Lindfield needs to be protected for its low density leafy environment.

I am the owner of a property adjacent to the proposed development at the above location. I am writing to raise my concerns regarding the potential impact of this development:

TOD Zoning: The proposed site is located on the fringe of the 400m Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) zone. Allowing maximum building height and density under TOD guidelines in this fringe area appears inappropriate and inconsistent with the planning intent. A development of 200 apartments spread across three blocks of land would be entirely out of scale with the surrounding low-density residential neighbourhood.
Neighbourhood Character: There are several heritage-listed properties nearby. The scale and design of the proposed apartment buildings are out of character with the established neighbourhood.
Traffic Impact: I am concerned that the surrounding roads may not have the capacity to safely accommodate the increased traffic likely to result from the development.
Noise Concerns: Construction noise, as well as ongoing noise from future use of the site, will negatively affect nearby residents’ amenity and quality of life.
Loss of Sunlight: The proposed building height may significantly reduce sunlight to adjacent properties.

To the NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure,

I write to object to the current State Significant Development Application SSD-82899468 for Residential Development with In-Fill Affordable Housing at 1–5 Nelson Road, Lindfield.

This application raises serious concerns across community engagement, technical documentation accuracy, and planning integrity. Based on the supporting documentation and community experiences, I outline my objections as follows:

⸻

1. Community Engagement Failures
• The community webinar flyer originally advertised the date as 19 May 2025, but in the Engagement Report (Annexure A), this was retrospectively changed to 21 May 2025. Crucially, residents were never issued an updated flyer reflecting the change, compromising transparency.
• Page 10 of the Engagement Report claims the community was encouraged to ask questions. However, I attended the webinar and they ran out of time for any questions at the end. This does not meet the standard of genuine community consultation.

2. Geotechnical Report – Site Misidentification and Poor Methodology
• Appendix 13 (Geotechnical Report) contains a zoning map (Page 4, Fig. 2) that incorrectly locates the site on Middle Harbour Road rather than Nelson Road. This undermines the credibility of the entire report.

3. Incorrect Statement Regarding Riparian Land
• The Geotechnical Report states: “The site is not in an area of riparian lands and further assessment is not required.” to avoid environmental assessment.
• This directly contradicts Ku-Ring-Gai Council’s letter to the Department dated 5 May 2025 (Appendix 5, Annexure C), which confirms that part of the site is categorised as “Category 3 and 3a Riparian Land” under Clause 6.4 of KLEP 2015.

4. Heritage Impact Statement Based on Incorrect Scale
• The Heritage Impact Statement (Appendix 16) references a development of “8 levels, with 2 levels of basement parking,” yet fails to reflect the actual proposed building bulk and scale.
• Any heritage assessment that is not aligned with the current architectural proposal is invalid and should be re-done to reflect the true heritage impact on surrounding single storey properties.

5. Flood Impact Risk Assessment Based on Incomplete Information
• Appendix 22 (Flood Impact Risk Assessment) states that “PMF maps are not available.”
• In fact, Ku-Ring-Gai Council completed the Middle Harbour Southern Catchment Flood Study in 2023, which includes Probable Maximum Flood (PMF) mapping and detailed flood classifications.
• This publicly available and recent data was ignored in favour of outdated assumptions — a clear flaw in the site risk assessment.

6. Architectural and Visual Impact Misrepresentation
• Appendix 9 (Architectural Plans) visually depicts the site as if adjacent to large apartment blocks. This is misleading — the site is surrounded by single and double-storey residential homes, which the plans deliberately obscure or omit.
• The Visual Impact Assessment (Appendix 23) is also problematic. The selected viewpoints are largely taken from:
• Distances too far to show meaningful visual impact
• Angles where buildings obstruct the view
• Corners or intersections that minimise perceived bulk

7. Planning Principle: Bulk Over Heritage Properties
• Finally, and most critically — if there is one planning priority that should guide development in Ku-Ring-Gai, it is this:
New developments must not bulk over the top of existing heritage properties.
• This proposal fails that test completely, with excessive height, bulk, and form that overwhelm the surrounding established heritage character of Lindfield. There is no transition in scale, no architectural sensitivity, and no visual harmony with the surrounding neighbourhood.

Conclusion

This SSD application fails on multiple fronts: flawed consultation, inaccurate technical documentation, environmental misstatements, and heritage disregard. It reflects developer convenience, not community benefit or planning merit.

I respectfully request that the Department reject SSD-82899468 in its current form and require a substantially revised submission that:
• Uses accurate and site-specific data,
• Complies with environmental and heritage obligations, and
• Reflects the community’s expectations and the character of Lindfield.

The proposed development will effect traffic flow north and south, east and west through crossroad at Tryon and Nelson road. The pedestrian and car traffic from such a development will make traversing
this hub difficult. It is already hard to access archbold rd and pacific hway, so residents in this area will be landlocked.
The plan is outside Tod zone and sets precedent for future developments in the suburb.
The scale, height, proportion of proposed building is outrageous in suburban street opposite special school.
I object strongly to the proposed development

Dear Prity Cleary,

We purchased our house in 2010. It was a 2-bedroom Californian Bungalow with a large front setback. Our original plan was to knockdown and rebuild but the house was then placed into the same Heritage Conservation Area as the SSDA site. Subsequently, we could only renovate and extend the rear of the house towards the site resulting in a smaller backyard and shorter rear setback to the site. We now love our renovated house, have come to appreciate the HCA and are pleased that we retained the heritage character of the front part of our house. With a north-facing rear, our home feels safe, open-yet-private, warm and comfortable. Each Spring and Summer, I enjoy renovating and maintaining my lawn and garden with the knowledge gained through endless YouTube videos and trips to Bunnings or landscaping stores to accumulate an artillery of tools/supplies to empower my weekend-warrior spirit.

I completely agree that there is a need for more affordable housing in NSW. Town Planning is a complicated task which requires a delicate balance to satisfy all members of the community. Done correctly, Town Planning can provide better amenity for the community whilst being sensitive to the surrounding areas and local identity.

However, I strongly oppose this Concept SSDA. I agree with many points, and contributed to, the "Errors and Inadequacies" document attached in David Walker's submission.

Furthermore, whilst I am not an expert in any property development related fields I would like to object based on the following perspectives and observations having lived here for many years:

1. Inappropriate bulk and scale
a. All other properties in this HCA are single or double-storey dwellings. This SSDA proposes to exceed the maximum building height under the TOD by going up to 32.35m. As mentioned earlier, the HCA meant that we could only extend our house to the rear for Heritage reasons. I should stress the fact that the proposed southern façade of this SSDA does not respect the Heritage locality by placing significantly bulkier buildings in close proximity to adjoining dwellings and their rear yards, including my property

b. The remainder of all properties in this HCA are limited to build up to 9.5m. So, this SSDA with a lack of height transition to neighbouring properties will stick out like a sore-thumb

c. The visual impact assessment failed to consider the impact to my property. I would like to request that a visual impact assessment is done by taking photos from my backyard and habitable areas

2. Questionable amalgamation of sites
a. Sub-section 152(3) of Chapter 5 (Transport oriented development) of the SEPP (Housing) 2021 states:
"If a development application proposes the amalgamation of a lot of land to which this chapter applies with another lot, this chapter is taken to apply to the other lot for the purposes of determining the development application, but only if every other lot proposed for amalgamation shares a boundary of at least 3m with the lot to which this chapter applies."
The TOD boundary barely cut through the front yard of 1 Nelson Rd which then qualified 1 Nelson Rd as being part of the TOD. However, at the time of submission of the SSDA, 5 Nelson Rd does NOT share a common boundary with 1 Nelson Rd. This SSDA did not meet the criteria to amalgamate

3. Solar access and privacy
a. The upstairs rear part of our house contains an open-plan living room, dining room and kitchen with a large glass sliding door facing the site. Downstairs on the north-western side is a bedroom also with a large glass sliding door facing the site. To the eastern side is a double-storey dwelling, and two large trees on the north-eastern sides. During winter solstice, these parts of the house do not receive sunlight until around 12pm. See photos in attached document. The shadow diagrams fail to acknowledge these important aspects

b. As mentioned earlier, these rooms are at the rear of my house which has a short rear setback to the site. The Concept SSDA architectural plans have insufficient articulation, height transition and setback to provide these rooms in my house with sufficient solar access and privacy

c. My rear yard will by significantly overshadowed which will reduce its amenity. It is unreasonable to significantly reduce the sunlight into my rear yard and primary living rooms.

d. My lawn will not receive enough sunlight to survive

e. We have been looking at installing solar panels for our home and received a few quotes. However, this SSDA will reduce the effectiveness of any solar panels on my home and any aspirations of being more environmentally friendly. Furthermore, a lack of sunlight will add to the need to run more heating during winter months

f. A lack of solar access will eliminate any possibility to satisfy BASIX requirements for potential future development on my property

g. The proposed SSDA roof top communal open space combined with very minimal site setback and height transition would directly overlook into my backyard and prevent my wife, children and myself enjoying this space as a private area filled with sunlight

h. Council requires vertical shadow diagrams of neighbouring properties with positioning and levels of windows and openings on the walls but there are no such plans

4. Traffic and safety concerns
a. Nelson Rd and Tryon Rd are busy local roads. Nelson Rd is a thoroughfare for those avoiding the traffic along the Pacific Hwy. Whilst Tryon Rd is busy:
- Westbound for those heading towards the Lindfield town centre or Pacific Hwy
- Eastbound for those heading towards Archibold Rd

b. There is a stop sign at the Tryon & Nelson Rd intersection. Many drivers fail to come to a complete stop and speed right through this intersection. Police know this and often hide at this intersection to hand out infringement penalties. On the days they do this, I hear a constant stream of Police sirens as drivers are pulled over

c. Nelson Rd is a busy narrow local street. There are painted road markings indicating that it is also a cycle-way. Due to proximity to the station/town centre and the ability to park for free all day, the street is filled with parked cars. When both sides have parked cars, it is not uncommon to see cars coming in opposite directions stop and give way as the street is not wide enough to pass safely

d. Nelson Rd is used by local buses

e. Drivers regularly exceed the speed limit along Tryon and Nelson Rd

f. Pedestrians, school children and the elderly wanting to cross at the Tryon Rd and Nelson Rd intersection have a difficult time as there is no crossing marked. They often take risks crossing due to the points mentioned earlier. Some pedestrians reduce the risk by crossing lower down Nelson Rd. However, an apartment block with a total of 312 carparking spaces (as per the Architectural Plans) would increase the risk

g. When trucks are collecting rubbish or residents pull into their driveways, it is not uncommon to see impatient drivers zoom around and overtake on the wrong side of the road. It would not be surprising if drivers failing to stop at the Tryon Rd and Nelson Rd intersection had an accident with pedestrians or those vehicles and cyclists coming up the hill on the wrong side of Nelson Rd

h. Kochia Lane is directly opposite the site. It is a narrow lane and the footpath is also very narrow with power poles and street signs making it difficult for prams, wheelchairs and pedestrians with assisted walking frames to pass safely. Furthermore, the residents living on Kochia Ln put their bins out on the footpath to allow the waste and recycling trucks to drive down the lane. As a result, pedestrians have to walk along the road. This is NOT a safe route for pedestrians and should NOT be considered as the recommended walking route for the SSDA site

i. Cromehurst School is a school for children with special needs. The distance between the boundaries of this site and the school is approx. 15m

5. Natural wildlife would be impacted as this SSDA proposes to remove numerous trees and build upon land that is directly adjacent to the creek that runs through 5 Nelson Rd. My observations of wildlife that visit my property:
a. Water Dragon lizards are often seen sunbathing on our sandstone wall and driveway. See photos in attached document. These presumably live around the creek that runs through 5 Nelson Rd

b. Numerous native birds such as rainbow lorikeets, kookaburras, cockatoos, noisy miners, black-faced cuckooshrikes, magpies, bushturkeys and Lewin's honeyeaters. These are often heard singing and seen perching in the trees, flying and walking on my property and the SSDA site

c. Possums. These are seen late at night walking along my rear fence or climbing in the pine hedge at 1 Nelson Rd

6. Early-stage company with no public presence
a. An SSDA by its nature is an exceptionally large project. A reasonable person would think that the NSW State Government would prefer that these types of initiatives are undertaken by a well-established company with a proven track-record. This SSDA has been submitted by “Castle Hill No. 3 Pty Ltd” which appears to have been established in 2021 according to the ASIC Company Register. A simple search on Google and the White Pages shows that this company has no website or online presence, and no phone number or address. Failure to pass these basic due diligence tests are huge red flags and ring massive alarm bells

Thank you for taking the time to read my objection. I would like to request that the assessment team visit my residence to get a better understanding of these points.

In closing, the Concept SSDA clearly fails to provide the wider community with reasonable amenity, is insensitive to the surrounding area, has failed basic due diligence checks and should therefore be rejected by the assessment panel.

Sincerely,
Concerned resident

We have been in Lindfield for 25 years & are within 500m of the proposed development. In Summary, the key reasons why this development should not be approved are
a) 2 out of the 3 properties are not within 400m from the train station. The proposed development is being requested in an area which has been classified as low to mid rise residential. Approval for this type of development should be denied on this basis alone.
b) Bulk, height and form of the development are not in character with the location and is too close to single residential properties. This creates many issues both during/post construction due to shadowing, privacy, traffic etc. The visual impact analysis is highly selective. Selection of sites should be via an independent authority rather than a paid consultant to the developer
c) Many of the conclusions from supporting assessments are simplistic & don’t provide enough in-depth analysis of impacts. Analysis of traffic on a single day & also shadow impact of one day in winter are good examples of this. If the analysis was more in depth then you should get some improved quality conclusions which would challenge what the developer is proposing.
d) There are several planned DAs in the system for the Lindfield area. A detailed assessment of combined impact of traffic (including parking) needs to be undertaken before any individual development is approved. In particular traffic light exits onto major roads needs to be assessed as these are already congested during peak times.
e) Early upfront consultation was essentially non-existent (only a 30 minute rushed webinar). This gives the impression community consultation / feedback is not going to be taken seriously by these planners / developers during any part of the process. Essentially it looks as though the developers are happy only (or giving the impression of) meeting minimum standards. Hard to have confidence that if this development is to be approved that it will have the minimal impact and result in such a great project that all the experts are promising.
f) The council have submitted plans for the area. While not optimum they have at least had significant community input. To approve development outside council plans will severely impact the community way of life across numerous areas in Lindfield. It’s obvious, based on political pressure & power of developers that the community input is well down the pecking order. In addition, it is also normal practice for developers to change plans after approval to reduce both commitments made & costs. It would be good to understand how the regulatory authorities will be managing this & how the community will at least be consulted with in good faith.
Bit more detail
1. Consultation with community – it has been mentioned numerous times in documents about how early engagement was carried out. The purpose of community engagement as stated in section 3.1/P 5 of engagement report was
• Showcase the proposed development to relevant stakeholders
• Provide an opportunity for the community to respond to the proposal and ask questions about the SSD application and process
• Engage with the local community groups to consider their concerns or feedback in relation to the proposed development; and
• Provide the opportunity or the proposal to be amended, where reasonable based on feedback.
Community engagement process has not been delivered against the guidelines for the following reasons
• An information webinar was notified for 5.30pm on 19/5/25 which was subsequently changed to 20/5/25 with little notice. Time allowed for the webinar was only 30 min.
• Presentation was quickly rushed which did not include all material provided in submitted early consultation document submitted and there wasn’t any allowance for Q&A
• There was an attempt to go through some queries previously emailed but not all covered
• On emailing Planning Ingenuity with some queries (including requesting a copy of the presented material) the response was that all relevant information would be provided when the documents were submitted so no presented documentation was shared post the webinar. This was disappointing as it would have enabled a better opportunity to follow up on what was being proposed
• Section 4.3 states that “community members were encouraged to make additional submissions to the same email they previously used until 23 May 2025 ……. Interestingly this was not listed in the webinar document so not sure how this was communicated. Most DA documents were dated around the same time of the webinar. This would indicate the work was essentially complete & ready to be submitted. As a result, Planning Ingenuity
o Had little intent on being transparent about what was planned, where they were in the process & taking into consideration any feedback or concerns
o Were only holding the webinar to essentially tick a box
.
2. Location of Planned Development
a. It is claimed that one of the blocks is within the 400m walking distance from the train station & by joining the other 2 blocks it makes the overall site compliant with planning controls. Figure 34 in the Impact Statement shows the walking distance to the train station is 500m so there is confusion about whether the proposed development is 400m or 500m away from the station. Majority of the site is outside the 400m distance from the station so should only be developed as low to mid rise residential
b. After significant local community consultation, the Council has submitted a plan for approval. It is understood this council plan is being assessed. As this development is outside what the council has submitted the approval process for this development should be delayed until the council preferred plan has been properly considered. This would better enable the State govt & Council to be working in the same direction with a jointly agreed plan

3. Traffic analysis – Transport Impact Statement was overly simplistic and generic.
a. Only a single day was assessed for traffic analysis
b. Only assessed the 2 closest intersections. There is only one single lane exit with traffic lights onto the highway at Havilah Rd & east at Tryon / Archibald Rds. These exits are heavily congested during peak times. There was no assessment of traffic implications during/post construction on these limited exits to major roads. These should be considered as part of any assessment and as part of the consolidated impact of multiple DAs
c. Nelson Rd is already heavily parked with commuters accessing the station. Any additional parking pressure in Nelson Rd will push commuter parking further into other residential streets so impact will be broader than just in front of the planned development. The analysis needed greater assessment on parking impacts during/post construction. An example of the simplistic assessment of parking in Nelson Rd was a statement in section 3 that the removal of 3 resident driveways will provide extra parking - there was no mention that the 3 driveways would be replaced with a much larger one for access into the apartments.
d. During site induction, workers will be informed of the existing bus and metro network servicing the site (3.12 page 20). On all the previous developments in the area it was hard to spot a construction workers utilising public transport. They all prefer to have their cars/tools parked in the streets close by. Adding a significant number of vehicles during construction will simply push commuter parking further into other residential streets.

4. Overarching View of all currently submitted DAs
a. There are at least 4 major State DAs going through the approval process on the east side of Lindfield station with probably more to be submitted. Assessing the combined impact of these significant DAs should be made before any approval of individual developments
b. Many of the assumptions/conclusions provided in the DA documents appear to be generic, optimistic and a number will probably turn out to be inaccurate. What accountability do companies such as Planning Ingenuity, Landmark, JWT consulting etc have when their original assessments/conclusions are inaccurate? What regulatory authority will hold these companies accountable?
c. Infrastructure around the area is already under pressure. The overall impact of all developments should be reviewed & infrastructure improved in parallel. This needs to be part of a consolidated review

5. Design & height of planned development
a. Height & bulk of the building is totally out of character with surrounding area. It will stand out & be easily seen from a distance. The Visual Impact Assessment attempts to infer that on sites they have selected there won’t be a significant visual impact. The only reason for this conclusion are the points chosen for assessment were selected to ensure there was only minimal visual impact. There are certainly many other areas which could be selected which would have shown how visible this proposed development would be around the neighbourhood. The selecting of sites for visual assessment needs to be via an independent authority
b. Height of the building exceeds the maximum allowable height of 28.6m. It looks like all the planned SSD projects in Lindfield will exceed the maximum permissible height maximum. Height maximums need to be enforced
c. The shadow report shared only assesses one day in June (winter). The impact of shadows should be made on different times of the year not just one day in the middle of winter.
d. A good example of motherhood type statements indicating the design will minimise the likelihood of any adverse overlooking of neighbouring properties. Unless the development doesn’t have external windows or balconies this type of commitment is not achievable. This is a typical example of the developers attempting to paint a rosy picture when everyone knows that it won’t be

Thank you for taking time to read my submission and I look forward to your response.

I am writing to express my strong objection to the Concept SSD proposed by Castle Hill No.3 Pty Ltd, (SSD-82899468)

I would like to acknowledge the housing shortage and support responsible developments which provide high amenity to the community. A close examination of the Environmental Impact Statement revealed a large amount of inaccurate and misleading information which demonstrates the inability of this proposal to deliver any of its objectives.

A document titled “Errors and Inadequacies” (submitted under the name of David Walker) had been jointly prepared by concerned neighbouring residents and I am one of the contributors. The content of this document forms part of my submission.

My property was purchased as an original two-bedroom California Bungalow 15 years ago with the intention to renovate and extend. The key attraction of this property is the uninterrupted view of greenery for as far as the eye can see in the northerly aspect. Front extension to bring our house in line with the neighbours was not permitted as the front circular lawn and external façade had to be retained as per HCA guidelines. Rear extension with deeper excavation was the only option and hence we have a front yard that is substantially larger than the backyard. As the result, we will be much more adversely impacted by the proposed development than any other neighbours on the Southern side as we will have the least building separation. (see attachment A)

The key areas of concerns are as follows

Overshadowing
• My property will be adversely affected by the proposal as shown in Shadow Diagram. (DA405, DA406) My entire backyard will have no sun, my laundry will not be sun-dried and my winter heating bill will skyrocket as I work from home.
• It is an inaccurate statement in the EIS that “these dwellings will receive a suitable amount of solar access to their private open spaces and north facing windows in the morning, particularly No. 36 Tryon which will maintain solar access to its north facing elevation until 12pm”. No. 36 Tryon Rd will not receive sunlight until 12pm as the large trees which sit in the biodiversity zone further impacts solar access but were not depicted in the diagram. (see attachment B)
• Window placements of the proposed building and elevation shadow diagram were not provided to assess the true impact of overshadowing. The Shadow Diagram alone already demonstrates my property will not receive at least 3 hours of sunlight in winter solstice. Therefore, the proponent cannot claim it had met relevant LEP, DCP, SEPP and ADG guidelines regarding overshadowing and solar access.

Bulk and Scale/Visual Impact
• The bulk and scale of the proposed development is excessive. It will result in a complete loss of view in the northern aspect of my property. Sitting in my private living space looking out, my view will be a continuous wall of concrete with no trace of sky.
• The Heritage Impact Statement acknowledged “The proposed design does not comply due to its large vertical scale and contemporary nature. It is noted that the proposed building would be of a different scale and typology than that which currently exists on site or within the HCA”. The only justification for such bulk and scale by the proponent was that it is in line with the planned future character of the area. However, the planned future character of the area is best represented by the Revised Alternative TOD where extensive consultation was conducted and highlighted the community’s desire to preserve as much heritage conservation areas as possible.
• The Visual Impact Assessment understated true adverse impact as photos were taken from distant locations at a deliberate angle with buildings obstructing the view. No photos were taken from any of the adjoining properties along Tryon Rd, Nelson Rd or Lightcliff Ave.

Privacy and Noise
• My private living space is an open-planned design looking out to the Northern aspect. Given the insufficient building separation and bulk and scale of the design, apartments with south facing windows will be able to look right through my entire private living space and backyard.
• The invasion of privacy is further compounded by the design of communal space at the roof-top level. All the residents in the building can access the communal area and look down into my property. This is particularly concerning when I have underage children who often play in the backyard.
• The site sits within a very quiet neighbourhood. The only noise we get are the occasional barking from dogs and chirping from various birds. The EIS failed to account for noise generated from private balconies. external communal space and vehicles coming in and out of the car park.

Traffic
• The traffic study did not capture the true extent of peak hour traffic. On Monday/Tuesday/Wednesday, the wait time to turn right onto Lindfield Ave from Tryon Rd could take up to 2-3 minutes as there is a high volume of traffic turning right from Lindfield Ave onto Tryon Rd after dropping passengers at Lindfield station. Tryon Rd traffic travelling towards the station must give way at the intersection between Tryon Rd and Nelson Rd, during peak-hour time, more than 10 cars could be backed up on Tryon Rd unable to cross Nelson Rd.
• The safety of pedestrians was overlooked. High traffic volume at the Tryon/Nelson Rd intersection puts pedestrians under great danger as there is no pedestrian crossing or traffic lights to assist pedestrians who need to look out for vehicles coming from four directions.
• Traffic volume was underestimated as the consultant chose a low traffic day and low traffic intervals as peak hour times. Tuesday is when Lindfield experiences the highest amount of traffic and at the Tryon Rd/Nelson Rd intersection, the consultant chose a time slot of 4:15 – 5:15pm to avoid school pick up rush hour and the after work peak traffic. Data collected from two hours on one day is not statically sound to make meaningful conclusions.

Heritage
• We live in a house with 100-year-old history. It is through the internal/external features and landscape of the house that we pass on our heritage to the next generation and the appreciation for classic building technique and design. It is part of our unique culture that is worth preserving.
• The proponent argued “the demolition of buildings within the HCA is acceptable as the buildings no longer make a significant contribution to the HCA.” However, since the establishment of Crown Blocks HCA, there has been no change in the immediate surround, no developments or application of developments. The three dwellings have remained unchanged (façade or landscape). How do the buildings lose their contributary value when the HCA are in status quo? The collective effort from the neighbouring residents to produce “Error and Inadequacies” is a testament that residents within the HCA would like to conserve heritage and that is the preferred future.
• It is overly simplistic to determine heritage significance based on one criterion – modification. Crown Blocks HCA is defined in the Statement of Significance as “The built context is enhanced by large garden settings, wide street proportions, street plantings and remnant and planted native trees and reserve areas which are synonymous with the Ku-ring-gai area.”. Furthermore, it was noted in Subject Site Description that modification work was largely at rear and internal which are not visible from street level. (Appendix 16 p.7/8)

Apart from the key concerns mentioned above, there are other aspects which the proposed development did not address
• No.5 Nelson Rd is in Flood Planning Constraint Category 1 and 2
• No 5. Nelson Rd contains both Riparian Land Categories 3 and 3A
• No.5 and No.3 Nelson Rd contain areas of biodiversity significance
• Traffic, noise, privacy and overshadowing impacts on Cromehurst School
• Building separation and height transitioning especially from R2/low to Mid-Rise TOD to high rise TOD
• Amalgamation and rezoning of three lots without providing legal justification especially with No.3 and 5 clearly outside the 400m TOD zone

This Concept SSDA process of seeking permission to demolish three contributory dwellings in a HCA without providing any proper architectural design undermines the integrity of planning process as none of the environmental impacts and statutory requirements can be assessed with due diligence.

The EIS was declared and signed by a Registered Environmental Assessment Practitioner claiming that the document does not contain information that is false or misleading. However, the information provided in the “Errors and Inadequacies” document casts serious doubt over the competency and credibility of the proponent. How would the community interest be best served if a State Significant Development was granted to a developer who has no proven track record and is incapable of providing accurate information at the Concept Development Application stage?

My submission has demonstrated that high amenity to the neighbouring residents and broader community cannot be achieved under this proposal. I would like to request the assessment panel to conduct an on-site visit to verify the extent of adverse impacts on my property and quality of life. This Concept SSDA should be rejected.