The concept being considered for approval is in conflict with TOD zoning. Unsure why establish TOD zoning and guidelines only to then have such a significant exception almost immediately without good reason. The development is completely out of character with local zoning and immediate surrounds, which are largely heritage homes.

Street traffic and parking is already very difficult significant constraints on free, long-stay street parking locally owing to proximity to town centre shops and eateries, local school, local shopping amentities, medical offices and railway station.

Dear Council/Planning,

I am writing to formally object to the proposed development of a 9-level apartment block behind our aunty's property in Linfield.

While I acknowledge that the proposed plans include some building setbacks, I have significant concerns regarding the overall height and scale of the development, which I believe to be inconsistent with the surrounding area and local planning controls.

Key Concerns:
Excessive Height:
The proposed building height exceeds 22 metres, which goes beyond what is considered appropriate for this zone. Such a scale appears out of character with the existing low- to mid-rise residential and commercial buildings nearby. It's unclear how this could comply with height restrictions in place and raises questions about how it might pass council approval.

Inadequate Setbacks:
Although some setbacks are included in the plans, they appear very narrow and may not provide adequate visual relief, privacy, or separation from neighbouring properties. This could result in an overbearing presence and impact both residential amenity and neighbourhood character.

Neighbourhood Impact:
The scale of the development is likely to negatively affect the amenity of neighbouring properties, including loss of privacy, overshadowing, and increased traffic or noise in what is otherwise a quieter residential pocket.

I urge the council to consider the disproportionate scale of this proposal and its likely non-compliance with local planning guidelines, particularly in regard to height limits and setbacks.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. I appreciate the opportunity to provide feedback and trust that the concerns of local residents will be taken into account during the assessment process.

Kind regards

This development is 9 stories high! 9 stories!! And it is the first of many!! We were told under TOD that the absolute maximum would be 8 stories IF “affordable” units were included. WHO exactly is going to regulate the developers to ensure that the required number of “affordable” units are rented to “essential workers” for the required amount of time?
The massively excessive height of this development & it’s bulk & scale is completely incompatible with the neighborhood streetscape. This is just the beginning of the destruction of Lindfield. Our beautiful shrinking tree canopy, which currently supports so much valuable wildlife, will slowly be eroded and all this at the hands of a government that prides itself on being environmentally sensitive & responsible.
Creating more of these massive apartment blocks will NOT solve the housing crisis. There are already new apartment blocks in Lindfield with units still unsold including an “affordable” block on the Pacific Highway opposite the Post Office.
The only people who will benefit are the developers & those residents selling their houses for 5 times the market value.
Which suburb does our premier live in? Is TOD coming to his backyard?

Dear Sir/Madam,

Lindfield has been home for my family and I for more than 2 decades. We love the area, it is lush and peaceful, truly a haven for family. I would like to voice my concern for the Concept Development Application at 1-5 Nelson Road, LINDFIELD (SSD-82899468). While it is good to have developments as it adds vibrancy to the area, it is important to act prudently and consider the danger of overdevelopment, as it is happening in Ku-Ring-Gai area at the present time.

Please see below my concerns for your consideration:
1. Infrastructure
If we are to look at places where there have been overdevelopment, one of the biggest problem is the lack of infrastructure. When population in the area increases, infrastructure are often the item that is often overlooked. Does Lindfield have enough space to accommodate such increase in population? (Not only on this particular project)
2. Traffic
With the increase in population, so will the number of cars & other vehicles. The junction at Tryon Road & Lindfield Avenue is experiencing heavy traffic as it is every morning. This is also true at the junction at Tryon Road & Archbold Road. Bad traffic causes frustration and with so many children in the area, this must be carefully considered or Lindfield can become a place where accidents are waiting to happen.
3. Project Size
The project size is also a problem because it will affect many of the residents in the area, towering the low rise housing, robbing them both of natural light & privacy. Not only so, this development will also violate the established the regulations for Heritage Conservation Area.

I am not against development, but as a long-time resident in the area, I urge you as the ones with the authority to carefully consider the implications (both and in the distant future) that this development may bring to the area.

Yours truly,
Long Time Lindfield Resident

Thank you for notifying Sydney Water of SSD-82899468 at 1-5 Nelson Road, Lindfield.
Please see attached response and information sheet for the applicant.
If this response raises any enquiries, please do not hesitate to contact Sydney Water at [email protected].

I would like to object to this proposed development.

My family and I live in one of the houses which is very close to this development. We moved into our home about 20 months ago, after living in rental apartments for the last 20 years prior to that. We are thankful for this house because it was not easy living in apartments with young kids, who needed more space and which this house provides. It is really helpful that we live near Lindfield station (500 metres away). Being quite close to the station allows our oldest two sons to catch a train to go to school while my husband only needs to drive the two little ones to school and not to worry about the other 2 kids. I am a teacher and I work at a school 10 minutes away.

This house is our home and we are thankful for it. When a developer approached us last year and told us to bundle up with a couple of neighbours for re-development, we said no, even when the representative told us that it wouldn't be nice living next to an apartment as they would go ahead with or without our house.

Why did I mention all these? To show that there are many families like ours, who are being affected by the rapid speed at which SSDA have been put through by developers in this area and neighbourhood. The whole process has been very rushed and very stressful. We are being forced to choose: either sell to the developers, or sell privately and move out, or to stay put but living near/next to high rise apartments and bear the impact.

Let me begin by saying that we totally support the initiative to create more affordable housing in the current housing crisis that our city is in. We want nothing more than to see our own 4 children grow up and have their own place to stay with their families in the future. So it is a false narrative to say that those who are against the SSDA are only thinking of themselves and have no concern for others affected by the rental crisis and unaffordable housing we are seeing. So we are NOT against the plan to increase the housing stock in Sydney and we are not against the TOD initiative started by the NSW Government.

What we are against is the irresponsible way we feel the whole thing is being conducted. I feel it is so rushed, not well thought through and too much power is given to those that will benefit most from this: the developers. All in the name of affordable housing, but how 'affordable' will these apartment units in the north shore really will be and how many will actually benefit from this initiative which looks good on paper, but in reality is problematic.

I think it is possible for the State government to get the required number of new dwellings without this much objection from residences if a good compromise is made: to give the local council (i.e. Kuringai) a specific number of housing to be built in the area (which the government did) AND THEN let the Council come up with the required number of housing. The Kuringai's council's 'Preferred Scenario' has strong community support as these increased dwellings are planned to be built in areas appropriate for these types of high density buildings. This makes sense since the Council is very familiar with this area AND they have done extensive community consultation. The same cannot be said about the Applicant as we missed out on the ONLY informative webinar they conducted for this SSDA because they did a rescheduling in date of the webinar and we only received an email the day before. Thus we were not able to attend this session as we were not able to change our schedule last minute. Things like this simply does not give us confidence that the Applicant has our best interest in mind. We are not pro-Kuringai Council, but I do believe the Council is more responsible, more thorough, more objective, more careful and more respected in the community to be entrusted with this task of providing more housing, in partnership with the State Government, than the developers who have a very different agenda for supporting the government TOD initiative.

Therefore to bypass the Kuringai Council for the sake of speeding up the process is counter productive because the bulk of residents who would have been ok with the Kuringai Council's preferred scenario (which will also provide the twenty plus thousand additional apartments that the government wants), are now reacting strongly to all these developers rushing and trying to get a piece of the pie without sparing much thought to the area and the residents like the Council did.

To hurry the process and undermine Kuringai Council's authority and to give much of that to the developers who have a very different agenda, is not only unwise, but also irresponsible, in my opinion. I get the logic that going through the developers will just speed things up (yes, I’m aware that there is a sense of urgency in the whole thing) but looking at the number of the inconsistency, inaccuracy and inadequacy of this applicant’s SSDA (a long list which will be submitted in a separate attachment with one of the representatives of our neighbourhood, David Walker's submission - this list is titled "Errors and Inadequacies'), it just speaks so much volume in terms of how rushed this has been, with inadequate assessment and poor / little due diligence being performed and I feel it makes a mockery of SEAR and other department guidelines for SSDA which are there as a proper check and balance.

All this to say, I object to this development proposal.