I am a property owner and resident of Lindfield and have been living in my home, which is approx. 6 blocks away from the proposed development, for the past 10 years. I commute from Lindfield station and therefore walk near the development site twice a day and have done so for the past 10 years. My children attend weekly dance lessons near Russell Ave around the corner from the site and therefore I am very familiar with the site for this reason.
I object to this proposed development on the following grounds:
1) Design quality (SEARs requirement 5): the development cannot be categorised as a “good design” when it does not take into consideration the surrounding properties, the majority of which are single storey federation style heritage homes. The design should be more sympathetic to the locality and incorporate federation elements including the use of timberwork and gabled roofs.
2) Built form and urban design (SEARs requirement 6): the height and scale of the development does not fit with the current area as at nine storeys it will be higher than the existing developments closer to the station at five and six storeys and it will not be consistent with the gradual fall of building height away from the station which currently exists. The current proposal at 33m is well above maximum building height limits, particularly as the site is locate don the outer edge of the 400m TOD zone so this does not allow for gradual transitions to the low to mid rise policy which will apply from 400m to 800m.
3) Visual impact (SEARs requirement 8): This proposed development will be of such a height and bulk that it will significantly impinge on the current tree lined view from Russell Ave. I would like to see this proposed development incorporate some mature trees to replace the ones that will be removed and there should be a requirement that the trees need to survive for at least 10 years so that the development incorporates the deep soil requirements to make this possible.
4) Traffic and transport concerns (SEARs requirement 9): the traffic on Lindfield Ave is already extremely congested during peak hours, especially morning and afternoon school drop off and pick up times, and it is dangerous for pedestrians as there is no designated street crossing on Tyron Rd near the Lindfield Ave intersection. This development will directly impact the number of cars on Russell Ave and Tryon Rd and poses a risk to future residents who will be crossing the road to access the train station. Russell Ave is currently parked out Monday to Friday with commuters accessing the train station. There is no capacity for additional on-street parking for future residents of the development.
5) Trees and landscaping (SEARs requirement 14): as previously identified the significant loss of trees and natural canopy with this proposal is a concern and should be rectified with the requirement for the developer to plant mature trees with appropriate deep soil requirements and ensure the survival of these trees for at least a period of ten years.

I strongly object to the proposed development at 59-63 Trafalgar Avenue 1A & 1B Valley Road Lindfield (Proposed Development), for all the reasons set out in the attachment. In summary, the Proposed Development:
• is above maximum building height limits
• does not consider the transition to low density houses
• has terrible impacts on traffic and parking in the area
• has very poor visual/view impacts
• overshadows other houses and has negative impact on privacy and solar access - for example, the entire development “wraps around” the house at 1 Valley Road Lindfield in a way that is very unfair on the owners of that property and is completely inconsistent with the character of that and other houses in the area
• has negative impacts on heritage and Heritage Conservation Area (HCA)
• reduces the tree canopy and mature trees
• conflicts with local neighbourhood character/streetscape
etc, etc, etc.
For more details, please refer to the attachment which outlines the reasons for objection in greater detail.

Cities are about buildings. Cities require regular renewal and growth to meet demand. But successful cities plan for medium term outcomes that contribute to their environment. Would this development be tolerated in Belgravia in London or in the North End of Boston? The Council may have dropped the ball by historically having not embraced as much growth as the State would have liked. But now it has shown how the State's growth aspirations can be satisfied without inappropriate development. This proposal doesn't fit, either now or into the future. It is a stark illustration of what you get if you allow developers to set their own rules. If it were to proceed, it would be a permanent stain on the legacy of this Government and its leadership.

Ian Smith

Having seen the plans for a nine story complex of home units planned to be built in an unaccessible area in Lindfield . the area being considered 59-63 Trafalgar Ave and 1a-1bValley Rd.
Apart from the obvious inaccessibility to the proposed unit site for this complex to be built in such a confined space , and so out of sympathy with the surrounding homes in the immediate and surrounding homes and surrounding area , which would restrict access and livability to those who would be directly or indirectly affected by such a complex. it is estimated that 300 cars would be added to the already overburdened streets in the immediate area for the reasons described above I am submitting these comments for your careful consideration .

I strongly object to the proposed apartment development at 59-63 Trafalgar Avenue and 1A-1B Valley Road, Lindfield, due to its detrimental impact on the existing community and environment. The project poses a significant risk to the integrity of the heritage facade within the heritage conservation area, undermining the visual character and historical value of the neighbourhood. Additionally, the excessive scale of the development would overshadow pre-existing homes, compromising residents' privacy and access to natural light. Such a high-density project is inconsistent with the established neighbourhood character, disrupting the area's cohesive and low-rise nature. Furthermore, the strain on local infrastructure—including roads, public amenities, and essential services—would lead to overcrowding and reduced quality of life for existing residents. For these reasons, this development should not proceed.