I am a resident of Lindfield and would like to express my strong OBJECTION to Landmark's proposal for 1-5 Nelson Road.
I also like to make it quite clear that this is no so called "nimbyism" as I do not oppose extra density to house more people able to live closer to trains, shops and services. To enable this to happen Ku-ring-gai Council has developed an alternative TOD in consultation with the DPHI, (as I understand) as well as with the residents of the community.
I and others in Ku-ring-gai have supported the council's alternative TOD with it's whopping building heights of up to 61m in Lindfield (even if we could have preferred lower), heights which gradually fall, easing down to far lower apartment blocks along street boundaries which are to separate the denser R3 areas from the lower R2 zonings, where we will see town houses, terraces, etc., and even single houses.
Flying in the face of the future R2 area, the applicant is recklessly proposing to plonk a building of bulk and scale clearly out of place with the future zoning and will dwarf its far lower neighbours, compromising their privacy and "unfortunately" (to quote Landmark's own terminology!) even causing total loss of sunlight during those short winter days when sun is needed most, as has been noted in the winter shadow diagrams.
I would also like to make a specific comment about the applicant's claimed shortest walking distance of 500 m along Kochia Lane, as shown in the Environmental Impact Statement p52 fig 34 under "Accessibility". I know the route well and would not recommend it as safe. The path is narrow and in the absence of a nature-strip pedestrians are forced out onto the roadway in order to pass each other. There are telegraph poles in the middle of the pathway as well forcing foot traffic onto the roadway, an instance of which I even observed yesterday.. The lack of safety of the route can be seen in the photos in the attachment.

IN SUMMARY:
1. The proposal is in conflict with the Ku-ring-gai Council's alternative TOD which is currently waiting gazettal by the state government.
2. The proposal is unnecessary: Affordable and increased housing numbers are well catered for close to station in proposed high density and mixed residential zoning to the west side of Lindfield station plus areas to the east of the station as seen in the council's alternative TOD.
3. Bulk and scale of such a proposal in the middle of an R2 is inappropriate, out of place and obtrusive.
4. Destruction of amenity for surrounding residences of the future permitted LMR R2 zone as well as those presently existing that may choose not to develop
5. A safe walking distance is greater than only 500m from the station.

Due to the above, I humbly request that this proposal not be progressed.

Allowing this development to get as far as it has and now paving the way for it to continue in the absence environmental assessment and planning (incl. biodiversity, flora & fauna, tree canopies) goes against the grain of processes that are meant to safeguard against decisions we can't undo or make up for later. With successive development, whether for individual residences or medium/high density developments, there have been years' of tree removal (approved AND illegal) that all adds up to sizeable loss of tree canopy and biodiversity in our LGA that is one of the key attractants for many who choose to live in the area.

There is currently major traffic flow issues already into and out of Lindfield, especially if seeking to connect to Pacific Hwy and have option of travelling northbound or southbound. For now, this is only supported at one location, via a narrow single-lane (for each direction) rail underpass that regularly sees kilometres of waiting traffic from three feeder streets. This is only if seeking to use Pacific Hwy. A similar situation exists esp. in peak travel times towards the east side, travelling Archibold Road. The idea of adding many TOD developments and then also adding non-TOD developments like this one into the locality without significant re-engineering of road/traffic infrastructure and management to support this is a disaster in the making.

The development is within a heritage zone and is significantly out of character with the neighbourhood street scape.
The loss of social amenity of properties - immediately and with sight lines of the development - would be substantial. Including the loss of environmental diversity and green scape.
The bulk and height is excessive and exceeds the maximum permitted building height. The development would result in major overshadowing and privacy concerns.
The development is in a flood zone and has associated implications for future issues with water related matters - including an already maxed out stormwater system in the area.
The area is not set up for the additional traffic congestion at the ingress and egress points and at the major intersections to exit from Lindfield. If adhering to environmental and sustainability matters, including the affordability and close to public transport claims the parking should be reduced to a maximum of 1 space per lot with consideration of bike storage and alternative transport planning.
If permitted to proceed the developers should be required to provide a significant contribution to the increased demands on local infrastructure.

The latest TOD planning for Kuringai area has already involved building over 24000 new dwellings in this area which will negatively affect the environment, traffic and parking in this area. The proposed Concept Development Application which will involve 167 apartments outside the TOD will further worsen the problem. The TOD which was finalised after extensive consultation with the community does not include the proposed project.
According to the latest TOD planning, maximum height allowed in the area of the Concept Development Application is only 9.5 meters . The proposed 9 storey development will cause a lot of problems for its neighbors in the sense of shadow and privacy. It will also destroy the character of this area especially that the proposed location is situated within a heritage area and subject to heritage overlay.

1. This consolidated site appears to be outside the 400 metre catchment from the station and shouldn't qualify for TOD.
2. The overall height scale and bulk of this building is hopelessly out of scale with the predominantly single/double storey surrounding residences
3. This building would severely impact the solar access to 6 single story houses immediately south, along Tryon Rd.
4. Likewise there would be devastating impacts to privacy via overlooking to the above houses and several along the eastern boundary in Lightfoot Pde.
5. Allowing access to Nelson Pde for 251 houses would compound an already congested major access road.
6. If anything is to be approved here, this building should be restricted to 3 storeys with basement parking.

Mark Jackson / retired architect

I have lived In Lindfield, on the eastern side of the railway line, for about 23 years and am very familiar with the site at 1-5 Nelson Rd. I strongly object to this development for the following reasons:
1. I did not receive a flyer about this development
2. This large development is to be positioned in a Heritage Conservation Area (Crown Blocks Heritage Conservation area) which is completely inappropriate and out of character
3. Two out of three properties in this development are outside of the original TODD zone ie they are more than 400metres from Lindfield Station. Considering this the height of this proposed development is in excess of the maximum building height limit. In the original TOD this area would have been eligible for low and mid rise housing (maximum 4 storeys). Even in the Kuringgai Council preferred alternative plan these blocks are zoned R2, not R4, and definitely not zoned for 9 storeys.
4.The bulk and scale of this development will overshadow and dwarf the residential houses adjacent. They will be robbed of sunlight and lose privacy.
5. The leafy streetscape, for which Kuring-gai is recognised and valued, will be destroyed and there will be a detrimental effect on the precious tree canopy and wildlife.
6. Crucially: The location of this development, on the corner of Nelson Road and Tryon Road will inevitably have a very negative effect on traffic flow and congestion within and entering and exiting Lindfield. This is already a very busy corner, adjacent to a school, and it is central to the alternative route in and out of Lindfield for residents on the eastern side of the railway line who wish to avoid the congested area on Lindfield Ave immediately adjacent to the railway station and Harris Farm. It iseems to be a confusing corner for many motorists who seem uncertain as to who has the right of way (those crossing Nelson Road from Tryon Road and heading west, or those turning on to Nelson Rd from Tryon Road, heading east. Extra traffic will increase the risk of accidents on this corner.
7. This proposal should not be accepted based on a concept drawing. There is no adequate provision for necessary new infrastructure and services to cope with this number of extra residents and vehicles and the number needs to be considered in addition to the number proposed in the several other SSDs currently being assessed for Lindfield, not in isolation. How are the roads, footpaths, crossings, schools, ...going to cope with the extra demand?
8. There is also inadequate explanation of how this development will impact storm water, flooding risk and soil. In fact the zoning map within the geotechnical report has the site shown as Middle Harbour Rd not Nelson Rd, which is a different area altogether.

In my opinion this proposal should be rejected.

As a 24 year old, I've spent my whole life growing up in this area and have been very proud of our local community's efforts towards conservation and heritage. This project spits in the face of everything and everyone in this community. It's ridiculous to think that we're going to be building an excessive 32m tall complex right within a heritage area right next to single and double story homes. How do you expect the existing infrastructure of Nelson and its neighbouring roads to accomodate all of this? A single 9 story building on a road full of homes next to a school... what a farce!