I support the proposed Transit Oriented Development at 10, 14 and 14a Stanhope Road, Killara, as it aligns with the strategic goal of increasing housing supply in well-connected locations. Developments like this help address the growing demand for diverse housing options within Ku-ring-gai, particularly for young families and first-home buyers who are increasingly priced out of the area.

By concentrating new dwellings close to Killara Station, this project encourages public transport use, reduces traffic congestion, and supports a more sustainable pattern of urban growth. It also helps ensure that future generations can remain within the community, contributing to local schools, shops, and neighbourhood life.

This kind of responsible, well-planned density near transport hubs is essential for balancing growth with environmental and lifestyle considerations.

I am writing as a long-time Ku-ring-gai resident, whose family has lived in Killara & surrounds for more than 60 years. My grandparents live here, my parents live here, and now my family lives here.
I want to put forward my support for the proposed residential flat building project, including the infill affordable housing, on Stanhope Road.

Over the past decade I have seen how difficult it has become for ordinary people to find a home in this area. Young families, older residents who want to downsize, and people who work locally are all finding it harder to stay here. This project offers one of the few practical opportunities to add new homes in a location that genuinely suits this scale of development. It is close to the train station, schools and existing infrastructure, which means new residents can get around easily without adding unnecessary pressure on roads and services.

I also support the inclusion of affordable housing. Ku-ring-gai has very few options for people who are not in the high-income bracket, and providing a small number of affordable homes helps create a more balanced mix of residents. It does not change the character of the area. It simply gives more people the chance to be part of the community.

The type of development proposed here is the right approach for this part of Killara. It is infill development, which means it uses land that is already developed and already connected to transport and services. It does not push into bushland or expand the suburb outward. If we want to avoid future urban sprawl and the environmental impact that comes with it, we need to support projects that make better use of the land we already have.

I appreciate that new development can raise concerns. I also believe we need to look ahead. If we want our children to have any real chance of living in the area where they grew up, we need to support sensible and well-located housing. Adding dwellings in areas that already have strong public transport access is consistent with transport-oriented development principles and helps reduce reliance on private vehicles. This site meets that test.

For these reasons I support SSD-81890707 and ask that it be approved.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

I support the project

The scale of the proposal is totally non compliant with the Kuringai alternative TOD plans for Gordon, Killara, Lindfield and Roseville which have been approved by the State Government. This approved alternative to the original State Government TOD plans allows for an additional 2000 dwellings above the Government’s target without this overdevelopment of the Stanhope road site in question. Such over development if it were allowed to proceed would require significant infrastructure improvements in the surrounding area including but not limited to sewerage, stormwater management, water supply, roads and traffic management none of which are considered in the proposal. The significant loss of tree canopy to high rises and hard standing is a major concern in these times of climate change and need to reduce carbon emissions. The built form of the proposed development is totally out of keeping with the adjacent properties with insufficient height reduction at the boundaries to reduce the visual impact and overbearing of adjacent sites.
As a long term resident in the area I object to the scale of this development and propose the State Government deny any further consideration due to its non compliance with the approved Kurungai alternative TOD plans for Gordon, Killara, Lindfield and Roseville.

I'm a Killara resident. I object to this project,
The reasons that I object to this proposal and its latest amendments (which are very minor amendments)are:
Height, Bulk, Scale,
inconsistent with the local character, conflicting with the heritage conservation area of the street and the suburb, and with traffic and ecology.
The Ku-ring-gai Council's preferred alternate TOD has been adopted and accepted by the State Government.
The Alternate TOD takes into account the need to increase housing availability and balances it with the need to protect social, heritage, and environmental impacts and existing amenities, with a clear vision for the character and changing nature of the suburb.

I would like to make a submission opposing the SSDA for 10, 14 and 14a Stanhope Road, Killara. The surrounding district is characterised by well preserved character homes, many of which were built during the architecturally significant Federation period, and are considered significant and carry a heritage designation. They lie in an environmentally friendly setting with extensive tree canopy and abundant flora and fauna, that is the envy of other municipalities. The canopy provides significant benefits in the current climate challenges of global warming including temperature mitigation and cooling of surfaces during periods of extreme heat and greater potential absorption and storage of carbon dioxide by the abundant vegetation. The local council and municipal constituents have gone to great lengths to preserve the integrity of this area over many years, and this proposal completely undermines years of careful policy to prevent inappropriate development for this area. Heritage and environmental principles are being completely overlooked by many of these development proposals.

It is disappointing that the current government has imposed the TOD planning controls with greatest effect in districts where the prevailing attitudes of the constituents marks them as expendable in terms of political allegiance; reflected most directly in nett loss to the home owner given the heavy preponderance of heritage listed homes surrounding or in close vicinity to the development, and inciting unrest among neighbouring homeowners seeking to maximise their property value when faced with the choice of selling to developers, even if they had not intended moving in the first instance. These changes have not had the same impact on constituents in municipalities' sympathetic to Labor due to the risk of losing political favour.

Directly pertaining to this proposal, others will have discussed inadequate amendments to building height, floor space ratios, layout, landscaping, solar restriction and overshading considerations. However as known to most constituents of this area, infrastructure is outdated and limited and is unlikely to tolerate the additional dwelling numbers with the measures being proposed. I will focus on two items of critical infrastructure - transport links including traffic flow and essential services such as schooling and access to medical practitioners.

The proposed development is located between a major artery (Pacific Highway) and the railway line, which is crossed by a narrow bridge with a single lane of traffic in each direction. There is perfunctory (at best) pedestrian access across the bridge, and a traffic light controlling traffic movement across the bridge through a four way junction, where vehicles commonly turn right or left once oncoming traffic has ceased, heading for the bigger hubs of Lindfield and Gordon respectively. The intersection allows local traffic to proceed cautiously at peak times, given the inlet and outlet are only a single lane in each direction, and given the current already congested on street parking requirements. The proposed development adds up to 400 new residents and by implication 160 vehicles (conservatively 1.25 cars / apartment depending on bedroom number) with provision for 0.8 cars / apartment on-site allocated parking, thereby requiring the rest of the vehicles to be parked on the surrounding street which is the single lane road described above. There is no capacity for the area to absorb these extra vehicles and traffic flow would be completely disrupted, and the risk of pedestrian injury increases as drivers speed through this intersection. Traffic turning off the Pacific Highway into Stanhope Road would be expected to bank up before the turn given the short 400m stretch to the signal, during peak periods. Proceeding from Stanhope road onto the Pacific Highway going north is already impossible at peak hour. Intractable delays would be expected due to the presence of entry / exit access on Werona Avenue and Stanhope Road. There is further concern of even larger and even more inappropriate SSDs on Werona Avenue, saved for future planning consideration, complicating this already tenuous traffic balance. The additional car movements out of Stanhope Road could clearly not be accommodated with present infrastructure, and in fact increase the risk of accidents to both pedestrians and motorists.

The original TOD plan called for suburbs with transport links to be redeveloped within existing enabling infrastructure, but this does not exist in Killara. The train station at Killara has restricted services, especially during peak commuter use periods. There is no commercial hub at the station, the only shop being a standalone needlecraft shop. There is no post office or food outlets, nor a regular bus route that services the station. Ku-ring-gai Council has assessed these major deficiencies and adopted a revised TOD plan that provided planning controls allowing for development within the municipality in the vicinity of the established hubs. Killara is not suitable for such developments due to lack of amenity and supporting requirements. The proposed development being located at the apex of a big hill, would only encourage increased vehicle use to neighbouring districts for access to basic provisions, thereby placing further constraints on the already limited local road network. How can this lack of transport and
supporting infrastructure meet the criteria for a TOD and under the current proposal cater for more than 500 new residents?
There are no schools in safe walking distance of this development, which can only increase the traffic chaos described above. In addition almost all medical practices within the entire district have closed their appointments to new patients due to maximised current patient numbers, meaning the large influx of residents would have to travel outside the district to access primary medical care. These two critical infrastructure and service oversights are over and above resident concerns about water management and sewerage; essential services that are already operating at maximal capacity.

A quick mention about the false notion of "affordable" housing. Developers have admitted it is no longer feasible to build in the inner west, western and south western Sydney due to lack of profit. They cannot recoup their expenses in these areas that have traditionally housed more people qualifying for "affordable living infill". They can only meet their profit margins in more affluent regions. How will this reflect affordability, which is the basis for the SSD pathway and escalated approvals by the HDA. Buying trends in this district have not been adequately analysed, in fact completely negated. The average price for a new apartment in Killara is $1.13 million with an average monthly rental of $3200. Annual incomes in excess of $130000 (well above the median Australian salary) would be required to service these costs to qualify as affordable housing where up to 30% of income is used to pay housing costs. Therefore, the proposed development provides no long-term affordable living options for low- and medium-income earners. In addition, Killara has recently seen an influx of purchasers from China (often affluent expatriates) who purchase apartments in this district to take advantage of its location within the catchment of the highly desirable non-selective local high school. The acquisitions often remain unoccupied for significant periods. This competition for properties will not be conducive to affordability in this area and it is unlikely that any proposed development will achieve a consistent level of residential amenity across both affordable and non-affordable housing components. As only 2% of proposed housing will remain "affordable" in perpetuity (> 15 years), the argument for affordable housing is completely invalid, and is more an attempt to raise the interest of developers to meet unachievable quotas. Unfortunately, this is to the complete detriment (both fiscally and emotionally) of the property owner.

This proposal fails to address heritage and environmental concerns and requirements, maximised infrastructure / essential services in this municipality and basic local demographics which would be essential for desirable living in the current challenged global economic, political and climate spheres. The developers are disregarding history yet not providing true resources to tackle future challenges for desirable living. It is a cynical exercise to maintain political influence. The DPHI should take the lead from other jurisdictions around the world; improve transport links to more affordable regional centres; optimise environmental integrity and not put their constituents at risk of fiscal and emotional instability.

The applicant has submitted a Clause 4.6 request to permit non-compliance with maximum building heights at the site however the submission fails to satisfy the Wehbe Tests
The applicant asserts that compliance with the height development standard is “unreasonable or unnecessary” within the meaning of Section 18(2) of the Housing SEPP, relying on Clause 4.6 jurisprudence. That assertion is unsustainable.
In Wehbe v Pittwater Council [2007] NSWLEC 827, the Court identified at least five distinct ways in which an applicant might establish that compliance with a development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary. While satisfaction of one pathway may be sufficient, the applicant in this case satisfies none.

Each test is addressed below.
1. First Wehbe Test
Objectives of the development standard are achieved notwithstanding non-compliance
The applicant has not demonstrated that the objectives of the height standard are achieved despite the proposed exceedance.
The objectives of height controls under the Housing SEPP and KLEP include:
• limiting bulk and scale;
• protecting heritage significance and streetscape character;
• preventing visual dominance and overdevelopment; and
• ensuring orderly and predictable built form outcomes.
The proposed exceedance:
• introduces buildings of up to nine storeys in immediate proximity to heritage items and a heritage conservation area;
• results in pronounced bulk, scale dominance, and visual intrusion; and
• materially alters the established and intended character of Stanhope Road.
Assertions that landscaping, setbacks, stepped massing or rear-site location “mitigate” these impacts do not demonstrate that the objectives are achieved. As consistently held by the Court, mitigation measures cannot be equated with achievement of objectives where the built form outcomes are fundamentally inconsistent with those objectives.
Accordingly, the First Wehbe Test is not satisfied.

2. Second Wehbe Test
The underlying objectives are not relevant to the development, making compliance unnecessary
The applicant has not established that the objectives of the height standard are irrelevant to this development.
On the contrary, the objectives are directly and acutely engaged, given that:
• the site adjoins and affects a locally listed heritage item at 12 Stanhope Road;
• the site sits within a heritage-sensitive streetscape and conservation area context; and
• the proposal relies on substantial vertical scale to achieve its yield.
Height is a critical control for managing heritage setting, visual dominance, and streetscape coherence. The applicant’s own heritage and urban design material implicitly acknowledges the relevance of height by seeking to justify its redistribution across the site.
Compliance is therefore not unnecessary — it is central to the planning outcomes sought by the controls.
The Second Wehbe Test is not satisfied.

3. Third Wehbe Test
The objectives would be defeated or thwarted if compliance were required
The applicant contends that requiring compliance would undermine heritage outcomes and constrain housing delivery. This argument reverses the proper operation of planning controls.
The objectives of the height standard are not defeated by compliance; they are fulfilled by compliance. Any reduction in yield or building scale arising from compliance is the intended consequence of applying statutory controls to a constrained site.
Heritage protection, slope, and BV land constraints do not make compliance unreasonable. They are inherent site limitations that lawfully restrict development potential. The Court has repeatedly held that a development standard is not rendered unreasonable merely because it constrains what an applicant wishes to build.
Requiring compliance would not thwart the objectives of the standard — it would give effect to them.
The Third Wehbe Test is not satisfied.

4. Fourth Wehbe Test
The standard has been virtually abandoned or destroyed by prior approvals
The applicant has not identified any pattern of approvals demonstrating that the height standard has been routinely or systematically disregarded for comparable sites within the Stanhope Road or Killara context.
No evidence has been provided of:
• consistent exceedances of similar magnitude;
• approvals within heritage conservation areas setting a comparable precedent; or
• a demonstrable erosion of the standard by the consent authority’s own actions.
Absent such evidence, the Court cannot conclude that the standard has been abandoned or destroyed.
The Fourth Wehbe Test is not satisfied.

5. Fifth Wehbe Test
The zoning of the land is unreasonable or inappropriate
The applicant does not contend — nor could it credibly contend — that the zoning of the land is unreasonable or inappropriate.
The zoning:
• expressly contemplates development subject to height, heritage, and character controls; and
• reflects a deliberate planning balance between housing capacity and environmental and heritage constraints.
Disagreement with the quantum of development permitted under the zoning does not establish that the zoning itself is unreasonable.
The Fifth Wehbe Test is not satisfied.

Conclusion on Wehbe Tests
The applicant has failed to demonstrate that compliance with the height development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary under any of the five recognised Wehbe pathways.
The Clause 4.6 / Section 18(2) justification therefore fails at the jurisdictional threshold. In these circumstances, the consent authority cannot be satisfied as required by the Housing SEPP, and the proposed variation must be refused.

I object to this development in relation to a number of matters and endorse objections already lodged as to scale and bulk. I also note that the image of the proposal is misleading in material respects as it fails to show the true impact of this huge development on the streetscape.

1. Height and bulk
The proposed development is completely inconsistent with the size and bulk of surrounding properties. In an area renowned for its natural beauty, this development strips the properties bare and negates the continuation of the natural blue gum forest which runs through this area. Any attempt to grow trees as suggested by the plans would be fruitless due to the lack of sunlight and lack of soil as the structures leave little space between them and the boundary.
The largest building at 10 stories is completely out of character for this quiet residential street. It overshadows adjoining properties and I note that in June the shadows travel through to Stanhope Road, over the adjoining property.

2. Lack of Amenities
If the aim of the TOD policy was to encourage development close to transport, this would be the worst possible example of a development fitting within the matrix but failing to satisfy the intention of easy access to transport for residents. The site is on the crest of a hill, one of the highest points in Killara, with Killara station at its base on the northern side, so that access from the station for residents is up a steep hill with significant incline.
There is only one shop within 1 kilometre of the site: The Crewel Gobelin, Australia’s premier needlecraft shop, at 9 Marian Street, Killara. For all needs other than needlecraft, the closest shops are at Lindfield Village, at the southern base of the Killara hill and requiring the negotiation of a substantial incline when walking home with shopping. This would be particularly difficult for those accessing the senior living component of the proposed development. Within the limited information provided, there appears to be no access for delivery vehicles, taxis or ubers should residents require home delivery.
Little significant green space for residents is proposed by this development. The closest park is beside the railway lines, once again at the northern base of a steep hill.

3. Strain on Existing Infrastructure
The provision of water and sewerage to the area is already under significant strain. Built over a century ago, this infrastructure has recently suffered a number of major failings: the entire system requires overhaul. Adding 136 apartments, and their hundreds of residents, to this already strained infrastructure may have a catastrophic result in the future. I note that there is no proper information as to groundwater, where the land falls away sharply at the back leading to risk of flooding of the proposed properties and their neighbours.
Killara High School is already under significant strain and there is no discussion in this plan of the means by which the Education Department will increase capacity.

4. Traffic
The provision of 117 car spaces anticipates significant impact on local roads, completely at odds with the TOD mantra advocating public transport.

Compliance with key metrics of planning instruments should not of itself lead to the granting of development consent as those metrics are a maximum and not an entitlement. I realise that this application has been nominated as one of State Significance but I urge the Department to withold its consent to this application.

I strongly support the proposed Transit Orientated Development at 10-14-14A Stanhope Road' Killara. The design's proximity to rail infrastructure makes it a logical and environmentally responsible location for additional dwellings. With appropriate attention to landscaping, heritage context and traffic management, this development can contribute positively to the suburbs future character and liveability.
Similar TOD projects represent a balanced approach to growth ensuring Ku-Ring-Gai evolves sustainably without encroaching on critical green spaces.