As a resident of Stanhope Road, I treasure the aesthetic beauty of our local area and particularly the houses on my street, Stanhope Rd. Many of these houses are heritage listed and with good reason.
This proposal is for buildings that are completely out of character with the surrounding housing. The dwelling density and high rise housing is incompatible with the local area and there has been little or no consideration given to the heritage issues in immediate proximity of the proposed building site. The proposal breaches by more than three times, the height limits for the R2 Low Rise Residential Zoning and even breaches, by more than 20%, the heights allowed under the TOD program.
Therefore, I oppose this development.

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing to strongly object to the proposed development at 10–14A Stanhope Road, Killara (SSD-81890707). This proposal raises significant concerns regarding heritage protection, sound planning principles, and the established character of our community. It is clearly at odds with Ku-ring-gai Council’s preferred alternative for Transit-Oriented Development (TOD), which prioritises the preservation of the Stanhope Road Heritage Conservation Area.

There are several key issues with this proposal:

The development would be located immediately adjacent to the heritage-listed property at 12 Stanhope Road, which would be visually dominated and isolated due to the excessive height and bulk of the proposed building.

It includes the demolition of the heritage-listed home at 14 Stanhope Road, further eroding the architectural and historical integrity of the conservation area.

The proposed use of a battleaxe block for a ten-storey, high-density development is highly inappropriate and represents poor urban planning. The site has limited street access and is wholly incompatible with the surrounding residential context.

If approved, this would be the only ten-storey building on the eastern side of Killara, standing in stark contrast to the area’s established low-rise character and setting a concerning precedent.

Additionally, while the proposal is being marketed as “affordable housing,” there is a lack of transparency around whether it will truly deliver housing that is affordable to those who need it. Many residents are concerned that this is simply a case of developer opportunism, masquerading as a public good.

In summary, this development undermines the aims of the heritage conservation framework, disrupts the cohesive character of the streetscape, and conflicts with the community’s expectations and the established planning logic for the area.

For these reasons, I urge the Department to reject SSD-81890707.

I object to the project because it is much too big and overshadows all the other apartments and houses in the area.

Dear Sir or Madam,

I am writing to formally object to the proposed development project for the following reasons:

1. Inconsistency with Council’s Preferred Scenario
According to the Council’s preferred scenario—which takes into account community feedback, local character, heritage considerations, and appropriate transition—this site is clearly not suitable for high-density development. The presence of surrounding 9 heritage-listed items within 50m radius on the same street further reinforces that it is only appropriate for low-rise zoning, such as single dwelling houses.

2. Excessive Floor Space Ratio and Building Height
The proposed FSR of 3.25 and building height of 33.07 metres are vastly greater than the area's current planning controls, which permit an FSR of 0.3 and a maximum height of 9.5 metres for lot 14, FSR of 0.85 for 10 and 14A. Such a scale would severely impact the surrounding area by disrupting solar access, diminishing sunlight, and altering the established character of nearby properties—raising significant transition concerns.

3. Inadequate Deep Soil Provision
The proposal includes only 23% deep soil, far below the required 50%. This shortfall undermines essential urban design principles including tree canopy retention, biodiversity support, and effective stormwater infiltration.

Given the above concerns, I strongly urge that this project be rejected. The Council’s preferred scenario is the result of 18 months of collaborative work between the Council and the community, and it should be respected in future planning decisions.

Thank you for considering my submission.

I would like to raise two main objections to the proposed development – one in relation to aesthetics and the other concerning traffic flow.
Aesthetics
I appreciate that increased accommodation is a necessity. However, the proposed 10 or 11 stories are far too high and totally against the character of the surrounds.
They will tower over all properties and look straight down on my property in 10 Marian St.
I would suggest they be restricted to 5 stories, in line with other properties in the area.
Traffic Flow
The intersections of Pacific Highway, Fiddens Wharf Road and Stanhope Road presents major traffic flow problems at the current time, where queues for turning traffic flow into the through lanes.
Fiddens Wharf Rd. is a major connector to and from Ryde Rd.
The addition of possibly another 200 cars from this area will create even further difficulties at this particular intersection, leading to the need to install traffic lights. There is currently no spare street parking and this will be exacerbated by the proposal.
I would also suggest you would need to open up further right hand turns from the Pacific Highway heading north.
During the construction phase of several years the trucks arriving and departing will create a nightmare. If they use the Highway this will create further problems as mentioned above.
Culworth Avenue is not a suitable Road with its light surface, no gutters on one side and provision for traffic in only one direction at a time. The bridge over the railway at Stanhope is too narrow.

Dear Sir/Madam,
This proposal raises serious concerns in terms of heritage protection, planning integrity, and community character. It is directly at odds with Ku-ring-gai Council’s preferred alternative scenario for the Transit-Oriented Development (TOD), which supports the preservation of the Stanhope Road Heritage Conservation Area.
Key issues include:
- The proposed development is adjacent to a heritage-listed property at 12 Stanhope Road, which would be visually overwhelmed and isolated by the scale and form of this development.
- It involves the demolition of a heritage conservation home at 14 Stanhope Road, eroding the architectural and historical continuity of the area.
- The use of a battleaxe block for a high-density, ten-storey development is not only inappropriate but represents poor urban planning practice. It is an unsuitable site with limited street access and a completely incompatible context.
- If approved, this would be the only ten-storey development on the entire east side of Killara, standing in stark contrast to the established low-rise residential character of the suburb.
Additionally, while the development is framed as providing "affordable housing," it is unclear whether it will deliver genuinely affordable outcomes for those in need. Many in the community are concerned that this is simply a case of developer-driven opportunism, disguised under the banner of public benefit.
This proposal undermines the intent of the heritage conservation framework and threatens the cohesive streetscape that residents value. It represents an overreach that lacks alignment with local context, planning logic, and community expectations.
For these reasons, I strongly urge the Department to reject SSD-81890707 (10-14A Stanhope Road Killara).

An SSDA application has been lodged for 135 apartments under the State TOD ( NSW Housing SEPP) which would not be permitted under Kuringgai Councils alternative TOD. It will result in a series of 5-10 storey apartment buildings within a predominately two storey low density zone (R2). The development will be incongruous with the resolved Council TOD. The development will be an exemplar of poor planning due to Council and State inability to cooperate.
The proposal is of low architectural/design merit significantly below professional urban design standards. The project has not undertaken a State Significant Design review. The impact of bulk, height and scale on adjoining housings has not been considered.
The proposal significantly exceeds the permitted planning heights and other planning standards without justification and mitigation of the impacts on the surrounding area.
The proposal fails to integrate with the character housing streetscape and gives token consideration of nearby heritage items.
The proposal includes affordable housing under the Housing SEPP to utilize the SSDA planning pathway to secure permissibility using the proforma letter from Echo Realty. Similar letters have featured in dozens of SSDA’s and are a perverse mechanism to avoid the scrutiny and accountability of a normal DA application.
The proposal has failed to meet consultation standards with insufficient and misleading information to solicit genuine informed feedback.

Director – Planning Assessments
Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure
GPO Box 39
Sydney NSW 2001
Email: [email protected]
Re: Objection to State Significant Development (SSD) Proposal at 10, 14, and 14a Stanhope Road, Killara NSW 2071

Dear Planning Assessment Officer,
I write to lodge a formal objection to the proposed State Significant Development at 10, 14, and 14a Stanhope Road, Killara. This proposal raises significant concerns across planning compliance, heritage protection, environmental sustainability, traffic and safety, procedural fairness, and public policy consistency. For the reasons set out below, I submit that this application should be refused.

1. Irreversible Heritage Loss
The demolition of 14 Stanhope Road would cause irreparable harm to the area’s heritage fabric:
• The property is a contributory item in a Heritage Conservation Area under the Ku-ring-gai LEP 2015.
• It possesses historical and aesthetic significance, and its loss would permanently alter the character of Stanhope Road.
• Courts have consistently held — as in Moore Theological College v Sydney City Council [2015] NSWLEC 165 — that heritage must be seriously considered and not brushed aside for development convenience.

2. Improper Use of TOD Uplift
The development misuses Transport Oriented Development (TOD) incentives:
• The site lies in the 400–800m catchment from Killara Station, which warrants moderate uplift — not the high-density scaling proposed.
• The TOD Program requires developments in this range to be context-sensitive and appropriately scaled, not high-rise.
• This proposal ignores those parameters and overreaches with bulk and height unjustified by transport infrastructure.
• In Telstra v Hornsby Shire Council [2006] NSWLEC 133, the Court stressed the need for environmental and contextual harmony in development decisions — principles flouted here.

3. Misleading Policy Representation and Procedural Unfairness
The government’s description of this type of development as “mid-rise” is misleading:
• The Minister’s 21 February 2025 statement refers to mid-rise housing as “3–6 storeys,” and Planning NSW guidance aligns with this.
• Yet the proposal reaches 11 storeys — well beyond what the public was led to expect.
• Mischaracterising such developments as “mid-rise” undermines informed public engagement, casting doubt on the legitimacy of consultation.
• In SZSSJ [2016] HCA 29 and Plaintiff M61/2010E v Commonwealth [2010] HCA 41, the High Court confirmed the need for accurate, reliable administrative conduct during public consultation processes.

4. Flawed community consultation
• Additionally, the developer included a photograph of me without my consent in the "Engagement Outcomes Report" (Appendix 17, page 6). This image was taken and published without permission, and I was not informed that my likeness would be used in project documentation. The unauthorised use of my image calls into question the transparency and integrity of the community consultation process. It suggests that the engagement was not conducted in good faith and further underscores the procedural deficiencies of the proposal’s public consultation.

5. Excessive Bulk and Height
The scale of the development grossly violates local planning controls:
• The Ku-ring-gai LEP 2015 caps building height at 9–10.5 metres — appropriate for a low-density suburb.
• This application proposes a height of over 36 metres, almost double the maximum, and without acceptable justification.
• Section 4.15(1)(a)(i) of the EP&A Act mandates consistency with statutory planning instruments.
• The NSW Land and Environment Court in Randwick City Council v Micaul Holdings Pty Ltd [2007] NSWLEC 225 held that significant breaches of planning controls warrant refusal unless exceptional circumstances exist — none are evident here.

6. Environmental Impact and Urban Forest Loss
The project proposes widespread tree removal, contradicting sustainability goals:
• Numerous mature canopy trees would be lost, reducing biodiversity, shade, and climate resilience in a suburb with an established green character.
• This contradicts the Ku-ring-gai Urban Forest Strategy and violates Section 1.3(d) of the EP&A Act, which requires sustainable and ecologically sound development.
• The precedent in Boener v Sydney Water Corporation [2005] NSWLEC 101* confirms that unjustified loss of established vegetation is a valid ground for refusal.

7. Dangerous Traffic and Access Outcomes
The development threatens the safety and accessibility of the local road network:
• The projected increase in traffic (nearly 200 vehicle movements daily) funnels through a narrow residential street ill-suited to such loads.
• This creates risks for pedestrians, limits emergency vehicle access, and undermines residential amenity.
• Under Section 4.15(1)(e) of the EP&A Act, the public interest — including safety — must be prioritised.
• As held in Zhang v Canterbury City Council [2001] NSWLEC 4, traffic impacts can be fatal to an application’s merits.

8. Inadequacies and Errors in the Environmental Impact Statement
The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) submitted with the proposal is flawed:
• It misrepresents key facts — including falsely suggesting 12 Stanhope Road is precedent for TOD development, despite it being heritage-listed and ineligible.
• It also appears to manipulate height measurements by using elevated street datum, inflating compliance.
• In Stockland v Manly Council [2004] NSWLEC 472, the Court rejected attempts to misrepresent built form through selective data presentation.

9. Premature and Prejudicial Process
The timing of the SSD is inappropriate:
• TOD Scenario 3B for Killara remains under development. Assessing this application before its release risks setting an irreversible precedent without proper community input.
• Kioa v West (1985) 159 CLR 550 affirms that procedural fairness requires affected parties to be meaningfully consulted before decisions are made.
• Advancing a project of this scale now would pre-empt and undermine the strategic planning process currently underway.

10. Absence of Social Licence and Public Support
This development lacks local support and proceeds against community will:
• Ku-ring-gai Council has formally objected to the proposal, reflecting the consistent opposition from residents and stakeholders.
• In participatory planning systems, community input is not a box-ticking exercise — it is a core part of democratic development control.

11. Breakdown in Planning Governance and Integrity
The broader governance implications are deeply concerning:
• Repeated use of “mid-rise” to describe 10+ storey towers invites public distrust in planning authorities.
• As noted in Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Teoh (1995) 183 CLR 273, public expectations created by government statements may carry legal and ethical implications.
• Planning must uphold transparency and accountability, especially when significant departures from existing controls are proposed.

Conclusion and Requests
For these reasons, I respectfully request that the Department:
1. Reject the SSD proposal outright;
2. Defer any assessment until the Ku-ring-Gai Council TOD Scenario 3B has been finalised;
3. Ensure future public communications accurately define “mid-rise” housing in accordance with government policy and common understanding.
The proposal as it stands is excessive, premature, and incompatible with both local planning instruments and broader public interest. I urge the Department to exercise caution, act lawfully, and safeguard the character and heritage of Killara.

Yours sincerely,
Resident of Stanhope Road, Killara, NSW 2071

I have concerns about the development as proposed in its current form, as outlined in the attached submission.