I am writing to strongly object to the proposed development at 1-5 Nelson Road, Lindfield. While I understand the need for housing supply, this proposal is significantly misaligned with both statutory planning expectations and community-supported alternatives. My objections are as follows:-
1) The proposed development is highly inconsistent with Council’s Alternative Preferred Scenario & community aspirations for development along the Gordon–Roseville rail corridor. The current proposal starkly contradicts these community-led planning principles, particularly by introducing an over-height, overly-bulky building with inadequate setbacks and absolutely no transition from the proposed height of this development to neighbouring low-density areas.
2) Heritage, Character, and Environmental Erosion. Fundamentally, the NSW TOD policy and accompanying SSD proposals will be highly detrimental to many valuable aspects of the Roseville to Gordon suburbs, including for their impact on irreplaceable heritage housing, the consistent collective nature of the existing Lindfield streets, old-growth trees, tree canopy, soft and deep soil landscapes and wildlife.
3) Visual Bulk, Inappropriate Height, and No Graduated Transition. The proposed nine-storey development “is visually overbearing and entirely out of character with Tyron Road’s established low-rise identity and is in breach of height restrictions, exceeding 28.6 m by a full additional storey. This is highly inconsistent with community expectations. Given it's location, the proposal is unable to provide transition of low-rise housing to this high-density form given it's location and transition of heights from the Lindfield railway station to this lower-density, lower-rise neighbourhood.
4) Amenity Impacts: Overshadowing, Privacy, and Solar Access. Shadow analysis in the application appears misleading and speculative. This misrepresentation risks significant loss of solar access, natural light, and gardens for existing dwellings and I do not understand why these residents (and so many others impacted by all the other multi-storey developments in Lindfield, Roseville, Killara and Gordon) are required to pay the price of this (eg. in their future land and resale values and in their daily amenity) so that the State Government can palm off their responsibilities to resolve the housing shortages and so that the developers can achieve their profit margins. As a local resident, I deeply value solar amenity, urban greenery, local wildlife and access to views of sky and the natural environment, as currently occurs in Lindfield and surrounding suburbs. The proposal is highly inconsistent with these qualities.
5) Traffic, Safety, and Infrastructure Overload. The proposal’s reliance on a single access point onto an already congested Nelson Road, and failure to account for cumulative TOD-related developments around Lindfield, totally neglects the existing complexity of this intersection between Nelson and Tryon and the neighbouring school zone and broader traffic safety and infrastructure pressures. Beyond this intersection between Nelson and Tryon, I can not begin to imagine how drivers will be able to access Archbold Road or The Pacific Highway, particularly in peak hours. Multiple other SSDs in Lindfield—are imminent or already under review and yet NSW Planning seems to be wilfully ignoring or denying that these developments will dramatically and irreversibly lead to more traffic on the local roads. There is no credible transport, pedestrian safety, or emergency access plan that accounts for the scale of growth proposed.
6) Undermining Community Voice and Proper Planning Processes. Along with the other proposed developments around Roseville-Gordon (SSD and other apartment buildings), the scale and density of the 1–5 Nelson Road proposal and the overall number and enormity of developments reflect a State-driven approach that conveniently hands ownership of the housing crisis to profit-&-speed incentivised property development companies that hold minimal respect for the local area, it's existing character and residents, seeking merely to mine it for profit in the short to medium term and that dismisses nuanced, strategic and community-informed planning that will deliver superior outcomes for existing and future residents. The adoption of Council’s alternative scenario represents a more considered path and one that aligns with local values, heritage and environmental assets and sustainable principles. I strongly object to this proposed development.

Dear Sir/Madam
We wish to express our significant strong concerns at the proposed 9 Storey development of 167 Units at 1-5 Nelson Road, Lindfield 2070
If approved this proposed development will be one of the largest development in all of Lindfield – located in a part of the suburb which is particularly unsuitable for constructions of this size and scope.
Like many residents of Lindfield, I am supportive of the principles of State Government initiatives to increase the supply of housing in Kuringai – and indeed also in Lindfield.
There are a number of areas within Lindfield that would be suitable for larger size building development – the proposed Nelson Rd site most definitely is not.
My concerns are set out in more detail below
• The siting of such a large building on the outer perimeter of the 400 Metre Transport Oriented Development (TOD) Border makes no attempt to consider the overall form, character and public utilisation of the Lindfield Town Centre. In fact, this building will far exceed in height and bulk the majority of buildings in the centre of the Lindfield TOD 400m Zone.

• The site is highly unsuitable for major public-works style construction activities
o Nelson Road is steep and narrow at this point, with an important 4 way stop-sign intersection with Tryon Rd adjacent to the proposed site. This intersection is an important thoroughfare for all Lindfield residents but is regularly blocked when delivery drivers double park. It would be dangerous to local residents and highly disruptive to use Nelson and Tryon Roads in any way to support demotion and construction activities.
o Nelson Road is steeply sloping at the proposed sites of construction, and again an important thoroughfare for local residents. The movement of significant numbers of heavy construction vehicles would create new dangers for local drivers and pedestrians (the very recent heavy construction vehicle accident in a similar sloping residential street in Denistone in Sydney's North on August 11th highlights the unpredictability and danger of construction activities in a suburban setting )
o Moreover, the Sydney Korean Community Church sits on the Tryon Rd/Nelson Rd intersection and is regularly very busy with large numbers of parishioner’s and other community events creating significant vehicular and pedestrian traffic – again creating potentially dangerous situations.
• The proposed development creates significant issues of overshadowing, incursion on privacy and impacts on solar access.
o The impacts of overshadowing and invasion of privacy are significant for the many existing residents whose homes sit at a much lower height than the proposed upper floors of the development. Loss of canopy cover is also a significant issue for all local residents and Kuringai in general.
o The potential loss of solar access is an important financial consideration for those residents who have invested in rooftop solar energy paneling.
• Another overlooked factor in the development application is the close proximity of the Cromehurst School on the corner of Tryon Rd and Nelson Rd (for students with moderate to severe intellectual disability). The roads around this school are especially busy around drop-off and pick-up time, with students regularly on teacher supervised walks around the neighbourhood – again another potential source of danger for locals and students.
• The road intersections surrounding the proposed development would suffer massively increased amounts of heavy traffic and changes in patterns of daily commuter traffic – put simply, Lindfield does not have the infrastructure and road network on the Eastern Side of the railway line to absorb construction activities of this scale.
• It is critical to note that the proposed Nelson/Tryon Rd development should not be viewed in isolation – a number of other significant developments are proposed in close proximity.
o the timing of proposed nearby State Significant Developments on Trafalgar Ave and also on Tryon Rd will likely be ongoing at a similar time – this will massively impact the ability of Lindfield’s roads, infrastructure and residents to cope with these intrusions
o Were these 3 developments to be under construction concurrently, it would be catastrophic to the quality of life and public health of residents of the area and other regular visitors – it would seem that no consideration has been given to the combined impact of these activities in a very confined part of the suburb.
• Building on our comments above – developments of this size and scope have significant impacts on the heritage character and streetscapes of this part of Lindfield.
o Of concern, there does not seem to have been any consideration given to an appropriate transition from higher density to lower housing areas on the Eastern side of Lindfield.
• Of particular concern are the environmental impacts of this proposed development – the significant loss of tree canopy and mature trees, as well as the potential for waste run-off into Middle Harbour Creek which may impact residential properties well downstream from the Nelson Rd site, as well as National Park bushland beyond. Of concern, the majority of 5 Nelson Rd sits within a mapped flood zone with a creek - any building work in this location will create significant potential flooding issues for surrounding properties on all sides ( not to mention the structural challenges of building a 9 Storey building on a flood zone ).
• The issues of parking and traffic congestion are already of major concern to Lindfield residents
o the addition of this proposed development of 167 units (potentially in conjunction with 2 others of similar size in very close proximity) will have severe consequences, with a consequent increasing risk of accidents to drivers and pedestrians.
In summary, we believe the proposed development is highly inappropriate and will create a significant detrimental impact of the quality of life and health of existing Lindfield residents.
As stated at the outset, i am not opposed to the principles of the Transport Oriented Development Strategy – i believe that Lindfield does have some sites which are far more appropriate for developments of this scale than the proposed site at 1-5 Nelson Road.
We sincerely hope that our comments will be taken into serious consideration.
Yours sincerely
Ian Adams

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.