I support additional housing supply. However, I oppose the proposed development, which is not suitable for the site on which it is proposed. My key reasons for opposing the development include:
• its height, bulk and density;
• its adverse impact in terms of overshadowing and loss of solar access and privacy on adjacent and other neighbouring properties;
• the lack of transition, in terms of height and density, to the neighbouring residential properties;
• the loss of tree canopy and biodiversity that will result;
• its likely adverse impact from a heritage perspective on adjacent heritage items and properties in the Middle Harbour Heritage Conservation Area (HCA), of which the site forms part, and on properties in the Trafalgar Avenue HCA;
• conflict with the character and streetscape of the neighbourhood, including the adverse visual impacts of such large, angular buildings and dense construction being located in that neighbourhood;
• its likely adverse impact on traffic and parking in surrounding streets;
• its likely adverse impact on infrastructure including local roads; and
• it is inconsistent with a good planning outcome and in conflict with the alternative planning scheme (TOD Alternate Preferred Scenario) proposed by Kuring-Gai Council (Council), which Council has reported has widespread community support.

Additional comments on some of my objections follow.
HEIGHT, BULK AND DENSITY; CONSEQUENTIAL OVERSHADOWING, LOSS OF SOLAR ACCESS AND LOSS OF PRIVACY:
• The heights and bulk proposed are in my view entirely inappropriate for this location. The maximum number of storeys is 11 – this on a site where the Transport-Oriented Development SEPP (TOD) currently provides for 6 and which is outside the area covered by the TOD Alternate Preferred Scenario (which, once implemented, would have the result that the site would be covered by the Low and Mid Rise Housing Policy (LMR)).
• The proposal says that the proposed development has a maximum height of 33.07m at its highest point, exceeding the maximum building height by 4.47m (15.6%). No variation should be approved to permit the proposed height. The application says that ‘No habitable floor space is located above the permitted height’. That is not relevant. The proposed additional height would, whatever is inside it, exacerbate the adverse effects the development would have even without the additional height. It would exacerbate overshadowing and contribute to a mass and bulk that is entirely inappropriate for the location and its elevation. The elevation of, and the slope on, the site should not be a reason for building height that exceeds the relevant TOD planning controls.
• The three dimensional diagrams that appear in one of the documents on exhibition demonstrate the grossly disproportionate size of the development relative to the existing surrounding properties. The size (height, bulk and density) is also grossly disproportionate relative to the zoning under the LMR that applies to adjacent properties, and is disproportionate even relative to the R4 zoning for properties on the other side of Trafalgar Avenue that is proposed in the TOD Alternate Preferred Scenario.
• The shadow diagrams that are included in the proposal indicate a degree of shadowing that is unacceptable, particularly for adjacent properties in Middle Harbour Road which the shadow diagrams indicate would start to lose the sun on their northern aspect from 9 am and would be essentially completely overshadowed by noon, which overshadowing would continue and become deeper over the rest of the day.
• Neighbouring properties that were overlooked by the buildings would suffer a substantial loss of privacy.
• The solar access for apartments in the development is in my view sub-standard - 39 apartments with no solar access is unacceptable. Many of these are the ‘affordable housing’ apartments. It is not a good social outcome to provide ‘affordable’ housing with no solar access.
• Similarly many of the apartments, including many of the ‘affordable housing’ apartments, have no cross ventilation. Again this is something that is not a good social outcome.
• The site is among the highest elevations in Lindfield east of the railway line, particularly at the Russell Lane end. The proposed buildings would dominate the neighbourhood and the skyline. They would be visible from many directions and from some distance.

LOSS OF TREE CANOPY AND BIODIVERSITY; INADEQUATE NEW PLANTING:
• Many mature trees will be removed if the application is approved. Boundary and other planting will take many years to grow, and will not be an effective substitute for the trees removed. Given the shadow from the buildings, planting on the southern side of the development, in particular, is highly unlikely to thrive.
• Boundary planting will not hide the stark facades of the buildings, nor attract the bird and other wildlife that the current tree canopy on the site attracts.
• The overshadowing to the south of the development is likely adversely to affect the plants and trees in the backyards of the properties on Middle Harbour Road adjacent to the development.
ADVERSE IMPACT ON HERITAGE ITEMS AND HCAs:
• The Site is adjacent to 4 heritage items.
• It is essential that heritage items are not stranded. Leaving them stranded and largely surrounded by development, as would be the case for 1 Valley Road, would materially diminish the heritage value of these properties.
• If the development was to proceed:
o the heritage value of all the adjacent heritage items would be substantially diminished;
o the amenity of those living in the heritage items would be substantially reduced; and
o the financial value of the heritage items would be adversely affected, which would be inequitable to the owners of those properties.
• The site, and the properties in Valley Road and Middle Harbour Road that are adjacent to the site, are all in the Middle Harbour HCA. The properties on the other side of Trafalgar Avenue from the site are all in the Trafalgar Avenue HCA. The heritage value of those two HCAs will effectively be undermined and substantially diminished if the development proceeds.

THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WOULD NOT BE A GOOD PLANNING OUTCOME:
• The site is on the very edge of the TOD zone, and outside the area covered by the TOD Alternate Preferred Scenario.
• If approved this development would be entirely inconsistent with the TOD Alternate Preferred Scenario and with the key objectives of Council that underpin the TOD Alternate Preferred Scenario. The TOD Alternate Preferred Scenario has been the subject of extensive community consultation and very careful consideration by Council (and I understand that Council staff have in developing the TOD Alternate Preferred Scenario consulted with NSW Planning staff). In particular, the proposed development is contrary to the following principles, which I endorse:
o there should be a graduated shift down in height as buildings radiate out from the train station (not a ‘donut’ effect);
o impact on heritage items should be minimised;
o transition impacts should be managed effectively, with zoning/density changes that are ‘mid-block’ or along property boundaries avoided and an acceptable interface between areas of different density;
o building heights should be appropriate; and
o impact on tree canopy should be minimised.
The proposed development would undermine achievement by Council of these objectives and, on the site for which it is proposed, be a very poor planning outcome.

I object to the Lindfield development for 220 units on the following grounds:
1. The footprint of the building is excessive and imposes on neighbouring properties.
2. The development is not in keeping with the surrounding neighbourhood.
3. The development will contribute to excessive traffic congestion.
4. The area does not need a large development in such a leafy suburb.

While I appreciate that additional housing is required in the area I find the scale of this proposal is way to excessive for its location. It will have a significant effect on the environment, impact on the heritage conservation area, traffic and privacy.
A lot of work between Council and the community has been undertaken to arrive on a proposed TOD. This development is outside of that boundary and does not consider the transition to low density houses.
It should also not be considered in isolation but rather viewed along with the other proposed SSD’s in the immediate area. It will have a massive negative effect for all residents in the area.
What considerations have been made to the local infrastructure for all these developments?
Roads, parking, schools, increased capacity of local water reservoirs to name a few!

I wish to formally object to the proposed State Significant Development (SSD) for residential development with infill affordable housing at 59–63 Trafalgar Avenue and 1A–1B Valley Road, Lindfield. The scale and nature of this proposal represent a significant overreach, disregarding local heritage, planning priorities, and community expectations.

Premature and Inappropriate Timing
This application is premature and undermines ongoing negotiations between Ku-ring-gai Council and the NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure (DPHI). Council's "Preferred Scenario," developed in response to the NSW Government's Transport Oriented Development (TOD) reforms, proposes balanced, sustainable growth that aligns with infrastructure capacity, heritage conservation, and the values of the local community.
By submitting this application before the TOD framework is finalised, the proponent sidesteps democratic planning processes and meaningfully excludes residents from having a say. This raises concerns about transparency and procedural fairness and disregards the critical role of local governance in shaping Lindfield’s future.

Key Objections
1. Misuse of Affordable Housing Provisions
This proposal includes 220 apartments, but only 46 are designated as "affordable." That’s just over 20%, yet the entire proposal is framed around its contribution to housing affordability. In reality, the majority of units will likely be sold for in excess of $800,000, catering to higher-income buyers and accelerating gentrification, not solving the housing crisis. The only clear beneficiaries of this development are the developers and a handful of property owners.

2. Excessive Building Height
The proposed height of 33.07m exceeds the local planning control limit of 28.60m by 15.6%. A 9+ storey building is completely out of context with the surrounding low-density homes and will have significant impacts including:
• Overshadowing of neighbouring properties
• Loss of privacy
• Reduced solar access
• Visual dominance incompatible with the established streetscape
No meaningful transition in scale has been proposed, which further highlights the lack of respect for the area’s character.

3. Bulk and Scale
The development consists of buidings of up to nine storeys. This bulk is excessive and out of character for Lindfield. It would overwhelm the local built environment and exacerbate the same concerns raised under height, especially in terms of scale, visual impact, and neighbourhood compatibility.

4. Traffic Congestion
Lindfield already experiences heavy traffic, especially during peak periods. Havilah road is often backed up with cars trying to access Pacific Highway. Local roads such as Trafalgar Avenue, Russell Lane, and Valley Road are quiet residential streets, not designed to accommodate the increased vehicle load this development would generate. The developement will further congest these streets and increase the risk of accidents and delays.

5. Parking Shortfall
The development includes 367 parking spaces, which equates to one guest parking spot for every seven apartments. This is clearly inadequate and will significantly worsen parking pressure in an already congested area.

6. Heritage Impacts
The development adjoins four heritage-listed homes and proposes the demolition of five houses within the Lindfield Conservation Area. The scale, massing, and design are incompatible with the area’s heritage character, undermining longstanding efforts to protect and preserve Lindfield's unique architectural and historical identity.

Concerns About Community Consultation
I am also deeply concerned about the lack of transparent and inclusive community consultation. I have not received direct notification of this development or information about information drop-in sessions. The absence of outreach undermines public trust in the process and calls into question the integrity of stakeholder engagement efforts.

Conclusion
This proposal is fundamentally inappropriate for Lindfield. It is oversized, out of character, and out of step with the current infrastructure, heritage values, and road network. The development appears to be timed to exploit transitional planning conditions, sidelining both Council’s vision and the voices of local residents.
The current TOD framework does not adequately reflect Lindfield’s unique context. I strongly urge the NSW Department of Planning to reject or defer this application until Council’s Preferred Scenario has been finalised and properly considered.
Thank you for the opportunity to make this submission.

I would like to express my objection to this particular development because I believe it will impact Lindfield badly. Building such a large apartment complex on Trafalgar Avenue will ruin the look of the area which is a rare example of a pretty historical looking suburb in Sydney. It will increase the number of pedestrians along Russell Avenue and cars and parking will become unmanageable ongoing and in an already overcrowded area. In addition I feel that Lindfield does not have the infrastructure for what is described as more than 220 new dwellings. For example, Lindfield train station has a limited amount of space on its platforms and also a limited number of trains. The shopping and dining facilities in Lindfield will also be placed under great pressure whilst increasing density of living near the city which appears to be the main priority for government. It may create long-term problems down the track. Will there be funding for more spaces in our schools and other community based amenities? Compared with other countries and particularly those with longer history, Australia needs to pay more attention to preserving its history and culture so that generations to come can experience and see that in the buildings and the planning of our suburbs otherwise in 50 years when our children and their children are grown they will have nothing to look at but big blocks of apartments. In terms of heritage preservation there is one property which will be almost completely surrounded on two sides and a drive way for the new monstrosity. This plan to surround the property feels to be most unethical and inelegant when you consider how this will look from the Street. My sympathy to whoever owns that property. I would urge you to consider these points thank you.