Dear Sir
The proposed development constitutes a significant breach of planning regulations, exceeding the height restrictions set by the R2 Low Rise Residential Zoning by nearly four times. It also surpasses the allowable height under the Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Housing SEPP framework by over 22%. These are not minor infractions—they represent major departures from established policy, which is designed to promote low- to medium-rise developments in proximity to transport hubs. A 10-storey high-rise is wholly inconsistent with this objective and starkly contrasts with the established character of the local area. As such, the proposal is clearly not in the public interest.

Stanhope Road is one of Killara’s most valued heritage precincts. The proposed development demonstrates a troubling disregard for the area’s heritage significance, including the many heritage-listed homes at 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 12, 17, and 18 Stanhope Road. The lack of sensitivity to this context—particularly the absence of consideration for 12 Stanhope Road—is alarming and unacceptable.

The visual and environmental impacts of the development would be substantial. More than 50 surrounding properties would be adversely affected by overshadowing, loss of privacy, and diminished residential amenity. These impacts are not confined to a few isolated dwellings—they would disrupt the quality of life for residents in all directions surrounding the site.

The community consultation process has also been gravely deficient. Many residents were unaware of the proposal until well after its lodging on the SSD site on 9 May, leaving them with insufficient time to thoroughly review, comprehend, and respond to the application. The notably low attendance at the developer’s so-called “drop-in” session on 3 April further illustrates the inadequacy of the engagement process.

Additionally, the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) submitted by the developer contains numerous contradictions and significant omissions. It fails to provide a clear understanding of the project's actual scale, density, and the extent of affordable housing to be delivered. Given these critical deficiencies, the current proposal should be rejected in its entirety. The developer must be required to recommence the application process, ensuring full transparency and meaningful community involvement.

Yours sincerely,
Jon R

Subject: Objection to SSD Proposal at 10, 14 & 14A Stanhope Road, Killara (SSD-81890707)
Dear Planning Assessment Officer,
I am writing to object to the proposed State Significant Development (SSD-81890707) at 10, 14 and 14A Stanhope Road, Killara. This proposal for 135 apartments is excessive, out of character with the area, and poses serious issues in terms of traffic, heritage, environmental impact, and planning compliance.
As a resident in the Stanhope Road Conservation Area, I was drawn to the street by the Federation-era homes, tree-lined streets, and quiet residential character that make this part of Killara so unique. This development would irreversibly damage that character and heritage.
While this is a personal submission, I support the expert assessments submitted by resident Jeffrey Bresnahan, including reports from a town planner, two heritage consultants, and an ecologist. I also support the concerns raised by the Stanhope Road Residents Association.
Main Concerns
1. Traffic and Road Safety Hazards
• Stanhope Road is already narrow, with limited visibility and space for two cars to pass. It cannot safely support nearly 200 extra vehicle movements per day.
• The proposed driveway at 14 Stanhope Road would funnel significant traffic onto a street used by pedestrians, cyclists, and school children, increasing the risk of accidents.
• Key intersections (e.g., Werona Ave and Pacific Hwy) are already constrained and unsuitable for the increased traffic. Culworth Avenue, which connects to Pacific Highway via Lorne Street, is a single-lane road and will become heavily congested.
• Transport for NSW uses Stanhope Road for train replacement buses. Additional traffic will obstruct this important public transport function.
• The developer’s suggestion to restrict right turns during peak hours does not solve the problem—it simply pushes traffic onto other unsuitable local streets.
• There is no traffic study or modelling provided for a traffic light at the Pacific Hwy intersection, even though this would become essential.
2. Heritage and Character Loss
• 14 Stanhope Road is a significant Federation home in a Heritage Conservation Area under Ku-ring-gai’s LEP. Its demolition would undermine local and state heritage protections.
• The property has strong historical value due to its association with Dr Margaret Hentze, a pioneering female academic of state significance who was considered a home-grown celebrity. This association meets the threshold for heritage listing under Criterion (b) of the Heritage Act.
• The proposed buildings will overwhelm nearby heritage homes, especially No. 12 Stanhope Road, which would be “stranded” on two sides, losing privacy, light, and amenity.
• The design and scale (up to 10 storeys) are completely out of step with the area's low-density character.
3. Environmental Impact and Tree Removal
• The development threatens several mapped areas of Critically Endangered Ecological Communities (CEEC), including Sydney Blue Gum and Turpentine-Ironbark Forests.
• Reports are inconsistent about tree removal, but most trees—including mature canopy trees—are likely to be lost.
• No fauna studies have been carried out, despite the known presence of species such as the Grey-headed Flying Fox and Glossy Black Cockatoo.
• The loss of urban canopy will worsen heat, reduce biodiversity, and degrade local amenity—contrary to Ku-ring-gai’s Urban Forest Strategy and the environmental aims of the EP&A Act.
4. Overreach of Transport-Oriented Development (TOD) Principles
• The site is more than 400m walking distance from Killara Station and only eligible for moderate increases under the TOD Program.
• The proposal exceeds appropriate height, bulk and scale limits, without regard for infrastructure, heritage, or local character.
• No binding planning agreement for the delivery of affordable housing as required under the Housing SEPP 2021 is provided in the SSD documentation.
5. Community Consultation and Procedural Fairness
• Most residents were unaware of the proposal until after it was formally lodged. The consultation process was insufficient for a development of this scale.
• The State Government and Ku-ring-gai Council are still finalising TOD Scenario 3B for Killara. Approving this development now would pre-empt that process and undermine genuine community input.
6. Infrastructure and Social Impact
• The development will place further pressure on already stretched services, such as Killara High School, which is at capacity.
• Local medical and recreational facilities are limited and not equipped to handle the increase in population from 135 new apartments.
• There is an absence of retail facilities in Killara, which will invariably result in residents using their cars to travel to Lindfield or Gordon for essential services and shopping.
7. Misleading or Incomplete Information
• The Environmental Impact Statement downplays the environmental and heritage value of the site and uses inconsistent elevation references to make building heights appear compliant.
• Mischaracterising endangered forest communities as “common” is misleading and contrary to ecological science and legislation.
Requested Actions
I respectfully ask the Department to refuse this SSD application in its current form and defer any decision until Kuring-gai TOD Scenario 3B is finalised and legislated.

My name is Anne Rands, of 56/10 Marian St, Killara, and I would like to object to the proposed development of 10,14 and 14a Stanhope Rd Killara. (appl no SSD-81890707) for the following reasons:

1. The height of the rear block is in excess of council guidelines and is situated far too close to the boundary. This will affect not only our privacy but also very probably the health of the boundary fence consisting of mature leylandii trees, which currently provide a very necessary screen between the two properties.

2. 135 apartments will contribute at least 135 more cars into an already severely congested roadway. Stanhope Rd is a two lane road, often densely parked. Stanhope Rd is the major route, along with Culworth Ave south, which leads off Stanhope Rd, as the only access for residents of Marian St when approaching from the south. (There is no right turn access to Marian St from the Pacific Highway.) Culworth Ave south is a narrow road which is reduced to one lane when parking restrictions are not in force. It also carries buses used when trackwork closes the rail line, and is subject to flooding during rainy periods. Over a period of fifteen years four large developments have been erected in Culworth Ave south but the council has done absolutely nothing in the way of widening it or improving the drainage. The prospect of considerably more traffic using this dangerous cart track is alarming.

I am writing to formally object to the proposed development at 10, 14 and 14a Stanhope Road, Killara, submitted under Submission (SUB-84706708).

As a long-standing resident of the area, I have serious concerns regarding the proposed development on the following grounds:

Non-Compliance with Height Restrictions
The proposal clearly exceeds the local planning scheme’s prescribed height limits for this area. These limits are in place to ensure consistent urban form and to protect residential amenity. Allowing this development to proceed as proposed would set a troubling precedent for further breaches, undermining the integrity of the planning controls.

Loss of Privacy
The excessive height and scale of the development will result in significant overlooking into the private open spaces and windows of adjacent properties. This is an unacceptable intrusion that will negatively affect the privacy and quality of life of nearby residents.

Incompatibility with Heritage Character
The subject site is located within an area containing numerous heritage-listed properties. The proposed design and scale are starkly out of character with the architectural integrity, scale, and streetscape values that define this heritage precinct. The development would diminish the area's historic aesthetic and potentially devalue surrounding heritage properties.

Adverse Impact on Neighborhood Amenity
Beyond the specific issues of height and privacy, the overall bulk and scale of the development are inconsistent with the low-rise, garden-suburban character of the neighborhood. This discordance will have a lasting negative impact on the visual coherence and community identity of the area.

In light of the above, I respectfully urge rejection of the application in its current form. I also request that I be notified of any public meetings or decisions related to this application, and that this objection be formally recorded.

Thank you for considering my submission.

Yours sincerely,
Jim Walsh

Will not have a positive impact on the location

To me,
1 It is not in the public interest. Mass and scale of this development is totally out of proportion to the street and suburb which has a long history of the heritage area.
2 The Heritage Impact Statement is fundamental invalid. This development takes little or no consideration of heritage issues and/or the heritage homes at 1A, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 12 and 18 Stanhope Road., which surround the proposed site.
3 The proposal was submitted only 2 weeks ago. Community Engagement on this project was not undertaken correctly. Many residents were unaware of the proposal until well after its lodgement on 9th May on the SSD site.
4 Critically endanger the Sydney Blue Gum trees on the site
5 The deep soil of 7% is far below the Ku-ring-gai Council required amount.
6 It is impossible to understand the actual size and scale of the proposed development as well as what level of benefit the affordable housing is proposed. The Developer’s EIS submission contains multiple major contradictions and omissions.

Proposal breaches height limits for R2 low rise residential zoning

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing to object to the proposed apartment development on Stanhope Road, Killara.

Firstly, the community engagement for this project has been deeply inadequate. Many local residents, including myself, were unaware of the proposal until well after it was lodged on the SSD site on 9th May. This lack of proper communication has meant that residents have not had enough time to review, understand, or respond to the proposal in a meaningful way. The very low attendance at the developer’s so-called “drop-in” session on 3rd April is further evidence that the consultation process did not reach or involve the community as it should have.

This is particularly concerning given the sensitive location of the proposed development. Stanhope Road is one of Killara’s most significant heritage areas, home to several important heritage-listed properties at 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 12, 17 and 18 Stanhope Road. The development appears to give little or no consideration to the heritage value of this street or the unique character that makes this area so special to residents and the broader community. Neither has consideration been given for number 12 Stanhope Road.

In addition to the heritage concerns, the proposed building would have serious negative impacts on the surrounding homes, particularly 12 Stanhope Rd. It would create significant visual intrusion, overshadowing, loss of privacy, and a general loss of amenity for more than 50 homes located directly to the north, south, east, and west of the site. This level of impact on existing residents is unacceptable.

For these reasons, I strongly urge the government to reject this proposal and require the developer to properly consult the community and consider the unique character and needs of this area.

Sincerely,
S Turner

I have lived in various suburbs in Ku-ring-Gai for majority of my life . I'm objecting to this change in types of structures being built in our area. This seems to be a high-rise building plan. I was aware the Government wanted low/medium-rise development . However , this high-rise building plan is not suited to this area, in its size and in relation to the surrounding homes. Do not allow this . Sincerely, David Church

Height of the development will have a significant negative impact including:
-Shadowing on all the surrounding houses.
-Loss of privacy to properties in close proximity and even within some distance to the project.
-Increase of motor vehicles traffic and noise in a residential zone.
-Increase of number of vehicles parked on a residential street.
-Length of construction disrupting families and wildlife in the area.
-Reduction of green areas, and increase of noise during and after the construction.
-Reduce appeal of the area, with a negative impact on elder people.