Please do not approve until the state and the council has reached an agreement as it will affect the long term living conditions of the flora, fauna and the existing residents as well as the heritage values of the area

This objection is on behalf of my wife and myself.
I totally support the objection submission by the Owner of Unit 59 10 Marian Street Killara.
I will not waste time by repeating the details here.
Stanhope Road traffic and parking is a major, major issue.
Off street parking is another major issue.
We support the Ku-Ring Gai Council proposal for accomplishing the Governments 400m radius plan.
10-11 stories is massive overdevelopment.
Any resident at the back of the proposal will have a grandstand view of any activities we undertake at the rear of our unit. It is unacceptable.

The additional 136 apartments with 195 car parking spaces will severely increase the demand on the local infrastructure. In particular, the Stanhope Road is already a busy side-road during the morning and afternoon peak hours. Long waiting time is already a norm for cars turning from Stanhope Road into Pacific Highway. It will only get much worse when the number of cars is expected to increase materially as a result of this project. Similarly, as the Killara station is not a "major" stop (many trains skip this station intentionally or unexpectedly), the trains are often already 80% filled by the time it reaches Killara during peak hours. Increasing the load on Killara station without appropriate increase in public transport will just make the congestion situation much worse in Killara and surrounding suburbs.

Thursday, 4 December 2025

Ayse Lavoratp
Senior Planning Officer, Affordable Housing Assessments
Department of Planning, Hosing and Infrastructure
4 Parramatta Square,
12 Darcy Street
Parramatta NSW 2150

Dear Ayse
Objection to amendment to SSDA 81890707 at 10, 14, 14A Stanhope Road Killara
Objections

I thank you for the opportunity to make a submission on the SSDA in my home street.
I have enjoyed living with my family at 5 Stanhope Road Killara since May 2013, and would like to continue that enjoyment for the foreseeable future.
Whilst I am alive to the State’s concerns regarding the housing crisis and the shortage of affordable housing arrangements, I do not believe that irretrievably destroying nature and heritage is the solution. Like most things, striking a balance is a delicate game to play. The SSDA conflicts with the community’s vision, as reflected in Ku-ring-gai Council’s TOD Preferred Housing Scenario, which has been adopted by the State Government.
I object to the proposal and its amendments. I note the Response to Submissions and Amendment Report (“the Report”) dated 25/11/2025 acknowledges the “amendments are minor”.
I provided an extensive objection to the original SSDA, and re-iterate those same concerns (I assume that all the objections to the original SSDA are to be considered in the Department’s assessment). I will limit my response now to the amendments.
The key issues that were identified by the community in the original proposal remain the same - those being - height, bulk, scale, inconsistent with the local character, inconsistent with the heritage conservation area of the street and the suburb, traffic and ecology.
The Report provides that the “amendments are minor”, and really only addresses the design quality, functionality and amenity. The amendments inadequately address the heritage and biodiversity aspects of the proposal.
The proposal has increased the number of apartments from 135 to 136, yet decreased the number of affordable housing from 26 to 23. This is at odds with the proposal’s attempt to comply with the State Government’s strategic plan to provide affordable housing.
The proposal makes minor amendments to floor space ratios, building heights, landscaping and internal layout configuration, yet the primary concerns about height, bulk and scale within a Heritage Conservation Area, are inadequately addressed.
The Blue Gum High Forest is of high significance according to the Report (page 4, point 1.4.3), yet the proposal’s amendments would still have a detrimental impact on the integrity of the surrounding soil and environment.
The reduction in maximum building heights to 36.45m (Building B) and 33.75m (Building B and C), and the revised floor to floor heights of 3.15m to 3.2m are insignificant and minimal amendments.
The Report’s landscaping plans are no substitute for providing a sound clearance of the Blue Gum High Forest.
The Report notes that 208 submissions (representing 96% of all submissions) were objections; and that only 3 submissions (that is, 1% of all submissions) were in support of the proposal. When looking at the content of those 3 submissions in favour of the proposal, I suggest they should be viewed carefully. One submission is non-sensical. One is outside of the district. The other (from 10 Stanhope Rd) provides no or limited reasons.
There has been an increase in car spaces on basement level 1, from 101 to 117 car spaces, with an addition of an adapted space and a car wash bay. The water waste from the car wash bay has not been addressed. The increase in car spaces has an intrusive aspect to the natural soil and landscaping area.
The solar access images on page 53 have misleading height images of the surrounding properties.
The balcony size reduction to accommodate extra apartments is at odds with the mission to improve amenities.
The reduced roof overlap of Building A and the landscaping proposed are no substitute for a development that is in keeping with the character of the Heritage Conservation Area.
The Communal open space and pedestrian access at Number 10 Stanhope is inadequate for crime prevention and safety, especially for the proposed number of apartments in high density living.
The Report acknowledges that the maximum building height of 33.75m exceeds the maximum permissible height of 28.6m. The maximum building height should not be exceeded for all the reasons outlined in my original submission. Page 54 of the Report states “proposal does not strictly comply with numerical height controls”. Maximum height restrictions exist for a raft of reasons - solar access, building safety codes, environmental impacts, amongst others - and should not unreasonably be departed from.
Ku-ring-gai Council’s Preferred Alternate TOD, which was prepared with tremendous community engagement and input, and has been adopted and accepted by the State Government in November 2025, should provide the guiding light for this proposal. The Alternate TOD takes into account the need to increase housing availability and balances it with the need to protect social, heritage, environmental impacts and exisiting amenities, with a clear vision for the character and changing nature of the suburb. The proposal is at odds with the preferred scenario. I note that not only has the Government accepted the Alternative TOD, the Council has also just won the 2025 PIA NSW Awards for Planning Excellence - a ringing endorsement from the NSW Government of the plan.
The Report states that 23 trees are to be removed. Planting shrubs and immature trees is no substitute for retaining and maintaining existing established trees.
In relation to Affordable Housing - only 65.2% receive the minimum of 2 hours of sunlight between 9am and 3pm, which the Report considered to be “suitable”. I argue against that, as sunlight is essential to the wellbeing of humans. In a world where mental health is at crisis point, new developments should be aiming higher than merely “suitable”. Cross-ventilation is poorly planned. Only 43.5% of Affordable Housing has natural cross-ventilation, which is far below the 60% minimum according to the Apartment Design Guide (page 84 Report). The Affordable Housing apartments are clustered on the lower ground floors. This creates a siloed effect with Affordable Housing not being integrated into the development, but rather pushed to the dark, below ground level, without cross-ventilation. One must question what role social integration plays in the development of new housing arrangements.
Density of housing - Stanhope Road is all low density with 1 to 2 storeys for all homes. The higher density developments occur along Culworth Ave. There is NO higher density development at all on Stanhope Road.
I disagree that the proposal is consistent with the NSW government’s strategic planning for housing.
I strongly oppose the demolition of 3 existing residential dwellings (one of which, number 10 Stanhope, underwent significant renovations recently), to construct a multi block, 4-9 storey residential apartment building. The degradation of the heritage value and characterisation of Stanhope Road, the ecological and environmental consequences, the height, mass, bulk and scale of the proposal in the middle of Low Density housing, and the impact on traffic and congestion are all factors which should be carefully considered.
Affordable housing can be provided in many ways. Building massive complexes in a suburb devoid of commerce and amenities lacks foresight for the social, environmental and heritage aspects of the population and Killara.
The SSDA 81890707 is not in the public interest and does not reflect the community values and shared spirit of community, enjoying well designed homes amongst nature. Transport Oriented Development hubs may provide housing solutions but should not be at the detriment of community wellbeing that is grounded in caring for the environment, nature, history, heritage and being sustainable about development and planning
Thank you for considering my submission against the SSDA 81890707.

Kind regards

Lara Bishkov
5 Stanhope Road
Killara NSW 2071

The project is too vast for the proposed site. The proposal will greatly affect the beauty of the suburb which is a heritage sensitive area. We, as residents who have had to do renovations over the years, have had to amend plans to suit council and the heritage rules imposed to maintain the suburbs beauty. This development completely ignores that. It does not take into account the massive impact it will have on traffic flow in the area and the movement of traffic across Werona Ave to the Pacific Hwy and onto Fiddens Wharf Rd. In addition, as parking is limited in new apartment builds the streets will become congested with cars looking for parking. I strongly oppose this development in every sense and it should NOT proceed.

Submission Objecting to SSD-81890707
To Whom It May Concern,

I am writing to formally object to the proposed development application SSD-81890707. My
objections are based on several significant concerns, including the detrimental impacts on future
traffic, the visual impact on heritage conservation areas, the height of the development, and the
overshadowing of neighbouring properties.

1. Detrimental Impacts on Future Traffic: The proposed development is likely to exacerbate
existing traffic congestion in the area. The increase in vehicular movement will not only lead to
longer commute times but also pose safety risks for pedestrians and cyclists. The current
infrastructure is inadequate to handle the projected increase in traffic, and no substantial
measures have been proposed to mitigate this impact. There are almost weekly traffic incidents
at the corner of Stanhope Road and the Pacific Highway extra cars added will only exasperate
this.

2. Visual Impact on Heritage Conservation Areas: The development is situated within a
heritage conservation area, and its design is not in keeping with the historical and architectural
significance of the surrounding buildings. The modern aesthetic of the proposed buildings will
clash with the traditional character of the area, undermining everyone's heritage value.

3. Height of the Development: The proposed height of the development is excessive and out
of scale with the existing buildings in the vicinity. This disproportionate height will not only
dominate the skyline but also set a concerning precedent for future developments. It is crucial to
maintain a harmonious urban landscape that respects the scale and character of the existing
environment.

4. Overshadowing on Neighbouring Properties: The height and bulk of the proposed
development will result in significant overshadowing of neighbouring properties. This will reduce
natural light, adversely affecting the living conditions and well-being of current residents. The
overshadowing will also impact the energy efficiency of these properties, leading to increased
reliance on artificial lighting and heating. Much time has been spent on ensuring natural
sunlight into the new properties - but what about the loss sunlight to the existing homes
around the development?

In conclusion, the proposed development SSD-81890707 poses multiple substantial concerns that
must be addressed. I urge you to consider whether the approval of this application in light of the
detrimental impacts on traffic, heritage conservation, building height, and overshadowing is the
right thing to do.

Thank you for considering my submission.

Objection to amendment to SSDA 81890707 at 10, 14, 14A Stanhope Road Killara

I would like to take this opportunity to put forward my objections to the amendment of SSDA 81890707. These objections are based on the understanding that all of the objections to the original SSDA that I, and many others put forward, will still be taken into account. Those concerns were numerous and covered such items as:

Excessive height leading to problems such as overshadowing of adjoining properties, inconsistent with existing character of Stanhope Road and its numerous heritage listed homes. Lack of privacy of adjoining properties. Traffic issues, already a problem in Stanhope Road. Potential damage to existing trees, especially Blue gums on western side. Removal of storm water from the site. Other infrastructure concerns such as lack of essential services such as schools.

I would like to focus firstly on the amendment proposing the height of building B be reduced from 36.45 m down to 33.75 m by the removal of level 8. While any reduction is welcome, the effect is minor and I believe inadequate to address the issues already expressed by the community in their objections to the original proposal. Buildings B and C are way in excess of surrounding houses and unit blocks in the Killara area. Existing unit developments are barely over half the height of these two proposed buildings. While much information is provided concerning the visual impact of the height as seen from Stanhope Road there is nothing showing the major impact that will happen to homes and units to the west, north and east of the site. As the resident of 6A Stanhope Road, right next door to buildings B and C we expect the impact to be, to say the least, overwhelming.

After much deliberation and community involvement Ku-ring-gai Councils preferred alternative TOD has been accepted by the State Government. This alternative sets out the allowable building height for properties involved in this SSDA as 12 m for numbers 10 and 14A and 9.5 m for number 14. Properties adjoining or in close proximity namely numbers 4A, 6A and 16A are now designated as 12m building height while the existing unit blocks to the north on Marian Street are 18.5 m. All this illustrates how out of place this development would be if it went ahead at a building height of 33.5 m. While I realise this development application was lodged just prior to the alternative TOD being finalised I believe common sense must prevail and at the very least this development be on a substantially reduced scale to that proposed.

On the subject of tree preservation it is very important to us to make sure the existing trees (particularly T8, T10 and T11) existing shrubs along our fence line (western boundary of development) are preserved along with other established trees on the site.

In summary I believe that SSDA 81890707, as it currently stands, is not in the best interest of the community. This is especially true now that a State Government sanctioned TOD alternative for Ku-ring-gai not only provides the housing numbers sought by the Government but preserves the heritage, nature, liveability and character of Stanhope Road and surrounding area.

Trevor Harders
6A Stanhope Road, Killara