Dear NSW Department of Planning,
I wish to formally object to the concept development application SSD-82899468 for 1–5 Nelson Road, Lindfield.
The proposed development—167 units across 9 storeys and 3 basement levels—is entirely inappropriate for this location. The site sits partially on R2-zoned land and lies within a Heritage Conservation Area, where high-density development should not be permitted.
What is most alarming is that this application is for a concept only. Key investigations such as flood risk modelling, soil testing, heritage and environmental impact assessments will only be conducted after approval. This reverses proper planning processes and disregards due diligence.
The project raises serious concerns:
• Exceeds height limits (32m), with no height transition to surrounding homes
• Overwhelms local infrastructure, including roads, schools, and drainage
• Destroys tree canopy and harms local biodiversity
• Creates privacy, solar access, and overshadowing issues
Lindfield residents deserve well-planned, respectful developments—not oversized buildings rushed through without proper assessments.
I urge the Department to reject this concept proposal and protect the integrity of Lindfield’s character and planning rules.
Sincerely,
Daniel LIU

To Whom it May Concern,
I am a resident who lives on Tryon Road and I would like to express my concerns over the Concept SSDA for the proposed development at 3, 5 and 7 Nelson Road. I believe that the proposal and approach to communication, clarity and approval are flawed in various ways, including planning inconsistencies, environmental risks, questionable community engagement and a disregard for the area’s heritage, character and livelihood of the current community.
Firstly, in regard to Zoning and Density, I am concerned that 2 out of the 3 properties are outside the original TOD boundary, and their inclusion as such seems like the utilization of a loophole that is not in the spirit of the TOD. Permitting these to be included would extend high density development into a zone that is explicitly intended to remain low to medium density (600-800m from the station). This contradicts the TOD principles and could set a precedent to other similar rezonings, undermining the strategic planning process that the Council and community have spend years shaping.
Secondly, the site is within a Heritage Conservation Area, surrounding by single and double story homes, and six heritage listed properties and the Tryon Rd Uniting Church. The size and design of the proposed building conflicts with the established character of the street, and the 9-storey height exceeds the maximum allowable height of 9.5m per the area’s R2 zoning under the revised TOD.
Thirdly, the development directly overlooks Cromehurst school, which supports students with special needs. The proposed development will greatly reduce privacy of these vulnerable students as it will directly overlook the playground, and also bring increased traffic, noise and general disruption. I cannot imagine that the wellbeing of the students and teachers has been considered, or can be managed under this proposal.
Fourthly, the proposed building will severely overshadow its southern neighbours both directly adjacent and even on the other side of Tryon Road. I am concerned about the impact this will have on mental health from not having direct sunlight. Additionally, a lack of sunlight can result in indoor and outdoor mould, make it impossible to dry clothes on a line, and negatively impact plants, vegetation and garden/lawn growth. Finally, overshadowing will render any existing solar panels useless (resulting in a loss on investment for those homes) and will also discourage any new solar panel installations. This would hinder council and government’s efforts to encourage the adoption cleaner energy and doesn’t make sense from an environmental policy perspective.
Fifthly, council data highlights significant environmental constraint, including Nelson Rd being a known flood hotspot, no 3 & 5 Nelson road include land of ecological significance, and the geotechnical study was a desktop review using data from unrelated sites and no drilling or testing will not happen until after approval. I do not believe this is a responsible approach for a development of this size.
Finally, there have been numerous instances of inaccurate or misleading information, and questionable communication and community consultation, including:
• The original flyer listed the webinar date as 19 May, but was later changed to 21 May without redistribution.
• Speaking to other in the area, many feel their questions were dismissed or not properly addressed.
• Page 10 of the Engagement Report claims community input was encouraged, but in practice, the tone felt quite the opposite.
• Appendix 13 places the site on Middle Harbour Rd instead of Nelson Rd.
• It falsely claims there is no riparian land—contradicted by Council's letter in Appendix 5.
• Appendix 16 (Heritage Impact Statement) is based on a smaller structure than what’s actually proposed.
• Appendix 22 claims PMF maps are unavailable, when in fact they’re published on Council’s website.
• Appendix 23 (Visual Impact Assessment) selectively presents views that obscure the building’s true impact—photos are taken from blocked or distant angles. I encourage Council to request visual overlays from actual resident viewpoints for a more accurate assessment.

I do sincerely hope that Council and the Department to reject this proposal and uphold the planning controls that protect the integrity of the neighbourhood.

I strongly object to the project proposed for 1-5 Nelson Road Lindfield for the following reasons:

1. The project is incompatible with planning controls under the Ku-ring-gai revised TOD, which has now been submitted to the State Government for final approval. These properties will be in an R2 zone and in a Heritage Conservation Area.
2. Over shadowing of not only 5 properties (No. 30, 32, 34, 36 and 38 Tryon Road) on the south side of the project adjacent to 1 Nelson Road Lindfield but also, to a lesser extent, properties on the opposite side of Tryon Road (No. 35, 37,39 and 41 Tryon Road).
3. No consideration for extra traffic. The intersection of Tryon Road and Nelson Road is a traffic black spot, which becomes more dangerous during school zone hours. Cromehurst School is situated at the other corner of the intersection.
4. Failure to address the impact on existing infrastructure (water supply, stormwater, schools, roads) with an increase of 300-400 residents. The increase in hard surface will significantly increase the risk of flooding of surrounding properties.
5. No consideration given for existing mature and native trees on the properties.

I object to this Concept Proposal on the following grounds:
1. The proposal is opportunistic. It seeks to create a 9 story building by using the zoning of one property within a TOD 400 metre classification to append two properties not in the relevant TOD 400 metre zoning.
2. The opportunistic nature of the Concept Proposal Proponent is further evidenced by the type of application being made - "Concept Proposal for a residential flat building with infill affordable housing - Nelson Road, Lindfield."
3. The current zoning is HCA. HCA houses are to be destroyed and replaced by a 9 story structure. This totally changes the remaining HCA. Good bye neighbourhood.
4. The Concept Proposal is excessive in height - 32 metres.
5. The Concept Proposal allows for no height transistion - 9 storey to neighbouring one or two storey houses. Is there an ex gratia payment proposal by the Concept Proposal Proponent to these neighbours for taking material amounts of value from their properties and amenity?
6. All the usual studies are missing - traffic, parking, environment, riparian impacts, sewage, stormwater, schools, roads - or materially underdone.
7. The Concept Proposal seeks to modify transistions between TOD zones in a totally unreasonable way.
8. The Concept Proposal , indirectly, seeks a precedent to enable carte blanche development of HCAs.

Inadequate infrastructure to support further high density developnent in Lindfield.
If such development is allowed,it will only create more chaos in traffic,parking and noise,light,air pollution in our suburb.

I object to the proposal for a development at 1-5 Nelson Rd, Lindfield for a number of reasons:
1. There will be extensive change to the streetscape as the height will be excessive compared to the neighbourhood as will be the overall scale and bulk
2. This will have a heritage impact, it is in a heritage conservation zone and will not be compatible with the neighbourhood
3. The height will overshadow neighbouring residences, impact privacy and reduce solar access
4. There will be a negative effect on the environment and biodiversity and reduction in tree canopy and mature trees
5. There is inadequate infrastructure to accomodate a building that size. Roads will become congested and the area will struggle to cope with the traffic and parking
6. 2 out of the 3 properties are outside the original TOD, all are zoned R2 in the revised TOD
I understand the government is trying to increase housing affordability. But this has to be done with proper heritage and environmental
Impact studies before a concept this scale and size could be approved which would alter our beautiful neighbourhood forever.

So many reasons why this should not go ahead!
Infrastructure - Parking, roads, traffic, stormwater, schools - all at a premium now - cannot cope with an influx of more people and cars. Inadequate infrastructure!
Our neighbourhood will be changed forever with all the old homes demolished to make way for high rise. And those homes that will be spared will be overlooked by these apartments - the height of which exceeds the maximum permitted building height.
We need to save the unique Kur-ring-ai streetscape and all it encompasses especially with the non existant infrastructure that will be impacted by this new proposed develpment and the influx of more people.

My submission is as attached

I strongly support his proposal and have some commentary to provide.
1. I support this proposal as it is close to public transportation and shops. We need more housing supply as we are in a housing crisis.
2. I strongly encourage the use of induction or standard electric cook-tops be used as well as heat pump hot water instead of gas appliances. This is because gas is a fossil fuel, as there are more efficient and less costly to the environment and for people who will live in the apartments, its use should be reconsidered. If gas is to be used for cooktops and hot water, then apartment owners will be forced to pay for a separate daily connection fee to use the gas cooktop and for hot water they will be paying an estimated additional $479 a year (https://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/how-sydneysiders-could-save-730-a-year-by-ditching-gas-20240325-p5feyf.html). You can find evidence to show that hot water heat pumps are more efficient than gas hot water heating and that induction cooktops are more efficient than gas cooktops. Gas is also a fossil fuel, has potential health impacts when used as part of cooking.