Subject: Objection to Proposed Development at [Site Address, if known]
Dear NSW Planning Department,
I am writing as a concerned resident to formally object to the proposed development located at 1-5 Nelson Road, Lindfield. While I appreciate the importance of development in our community, I believe this proposal is unsuitable for several critical environmental, safety, and amenity-related reasons.
1. Traffic and Pedestrian Safety Concerns
The intersection at Nelson and Tryon Road is already heavily congested, particularly during peak hours. The proposed development will significantly increase traffic volume, making it even more hazardous for families and children to cross safely. The increased vehicle activity in an already busy area poses a serious risk to pedestrians.
2. Inadequate Consideration of Natural Waterways and Flood Risk
There is an unnamed creek running along the north-eastern border of the proposed site which receives minimal mention in the development application. This creek experiences substantial water flow during even light rain, and the “Middle Harbour Southern Catchments Flood Study” (2023) already identifies it as over capacity. Any additional runoff from the proposed development could severely increase flood risks for downstream properties, particularly on Lightcliff Avenue and Slade Avenue, impacting those communities adversely.
3. Inconsistencies with Flood Zoning Regulations
Particularly concerning is the intention to excavate a three-level underground car park at Number 5 Nelson, a property located within a Category 1 flood zone. The Council's own planning controls designate Category 1 zones as suitable for only limited development. The omission of the probable maximum flood level from the proposal is unacceptable, especially given this data is publicly available on Council’s website. Approval of a nine-storey structure in this flood-prone area contradicts our Council’s stated flood management guidelines.
4. Excessive Scale and Poor Urban Transition
The scale and bulk of the proposed nine-storey development is wholly inappropriate for this low-density residential neighbourhood. Its height and built form are visually dominant, entirely out of character with the surrounding streetscape. This poor transition undermines the area's established character and harms the visual amenity.
5. Amenity and Privacy Impacts on Surrounding Residents
Residents will experience a substantial loss of privacy, especially those whose homes back onto or face the site. Increased noise levels, overshadowing, and loss of outlook will significantly impact quality of life for current residents in what is otherwise a quiet and peaceful area.
In light of these serious concerns, I urge the NSW planning department to reject the development application in its current form. It poses unacceptable environmental risks, contravenes existing planning controls, and fails to respect the scale, character of our local community.

This building will be a blight on the neighbourhood. It is proposed to be 9 stories surrounded by 2 storied houses. Only one block out of 3 is in the original TOD which is has since been paused and none of the blocks will qualify for anything close to this on the new council proposal. Hence if built will be an isolated monstrosity. It is across the street from a special needs school, church and adjacent to a busy dog legged intersection. Already this is a bottleneck point and difficult to negotiate. There is no infrastructure and no capacity for safe pedestrian crossing. This is a blatant attempt at profiteering from an under developed government plan which has since paused. There are more sympathetic ways to increase density in the local area.

Residential Development with In-Fill Affordable Housing
1-5 Nelson Road, Lindfield

Robert Cahill
42 Treatts Road, Lindfield.
31 July 2025.
I have lived in this locality for 44 years total, and nearby, at 42 Treatts Road, Lindfield which is close to the proposed development at 1-5 Nelson Road, for the past 29 years.
In those 44 years in the area, I have lived in one Local Heritage Item listed residence for 15 years, followed by the past 29 years in another Local Heritage Item listed residence. Both residences have a significant impact on the surrounding residential precinct, trees, vegetation and gardens.
Both residences are excellent examples of fine residential architecture representative of the design influences of the time in which they were built. They replicate numerous other such examples completed over the same period across the neighbourhood which collectively provide a holistic, consistent and quality residential environment. The suburb provides a meaningful and historic reflection of the greater area of Sydney.
During this time living in Ku ring gai, I have become familiar with the special attributes of the area in terms of biodiversity, tree canopy and exceptional examples of well-designed built form representing the careful development of the area.
Development Overview.
In regard to this proposal to develop 1-5 Nelson Road, an overview as follows is relevant.
In the original State Government TOD proposal, only two properties on the east side of Nelson Road were designated as a part of the TOD. Only 1 Nelson Road, being one of three properties submitted in this development, is within this original TOD. So 2 of the 3 said properties have never been designated to be developed as a part of the original TOD.
Within the Ku ring gai Council revised TOD, this side of the road is all designated as R2, low rise residential accommodation as built currently.
Random extension of the TOD area only creates planning uncertainty for all concerned but particularly those living outside TOD areas in our municipality, with the threat that at any time, a totally incongruent development can be located immediately adjacent to a property planned to remain low density.
The very purpose of planning controls is to promote consistency, certainty and to provide for aligned expectations. It is unreasonable for any residential area designated as one thing to be subject to a completely different scale and density development.
On this basis alone, this proposal should be rejected.



I make the following points and observations referring to the SEAR requirements.
5. Design Quality
The proposed construction of 167 dwellings, at 1-5 Nelson Road, in the place of 3 residential houses, lacks empathy with the existing environment, look and feel of the surrounding garden suburb. The design includes for a massive comparative scale of 9 storeys against 2 stories, with the new development having 6m boundary setbacks.
The submission repetitively states the design is concept only and does not provide detail as to the design and its materiality despite the fact it rests within a HCA area.
6. Built Form and Urban Design
The building is a 9 storey unit building, immediately bounding existing 2 storey residential development which remains and is designated as R2.
The east side of Nelson Road, of which this development is a part, is a Heritage Conservation Area. The Urbis Heritage Statement acknowledges this disparity and confirms the proposed development is at odds with the criteria and characteristics that a new development ought have in regard to scale, design, materiality. The only reason given to support this approach is, the Heritage Statement proports, is that there are 5 storey residential buildings further down Tryon Road. This is not relevant to this location given the distance between. Further, the buildings down the road are 5 storey, not 9 storey.
The proposed development provides for absolutely no transitioning in building scale and height. It does so as the neighbouring properties are zoned R2 and are within a Heritage Conservation Area. Such a solution reflects very poor planning approach and severely impacts other surrounding residents.
The development has a number of local Heritage items close by at 9 and 15 Nelson Road and immediately behind at 8, 12 and 14 Lightcliffe Avenue. If these items are good enough to be listed as Local Heritage items, they deserve to be respected.
Proposed development so close to such heritage items, all located within Heritage Area, is inappropriate.
Given the locality and context of Lindfield, the setbacks to street facades at 6m are inadequate and do not reflect the general conditions prevailing within the area.
A more appropriate setback to key streets is 9m consistent with residential setbacks of surrounding residential areas at the lower side of the street. (Note high side of streets has a 12m setback) together with commensurate 2 storey building height.


7. Environmental Amenity

The EIS, by Planning Ingenuity, lacks a thorough assessment of the impact of the proposed building.
The large roof top communal breakout spaces will allow extensive overlooking to adjacent 1-2 storey residential properties with an extensive reduction in the quality of privacy for those nearby. Extensive views across to neighbouring properties will occur with detrimental overlooking and potential for noise pollution as well.
It is clearly obvious that a 9 storey building with 6m setbacks from boundaries is totally out of scale with surrounding environment incorporating 1 and 2 storey single dwellings and will have a major negative visual impact upon the immediate environment.

8. Visual Impact
Visual impact analysis within the 1-5 Nelson Road submission is scant.
Where a visual impact assessment were to be done, it would confirm the development to be in a category where the impact is “severe” from all surrounding viewpoints.
Given limited 6m building street setback from Nelson Road and side boundaries, and the 9 storey height, landscaping will not be able to shield views to this proposed building.
The impact of this development will therefore be very high.

9. Transport and Roads
The analysis and comments upon traffic effects within the submission are inadequate.
The report deals with traffic only in respect to a very short distance from the development. However the 167 dwellings proposed with the provision for 251 cars, to replace the 3 households currently on the sites, will have effect upon the surrounding suburb and further distant suburbs.
A detailed and extensive traffic report is required.
Because of inadequate local roads present capacity, entering and leaving the local vicinity around Lindfield can often be slow and tedious.
Some key locations during peak times are:
• Havilah Road/Lindfield Avenue to Pacific Highway requiring 4-5 light changes
• Stanhope Road mornings to Pacific Highway with queued traffic back to Killara Avenue
• Tryon Road west to Archbold Road queued to Howard Street requiring 4-5 light changes both morning and evening peak
The traffic report ignores and does not deal with these current locations and conditions and the cumulative impact of this development.
Commuter/shoppers/school parking regularly takes up street parking around this proposed development so that typically commuter/shoppers cars are parked in the streets at Nelson Road, Tryon Road and Milray Road.
The proposed new development with the amount of parking proposed will cause additional street parking within residential streets with already very limited free capacity.

14 Trees and Landscaping.
The proposed development has little deep soil planting. The Nelson Road setback to building is 6m.
The proposal relies upon tree planting on public land in the nature strip to provide tree planting. This is clearly insufficient to match the present conditions given the existing environment and amenity afforded by the HCA classification and the R2 zoning.

19. Flood Risk.
The current local stormwater system is overwhelmed in high rainfall conditions and the system capacity is unable to cope with the local demands under existing circumstances.
Flooding in the local creeks forming part of the Two Tracks Creek will be further burdened by the additional built form as proposed in this location.

22. Environmental Heritage
The development is located within a HCA area.
The adjacency of 9 storey unit development within this area is inconsistent with the existence of the Heritage Conservation Area.
There are 5 local Heritage Items, residences, located close to this development and the proximity of this 9 storey building will have a severe impact upon these heritage dwellings in terms of scale, height and visual compatibility.
The 9 storey development provides no transition to the adjacent properties at 1-2 storeys.

23. Public Space
The predominant public space within the development is provided as landscape roof space. This is a restricted allocation of outdoor space given many adults with children would be unwilling to have children playing up on a roof top space without supervision.
There is little public space that works as usable public space at ground level within this development, and given 167 dwelling units are proposed, the space allocated is inadequate and inconsistent with adjoining R2 zoned development.

Although I support the Govt TOD, this development is outside the Govt TOD area and also non compliant with Kuringgai Council’s alternative plan.
There seem to be proposals for around 800 units around Lindfield Station, some outside the TOD. All seem to exceed govt proposed height limits.
This proposal is over the TOD height limits.
I understand the TOD is for 6 storeys with a maximum of 30% uplift for affordable housing. How does that translate to 9 storeys. And it is not even within the TOD.
It is just across the road from a special needs school.
There are serious problems with available parking in the neighbouring streets already.
It is being proposed for a residential street with existing one or two storey houses.

1) The proposed project mostly are outside the original TOD zoning and exceed the size of the properties restriction (excessive height - over 32m, exceeds maximum permitted building height)
2) The proposed concept is too dense (9 storeys, 167 units apartment, excessive over the zoning permission and not compatible with the neighborhood.
3) The scale of this project would eventually overload the storm drain and sewage infrastructure and likely resulting flooding.
4) The road, traffic and parking around this area is already tight, especially during peak hours. Congestion would be happening affecting the safety of the road users.

This project should be scaling down or selecting a different site to limit the damage to Lindfield's quiet and peaceful environment.

this proposal is another example to a development that is inappropriate and non sympathetic to the area. The bulk and scale is incompatible to the local neighbourhood and will destroy the amenity and privacy of surrounding family homes. It has excessive height and is within a local HCA, thus having a huge impact on the locality. There is complete failure of height transition between the development and neighbouring properties. There is inadequate local infrastructure to accomodate such a project of this scale. The traffic and parking will be inparticularly affected, having a disastrous affect on all surrounding properties, but in particular the Cromehurst School that caters for children with special needs. I cannot even fathom how a project of this scale will impact the local biodiversity and tree canopy. The loss of mature trees and reduction of deep soil planting will be felt for generations to come. Furthermore, developments such as this will do nothing to help the affordable housing crisis. These properties will be occupied by those who are not in need of affordable housing.
I ask of the panel that serious consideration be given to all these matters when determining this project.

Submission regarding 1-5 Nelson Road, Lindfield (SSD-82899468)
I have strong objections to this project on the following bases:
Outside TOD Zone
The majority of this development is outside the TOD zone. This could result in a precedent to develop large scale buildings outside the TOD zone. Surely there is enough land already zoned for high density without incorporating more developments outside this zone.
Bulk & scale:
The proposed building is too big for this site and too big in relation to other homes in the street and in adjoining streets. What is to become of the houses on Tryon road. They will find it difficult to develop these properties in the future. Indeed this development is larger than any of the developments in Lindfield town centre currently.
Height transition:
There is no height transition proposed from the boundaries. Surely good planning should have a transition between zones.
Conclusion:
It is clear little thought and effort has gone into planning a sensible building that will benefit those who live within it as well as add to the community through thoughtful architecture. I hope the Council and State Government will stick to developing high density developments within the TOD area.
Kind regards

Subject: Objection to SSD-82899468 — 1–5 Nelson Road, Lindfield

To Whom It May Concern,

I am writing to strongly object to the proposed development at 1–5 Nelson Road, Lindfield (SSD-82899468).

While I support appropriate development in our community, this proposal is inappropriate and inconsistent with the character, zoning, and infrastructure of the area. My main concerns include:
1. Zoning non-compliance:
Two of the three properties are zoned R2 Low Density Residential, and therefore are outside the original TOD (Transit Oriented Development) zone. Approving this would set a dangerous precedent for overdevelopment in low-density areas.
2. Heritage impact:
The site lies within a Heritage Conservation Area. This large-scale development would irreversibly damage the heritage streetscape and character of the neighbourhood.
3. Excessive building height:
At over 32 metres, the building exceeds the maximum permitted building height. A 9-storey apartment complex in this location is completely out of scale with surrounding one- and two-storey homes.
4. Poor height transition:
There is an abrupt transition from 9-storeys to adjacent low-density homes, which will cause overshadowing, privacy loss, and visual bulk.
5. Traffic, parking, and infrastructure strain:
The development will increase traffic congestion and parking pressure on already narrow residential streets. It will also place further strain on stormwater systems, local schools, and roads, which are not designed to support such a large population increase.
6. Environmental and biodiversity concerns:
The site includes mature trees and is part of a riparian zone. The development would result in a significant loss of tree canopy and biodiversity, contrary to sustainability goals.
7. Community well-being and liveability:
Lindfield is valued for its low-density, green, and peaceful environment, which contributes significantly to the mental and physical well-being of residents. High-density developments like this would erode the very qualities that make this community healthy and liveable.
8. Process concerns:
This proposal is based only on a concept drawing, with environmental and heritage impact studies to be done after approval. This is unacceptable for a development of this scale.

I urge the Department of Planning and Environment to reject this proposal and instead encourage development that respects zoning laws, heritage values, environmental sustainability, and community character.

Thank you for considering my submission.

Sincerely,
Eva Han

Dear Sir/Madam,
I am a resident of Ku-ring-gai Council and am writing to object to the proposed Concept Development Application at 1–5 Nelson Road, Lindfield (SSD-82899468). While I do not live immediately adjacent to the site, I have a strong interest in the integrity of our local planning framework, the amenity of our centres, and the cumulative impacts of large-scale development within the municipality.

1. Height Breach and Precedent
The proposal exceeds the maximum allowable height of 28.6 metres (inclusive of the affordable housing bonus), reaching 32.37 metres. This is a significant breach of planning controls and, if approved, would set a dangerous precedent for other developments in Ku-ring-gai to exceed statutory limits, undermining the credibility of the LEP and SEPP provisions.

2. Cumulative Traffic Impacts
The Transport Impact Assessment considers only the subject site and fails to account for cumulative traffic generation from multiple developments already approved or proposed within the Lindfield growth precinct. Without a precinct-wide traffic study, the true impact on the local road network, parking availability, and pedestrian safety cannot be properly understood or managed.

3. Inadequate Vehicle Access Arrangements
The proposal relies on a single vehicular access point from Nelson Road, a narrow local street. This single entry/exit arrangement is expected to accommodate all resident, service, and emergency vehicle movements. Such a design presents clear risks for congestion, pedestrian safety, and emergency access reliability.

4. Poor Transition to Surrounding Areas
The centralised 9-storey form presents excessive bulk and scale without an appropriate transition to the lower-rise residential context of Tyron Road and surrounding streets. This abrupt change in built form is inconsistent with Better Placed design principles and Ku-ring-gai Council’s DCP character objectives.

5. Overshadowing and Amenity Loss
The proposed height and massing will cause significant overshadowing to existing properties to the south, reducing winter solar access and amenity. The overshadowing analysis provided is questionable, as it relies on assumed future development rather than the current built form, thereby understating actual impacts.

6. Communal Open Space Location
Most communal open space is located on the rooftop. While this may be functional for residents, it creates potential for noise disturbance and privacy impacts to neighbouring properties and fails to provide quality ground-level green space that could contribute positively to the public domain.

7. Planning Integrity and Community Confidence
Approving a development that so clearly breaches established controls, omits a cumulative traffic assessment, and downplays impacts on existing properties would undermine community confidence in the planning process across the Ku-ring-gai LGA.

In conclusion, I urge Council to refuse the current proposal or require significant redesign to:
• Bring the height and bulk into compliance with SEPP and LEP standards,
• Address cumulative traffic and access concerns,
• Provide an appropriate transition to surrounding development, and
• Deliver genuine amenity and liveability outcomes for both residents and neighbours.
Ku-ring-gai’s growth should be guided by strategic planning, not driven by incremental breaches of planning rules that erode the quality and character of our suburbs.

Kind regards
ZJ

This development is of a bulk and scale that is incompatible with the rest of neighbourhood. Its height exceeds maximium permittable, thus also overshadowing and threatening reasonable privacy of surrounding properties when you take into consideration the transition will be from a nine-storey high density development to mostly single storey residences adjacent to this. Such stark transitions are a 'forever' decision that you cannot simply rollback or amend/improve later.