Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing to object to the proposed apartment development on Stanhope Road, Killara.

Firstly, the community engagement for this project has been deeply inadequate. Many local residents, including myself, were unaware of the proposal until well after it was lodged on the SSD site on 9th May. This lack of proper communication has meant that residents have not had enough time to review, understand, or respond to the proposal in a meaningful way. The very low attendance at the developer’s so-called “drop-in” session on 3rd April is further evidence that the consultation process did not reach or involve the community as it should have.

This is particularly concerning given the sensitive location of the proposed development. Stanhope Road is one of Killara’s most significant heritage areas, home to several important heritage-listed properties at 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 12, 17 and 18 Stanhope Road. The development appears to give little or no consideration to the heritage value of this street or the unique character that makes this area so special to residents and the broader community. Neither has consideration been given for number 12 Stanhope Road.

In addition to the heritage concerns, the proposed building would have serious negative impacts on the surrounding homes, particularly 12 Stanhope Rd. It would create significant visual intrusion, overshadowing, loss of privacy, and a general loss of amenity for more than 50 homes located directly to the north, south, east, and west of the site. This level of impact on existing residents is unacceptable.

For these reasons, I strongly urge the government to reject this proposal and require the developer to properly consult the community and consider the unique character and needs of this area.

Sincerely,
S Turner

I have lived in various suburbs in Ku-ring-Gai for majority of my life . I'm objecting to this change in types of structures being built in our area. This seems to be a high-rise building plan. I was aware the Government wanted low/medium-rise development . However , this high-rise building plan is not suited to this area, in its size and in relation to the surrounding homes. Do not allow this . Sincerely, David Church

Height of the development will have a significant negative impact including:
-Shadowing on all the surrounding houses.
-Loss of privacy to properties in close proximity and even within some distance to the project.
-Increase of motor vehicles traffic and noise in a residential zone.
-Increase of number of vehicles parked on a residential street.
-Length of construction disrupting families and wildlife in the area.
-Reduction of green areas, and increase of noise during and after the construction.
-Reduce appeal of the area, with a negative impact on elder people.

*The proposal significantly breaches the height limits for the R2 Low Rise Residential Zoning (by almost 4 times) and breaches the heights allowed under the Transport Oriented Development (TOD) program by over 22%.
*The development has a combination of huge visual impacts, overshadowing, loss of privacy and loss of amenity issues for more than 50 residences directly to the north, south, east and west of the proposed development.
*The Community Engagement on this project was not undertaken correctly. Hence, many residents were unaware of the proposal until well after its lodgement on 9th May on the SSD site. As a result, residents and other interested parties have not had sufficient time to adequately read, understand and respond to the proposal. The lack of numbers at the developer’s so called “drop-in” session on 3rd April reinforce the breach of the community engagement process.
*Developers are decimating the value of properties in this area by diminishing heritage value, nature, wildlife and by trying to to use the argument of affordable housing near infrastructure that is already burdened by current population numbers.

It is clearly inappropriate to build such a large-scale residential community in a small-scale community like this one at present.
This will destroy the current foundation of various resources and humanistic elements.

The proposal has multiple adverse impact on the built & natural environment including:
- Unacceptable negative impact on biodiversity and tree canopy including critically endangered Sydney Blue Gum trees which will be at risk
- Disregard for heritage items and the significance of the street and area which is in contradiction to the clause 5.10 of the LEP namely “significant adverse effect” on the amenity of the surrounding area.
- Overdevelopment in terms of height, FSR, mass, open area creating issues with privacy, overshadowing and significant loss of amenity for neighbouring houses in all directions of the proposed development
-Inadequate community engagement

Date: 25-5-2025


To: Dept of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure
NSW State Government

OBJECTION TO PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 10, 14 AND 14a STANHOPE ROAD KILLARA.

I strongly object to the scale of the proposed development, for two main reasons:
1. The scale of the project
2. Traffic concerns

1. Scale

The scale of the proposed development is for almost twice the number of units that could reasonably be accommodated with considering the size of the block, the nature of the suburb, and the effect on existing property owners.

The proposed height of the units abutting our properties at 10 Marian St should comply with the normal restrictions of 5 storeys above ground level. From our apartment at the rear of 10 Marian St, we abut 10 Stanhope Rd. While there are trees to the rear of number 10, there is no guarantee that these will survive the development, and in recent years they have already thinned and we can see number 10 in part. So with a much larger height building proposed closer to our boundary, the trees will provide very little visual protection for us.

We will also suffer occupier noise, and be looked in upon. Both issues would mean a significant reduction in privacy for us.

2. Traffic:
Stanhope Road is a two lane road the often has vehicles parked both sides of the road, will become increasingly congested with another 100 to 200 cars using the road, and parking in the road. Stanhope is also a major through road from East Killara and Lindfield to the Pacific Highway.
Culworth Ave (south) is now almost fully built out with apartment blocks of the normal height (one to be completed with another 50 or more cars). Culworth Avenue (south) is used as a thoroughfare for traffic to the station, as well as being the only access to Marian St and Caithness St for traffic coming from the south along Pacific Highway. It is also the route used by railway replacement buses when trackwork is being undertaken, causing more congestion.
Culworth Avenue (south) has never been widened or upgraded, with the result that we cope with regular flooding, and because of the narrowness creating effectively a one lane road, traffic hold-ups when meeting on-coming traffic. Any increase in traffic on this road will cause major jams and very much affect the already marginal access to Marian St from the Pacific Highway.

The Government is keen to increase housing density in the area, but this must be done in accordance with the nature of the properties already built, and with regard to the traffic disruption it will cause with overdevelopment.

Yours faithfully,

David Rands

Dr David Rands
Unit 56, 10 Marian St
Killara, NSW 2071

Areas near all North Shore train stations are already very busy, and we are experiencing a lot of traffic jams on the Pacific Highway. With much higher density expected from this development, the traffic conditions will definitely get worse. Without a major overhaul of the infrastructure in North Shore, building high-rise along the pacific highway is just a bad idea.

I oppose inappropriate development

The Government’s aim was to develop low/medium-rise buildings around transport hubs. This is a high-rise development which is completely incompatible with the locality and hence, is not in the public interest. The mass and scale of this development is totally out of proportion to the street and suburb in general.