I support the project

The scale of the proposal is totally non compliant with the Kuringai alternative TOD plans for Gordon, Killara, Lindfield and Roseville which have been approved by the State Government. This approved alternative to the original State Government TOD plans allows for an additional 2000 dwellings above the Government’s target without this overdevelopment of the Stanhope road site in question. Such over development if it were allowed to proceed would require significant infrastructure improvements in the surrounding area including but not limited to sewerage, stormwater management, water supply, roads and traffic management none of which are considered in the proposal. The significant loss of tree canopy to high rises and hard standing is a major concern in these times of climate change and need to reduce carbon emissions. The built form of the proposed development is totally out of keeping with the adjacent properties with insufficient height reduction at the boundaries to reduce the visual impact and overbearing of adjacent sites.
As a long term resident in the area I object to the scale of this development and propose the State Government deny any further consideration due to its non compliance with the approved Kurungai alternative TOD plans for Gordon, Killara, Lindfield and Roseville.

I'm a Killara resident. I object to this project,
The reasons that I object to this proposal and its latest amendments (which are very minor amendments)are:
Height, Bulk, Scale,
inconsistent with the local character, conflicting with the heritage conservation area of the street and the suburb, and with traffic and ecology.
The Ku-ring-gai Council's preferred alternate TOD has been adopted and accepted by the State Government.
The Alternate TOD takes into account the need to increase housing availability and balances it with the need to protect social, heritage, and environmental impacts and existing amenities, with a clear vision for the character and changing nature of the suburb.

I would like to make a submission opposing the SSDA for 10, 14 and 14a Stanhope Road, Killara. The surrounding district is characterised by well preserved character homes, many of which were built during the architecturally significant Federation period, and are considered significant and carry a heritage designation. They lie in an environmentally friendly setting with extensive tree canopy and abundant flora and fauna, that is the envy of other municipalities. The canopy provides significant benefits in the current climate challenges of global warming including temperature mitigation and cooling of surfaces during periods of extreme heat and greater potential absorption and storage of carbon dioxide by the abundant vegetation. The local council and municipal constituents have gone to great lengths to preserve the integrity of this area over many years, and this proposal completely undermines years of careful policy to prevent inappropriate development for this area. Heritage and environmental principles are being completely overlooked by many of these development proposals.

It is disappointing that the current government has imposed the TOD planning controls with greatest effect in districts where the prevailing attitudes of the constituents marks them as expendable in terms of political allegiance; reflected most directly in nett loss to the home owner given the heavy preponderance of heritage listed homes surrounding or in close vicinity to the development, and inciting unrest among neighbouring homeowners seeking to maximise their property value when faced with the choice of selling to developers, even if they had not intended moving in the first instance. These changes have not had the same impact on constituents in municipalities' sympathetic to Labor due to the risk of losing political favour.

Directly pertaining to this proposal, others will have discussed inadequate amendments to building height, floor space ratios, layout, landscaping, solar restriction and overshading considerations. However as known to most constituents of this area, infrastructure is outdated and limited and is unlikely to tolerate the additional dwelling numbers with the measures being proposed. I will focus on two items of critical infrastructure - transport links including traffic flow and essential services such as schooling and access to medical practitioners.

The proposed development is located between a major artery (Pacific Highway) and the railway line, which is crossed by a narrow bridge with a single lane of traffic in each direction. There is perfunctory (at best) pedestrian access across the bridge, and a traffic light controlling traffic movement across the bridge through a four way junction, where vehicles commonly turn right or left once oncoming traffic has ceased, heading for the bigger hubs of Lindfield and Gordon respectively. The intersection allows local traffic to proceed cautiously at peak times, given the inlet and outlet are only a single lane in each direction, and given the current already congested on street parking requirements. The proposed development adds up to 400 new residents and by implication 160 vehicles (conservatively 1.25 cars / apartment depending on bedroom number) with provision for 0.8 cars / apartment on-site allocated parking, thereby requiring the rest of the vehicles to be parked on the surrounding street which is the single lane road described above. There is no capacity for the area to absorb these extra vehicles and traffic flow would be completely disrupted, and the risk of pedestrian injury increases as drivers speed through this intersection. Traffic turning off the Pacific Highway into Stanhope Road would be expected to bank up before the turn given the short 400m stretch to the signal, during peak periods. Proceeding from Stanhope road onto the Pacific Highway going north is already impossible at peak hour. Intractable delays would be expected due to the presence of entry / exit access on Werona Avenue and Stanhope Road. There is further concern of even larger and even more inappropriate SSDs on Werona Avenue, saved for future planning consideration, complicating this already tenuous traffic balance. The additional car movements out of Stanhope Road could clearly not be accommodated with present infrastructure, and in fact increase the risk of accidents to both pedestrians and motorists.

The original TOD plan called for suburbs with transport links to be redeveloped within existing enabling infrastructure, but this does not exist in Killara. The train station at Killara has restricted services, especially during peak commuter use periods. There is no commercial hub at the station, the only shop being a standalone needlecraft shop. There is no post office or food outlets, nor a regular bus route that services the station. Ku-ring-gai Council has assessed these major deficiencies and adopted a revised TOD plan that provided planning controls allowing for development within the municipality in the vicinity of the established hubs. Killara is not suitable for such developments due to lack of amenity and supporting requirements. The proposed development being located at the apex of a big hill, would only encourage increased vehicle use to neighbouring districts for access to basic provisions, thereby placing further constraints on the already limited local road network. How can this lack of transport and
supporting infrastructure meet the criteria for a TOD and under the current proposal cater for more than 500 new residents?
There are no schools in safe walking distance of this development, which can only increase the traffic chaos described above. In addition almost all medical practices within the entire district have closed their appointments to new patients due to maximised current patient numbers, meaning the large influx of residents would have to travel outside the district to access primary medical care. These two critical infrastructure and service oversights are over and above resident concerns about water management and sewerage; essential services that are already operating at maximal capacity.

A quick mention about the false notion of "affordable" housing. Developers have admitted it is no longer feasible to build in the inner west, western and south western Sydney due to lack of profit. They cannot recoup their expenses in these areas that have traditionally housed more people qualifying for "affordable living infill". They can only meet their profit margins in more affluent regions. How will this reflect affordability, which is the basis for the SSD pathway and escalated approvals by the HDA. Buying trends in this district have not been adequately analysed, in fact completely negated. The average price for a new apartment in Killara is $1.13 million with an average monthly rental of $3200. Annual incomes in excess of $130000 (well above the median Australian salary) would be required to service these costs to qualify as affordable housing where up to 30% of income is used to pay housing costs. Therefore, the proposed development provides no long-term affordable living options for low- and medium-income earners. In addition, Killara has recently seen an influx of purchasers from China (often affluent expatriates) who purchase apartments in this district to take advantage of its location within the catchment of the highly desirable non-selective local high school. The acquisitions often remain unoccupied for significant periods. This competition for properties will not be conducive to affordability in this area and it is unlikely that any proposed development will achieve a consistent level of residential amenity across both affordable and non-affordable housing components. As only 2% of proposed housing will remain "affordable" in perpetuity (> 15 years), the argument for affordable housing is completely invalid, and is more an attempt to raise the interest of developers to meet unachievable quotas. Unfortunately, this is to the complete detriment (both fiscally and emotionally) of the property owner.

This proposal fails to address heritage and environmental concerns and requirements, maximised infrastructure / essential services in this municipality and basic local demographics which would be essential for desirable living in the current challenged global economic, political and climate spheres. The developers are disregarding history yet not providing true resources to tackle future challenges for desirable living. It is a cynical exercise to maintain political influence. The DPHI should take the lead from other jurisdictions around the world; improve transport links to more affordable regional centres; optimise environmental integrity and not put their constituents at risk of fiscal and emotional instability.

The applicant has submitted a Clause 4.6 request to permit non-compliance with maximum building heights at the site however the submission fails to satisfy the Wehbe Tests
The applicant asserts that compliance with the height development standard is “unreasonable or unnecessary” within the meaning of Section 18(2) of the Housing SEPP, relying on Clause 4.6 jurisprudence. That assertion is unsustainable.
In Wehbe v Pittwater Council [2007] NSWLEC 827, the Court identified at least five distinct ways in which an applicant might establish that compliance with a development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary. While satisfaction of one pathway may be sufficient, the applicant in this case satisfies none.

Each test is addressed below.
1. First Wehbe Test
Objectives of the development standard are achieved notwithstanding non-compliance
The applicant has not demonstrated that the objectives of the height standard are achieved despite the proposed exceedance.
The objectives of height controls under the Housing SEPP and KLEP include:
• limiting bulk and scale;
• protecting heritage significance and streetscape character;
• preventing visual dominance and overdevelopment; and
• ensuring orderly and predictable built form outcomes.
The proposed exceedance:
• introduces buildings of up to nine storeys in immediate proximity to heritage items and a heritage conservation area;
• results in pronounced bulk, scale dominance, and visual intrusion; and
• materially alters the established and intended character of Stanhope Road.
Assertions that landscaping, setbacks, stepped massing or rear-site location “mitigate” these impacts do not demonstrate that the objectives are achieved. As consistently held by the Court, mitigation measures cannot be equated with achievement of objectives where the built form outcomes are fundamentally inconsistent with those objectives.
Accordingly, the First Wehbe Test is not satisfied.

2. Second Wehbe Test
The underlying objectives are not relevant to the development, making compliance unnecessary
The applicant has not established that the objectives of the height standard are irrelevant to this development.
On the contrary, the objectives are directly and acutely engaged, given that:
• the site adjoins and affects a locally listed heritage item at 12 Stanhope Road;
• the site sits within a heritage-sensitive streetscape and conservation area context; and
• the proposal relies on substantial vertical scale to achieve its yield.
Height is a critical control for managing heritage setting, visual dominance, and streetscape coherence. The applicant’s own heritage and urban design material implicitly acknowledges the relevance of height by seeking to justify its redistribution across the site.
Compliance is therefore not unnecessary — it is central to the planning outcomes sought by the controls.
The Second Wehbe Test is not satisfied.

3. Third Wehbe Test
The objectives would be defeated or thwarted if compliance were required
The applicant contends that requiring compliance would undermine heritage outcomes and constrain housing delivery. This argument reverses the proper operation of planning controls.
The objectives of the height standard are not defeated by compliance; they are fulfilled by compliance. Any reduction in yield or building scale arising from compliance is the intended consequence of applying statutory controls to a constrained site.
Heritage protection, slope, and BV land constraints do not make compliance unreasonable. They are inherent site limitations that lawfully restrict development potential. The Court has repeatedly held that a development standard is not rendered unreasonable merely because it constrains what an applicant wishes to build.
Requiring compliance would not thwart the objectives of the standard — it would give effect to them.
The Third Wehbe Test is not satisfied.

4. Fourth Wehbe Test
The standard has been virtually abandoned or destroyed by prior approvals
The applicant has not identified any pattern of approvals demonstrating that the height standard has been routinely or systematically disregarded for comparable sites within the Stanhope Road or Killara context.
No evidence has been provided of:
• consistent exceedances of similar magnitude;
• approvals within heritage conservation areas setting a comparable precedent; or
• a demonstrable erosion of the standard by the consent authority’s own actions.
Absent such evidence, the Court cannot conclude that the standard has been abandoned or destroyed.
The Fourth Wehbe Test is not satisfied.

5. Fifth Wehbe Test
The zoning of the land is unreasonable or inappropriate
The applicant does not contend — nor could it credibly contend — that the zoning of the land is unreasonable or inappropriate.
The zoning:
• expressly contemplates development subject to height, heritage, and character controls; and
• reflects a deliberate planning balance between housing capacity and environmental and heritage constraints.
Disagreement with the quantum of development permitted under the zoning does not establish that the zoning itself is unreasonable.
The Fifth Wehbe Test is not satisfied.

Conclusion on Wehbe Tests
The applicant has failed to demonstrate that compliance with the height development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary under any of the five recognised Wehbe pathways.
The Clause 4.6 / Section 18(2) justification therefore fails at the jurisdictional threshold. In these circumstances, the consent authority cannot be satisfied as required by the Housing SEPP, and the proposed variation must be refused.

I object to this development in relation to a number of matters and endorse objections already lodged as to scale and bulk. I also note that the image of the proposal is misleading in material respects as it fails to show the true impact of this huge development on the streetscape.

1. Height and bulk
The proposed development is completely inconsistent with the size and bulk of surrounding properties. In an area renowned for its natural beauty, this development strips the properties bare and negates the continuation of the natural blue gum forest which runs through this area. Any attempt to grow trees as suggested by the plans would be fruitless due to the lack of sunlight and lack of soil as the structures leave little space between them and the boundary.
The largest building at 10 stories is completely out of character for this quiet residential street. It overshadows adjoining properties and I note that in June the shadows travel through to Stanhope Road, over the adjoining property.

2. Lack of Amenities
If the aim of the TOD policy was to encourage development close to transport, this would be the worst possible example of a development fitting within the matrix but failing to satisfy the intention of easy access to transport for residents. The site is on the crest of a hill, one of the highest points in Killara, with Killara station at its base on the northern side, so that access from the station for residents is up a steep hill with significant incline.
There is only one shop within 1 kilometre of the site: The Crewel Gobelin, Australia’s premier needlecraft shop, at 9 Marian Street, Killara. For all needs other than needlecraft, the closest shops are at Lindfield Village, at the southern base of the Killara hill and requiring the negotiation of a substantial incline when walking home with shopping. This would be particularly difficult for those accessing the senior living component of the proposed development. Within the limited information provided, there appears to be no access for delivery vehicles, taxis or ubers should residents require home delivery.
Little significant green space for residents is proposed by this development. The closest park is beside the railway lines, once again at the northern base of a steep hill.

3. Strain on Existing Infrastructure
The provision of water and sewerage to the area is already under significant strain. Built over a century ago, this infrastructure has recently suffered a number of major failings: the entire system requires overhaul. Adding 136 apartments, and their hundreds of residents, to this already strained infrastructure may have a catastrophic result in the future. I note that there is no proper information as to groundwater, where the land falls away sharply at the back leading to risk of flooding of the proposed properties and their neighbours.
Killara High School is already under significant strain and there is no discussion in this plan of the means by which the Education Department will increase capacity.

4. Traffic
The provision of 117 car spaces anticipates significant impact on local roads, completely at odds with the TOD mantra advocating public transport.

Compliance with key metrics of planning instruments should not of itself lead to the granting of development consent as those metrics are a maximum and not an entitlement. I realise that this application has been nominated as one of State Significance but I urge the Department to withold its consent to this application.

I strongly support the proposed Transit Orientated Development at 10-14-14A Stanhope Road' Killara. The design's proximity to rail infrastructure makes it a logical and environmentally responsible location for additional dwellings. With appropriate attention to landscaping, heritage context and traffic management, this development can contribute positively to the suburbs future character and liveability.
Similar TOD projects represent a balanced approach to growth ensuring Ku-Ring-Gai evolves sustainably without encroaching on critical green spaces.

Objection to Residential flat buildings with infill affordable housing - 10, 14 and 14a Stanhope Road, Killara

I have lived in Roseville, Killara or Gordon for 35 years.

I planned for, worked towards and committed to buying a home in Roseville for my young family and I.

I specifically chose a heritage house in a Heritage Conservation Area (HCA) attracted to the 1-2 storey garden settings and heritage. I was conscious of and attracted to the protections in place for conservation of the heritage significance of the area including fabric, settings and views.

Following stringent Council requirements, I sought and obtained Development Application (DA) approval for restoration of my home in accordance with heritage controls. This allows for renewal of the place for a new generation and the saving of the embodied energy in the place.

It is not an unreasonable expectation, and is a requirement for you to consider, that development in the HCA conserves the environmental heritage and heritage significance of items and areas and this includes fabric, settings and views.

The public interest in not undoing that in that is heightened by reflection on the fact that time and expense and effort have been, for a long time, expended by the community in furtherance of a legislative mechanism to conserve the heritage of the area.

Whether under the original Transport Orientated Development (TOD) or Council’s Preferred Scenario, it is against the public interest and the objects of the planning legislation for this development to proceed.

This particular development is inconsistent with and not sensitive to and does not preserve or enhance the HCA.

I note further below that Ku-ring-gai Council’s Preferred Scenario should be allowed to proceed under which housing exceeding the Government’s targets will be permitted. This will allow for more people to enjoy the area while preserving the very thing that makes the area attractive.

Despite the fact that the proposed development should in fact be determined under the Preferred Scenario, it also should be rejected because it is against the public interest and for the reasons set out below.

1. Heritage Impacts

I object to the proposed development which involves the demolition of houses that contribute to these Heritage Conservation Areas (HCAs). This is contrary to the position of the Minister and the Department that have stated that contributory items must not be demolished and contrary to this, the proposed development requires the demolition of these contributory items.

At a height of 10 storeys this would be by far the tallest structure on the east side of Killara and not only would this impact on overshadowing / solar access / privacy to the 1-2 storey heritage homes that surround it (including 9 Heritage Listed Homes surrounding it on Stanhope Road) but also on views of these remaining contributory items.

The Local Environment Plan (LEP) which is not turned off by the TOD states that views to and from heritage items must also be maintained and, contrary to that position, the views to and from heritage items on Stanhope Road would not be preserved at all. Current views of extensive mature tree canopy and the rooflines of 1-2 storey heritage homes would be replaced with views of a 10 storey development surrounded by a stark treeless skyline.

With its proposed 135 apartments and 195 car spaces which would be located next to and opposite beautiful heritage homes and within a HCA where houses are 1-2 storeys high is not only completely inconsistent with the heritage architecture and historical values of this HCA in Killara but it is contrary to clause 5.10 of the LEP as it does not preserve or protect its buildings, its trees or the setting and views of the areas.

The HCA , Killara and Ku-ring-gai as a whole are of national, state and local historical and heritage aesthetic significance as an area of Federation style housing. Relevant history can be found in the hundreds of heritage impact statements the planning legislation has required applicants to lodge with DAs in this area.

The Minister and the Department have explicitly said that any development in a HCA (as well as not involving removal of contributory items) needs to improve and enhance the heritage values of the location.

The proposed development does nothing to address these values.

New infill buildings and designs must:

1. be no higher than neighbouring heritage buildings; and

2. recognise the predominant scale of the setting and respond sympathetically.

These are from the Government’s own guidelines (Design Guide for Heritage and Design in context: Guidelines for development in the historic environment).

The impact of an inappropriately scaled building cannot be compensated for by building form, design or detailing." (page 19, Design in context: Guidelines for infill development in the historic environment (nsw.gov.au). Contrary to that requirement, the proposed plans do nothing to demonstrate and reflect the garden settings of the 1- 2 storey heritage homes surrounding it.

The effect of the proposed development is that it will effectively be an isolated island of an enormous modern tower surrounded by streets of 1-2 storey heritage homes.

2. Environmental Impacts

What also makes Ku-ring-gai and Killara unique and special, in addition to its built heritage is its bird life, gardens, expansive tree canopy ( ‘urban forest’ ) and green space. 690 fauna species live in Ku-ring-gai. We have many Kookaburras frequent our home each day.

The destruction of greenspace here means green space will need to be found elsewhere. That is duplicative and unproductive and that wastage is against the public interest.

This proposed development threatens this with clearing of mature trees and plants to make way for 135 apartments. On the site there is a Blue Gum High Forest and Sydney Turpentine-Ironbark Forest, both of which are on the New South Wales Threatened Entity Profiles as of June 2025. The Heritage Impact Statement for the proposed development states that “all trees to be removed."

This will in turn destroy many bird and animal habitats and also create large areas of hard surfaces which will significantly contribute to the ‘heat island effect’ increasing the heat related impacts of climate change, making increased temperatures and extreme hot weather events more severe. This would be absolutely devastating for this HCA, streets which are famous in Killara and the State for their large significant mature trees which line these streets and which are also contained in its beautiful established gardens.

In addition, the creation of large hard surfaces results in more heat, fewer trees and more water runoff and ignores existing infrastructure and overland flow limitations.

---

## Executive Summary

I am writing to formally object to the proposed high-density residential development planned for our historic low-density neighborhood. This development threatens the fundamental character, heritage, and community values that have defined our area for generations. The proposed project would irreversibly damage the intimate scale, architectural integrity, and social fabric that makes our neighborhood a cherished place to raise families and maintain meaningful community connections.

Our neighborhood represents more than mere housing – it embodies a way of life that prioritizes human-scale development, historical preservation, and the cultivation of deep community bonds. The proposed high-density development would fundamentally alter this delicate balance, transforming our tree-lined streets into urban corridors and replacing our close-knit community atmosphere with the anonymity typical of high-density living environments.

## Historic Preservation and Architectural Integrity

### Irreplaceable Heritage Assets

Our neighborhood contains numerous buildings of significant historical and architectural value, many dating back over a century. These structures represent irreplaceable examples of period architecture that tell the story of our community's evolution and contribute to its unique identity. The proposed development, with its modern high-density design, would create jarring visual conflicts with these heritage buildings, diminishing their historical context and reducing their cultural significance.

The historic buildings in our area were designed and constructed during an era when craftsmanship and attention to detail were paramount. Hand-carved woodwork, original brick facades, decorative stonework, and period-appropriate windows and doors create an architectural tapestry that cannot be replicated with modern construction methods. These buildings serve as living museums, educating current and future generations about construction techniques, design philosophies, and social conditions of earlier eras.

### Scale and Proportion Harmony

The existing low-density character of our neighborhood creates a harmonious relationship between buildings, lots, and streetscapes that has evolved organically over decades. Single-family homes, duplexes, and small apartment buildings create varied rooflines and building heights that contribute to visual interest while maintaining human scale. The proposed high-density development would introduce building masses and heights that overwhelm this carefully balanced composition, creating shadow effects, blocking natural light, and fundamentally altering the neighborhood's visual character.

The current building scale allows for adequate spacing between structures, providing privacy for residents, space for mature landscaping, and visual breathing room that contributes to the area's peaceful atmosphere. High-density development typically requires minimal setbacks and maximized building coverage, eliminating the generous spacing that currently defines our neighborhood character.

## Impact on Family Values and Community Life

### Nurturing Environment for Children

Our low-density neighborhood provides an ideal environment for raising children, with quiet streets suitable for bicycle riding, sidewalks perfect for learning to walk and play, and front yards where children can safely play under parental supervision. The current scale and design of our neighborhood encourage outdoor family activities, neighborhood friendships among children, and the kind of informal supervision that occurs when adults can easily observe and interact with children playing throughout the area.

High-density development typically brings increased traffic, reduced green space, and fewer opportunities for children to play safely outdoors. The proposed development would introduce significantly more vehicles to our quiet streets, creating safety hazards for children and reducing the peaceful atmosphere that makes outdoor family time enjoyable and stress-free.

### Multi-Generational Community Connections

Our neighborhood's low-density character facilitates the kind of inter-generational relationships that strengthen community bonds and provide valuable social support networks. Elderly residents often develop meaningful relationships with young families, providing informal childcare assistance, sharing gardening knowledge, and contributing to the sense of extended community family that characterizes our area.

The current housing stock, with its variety of sizes and price points, allows families to remain in the neighborhood as their needs change over time. Young couples can start in smaller homes and later move to larger properties within the same area, maintaining community connections while accommodating growing families. Elderly residents can downsize to smaller units while remaining close to established social networks and familiar surroundings.

High-density development often attracts more transient residents who lack the same investment in long-term community building. The anonymous nature of large apartment complexes can reduce the informal social interactions that currently strengthen our neighborhood's social fabric.

### Support for Local Institutions

Our neighborhood's stable, family-oriented population provides crucial support for local institutions including schools, religious organizations, and community groups. Long-term residents develop deep commitments to these institutions, volunteering their time, contributing financially, and ensuring continuity of programs and services that benefit the entire community.

The proposed high-density development could introduce population instability that undermines these community institutions. High-density housing often attracts more transient residents who may be less likely to invest in local schools, participate in community organizations, or contribute to the volunteer activities that sustain neighborhood institutions.

## Preservation of Leafy Green Streets and Natural Environment

### Mature Tree Canopy Protection

Our neighborhood's mature tree canopy represents decades of growth and careful cultivation, providing environmental benefits including air purification, temperature moderation, stormwater management, and habitat for local wildlife. These established trees create the leafy green corridors that define our streets and contribute significantly to property values, air quality, and overall quality of life.

The proposed high-density development poses direct threats to this mature tree canopy through construction activities, changed drainage patterns, soil compaction, and the need to accommodate larger buildings and increased parking. Many of our oldest and most magnificent trees could be damaged or destroyed, representing an irreplaceable loss of environmental resources that took decades to develop.

### Urban Heat Island Mitigation

The current low-density development pattern, combined with extensive tree coverage and green spaces, helps mitigate urban heat island effects that are increasingly problematic in many metropolitan areas. Our neighborhood's design allows for natural air circulation, provides shade through mature trees, and maintains green surfaces that absorb rather than reflect heat.

High-density development typically involves removing vegetation, increasing impervious surfaces, and creating building configurations that trap heat and reduce air circulation. This transformation would make our neighborhood significantly less comfortable during warm weather and could increase energy costs for all residents as air conditioning demands increase.

### Biodiversity and Wildlife Habitat

Our neighborhood's green character supports local biodiversity by providing habitat corridors for birds, small mammals, and beneficial insects. Mature trees, established gardens, and green spaces create an interconnected ecosystem that supports species diversity and provides educational opportunities for children to observe and learn about local wildlife.

The proposed development would fragment these habitat areas, reduce biodiversity, and eliminate many of the nature-based learning opportunities that currently enrich children's experiences in our neighborhood. The loss of green space and wildlife habitat would diminish one of the key features that makes our area special and educationally valuable for families.

## Impact on Seasonal Celebrations and Community Traditions

### Christmas Light Displays and Holiday Traditions

Our neighborhood's low-density character creates ideal conditions for the elaborate Christmas light displays that have become a beloved community tradition. Single-family homes with front yards, mature trees, and generous setbacks provide perfect canvases for creative holiday decorations that bring joy to residents and attract visitors from throughout the region.

These holiday traditions serve multiple important functions in our community. They encourage homeowner investment in property improvement and maintenance, create opportunities for neighbors to collaborate on displays, provide safe family entertainment during the holiday season, and generate positive economic impact as visitors come to enjoy our neighborhood's festive atmosphere.

The current housing stock, with its variety of architectural styles and generous lot sizes, allows for diverse and creative holiday expressions. Front porches can be decorated with lights and garlands, mature trees can support elaborate lighting displays, and spacious yards provide room for lawn decorations and themed displays that would be impossible in high-dens

Thank you for notifying Sydney Water of SSD-81890707 at 10-14 and 14a Stanhope Road, Killara (Killara TOD). Please see attached response, Growth Data form and information sheet for the applicant.

If this response raises any enquiries, please contact Sydney Water at [email protected].