I am an apartment owner and resident at 10 Marian Street Killara and object on the following brief grounds. I reserve the right to amend / add to this submission prior to the closing date .
1. Excessive building height.
The proposed maximum height of 35 m would adversely impact all 39 apartments at 10 Marian Street along the northern boundary of the proposed development. Stepping down the maximum height towards Stanhope Road may minimise the visual impact of the massive development when viewed from street level. But this completely ignores the impact on existing residents of 10 Marian Street.
2.Abuse of Affordable Housing provisions.
The developer is attempting to use these provisions to grossly over develop the site and earn excessive profits in the process while totally disregarding the character of the Killara neighbourhood.
3.Zero addition to the existing amenity.
The proposed development would add nothing to the amenity of the area around Killara station. It needs to be noted that there is no Killara town centre and all residents of the development will have to travel to Lindfield or Gordon to buy basic household supplies.
4.Increased traffic congestion and on-street parking.
The addition of 168 resident cars plus 27 visitor cars would create significant traffic problems. Stanhope Road already carries heavy am and pm traffic flows in conjunction with widespread on- street parking.
5.Increased stormwater runoff.
The proposed increase in site coverage would result in a serious increase in stormwater runoff, particularly in the event of a major storm event. This has the potential to cause flooding of neighbouring property.
6.Potential loss of existing Leylandii tree hedging.
The existing significant Leylandii trees along the northern boundary of the proposed development provide residents of 10 Marian street with an effective visual screening of the existing Stanhope Road properties. Whatever the final outcome of the Development Application, it is essential that all assurances given by the developer regarding retention of these trees are rigidly enforced. The reality is that developers typically provide comforting assurances but then totally disregard them during construction at minimal financial penalty. Serious penalties must be included in any approved application for any breach of the landscape plans.

Dear Sir or Madam,
I am writing to express my strong objection to the proposed Stanhope development for several reasons:

Environmental Concerns
The proposed site includes critically endangered Blue Gum High Forest and Sydney Turpentine-Ironbark Forest, both listed on the NSW Threatened Entity Profiles as of May 2025. The Heritage Impact Statement indicates that all trees on the site will be removed, which is unacceptable given the environmental significance of these forests.

Heritage
The development is situated in a Heritage Conservation Area (HCA) and there are numerous heritage-listed homes on Stanhope Road. This development will degrade the historical value of the HCA and undermine the character of the area.

Mass
The scale of this project is unprecedented in Killara and is completely out of keeping with existing developments. Other apartment buildings in Killara are a maximum of five storeys, so this development will have a massive visual impact on the skyline for the entire suburb.

Amenities
Contrary to the reports, there is no Killara Village and no shops in the immediate vicinity; the closest shops are in Lindfield and Gordon. The impact on local schools and the lack of car parking during construction will significantly affect the ability of residents and visitors to find parking. Once completed, Stanhope Road will be more congested.

Overriding Council Plans
The proposed development is out of step with Ku-ring-gai Council’s preferred planning scenario. The Council has developed a strategic plan through extensive community consultation and technical analysis, which demonstrates that the housing targets can be met without compromising the character or heritage of the area. The imposition of the State Government's development targets without regard for these local frameworks risks undermining the qualities that make suburbs like Killara both liveable and sustainable.

State Government Should Not Decide Local Residential Planning
While the State Government is responsible for setting broad housing and infrastructure targets, it cannot fully understand or account for the unique planning context and infrastructure constraints of individual council areas. Local councils have developed their planning frameworks over decades through detailed studies, heritage assessments, and sustained community engagement. This local knowledge is critical in ensuring that growth is managed in a way that respects the area's character, environmental sensitivity, and infrastructure capacity. Imposing top-down development targets without regard for these long-standing local frameworks undermines the principles of local governance and community involvement.
For these reasons, I respectfully urge the Council to reject the proposed development in its current form.
Yours sincerely,
Marshall Brentnall
ROSEVILLE NSW 2069

Objection to the proposed development of 10-14-14a Stanhope Road Killara NSW

As a former resident of Killara (in close proximity to the proposed development) I am dismayed at reading through the documentation for this proposed development.

I am certainly not opposed to the redevelopment of dedicated suburban areas in order to increase housing density. Developments around Lindfield and Gordon Stations are examples of locations where increased density makes sense and offers much needed diversification, with shops and restaurants within metres of one’s residence and a station literally across the road.

By contrast, Stanhope Road does not have the same ingredients as a location for apartment buildings up to 10 floors. Yes, Killara Station is a 10 minute walk away, but there are no shops anywhere within walking distance.

On the contrary, Stanhope Road is distinguished by its frontage of heritage listed homes. These homes are characteristic of Ku-Ring-Gai as a suburb, as are many of their neighbours which haven’t been heritage listed. They are also exactly the reason why so many people have wanted to live in these suburbs for so many generations.
Grand as they may seem, these homes would be totally overshadowed by a development of this scale and height proposed in their backyard. Discounting for a minute the impact this development would have on the monetary value of said homes, their owners - present and future - would be saddled with a severe loss of amenity (such as privacy and shadowing among others) that could never be regained.

I object to this development on the grounds that it is out of place and out of character with its surroundings and that a one-off monetary gain for three property owners would cause ongoing loss and distress to many others, not in the least for their own neighbours.

I am writing to formally object to the proposed development currently under consideration in Killara. I have been a resident of this suburb for the past eight and a half years and have lived in Sydney since 1995. I am deeply concerned by the apparent lack of foresight in protecting the unique heritage and character of our northern suburbs.

Killara, like many of its neighbouring areas, is rich in architectural and cultural heritage. It is disheartening to see proposals that disregard this legacy and threaten to erode the very qualities that make our community so special. The current development proposal, in my view, is entirely inconsistent with the heritage values that should be preserved and celebrated.

Furthermore, the proposed site is located on Stanhope Road, one of the busiest thoroughfares in the area. This road serves as a critical link for residents and commuters travelling to and from the Pacific Highway. Introducing a major development in this location would significantly worsen traffic congestion, compromise road safety, and reduce the overall livability of the area.

While I am not opposed to increased housing density near transport hubs—particularly around Killara station where it has already been thoughtfully implemented—this specific proposal is ill-conceived. It fails to take into account both the heritage significance of the area and the practical realities of local traffic flow.

I urge you to reject this proposal and to ensure that future developments are guided by a genuine respect for community values, heritage preservation, and sound urban planning principles. It is essential that the voices of local residents are heard and taken seriously in shaping the future of our neighbourhood.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

• The proposal significantly breaches the height limits for the R2 Low Rise Residential Zoning (by almost 4 times) and breaches the heights allowed under the Transport Oriented Development (TOD) program by over 22%.
• The Government’s aim was to develop low/medium-rise buildings around transport hubs. This is a high-rise development which is completely incompatible with the locality and hence, is not in the public interest. The mass and scale of this development is totally out of proportion to the street and suburb in general.
• Stanhope Road is one of Killara’s most important Heritage areas. 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. The Heritage Impact Statement has fundamental flaws.
• The development has a combination of huge visual impacts, overshadowing, loss of privacy and loss of amenity issues for more than 50 residences directly to the north, south, east and west of the proposed development.
• The Community Engagement on this project was not undertaken correctly. Hence, many residents were unaware of the proposal until well after its lodgement on 9th May on the SSD site. As a result, residents and other interested parties have not had sufficient time to adequately read, understand and respond to the proposal. The lack of numbers at the developer’s so called “drop-in” session on 3rd April reinforce the breach of the community engagement process.
• There are critically endangered Sydney Blue Gum trees on the site, which are at risk if the development proceeds.
• The deep soil of 7% is far below the Ku-ring-gai Council required amount.
• The Developer’s EIS submission contains multiple major contradictions and omissions. 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. It needs to be fixed, and the process recommenced from the beginning to give residents a chance to understand same.
• I have lived on Stanhope Road for 13 years & I am a very concerned about the traffic + noise impacts.

Please refer to the attached with my objections to this development and the development process conducted by the developers.

This project would not be allowed under the Ku-ring-gai Council Preferred Scenario which will soon be agreed between the State Government and Council. It also leaves stranded houses around it due to heritage listings.

This project should not be allowed as it will provide very poor planning outcomes.

I write to express my unequivocal opposition to the proposed ten‐storey, 135‐apartment building with 195 car spaces on Stanhope Road, Killara. This project is patently inappropriate and driven purely by developer greed, yielding zero benefit to genuine housing affordability. My key objections are as follows:

Overwhelming Mass & Scale
– At ten storeys, 135 units, and 195 parking spaces, there is nothing of comparable size between Gordon and Roseville. Other Killara apartment buildings top out at five storeys. This tower will dominate the skyline, dwarfing the surrounding single- and two-storey homes and erasing the suburb’s human scale.

Severe Solar Access Impacts
– Existing residences at 12, 8, and 6A Stanhope Road will be plunged into shadow. Their morning and winter sunlight—essential for heating, comfort, and mental well-being—will be irreparably compromised. This loss of solar access directly undermines residents’ quality of life.

Destruction of Critically Endangered Forests
– The site harbors Blue Gum High Forest and Sydney Turpentine–Ironbark Forest, both listed as critically endangered by NSW (May 2025). According to the Heritage Impact Statement, “all trees” will be removed. Eradicating these rare ecosystems is unacceptable and contravenes every principle of environmental stewardship.

Heritage Conservation Area Degradation
– Located within a designated Heritage Conservation Area, the proposal sits adjacent to nine heritage-listed homes. A ten-storey slab will degrade the historical fabric, obliterating the visual harmony that defines this precinct. Such irreversible damage to our cultural legacy is indefensible.

Lack of Local Amenities & Services
– Contrary to developer claims, there is no “Killara Village” within walking distance—closest shops are in Lindfield. Furthermore, Killara High School, local primary schools, and preschools are already operating at capacity. This surge of 135 additional households was not factored into any impact assessments, jeopardizing educational services.

Construction & Parking Nightmare
– During the many months of construction, available street parking will vanish as heavy machinery and tradespeople vehicles occupy every spare space. Once completed, 195 on-site parking spaces mean hundreds more daily car trips on Stanhope Road, clogging our narrow lanes and endangering pedestrians and cyclists.

This proposal does nothing to advance housing affordability: it markets luxury apartments at premium rents or sale prices. The developer stands to profit handsomely, while the local community bears all the costs—overburdened infrastructure, environmental ruin, and loss of heritage.

I do, however, support increasing housing supply in Ku-ring-gai—provided it is done responsibly. Ku-ring-gai Council’s alternative Transit‐Oriented Development plan offers a measured approach: it locates new homes where infrastructure can support them, transitions density gradually, and preserves both our heritage and critical ecosystems. If the goal is genuine affordability and sustainable growth, that plan is the only reasonable path forward.

For the sake of our environment, heritage, and community well-being, I urge you to reject this oversized, misplaced development and champion the Council’s alternative TOD framework instead.

Sincerely,

Scott Yuan