Dear Jasmine,

Please find attached my Submission in objection to the proposed development.

Please also find attached my accompanying Curriculum Vitae.

Kind regards,

Tony Moody

I am a long-term resident and property owner in Lindfield, having been a member of the local community for over a decade. Myself, my wife and children are active members of the community participating in local sporting clubs (Lindfield FC, KWP Rugby Club, Lindfield Cricket), shopping and eating local as often as we can and enjoying local walks (e.g. Two Creeks Track). Given this involvement in the local community we are regularly walking around the suburb, particularly between our home on the northern side of Lindfield and the town centre in and around the train station – this is for the purposes of commuting, going to school, shopping, eating and walking the dog.
The proposed development is within 1km of our home. The outcome of this development will have a significant impact on our family, particularly our children given the increased traffic and congestion in an area they must use to get to and from school.
I wish to raise numerous objections to the development proposal as currently submitted. I am more than happy to engage in a conversation with NSW Planning or the Developer regarding the concerns outlined below:

1) Insufficient local road infrastructure to handle more residents (Transport concerns SEARs 9). The increased number of residents the suburb will need to accommodate has not been appropriately planned for or addressed by this proposal. Traffic congestion is already a major local issue during peak periods, it is very difficult to access the station and surrounding area from all sides east of the highway in the morning and mid afternoon, as well as at times over the weekend. This will be exacerbated. Local road choke points create danger for local pedestrians trying to cross roads in heavy congestion, particularly school children who typically use the trains and attend school around the peak times for road use. There are currently few zebra crossings, traffic lights or other traffic management tools that would help make pedestrians safer despite the fact that more cars will be on the road. While I understand there may be an argument that proximity to public transport negates the need to drive, this is a unrealistic claim as local rail infrastructure offers no solution for residents seeking to travel east or west from Lindfield, only north/south.

2) Visual impact (SEARs 8) and Design Quality (SEARs 5): The large size of this proposed development, both the street frontage and height (220 unites, 9+ storey at 33m), will create an eyesore in a local area characterised by many single storey homes, including some built in the federation style. In addition, today nearly all residents have significant mature greenery and trees surrounding their properties or within the boundaries of their properties. There are no clear plans to plant a reasonable number of mature or large trees within a close proximity of this development, which will simply result in a large box shape structure being erected next to some beautiful older homes – the proposal cannot be categorised as being a good design when it does not consider the existing visual aspects of the community. I note that greenery will actually be destroyed to accommodate the building. The visual site of this proposed development is therefore is not in keeping with the local area.

3) Built form and urban design (SEARs 6): The sheer size and volume (height and street frontage) of the proposed development gives no consideration to transition to low density houses which is unreasonable for a development that sits on the far outer edge of the 400m TOD border. At nine storeys this development will significantly exceed the height of existing buildings closer to the station, which are five to six storeys, and disrupt the current, and highly logical pattern, of gradually decreasing building heights moving away from the station.

4) Trees and landscaping (SEARs 14): The proposal put forward by the developer will remove mature trees, greenery and gardens, and substantially increase the proportion of land occupied by hard surfaces. It should be a requirement for the developer to not juts install a token garden on the site, but to use mature native trees that will be in keeping with what is already maintained by the hundreds of residents throughout the suburb. The developer in this instance should not be excluded from maintaining trees and landscaping that is in keeping with what is expected of other local residents.

5) Environmental Amenity (SEARs 7). There is currently very limited usable, open green space around the Lindfield town centre, and Lindfield more broadly from the east side of the train line across to Archibold Road. The addition of Lindfield green near the station and shops is the only site within 400m of the proposed development, however this is not flat ground, has no play equipment for children and as a very small area the opportunities to use the space are very limited. Outside of this site no other green spaces are available for public use within a long distance of the site.

6) On street parking (Transport SEARs 9). As previously noted, residents in Lindfield today rely heavily on cars for transportation. Although the train is an excellent piece of infrastructure, it travels to a very limited number of locations – particularly on weekends when families are not travelling to or through the city. On that basis, every resident will need access to a car and families will likely require two cars. This will increase local traffic congestion and put pressure on local streets where parking is already challenging in some areas. I refer to my previous comments about the large number of school aged children who regularly use the route adjacent to this proposed development to access the train and Lindfield town centre/shops. The risk of danger to a child walking out onto a road between cars (particularly SUVs) is significantly higher than in circumstances where there is no vehicle blocking visibility of the curb. With few pedestrian crossings, lights or other pedestrian infrastructure in the vicinity of the proposed development, children will increasingly have to cross the road by walking out between cars which creates, in my opinion, an unacceptable and unnecessary risk that could be mitigated by requiring the developer to allocate two parking spaces per unit.

Objection to Residential Development with affordable housing 59-63 Trafalgar Avenue & 1A & 1B Valley Road Lindfield (SSD-79276958) hereafter referred to as “the Proposal” or the “proposed development”
I firmly and strongly object to “the proposal”. It does not adequately address the Planning Secretary’s environmental assessment requirements (SEARs). Section 7 Assessment of Impacts in the proposal in particular does not provide accurate representations of the impacts of the proposal.
I categorically refute the statement that “This EIS confirms that the environmental impacts of the proposed development are positive, reasonable in the circumstances or can be appropriately managed.” Nor does the proposal provide a net positive outcome for the site or surrounding area. Enclosed in Attachment 1 is my submission of objection.