Please find attached the Friends of Ku-ring-gai Environment Inc (FOKE) submission.

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