Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
LINDFIELD
,
New South Wales
Message
Whilst I can appreciate that increasing housing density across Sydney, and an increase in the overall number of residential developers, is required in the longer term, the current rate of development outstrips supply of critical government infrastructure that needs to be built BEFORE any further residential properties are built in the area.
The current nearby state schools remain over capacity, many with "temporary", though now entrenched, demountable buildings that are not fit for purpose. This is particularly the case for Lindfield Public School, which is in a state of disrepair. The addition of extra dwellings, with the children that will come with it, will only overburden the current schools -- redevelopment of the current campuses, or creation of new schools (though ?? where) are essential to maintain CURRENT basic community services. Until the school situation is addressed, planning for future population growth is premature, and will only result in further deterioration of the current inadequate service.
Health care is stretched already in NSW, and particularly in Sydney. The closest tertiary hospital to the proposed campus, RNSH, is at critical capacity and has lost the room for further expansion of its campus due to the sale of sites adjacent to it for commercial interests. Whilst the RNSH building itself was rebuilt a decade ago, the actual bed capacity for the hospital has not significantly expanded in decades, despite the existing population growth that has occurred along this corridor. There is an imminent need for major investment in expanding the current hospital & critical care infrastructure just to cope with the _current_ local population. Hornsby Hospital is further away, and is going to be challenged itself by the population growth within the high density development around the station. As above, until the local public hospital system has been rectified for current needs, planning for future population growth in Lindfield, and in particular at Trafalgar Street, is premature, and will only result in further deterioration of the current inadequate government service.
The proposed TOD corridor alongside Lindfield railway station is also highly problematic from a traffic perspective. The CURRENT traffic situation is already very challenging, due to throttle points at the two access points onto the Pacific Highway - a railway bridge on Strickland avenue and a narrow tunnel on Balfour avenue. These two routes, particularly through the tunnel, have been "choke points" for _decades_. previous creation of the currently built apartments, combine with the commercial redevelopment, has created a large increase in traffic to the point that local passage along that route can be almost non-workable in peak periods. Increasing residential density along this Lindfield avenue corridor, which the current 59-63 Trafalgar Ave proposal would create, will only add to the burden the current population faces. No thought has seemingly been had to fixed the traffic issue - before any construction of higher density dwellings can start a longer term traffic solution is required.
Lastly, there is a lack of appreciation for the cultural significance of the buildings along this precinct. Unlike Europe and the UK, Australia would seem to have little appreciation for its heritage, and is very quick to demolish buildings with character and history, which one destroyed cannot be replaced. The construction of high density dwellings out-of-character with the area will tarnish the entire Heritage Conservation Area that exists within the area.
The current nearby state schools remain over capacity, many with "temporary", though now entrenched, demountable buildings that are not fit for purpose. This is particularly the case for Lindfield Public School, which is in a state of disrepair. The addition of extra dwellings, with the children that will come with it, will only overburden the current schools -- redevelopment of the current campuses, or creation of new schools (though ?? where) are essential to maintain CURRENT basic community services. Until the school situation is addressed, planning for future population growth is premature, and will only result in further deterioration of the current inadequate service.
Health care is stretched already in NSW, and particularly in Sydney. The closest tertiary hospital to the proposed campus, RNSH, is at critical capacity and has lost the room for further expansion of its campus due to the sale of sites adjacent to it for commercial interests. Whilst the RNSH building itself was rebuilt a decade ago, the actual bed capacity for the hospital has not significantly expanded in decades, despite the existing population growth that has occurred along this corridor. There is an imminent need for major investment in expanding the current hospital & critical care infrastructure just to cope with the _current_ local population. Hornsby Hospital is further away, and is going to be challenged itself by the population growth within the high density development around the station. As above, until the local public hospital system has been rectified for current needs, planning for future population growth in Lindfield, and in particular at Trafalgar Street, is premature, and will only result in further deterioration of the current inadequate government service.
The proposed TOD corridor alongside Lindfield railway station is also highly problematic from a traffic perspective. The CURRENT traffic situation is already very challenging, due to throttle points at the two access points onto the Pacific Highway - a railway bridge on Strickland avenue and a narrow tunnel on Balfour avenue. These two routes, particularly through the tunnel, have been "choke points" for _decades_. previous creation of the currently built apartments, combine with the commercial redevelopment, has created a large increase in traffic to the point that local passage along that route can be almost non-workable in peak periods. Increasing residential density along this Lindfield avenue corridor, which the current 59-63 Trafalgar Ave proposal would create, will only add to the burden the current population faces. No thought has seemingly been had to fixed the traffic issue - before any construction of higher density dwellings can start a longer term traffic solution is required.
Lastly, there is a lack of appreciation for the cultural significance of the buildings along this precinct. Unlike Europe and the UK, Australia would seem to have little appreciation for its heritage, and is very quick to demolish buildings with character and history, which one destroyed cannot be replaced. The construction of high density dwellings out-of-character with the area will tarnish the entire Heritage Conservation Area that exists within the area.
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
LINDFIELD
,
New South Wales
Message
I have lived on Middle Harbour Road, Lindfield, to the South East of the Proposed Development site, for my whole life.
I appreciate the need for new and affordable dwellings in Lindfield, however I object to this proposal for the following reasons:
1. The Proposed Development is both inappropriate and unnecessary. The Proposed Development site is located in a Heritage Conservation Area, and borders 4 Heritage Items. It is located at the very edge of the State Government's TOD zone, and outside of the Council's Preferred Alternative TOD zone. The State Government's target for new and affordable dwellings can be met within Council's alternative TOD zone, closer to Lindfield Station.
2. The Proposed Development site borders at least 4 properties on MHR through which flow part of Gordon Creek, which is protected by a Riparian Zone. The Design Report does not consider the part of Gordon Creek that flows through properties on Middle Harbour Road (MHR) and the associated Riparian Zone, and therefore any conclusions relating to site hydrology and based on proximity to the Riparian Zone cannot be relied upon.
3. While the proposal describes the Proposed Development as 3 interconnected buildings, the Architectural and perspective drawings show that it is in fact one enormous building which in my opinion is totally out of character with the 1-2 storey single dwelling properties which surround it. If approved, the Proposed Development will be the largest development on the Eastern side of Lindfield Station, located in an elevated position, and will dominate the skyline. At 33.07 metres in height, the proposed development will exceed the maximum permissible height by 15.6%, which in my opinion is not justified.
4. The Proposed Development allows for only 46 affordable dwellings out of a total of 220, and none of the affordable dwellings have more than 2 bedrooms, making them unsuitable for most families. All of the affordable dwellings are located in the part of the building which will receive very little to no sunlight.
5. In my opinion, the design measures taken will be insufficient to reduce the very significant overshadowing which properties on MHR to the South and Southeast of the Proposed Development will experience as a result of the Proposed Development.
6. The Proposed Development, with its Community Open Spaces 9 levels above the ground, in addition to numerous balconies, will overlook properties to the South and East and North of the site, greatly reducing visual privacy for existing residents.
7. The Proposed Development, including the removal of trees from the site, will, in my opinion, significantly impact views of the open sky and the tree canopy from both public and private viewpoints.
8. The Proposed Development will increase traffic on local streets which are already congested by commuters parking near Lindfield Station.
9. The discharge of excess stormwater from the proposed development site to an additional pit on Trafalgar Avenue will increase the volume of water flowing in Gordon Creek through the properties south and southeast of the site on MHR, which will affect the flora and fauna that make it their home, including frogs and water dragons.
10. In my opinion, due to the presence of the creek, the Riparian Zone and the Heritage Items, it is highly unlikely that the future character of the immediate area to the South and East of the Proposed Development will be the highly developed contemporary character envisioned by the EIS, and therefore the Proposed Development will not be in line with the future character of the immediate area.
I appreciate the need for new and affordable dwellings in Lindfield, however I object to this proposal for the following reasons:
1. The Proposed Development is both inappropriate and unnecessary. The Proposed Development site is located in a Heritage Conservation Area, and borders 4 Heritage Items. It is located at the very edge of the State Government's TOD zone, and outside of the Council's Preferred Alternative TOD zone. The State Government's target for new and affordable dwellings can be met within Council's alternative TOD zone, closer to Lindfield Station.
2. The Proposed Development site borders at least 4 properties on MHR through which flow part of Gordon Creek, which is protected by a Riparian Zone. The Design Report does not consider the part of Gordon Creek that flows through properties on Middle Harbour Road (MHR) and the associated Riparian Zone, and therefore any conclusions relating to site hydrology and based on proximity to the Riparian Zone cannot be relied upon.
3. While the proposal describes the Proposed Development as 3 interconnected buildings, the Architectural and perspective drawings show that it is in fact one enormous building which in my opinion is totally out of character with the 1-2 storey single dwelling properties which surround it. If approved, the Proposed Development will be the largest development on the Eastern side of Lindfield Station, located in an elevated position, and will dominate the skyline. At 33.07 metres in height, the proposed development will exceed the maximum permissible height by 15.6%, which in my opinion is not justified.
4. The Proposed Development allows for only 46 affordable dwellings out of a total of 220, and none of the affordable dwellings have more than 2 bedrooms, making them unsuitable for most families. All of the affordable dwellings are located in the part of the building which will receive very little to no sunlight.
5. In my opinion, the design measures taken will be insufficient to reduce the very significant overshadowing which properties on MHR to the South and Southeast of the Proposed Development will experience as a result of the Proposed Development.
6. The Proposed Development, with its Community Open Spaces 9 levels above the ground, in addition to numerous balconies, will overlook properties to the South and East and North of the site, greatly reducing visual privacy for existing residents.
7. The Proposed Development, including the removal of trees from the site, will, in my opinion, significantly impact views of the open sky and the tree canopy from both public and private viewpoints.
8. The Proposed Development will increase traffic on local streets which are already congested by commuters parking near Lindfield Station.
9. The discharge of excess stormwater from the proposed development site to an additional pit on Trafalgar Avenue will increase the volume of water flowing in Gordon Creek through the properties south and southeast of the site on MHR, which will affect the flora and fauna that make it their home, including frogs and water dragons.
10. In my opinion, due to the presence of the creek, the Riparian Zone and the Heritage Items, it is highly unlikely that the future character of the immediate area to the South and East of the Proposed Development will be the highly developed contemporary character envisioned by the EIS, and therefore the Proposed Development will not be in line with the future character of the immediate area.
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
ROSEVILLE
,
New South Wales
Message
Dear Sirs,
We object the proposed residential development at 59-63 Trafalgar Avenue, 1A &1B Valley Road Lindfield development due to the following reasons:
- Ku-ring-gai Council’s alternative plan for TOD should be taken into consideration rather than a "Government imposed plan"
- proposed development is largely out of scale compared to the existing, within Heritage Conservation Area" properties
- 220 units up to 9 stories high is far too bulky given it is located within Heritage Conservation Area"
- additional residents resulting from 220 units will impose significat, unsustainable strain onto existing infrastructure like traffic, schools, parking, ...
- proposed development is located at the very outer edge of TOD border (and outside of development in Ku-ring-gai Council’s alternative TOD plan); no transition to lower density housing which surrounds it on all sides
- Major impacts on Heritage Conservation Area which has successfully been preserved by council
- Overshadowing / privacy / solar access issues
- significant acoustic issues due to location of site and scale of development
- Deletion of tree canopy and death of many mature trees
- significant traffic and parking issues by the 367 parking spaces in building
- serious impact on storm water in an already often flooded area
- serious and irrevocable visual impact (a "giant" sticking out of 1 storey houses)
We expect that this development (and many other similar proposals) are being withheld until at least the councils alternative proposal has been assessed.
Greedy developers should not be able to benefit from grey areas resulting from Government slow action and consideration of it's residents and councils.
Thank you.
Kind regards,
GH
We object the proposed residential development at 59-63 Trafalgar Avenue, 1A &1B Valley Road Lindfield development due to the following reasons:
- Ku-ring-gai Council’s alternative plan for TOD should be taken into consideration rather than a "Government imposed plan"
- proposed development is largely out of scale compared to the existing, within Heritage Conservation Area" properties
- 220 units up to 9 stories high is far too bulky given it is located within Heritage Conservation Area"
- additional residents resulting from 220 units will impose significat, unsustainable strain onto existing infrastructure like traffic, schools, parking, ...
- proposed development is located at the very outer edge of TOD border (and outside of development in Ku-ring-gai Council’s alternative TOD plan); no transition to lower density housing which surrounds it on all sides
- Major impacts on Heritage Conservation Area which has successfully been preserved by council
- Overshadowing / privacy / solar access issues
- significant acoustic issues due to location of site and scale of development
- Deletion of tree canopy and death of many mature trees
- significant traffic and parking issues by the 367 parking spaces in building
- serious impact on storm water in an already often flooded area
- serious and irrevocable visual impact (a "giant" sticking out of 1 storey houses)
We expect that this development (and many other similar proposals) are being withheld until at least the councils alternative proposal has been assessed.
Greedy developers should not be able to benefit from grey areas resulting from Government slow action and consideration of it's residents and councils.
Thank you.
Kind regards,
GH
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
ROSEVILLE
,
New South Wales
Message
I am very disappointed that the government is not waiting for the TOD plan proposed by the Kuring-gai Council to be reviewed. This sort of development will be perfect in the areas proposed by the council. As someone who was involved in the community consultation we proposed developments like this and larger ones close to or along the highway, helping to alleviate evening peak hour traffic and create needed and affordable housing. The council came up with a proposal offering more houses than the government planned for.
We would rather see larger developments on the highway and the western side of the highway instead of developments like this that restrict future development. If you're interested in increasing housing long term, it is a far better plan to start high, 15-20 stories near the station and on the other side of the highway and do it properly, slowly creeping out, than making a visual and environmental mess like this.
These appartments are not going to be affordable, already one bedrooms are selling at $1,050,000 in Lindfield. Other appartments similar to this have been bought out by foreign investors and sit empty or have their university student children living in them- throwing piles of newish furniture out on the street for the trash pickup. These appartments are not going to do much to help our housing affordability issues, especially if they are not built properly and are going to cost owners hundreds of thousands of dollars to rectify shoddy building, like many others built in the area experience already.
I don't think you are doing the state a service by building developments like this that are not well built and will end up like ghettos in 20 years time. its much easier to buy housing blocks than buy 220 units or appartments to rebuild on in 30 years time. PLEASE listen to our KRG council.
The two access roads into this development are small, especially Trafalgar and Russel Ave that are full of commuter and residents cars. This is going to cause access problems for local traffic.
This is a ridiculous proposal, near Bluegum high trees and a creek one block down from this development. The run off is going to be terrible. The area experienced flooding two years ago, damaging property and houses. It is going to cause irreversible environmental damage to bushland and animal habitat. The trees in this area predate white settlement, you can't seriously consider destroying this natural environment by placing this development one block up causing draining and environmental issues. I am really disappointed at the loss of habitat and environment for the native fauna that has already occurred.
We would rather see larger developments on the highway and the western side of the highway instead of developments like this that restrict future development. If you're interested in increasing housing long term, it is a far better plan to start high, 15-20 stories near the station and on the other side of the highway and do it properly, slowly creeping out, than making a visual and environmental mess like this.
These appartments are not going to be affordable, already one bedrooms are selling at $1,050,000 in Lindfield. Other appartments similar to this have been bought out by foreign investors and sit empty or have their university student children living in them- throwing piles of newish furniture out on the street for the trash pickup. These appartments are not going to do much to help our housing affordability issues, especially if they are not built properly and are going to cost owners hundreds of thousands of dollars to rectify shoddy building, like many others built in the area experience already.
I don't think you are doing the state a service by building developments like this that are not well built and will end up like ghettos in 20 years time. its much easier to buy housing blocks than buy 220 units or appartments to rebuild on in 30 years time. PLEASE listen to our KRG council.
The two access roads into this development are small, especially Trafalgar and Russel Ave that are full of commuter and residents cars. This is going to cause access problems for local traffic.
This is a ridiculous proposal, near Bluegum high trees and a creek one block down from this development. The run off is going to be terrible. The area experienced flooding two years ago, damaging property and houses. It is going to cause irreversible environmental damage to bushland and animal habitat. The trees in this area predate white settlement, you can't seriously consider destroying this natural environment by placing this development one block up causing draining and environmental issues. I am really disappointed at the loss of habitat and environment for the native fauna that has already occurred.
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
ROSEVILLE
,
New South Wales
Message
I object to the proposed SSD for 59-63 Trafalgar Av & 1A-1B Valley Rd Lindfield proposal for the following reasons:
1. The proposal is over any height limit for any TOD, being 9+ stories & 33m in the proposal, significantly higher than the limits allowed
2. Its outside the boundaries of the Ku-ring-gai Councils Proposed TOD
3. Its on the edge of the 400m TOD which does not consider any transition to low density housing, a totally unfair planning proposal for the 1-2 storey neighbours.
4. There will be significant increased to traffic & parking for an area already jammed by commuters looking to utilise the train. Just try to park locally now or even get onto a train or metro in peak hour, or in and out of the pacific highway... its already chaos.
5. This is a huge impact to the heritage conservation area, bulldozing our heritage of Sydney.
6. Has a huge impact on the environment of Lindfield, destroying mature trees.
7. It will destroy the local landscape and streetscape which has been so beautifully preserved by council & local residents.
People have significantly invested in the area when purchasing their properties buying into the area. It is totally unfair to have an unnecessary huge negative financial, mental and wellbeing impact on so many people. The state government should embrace the Ku-ring-gai council TOD modified plans, which are supported by the community, help to maximise homes (to their targets) whilst preserving the heritage areas, trees and local areas for the majority and minimising impact on the community . Please approach development in a more 'democratic way' than this state governments dictatorial/communistic approach.
The State Government and NSW department of planning should respect its communities, its councils and its beautiful city and not accept any SSDs that are not in Ku-ring-gai Councils plan. This only results negative impacts for everyone excpet the money hungry developers who try to bend every rule to make an extra dollar wherever they can.
1. The proposal is over any height limit for any TOD, being 9+ stories & 33m in the proposal, significantly higher than the limits allowed
2. Its outside the boundaries of the Ku-ring-gai Councils Proposed TOD
3. Its on the edge of the 400m TOD which does not consider any transition to low density housing, a totally unfair planning proposal for the 1-2 storey neighbours.
4. There will be significant increased to traffic & parking for an area already jammed by commuters looking to utilise the train. Just try to park locally now or even get onto a train or metro in peak hour, or in and out of the pacific highway... its already chaos.
5. This is a huge impact to the heritage conservation area, bulldozing our heritage of Sydney.
6. Has a huge impact on the environment of Lindfield, destroying mature trees.
7. It will destroy the local landscape and streetscape which has been so beautifully preserved by council & local residents.
People have significantly invested in the area when purchasing their properties buying into the area. It is totally unfair to have an unnecessary huge negative financial, mental and wellbeing impact on so many people. The state government should embrace the Ku-ring-gai council TOD modified plans, which are supported by the community, help to maximise homes (to their targets) whilst preserving the heritage areas, trees and local areas for the majority and minimising impact on the community . Please approach development in a more 'democratic way' than this state governments dictatorial/communistic approach.
The State Government and NSW department of planning should respect its communities, its councils and its beautiful city and not accept any SSDs that are not in Ku-ring-gai Councils plan. This only results negative impacts for everyone excpet the money hungry developers who try to bend every rule to make an extra dollar wherever they can.
Peter Girdis
Object
Peter Girdis
Object
LINDFIELD
,
New South Wales
Message
I reside at 40 Middle Harbour Road Lindfield, with my wife and three daughters. Our property is approximately 30m from the eastern boundary of the Development.
I strongly object to the proposed development for the following reasons:
1. Detrimental impact on the environment
• At least one endangered powerful owl lives in the close vicinity of the development site. I and other members of my family have witnessed on occasions at least one powerful owl at or near our home.
• My conclusion that the sightings were of the endangered powerful owl are based on:
o Size – powerful owls can reach up to 60cm in length
o Face markings – unlike many other owls, powerful owls do not have the heart-shaped rings around their eyes (The only other owl with similar face markings are not found in eastern and southeastern Australia)
• While not all owl sightings have been captured on camera, I have attached:
o a video of what appears to be a powerful owl taken at 37 Middle Harbour Road (Attachment 1)
o a photo of a powerful owl perched over our back deck (Attachment 2). Moments after this photo was taken, we saw it silently fly away, revealing its impressive wingspan
• Owls are sensitive to light pollution, which will be inevitable with a 9-storey, 220-unit development. I fear that the development will drive owls out of their habitat. Further, a neighbour pointed out one of the trees earmarked for removal appears to have a hollow, which owls typically inhabit.
• The Development is within 15 metres of the endangered turpentine forest which runs through our back yard – as does Gordon Creek. The area abounds with fauna including an echidna (Attachment 3), water dragons, frogs, ducks (seasonal) and a variety of bird life: king parrots, cockatoos, lorikeets, kookaburras, whip birds (audible in Attachment 4) and eagles (Attachment 5 and Attachment 6)
• Two additional concerns arise:
o 33m / 9 floors of glass windows will create a (potentially fatal) bird strike danger; and
o Having read Appendix S of the Development proposal, it is not clear to me that the Development will not have a detrimental impact on Gordon Creek. My concerns relate to both the quality of the water (and impacts on biodiversity) and volume (risk of flooding).
• My personal observations of the powerful owl contradict the conclusion in Appendix 1 of the Biodiversity Development Assessment Report, namely that the powerful owl is a “Threatened species assessed as not on site.” This brings into question the reliability of other assertions in the 81-page report.
2. Detrimental impact on our neighbourhood and community
• The scale and siting of the 33m high, 9-floor Development on the top of the hill is inappropriate and unsympathetic with surrounding Trafalgar Ave, Middle Harbour Road and Valley Road precinct, with many heritage homes and abundant mature trees. The Development will be visible from kilometres away and will dominate the neighbourhood.
• The proposal appears to maximise site coverage with minimal set-back and no apparent attempt to transition from the high-density are near the station to the single-family dwellings beyond the TOD boundaries. The 3-level unit blocks on Tryon Ave – in fact, closer to Lindfield Station – provide a better model for high density living at the fringe of the TOD zone. This development is set back and with appealing landscaping.
• While our home environment will be adversely affected by the Development (see 3 below), I am most sympathetic to our neighbours at 30A to 34 Middle Harbour Road. They will most likely be deprived of direct sunlight, being on the south side of a hill close to the 9-storey south wall of the Development (these houses are set to the back the block due to the riparian zone).
• It is difficult to imagine the impact of additional traffic from 220 units, combined with the impact of other planned developments in the immediate vicinity.
• The only positive aspect of the Development is how it has drawn our neighbourhood together in unified opposition to it.
3. Detrimental impact on our property and family living environment
• The 33m, 9-story Development is only 30 metres our property. Positioned high on the hill, it will present a jarring contrast from our currently green and private outlook. We will suffer oversight, with the balconies overlooking our back yard, rear deck and upper bedrooms.
• With siting of the Development to the NNW, we are likely to lose the winter sun during the afternoon.
4. Lack of process
• I only became aware of this Development through word of mouth in our neighbourhood. I was told that some adjacent properties received notice from the developers. However, due to the massive scale of the Development, there is a much wider radius of affected properties.
• I find it surprising that a Development so consequential upon our lives would not be required to provide us notice directly. Due to these circumstances, I have had only 2 days to review the proposed development and respond.
5. Conclusion
• As described in 1) above, our property includes remnants of the old turpentine forest and abounds in wildlife. We feel privileged to have such proximity to the natural environment and feel a strong obligation, as current custodians of one small portion of this forest, to protect it from degradation. This Development in its current form poses such a threat.
• The Biodiversity Development Assessment Report appears to be flawed.
• The Development pushes the boundaries. It is so massive and inappropriate in its scale, it has all the hallmarks of being an ambit claim with a de-scaled (but still over-sized) version to be presented as a compromise. If so, such tactics should not be rewarded.
• I recognise the legitimate policy objectives in creating higher density and affordable housing close to the transport hub. However, this should be done in a manner more harmonious with the natural environment and surrounding neighbourhood.
• This Development, if allowed, will be a grotesque, 33m monument to poor urban planning for decades to come.
Peter Girdis
I strongly object to the proposed development for the following reasons:
1. Detrimental impact on the environment
• At least one endangered powerful owl lives in the close vicinity of the development site. I and other members of my family have witnessed on occasions at least one powerful owl at or near our home.
• My conclusion that the sightings were of the endangered powerful owl are based on:
o Size – powerful owls can reach up to 60cm in length
o Face markings – unlike many other owls, powerful owls do not have the heart-shaped rings around their eyes (The only other owl with similar face markings are not found in eastern and southeastern Australia)
• While not all owl sightings have been captured on camera, I have attached:
o a video of what appears to be a powerful owl taken at 37 Middle Harbour Road (Attachment 1)
o a photo of a powerful owl perched over our back deck (Attachment 2). Moments after this photo was taken, we saw it silently fly away, revealing its impressive wingspan
• Owls are sensitive to light pollution, which will be inevitable with a 9-storey, 220-unit development. I fear that the development will drive owls out of their habitat. Further, a neighbour pointed out one of the trees earmarked for removal appears to have a hollow, which owls typically inhabit.
• The Development is within 15 metres of the endangered turpentine forest which runs through our back yard – as does Gordon Creek. The area abounds with fauna including an echidna (Attachment 3), water dragons, frogs, ducks (seasonal) and a variety of bird life: king parrots, cockatoos, lorikeets, kookaburras, whip birds (audible in Attachment 4) and eagles (Attachment 5 and Attachment 6)
• Two additional concerns arise:
o 33m / 9 floors of glass windows will create a (potentially fatal) bird strike danger; and
o Having read Appendix S of the Development proposal, it is not clear to me that the Development will not have a detrimental impact on Gordon Creek. My concerns relate to both the quality of the water (and impacts on biodiversity) and volume (risk of flooding).
• My personal observations of the powerful owl contradict the conclusion in Appendix 1 of the Biodiversity Development Assessment Report, namely that the powerful owl is a “Threatened species assessed as not on site.” This brings into question the reliability of other assertions in the 81-page report.
2. Detrimental impact on our neighbourhood and community
• The scale and siting of the 33m high, 9-floor Development on the top of the hill is inappropriate and unsympathetic with surrounding Trafalgar Ave, Middle Harbour Road and Valley Road precinct, with many heritage homes and abundant mature trees. The Development will be visible from kilometres away and will dominate the neighbourhood.
• The proposal appears to maximise site coverage with minimal set-back and no apparent attempt to transition from the high-density are near the station to the single-family dwellings beyond the TOD boundaries. The 3-level unit blocks on Tryon Ave – in fact, closer to Lindfield Station – provide a better model for high density living at the fringe of the TOD zone. This development is set back and with appealing landscaping.
• While our home environment will be adversely affected by the Development (see 3 below), I am most sympathetic to our neighbours at 30A to 34 Middle Harbour Road. They will most likely be deprived of direct sunlight, being on the south side of a hill close to the 9-storey south wall of the Development (these houses are set to the back the block due to the riparian zone).
• It is difficult to imagine the impact of additional traffic from 220 units, combined with the impact of other planned developments in the immediate vicinity.
• The only positive aspect of the Development is how it has drawn our neighbourhood together in unified opposition to it.
3. Detrimental impact on our property and family living environment
• The 33m, 9-story Development is only 30 metres our property. Positioned high on the hill, it will present a jarring contrast from our currently green and private outlook. We will suffer oversight, with the balconies overlooking our back yard, rear deck and upper bedrooms.
• With siting of the Development to the NNW, we are likely to lose the winter sun during the afternoon.
4. Lack of process
• I only became aware of this Development through word of mouth in our neighbourhood. I was told that some adjacent properties received notice from the developers. However, due to the massive scale of the Development, there is a much wider radius of affected properties.
• I find it surprising that a Development so consequential upon our lives would not be required to provide us notice directly. Due to these circumstances, I have had only 2 days to review the proposed development and respond.
5. Conclusion
• As described in 1) above, our property includes remnants of the old turpentine forest and abounds in wildlife. We feel privileged to have such proximity to the natural environment and feel a strong obligation, as current custodians of one small portion of this forest, to protect it from degradation. This Development in its current form poses such a threat.
• The Biodiversity Development Assessment Report appears to be flawed.
• The Development pushes the boundaries. It is so massive and inappropriate in its scale, it has all the hallmarks of being an ambit claim with a de-scaled (but still over-sized) version to be presented as a compromise. If so, such tactics should not be rewarded.
• I recognise the legitimate policy objectives in creating higher density and affordable housing close to the transport hub. However, this should be done in a manner more harmonious with the natural environment and surrounding neighbourhood.
• This Development, if allowed, will be a grotesque, 33m monument to poor urban planning for decades to come.
Peter Girdis