridiculous. Perhaps the Government needs to look at this region and focus on improving it.

I wish to formally express my objection to the proposed development at 10-14A Stanhope Road, Killara (SSD-81890707). While the project include affordable housing, the proposal appears to prioritise financial gain over genuine community benefit, disregarding both the heritage significance of the area and the amenity of existing residents. The demolition of 14 Stanhope Road cause irreversible damage to the streetscape of this Heritage Conservation Area, undermining over a century of historical and cultural value. Furthermore, the development's bulky scale and appauling contextual response such as non-compliance with height limits and inadequate consideration of privacy, solar access, and acoustic impacts, demonstrate a clear disregard for the low-density character of existing urban setting.
My other concern is of the proposal’s inconsistency with the Ku-ring Gai Alternative TOD Plan, which was developed through extensive community consultation and represents a balanced and broader community interest. Additionally, the development fails to address existing traffic congestion, particularly at the Stanhope Road and Pacific Highway intersection, where turning bays are already operating beyond capacity. I urge the State’s relative agency to reject this proposal, as it contravenes both strategic planning principles and the legitimate collective benefit at council level.

In addition to the attached submission the application should be rejected on the following grounds
1) Over development , Bulk height and scale are inconsistent with the Heritage Conservation Area
2) Inadequate deep soil landscaping to create a tree canopy
3) Poor design including lack of articulation of the facades
4) Traffic impact and lack of signalised intersection at the highway
5) Inadequate genuine community consultation.
6) Detrimental impact on Heritage item at 18 Stanhope Road

Please see the grounds for my objection in the attached letter.

Covering letter and detailed technical submission attached.

I have lived in Killara for over 10 years, my family have been living in the area since the 1910s. Provision of additional housing is part of Sydney and Ku-ring-gai’s ongoing development. However this proposed development appears to abuse current planning controls and inflict unreasonable loss of amenity on neighbours and the community.
A summary of my objection to the development is that the development scale is overdevelopment for the locality that is not justified by being sufficiently close to Killara railway station to reasonably relate to TOD (though within the TOD maps as currently set by State government). There is a further abuse of process where even with exceeding planning heights with “affordable housing”, there is then a plan to further exceed planning heights. Finally, the impacts of the development, and those of the precedent it establishes is weakly or minimally explored.
If a generational change in planning controls has just been enacted by the State government which increases the scale of development throughout Sydney, why is it reasonable for even those controls to be exceeded with this development?

Why is this an unreasonable development?
SEAR 1 – Land use zoning is R2 Low Density residential . The Statutory Compliance Table fails to outline compliance or lack thereof against existing zoning and then justify the TOD zoning overlay. This lack of diligence in the submitted materials should require review and assessment under SEPP.
An example of the lack of diligence:
Statutory compliance table, page 3, Objectives of the Zone – Objective: To provide for the housing needs of the community within a low density residential environment. The submitted response reads:
“The proposal will facilitate the redevelopment of the site for the purposes of residential development comprising 135 apartments, including 26 affordable units, which will contribute to additional housing supply and diversity to support and meet the housing needs of the community.” This lazy text does not address “low density residential environment” at all, and therefore fails to assess the development against KLEP (whether or not it is being over-ridden).
Statutory compliance table, page 3, Objectives of the Zone – Objective: To provide for housing that is compatible with the existing environmental and built character of Ku-ring-gai. The submitted response reads:
“It is noted that the proposed development is at a higher density than the adjacent properties along Stanhope Road. The scale and design of the development references the higher density residential flat buildings located immediately to the north and east of the site and is consistent with the aims of Chapter 5 and Chapter 2 of the Housing SEPP.”
Again, this response is misleading – the 10 storey development is far larger in scale that the 5 storey buildings immediately to the north and east of the site.
SEAR 6 - There is no reason for the street front housing at # 14 to be developed in such an unsympathetic way. The proposal lacks any sensitivity to the Killara locality’s heritage buildings that sit on the street at numbers 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 12 and other houses on the street and locality. Instead it seeks to transition Stanhope road (which is >400m from the railway station) to being multi-storey apartment blocks – outside of the reasonable proposals by council to meet accommodation targets.
SEAR 7: We live locally and have seen large numbers of native birds (kookaburras, magpies etc) foraging in green spaces. The redevelopment of 10,14, 14a wipes out habitat for animals who use lawn areas etc for foraging. There is no significant environmental offset proposed for the 135 apartments. No significant planting of canopy trees etc. Other developments in the area retain deep soil access and plant canopy trees.

Clause 4.6 Request to Exceed Planning Height of Buildings
The request to exceed planned building heights makes a mockery of the development process. The height exceedance will overshadow Stanhope road and neighbouring properties, creates unreasonable height basis for future development in the area. The justification for the height lacks reasonable context when other developments in the area are considered and where developments are stepped in line with original landform. The >20% exceedance and citation of GM Architects Pty Ltd v Strathfield Council [2016] NSWLEC 1216 at [85]… to justify the reasoning almost proves that it is unreasonable. A minor exceedance may je justified on balance, but a design seeking to exceed on most buildings in the development is an abuse of that concept.

Again, the submission by the proponents fails to assess and justify the development against requirements appropriately.