Hello - My family and I are supportive of development, however the proposal on Stanhope Road is of excessive bulk given the size and height of the proposal. Over 30m in height. This does not reflect any of the residential or apartment sizing of the suburb, even on the Pacific Highway. This area could be appropriately developed with height and scale and ensuring it is sympathetic to the suburbs heritage houses and street scape. The development appears opportunistic and solely maximised for profit and commercial return. In addition, there is little thought to how traffic and pedestrian access and safety will be managed.

I object to the huge scale and consequential impact of this project. I do not object to an appropriate level of increased density but the scale of this proposal is out of all proportion to the heritage character and scale of the Killara and nearby area. The specifics of my objection are as follows:

1. The western section of Stanhope Road Killara between the Pacific Highway and the Railway line is a plane tree lined boulevard with a large tree canopy and the great majority of the houses are large very well presented old heritage style homes creating a mostly turn of the 19th/20th century to 1930's look. This 9 storey monstrosity comprising 140 apartments will be an out of place eyesore in this tree lined boulevard. Killara is a village. It has a train station but does not have a commercial centre - certainly not one around the train station

2. Traffic - Stanhope Road access at the Pacific Highway is not governed by traffic lights. It is used as a major access point to Fiddens Wharf Road for traffic bound for the M2 or the Macquarie area including Macquarie University. At peak times the Pacific Highway right hand turn lane into Fiddens wharf Road overflows and blocks one southbound lane of the pacific highway. This development will add significant congestion to Pacific Highway access and flows at peak times. All eastern side access roadsto the Pacific Highway from Chatswood to Gordon are single lane and already fully congested at peak times. Will the developers pay to increase road capacity or will taxpayers have to subsidise their profits by funding road developments through rate increases.

3 - Traffic parking in Stanhope Road - prior to this development this western section of Stanhope Road already experiences street parking occupancy of approx 40 to 60%. This development will push it to over 100% limiting trades and visitor access and further increasing the risk of collision as there is insufficient width for moving trucks and cars when vehicles are parked on both sides. There have already been multiple accidents with parked vehicles in this section of Stanhope Road.

4 - Traffic volume - Stanhope Road is used as a primary access and distribution route from the pacific highway to nearby streets, schools and the railway. This development will substantially increase those volumes increasing pedestrian and cyclist risks - particularly at the corner of Springdale Road.

5. Cumulative impact - in addition to this proposal there is an SSD for 450 apartments at the Dalcross site on the Corner of Werona Avenue and Stanhope Road approx 250 metres east of this site. If the Dalcross SSD site proceeds as proposed (it should not) there will be approx 600 new dwellings in the approx 500 metres of Stanhope Road between the Pacific Highway and Springdale Road. The traffic and parking impacts of that volume cannot be absorbed in that 500 metre stretch of road

6.- Failure to achieve policy objectives - the property market in the Chatswood to Gordon area continues to demand high 1 million to 2 million and above for 2 bedroom apartments. These are not routinely affordable for NSW residents. The demographic changes in this are area over the last 5 years indicates that new developments are predominantly occupied by recent immigrants or visa holders with sufficient wealth to acquire them so they can access local private or public schools and attend universitates, or worse, land bank them as stored wealth of rarely occupied properties. This does not fix the existing housing problem for our children or grand children in this area. Further, as we wish to downsize we do not want to live in a high rise development but there are no alternatives in this area. This development does not provide a housing opportunity for me, my children or grand children. It will predominantly serve wealthy immigrants, visa holders or foreign investors (as allowed by FIRB regulations for new developments).

We object to the project SSD-81890707 as per the attached document

As a community, we explicitly established the Stanhope Road Conservation Area for its "aesthetic significance of a good and largely intact residential precinct characterised by streetscapes of good, high quality examples of single detached houses from the Federation, Inter-war and Post-war periods. The built context is enhanced by large garden settings, wide street proportions, street plantings and remnant and planted native trees; elements which are synonymous with the Ku-ring-gai area" (Ku ring gai Council). Greed abetted by incompetent (or worse) NSW government now proposes to intentionally destroy this. Wanton demolition and replacement of 3 Stanhope residences with 10 storey-buildings comprising 135 apartments and 195 parking spots :
- directly contradicts our Ku ring gai Council local community planning by proposing to overbuild, overwhelm, and overshadow an established Heritage Conservation Area with an inappropriately huge and intrusive tower of 135 expensive apartments.
- Endangers the safety of our community by quadrupling the number of vehicles resident on a road which was never designed for this purpose.
- ignores and undermines the Alternative TOD proposal which KRG Council agreed with NSW government and which otherwise achieved NSW government affordable housing targets.
- Fails to contribute to resolution of Australia's housing crisis by adding more multi-million dollar apartments which are still unaffordable at government defined "affordable housing" rates.

If NSW government were truly serious about addressing affordable housing, it could develop the substantially larger Killara Train Station parking lot, which it owns, with truly affordable housing and investment in accompanying infrastructure, instead of colluding with developers and smashing local community planning. Better yet, it could also address the demand for as well as the supply of affordable housing, which Canada among others is doing.

This objection is from the Strata Management Committee for 10 Marian Street and represents the interests of all 60 apartment owners, in particular the 39 apartments in blocks C, D and E that share the northern boundary of the proposed development. It essentially reiterates all concerns previously raised.
General Comments:
The NSW in-fill affordable housing provisions “ require the consent authority to consider the character of the local area or the desired future character for areas under transition.”
By accepting the proposed scale of this project, the consent authority would ignore the character of the area. Densified and affordable housing is acceptable, but this project remains overkill, being too high and imposing on the neighbourhood.

Build Form
The proposed reduced maximum height of 33.75 m remains excessive and would adversely impact all adjacent 39 apartments at 10 Marian Street, along the northern boundary.

Traffic and Parking impact
The increased traffic will increase danger, congestion and on-street parking and remains a major concern for the local community.

Stormwater
The 60 apartment owners at 10 Marion Street remain opposed to the discharge of stormwater into our existing stormwater system. See attached detailed document.

Screening
Potential loss of existing Leylandii tree hedging remains a major concern, in particular for the 39 apartments adjacent to the proposed development. See attached detailed document.

I make this submission in formal objection to the amended State Significant Development Application (SSDA) SSD-81890707 for land at 10, 14 and 14A Stanhope Road, Killara.
This submission updates and expands upon my previous objections, having regard to:
• the gazettal and commencement of the Ku-ring-gai Council Preferred Scenario amendments to the Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2015 (KLEP) and the relevant provisions of the State Environmental Planning Policy No 65 / Housing SEPP 2021
• the amended Response to Submissions and Amendment Report prepared by Gyde Consulting
• material changes to the statutory planning framework since lodgement
• continuing deficiencies in the EIS, compliance with the Secretary’s Environmental Assessment Requirements (SEARs), and the heritage impact assessment.
For the reasons set out in my attached letter, the amended SSDA cannot lawfully be approved and must be refused.