Dear Adela,

I am writing to express my strong objection to this proposed development which would be entirely non-compliant under Council's Preferred Scenario. No doubt, these fast-tracked applications seek to bypass Councils' legitimate processes, thus undermining the Court-Mediated Agreement between Council and the NSW Government. Unlike the TOD, Council's Preferred Scenario was the result of a lengthy community engagement process which locals were afforded the opportunity to participate in.

I am supportive of development in Ku-ring-gai which duly conforms with Council's Preferred Scenario.

I note other points specific to this proposed development as well.

The height and density are significant - proposal for 10 storeys and 135 apartments which will obviously be visually jarring in lieu of the surrounding site.

There will be significant impacts to heritage, with 9 neighbouring heritage properties, and the proposed development site being contained in a Heritage Conservation Area.

Current infrastructure is not adequate to account for the increased density, especially the local roads infrastructure. There are already significant parking and traffic congestion issues in the area, and this will only be exacerbated with the addition of 195 car spaces.

I also note that despite the EIS discussing the proposed development site as being "a short walk to Killara Village" no site exists to my knowledge. I further note that the EIS contains no information about the impact on Killara High School and other local primary schools. I note that instead, the EIS merely mentions the locality of "schools" as a matter for consideration. The EIS lacks comprehensiveness in this way. For example, I am interested to know about the enrolments at Killara High School and whether they have further capacity for student intake.

Thank you.

I object to SSD-81890707 - Residential flat buildings with infill affordable housing -10, 14 and 14a Stanhope Road, Killara. This development is inappropriate for Killara, not in the public interest, it contradicts Ku-ring-gai Council’s Preferred Alternative Scenario for Killara, and prioritizes corporate profit over community well-being.
I urge the NSW Planning to reject Stanhope Road Residence Holdings Pty Limited’s proposal and adopt Ku-ring-gai Council’s approach, which, unlike the NSW Planning TOD or, the Stanhope Road SSD, was developed after extensive community consultation.

I object to this project in its proposed form.
Currently it appears that the developer has taken the view that any development is likely to be approved. Elements which concern me are:
!. The extent to which height variations have been used to maximise available building mass. The allowable variations should be capped at the standard in the planning ratios.
2. The dominance of the highest towers at the rear of the property. Emphasis is given to the streetscape and the visual effect of the buildings from that view.
3. There are drainage and fire access issues which need to be addressed. I am not qualified to comment but these matters need to be addressed.
4.Traffic & parking both during and after the construction phase. I suggest that the whole north side of Stanhope Road between Pacific Highway and Culworth Avenue be designated No Parking during construction hours to ensure near normal traffic flows in what is at times quite congested due to heavy use of on street parking on both sides.
5. I suggest that provision of traffic lights be required at the intersection of Pacific Highway, Fiddens Wharf Road and Stanhope Road to ensure safety
6. Such traffic lights will assist the imposition of 195 parking spaces in this development and the resultant traffic.
7. Construction traffic will add to existing congestion, in Stanhope Road, Pacific Highway and feeder streets.
8.I leave it to others to cover the more technical details. My perspective is that this development is an overreach in terms of its ambition.

Objections to this project are outlined in the attached document

3 June 2025
To whom it may concern,
Submission re:
SSD81890707, involving Nos 10, 14 and 14A Stanhope Road, Killara, NSW 2071 is, in my humble opinion—and I believe should appear so to any responsible human being—a crass, exploitative, extraordinarily wasteful money grab that deserves nothing but rejection by whoever in the NSW Planning Department or the Minister for Planning, The Honorable Paul Scully, adjudicates whether it is justifiable for, at least, the following reasons:

• The appalling waste that would result from the demolition of battle-axed No.10, which is only 25-years-old and a huge, solid, doubtless double-brick, “mansion” that is as large or larger than the first flats built in Ku-ring-gai in the late 1920s, has a rather rococo floor space of some 819+ sqm, 7 bedrooms, 7 bathrooms on 2,007 sqms of manicured land and, as recently as November 2021, was purchased for $16.5m and has been undergoing renovations (doubtless additions!) ever since is unconsionable to the extent of being wicked, even evil.

• How could what must be an enormous monetary offer from developer CPDM to the current, already obviously wealthy, owners to acquire No. 10 Stanhope Road, plus two more big sums to acquire No. 14, an early build updated that fetched $3.2m in 2005, and No. 14A, which is a knockdown/rebuild of only five years of age (Ku-ring-gai Council Application Lodgement CCPCA0002/19 @ 15.01.2019), being two more examples of gross wastefullness, ever result in “affordable housing”? Even if a few affordable units are mandated to secure an increased FRS, at the 15-years release of the mandate, ownership of those units will be well beyond the means of the maybe essential workers who had been fortunate enough to occupy them, or anyone on a moderate income.

• This development would completely flout the Government’s unrealistic Transport Oriented Development (TOD) concept, into which its location fits. The provision of two levels of parking, amounting to 195 car spaces for the total of 135 apartments, unlike the Government, CPDM is realistic about the survival of the motor car. However, this garaging provision is bound to prove to be insufficient and cause overflow street parking problems in the section of Stanhope Road, between the Pacific Highway and the railway line--which many residents of the cheek by jowl apartment blocks around the corner in ridiculously narrow Culworth Avenue must also use—that already struggles with a heavy traffic flow into and out of the Pacific Highway without the aid of traffic lights, even though signs direct traffic off the Highway to reach Newington College Prep School, Dalcross Wellness Hospital and Marian Street Theatre. There are lights at the junction with Werona Avenue and the backup of cars on that short section of Stanhope Road is constant. Bumper to bumper street parking overflow from the projected development would certainly cause it to be over congested.

• SSD81890707 would encroach on and overshadow a greatly admired Ku-ring-gai Conservation Area with an interesting, if complicated ,very early history (c. 1890) and a mix of substantial Federation and Inter-War style residences—significant as a reflection of the late 19th and early 20th century development of Killara built for prominent citizens, including a Justice of the Peace, medical professional, Professor of Music, lawyer, journalist/writer, female economics historian and international civil servant ,bankers, major merchants, and an insurance manager, the first president of the Killara Golf Club.

• Nine of the 21 houses in this short section of Stanhope Road are listed in the Ku-ring-gai Local Environment Plan 2015 and Nos. 2,4,6,12,18 and their neighbours would be excessively dominated and overshadowed by the height of the proposed development while across the road inhabitants of Nos 3, 5 and 7, even 21, would probably only be able to see a clear sky from their back yards, looking south.

• Protectors of and the threatened species wildlife and critically endangered Blue Gum and Sydney Turpentine Ironbark forest remnants that grace this Stanhope Road strip of the wildlife corridor that connects the Lane Cove and Garigal National Parks require more survival security than is evident will be provided in this proposal.

There is absolutely no question that an approval of SSD81890707, or any plans even remotely like it would be a catastrophy for the neighbours, nature, and the ambience of the top end of Stanhope Road, Killara. So, please, deny it.

Yours with hope,
Carolyn Darby
PO Box 595
Gordon NSW 2073

To Whom it may concern
NSW DPHI
I wish to express my strong objection toward SSD-81890707, residential flat buildings at 10, 14 and 14a Stanhope Road, Killara.
Delibrate act to use state TOD as instrument to land bad design
The first reason for my objection is that the proposal is inconsistent with Local council’s alternative TOD plan (Preffered Scenario). At the time of lodgement of the SSD the council’s alternative plan has been publicly exhibited, to the majority that this is the understanding that the alternative plan represent greater public interest. However the EIS prepared for SSD-81890707 is silent about this fact. Which would render this plan a delibrate act to avoid compliance with the preffered scenarios which would consitute a much lower FSR ratio. This will result in a much lower financial return for the project. It can be argued that the proposal is using the state’s TOD plan as a vehicle to land bad design that completely disregard existing urban fabric with the pure intention to generate profit. The argument is further evident in the proposal’s attempt to provide Minimum required number of affordable housing while maximising sellable floor area by adding extra floor height. I consider the proposal inappropriate to be approved through SSD due to its lack of attempt to consider council’s alternative TOD scenarios which inturn reflect the developer’s delibrate attempts to act against public interest and comply with KLEP 2015.
Questionable legitamacy of heritage assessment
Furthermore, The heritage impact statement (HIS) prepared for the SSD application made no attempt to conduct comprehensive analysis of the adverse impact the project will have on number 12 Stanhope, a property and an heritage item isolated by the development site. Nor did the HIS analyse the impact the development will have on the broader Heritage conservation area. The HIS is a mere description of the Heritage items to which I consider must not be accepted as sufficent analysis for determination of the application to be based on. It can be argued that this is a another delibrate act to down play the significant role of the heritage and cultural value of the built environment, that local residents and sydneysiders cherished for over a century.
Numerical satisfaction does not constitute approval
While the EIS claims the proposal meets many planning principles numerically, this does not justify approval without consideration of qualitative impacts. The residents of 12 Stanhope Road, for example, currently enjoy privacy, unobstructed views toward the rear, and substantial solar access — all of which will be severely compromised by the proposed development. The submitted shadow diagrams explicitly show a significant reduction in solar access with the exceeded height, yet the applicant has made no attempt to mitigate this impact or propose suitable alternatives. The drastic reduction in amenity and the lack of responsiveness to this concern is unacceptable. Planning and design should also consider quality of space and liveability, not just regulatory compliance.
Questionable community engagement strategies
The development proposal has also demonstrated a significant lack of meaningful community engagement. Many local residents were unaware of the project until its public exhibition on the NSW Major Projects Portal. The applicant’s engagement report claims that approximately 500 flyers were distributed; however, the effectiveness of this exercise is highly questionable. Only five residents reportedly attended the information session hosted by the applicant, raising serious doubts about the reach and clarity of the communication efforts.
Whether by design or through neglect, the 1 percent response rate is appauling. At the very least, it reflects a minimal approach to community consultation, which is especially concerning given the scale and long term impact of the proposal. A development of this significance should be grounded in transparency and genuine community conversation.

I would like to formally object to the proposed residential development with in-fill affordable housing at 10-14A Stanhope Road Killara (SSD-81890707). As a resident of Stanhope Road Killara, I am deeply concerned about the potential negative impacts this development may have on our beloved neighbourhood.
1. Traffic Congestion and safety hazards
Stanhope Road is a residential street that is already under strain and I would say already exceeds capacity during school and commuting hours. The proposed development will funnel a substantial volume of additional traffic onto a narrow, two-way road not designed to handle such intensity. This raises serious safety risks for residents, pedestrians and cyclists. The development will also likely increase vehicle queuing and congestion at the Pacific Highway intersection, further compounding transport pressure across Killara.
2. Heritage and Community Character
The proposed development is completely out of character with the surrounding built environment and would erode the heritage fabric of Stanhope Road. It falls within a Heritage Conservation Zone valued for its low density and cohesive architectural identity. It not only isolates and undermines 12 Stanhope Road Killara which is a heritage property but also contradicts the Kuring-Gai Councils preferred alternative scenario to the TOD.
Approving this SSD would be of great disappointment and would damage public trust. For the above mentioned reasons, I strongly urge the Department to refuse this SSD (SSD 81890707).

I would like to object to the proposed residential development with in-fill affordable housing at 10-14A Stanhope Road Killara (SSD-81890707). As a resident of Stanhope Road Killara, I am deeply concerned about the potential negative impacts this development may have on our community and environment.
1. Traffic Congestion: The proposed development is likely to significantly increase traffic congestion on Stanhope Road which is already a huge concern for residents and poses safety risks for pedestrians and cyclists. With over 190 car spaces in the development, will cause severe congestions.
2. Community Character: The scale and design of the proposed development are not in keeping with existing character of Stanhope Road and would significantly impact the heritage of our neighbourhood.
3. Isolation of 12 Stanhope Road Killara, heritage-listed house right in front and adjacent to the proposed development. 12 Stanhope Road Killara is a valued part of our suburb’s architectural and historical legacy. Heritage significant does not exist in isolation – it is dependent on the setting, scale and spatial relationships of its surrounding. The proposed development, from design, to scale and density are wholly out of character within the surround low-density heritage conservation zone of Stanhope and Killara in general.
4. Minimal engagement attempts made by Developer to the community: Neither did myself or my neighbour receive the community flyers from the developer (which explains the poor turn up rate at their community drop-in session). I was informed by the development just a few days ago by a concerned neighbour on Stanhope Road.
I strongly urge that this SSD application (SSD-81890707) for 10-14A Stanhope Road must be put on hold until an agreement is reached between Kuring-gai Council and NSW State Government. This is because the Councils preferred alternative TOD (which was publicly exhibited) suggests that the whole Stanhope Road Heritage Conservation Area would be preserved. Thus, this SSD would be completely out-of-line.