On the grounds this is in a Heritage conservation area

I object to this development on the following grounds :

1. Excessive height compared with the surrounding buildings causing shadowing, loss of privacy and visual changes not in keeping with the existing street scape of Stanhope Road. The height proposed actually exceeds the TOD proposal by over 22% and significantly breaches the height limits for the R2 Low Rise Residential Zoning (by almost 4 times).

2. The development isolates and towers over adjacent homes some of which are Heritage listed. Stanhope Road currently has no unit blocks so the change will be dramatic. The overshadowing, loss of privacy and loss of amenity issues affect more than 50 residences directly to the north, south, east and west of the proposed development. While the Government’s aim was to develop low/medium-rise buildings around transport hubs this is a high-rise development which is completely incompatible with the locality and hence, is not in the public interest.

3. Not consistent with the Ku-ring-gai Council’s Preferred Scenario which recommends a maximum height of 12 meters in this area rather than the 35 meters proposed in this application.
Cause further overloading of services including local schools (enrolments in numerous schools in Ku-ring-gai already above their maximum designated maximum numbers) as well as medical and other health services.

4. Cause further overloading of services including local schools (enrolments in numerous schools in Ku-ring-gai already above their maximum designated maximum numbers) as well as medical and other health services.

5. Stanhope Road is already parked out on both sides and is actually quite narrow. This means that even now traffic passing in opposite directions in the street does not actually fit. This street will be totally impassable with tradie vehicles and then the new residents and visitors once the proposed development would be completed.

The proposal significantly breaches the height limits for the R2 Low Rise Residential Zoning (by almost 4 times) and breaches the heights allowed under the Transport Oriented Development (TOD) program by over 22%.
• The Government’s aim was to develop low/medium-rise buildings around transport hubs. This is a high-rise development which is completely incompatible with the locality and hence, is not in the public interest. The mass and scale of this development is totally out of proportion to the street and suburb in general.
• Stanhope Road is one of Killara’s most important Heritage areas. This development takes little or no consideration of heritage issues and/or the heritage homes at 1A, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 12 and 18 Stanhope Road., which surround the proposed site. The Heritage Impact Statement has fundamental flaws.
• The development has a combination of huge visual impacts, overshadowing, loss of privacy and loss of amenity issues for more than 50 residences directly to the north, south, east and west of the proposed development.
• The Community Engagement on this project was not undertaken correctly. Hence, many residents were unaware of the proposal until well after its lodgement on 9th May on the SSD site. As a result, residents and other interested parties have not had sufficient time to adequately read, understand and respond to the proposal. The lack of numbers at the developer’s so called “drop-in” session on 3rd April reinforce the breach of the community engagement process.
• There are critically endangered Sydney Blue Gum trees on the site, which are at risk if the development proceeds.
• The deep soil of 7% is far below the Ku-ring-gai Council required amount.
• The Developer’s EIS submission contains multiple major contradictions and omissions. It is impossible to understand the actual size and scale of the proposed development as well as what level of benefit the affordable housing is proposed. It needs to be fixed, and the process recommenced from the beginning to give residents a chance to understand same.

I support the project

I strongly object to the proposed development due to its excessive height and scale, which is entirely inconsistent with the surrounding neighbourhood. The proposed 10-storey building significantly exceeds the local character and planning guidelines, particularly given that surrounding properties to the east, west, and south are detached dwellings, and the maximum allowable apartment building height in Killara is typically limited to five storeys. This development would be double that, creating a built form that is grossly disproportionate to the existing streetscape and residential R2 zoning.
The site is located within a designated Heritage Conservation Area and sits in close proximity to at least nine heritage-listed houses along Stanhope Road. The proposal fails to adequately assess or mitigate the impact it will have on these important heritage properties, including one single home that is fully enveloped by the proposed development and is itself heritage-listed. The scale and visual dominance of the building will directly diminish the character and value of these heritage homes, undermining the conservation objectives of the area.
Kind Regards,
Sebastian Waters

I am writing to formally register my strongest possible objection to the above-mentioned development application, which proposes the construction of a 10-storey high-rise residential building within what has historically been, and should remain, a low-density heritage residential precinct of significant cultural, architectural, and community value.
FUNDAMENTAL INCOMPATIBILITY WITH HERITAGE CHARACTER
The proposed development represents a catastrophic departure from the established built form and heritage character that defines this neighbourhood. This area has evolved over decades as a cohesive low-rise residential enclave, characterized by single and double-storey dwellings that reflect the architectural vernacular and settlement patterns of our local history. The streetscapes maintain a human scale that preserves sight lines to mature canopy trees, allows natural light penetration to gardens and public spaces, and creates the intimate pedestrian environment that residents have come to cherish and expect.
A 10-storey tower would constitute an alien intrusion into this carefully preserved urban fabric, creating an overwhelming sense of enclosure and fundamentally altering the essential character that makes this neighbourhood both liveable and historically significant. The scale differential between existing housing stock and the proposed development is so extreme as to render any claims of sympathetic integration completely untenable.
PLANNING POLICY CONTRADICTIONS
This proposal appears to directly contravene multiple layers of established planning policy designed specifically to protect heritage areas from inappropriate overdevelopment. Local heritage overlays, residential zoning provisions, and strategic planning frameworks have been deliberately crafted to ensure that new development respects existing character while accommodating reasonable growth. The proposed building height exceeds these parameters by such a margin that approval would effectively render existing planning controls meaningless and set a dangerous precedent for similar inappropriate developments throughout the municipality.
The cumulative impact of approving developments that so blatantly disregard established planning principles would be the systematic erosion of the planning system's integrity and the community's confidence in proper development assessment processes.
INFRASTRUCTURE AND AMENITY IMPACTS
The introduction of a high-density residential building into an area planned and serviced for low-density occupation will place unprecedented strain on existing infrastructure networks. Local roads were not designed to accommodate the significant increase in vehicular traffic that would inevitably result from concentrating multiple dwelling units in a single location. The additional burden on stormwater systems, electricity networks, and telecommunications infrastructure could compromise service reliability for existing residents.
Furthermore, the parking requirements for such a development, regardless of how they are met, will fundamentally alter the streetscape character. Whether through extensive basement excavation that affects neighbourhood drainage patterns and tree root systems, or through increased street-level parking demand that eliminates the current spacious, garden-dominated street presentation, the transportation impacts alone justify refusal of this application.
AMENITY AND PRIVACY CONCERNS
The height and bulk of the proposed building would create severe amenity impacts for surrounding properties through overshadowing, overlooking, and visual bulk effects. Residents who have invested in their properties based on reasonable expectations about neighbourhood character and their ongoing amenity enjoyment would find their outdoor spaces rendered unpleasant or unusable during significant portions of the day.
The privacy implications are equally serious, with upper-level apartments capable of direct surveillance into the private outdoor spaces and even internal areas of neighbouring homes. This represents an unreasonable intrusion that no existing resident should be compelled to accept, particularly when such impacts result from development that exceeds appropriate scale parameters.
ENVIRONMENTAL AND SUSTAINABILITY CONCERNS
The environmental impact of constructing such a substantial building in an established low-density area extends beyond immediate construction disruption. The loss of deep soil planting opportunities, the heat island effects of increased building mass, the disruption to local microclimates, and the precedent for similar development throughout the area could cumulatively transform the neighbourhood's environmental character in ways that reduce liveability and sustainability.
Mature vegetation, which contributes significantly to local biodiversity, stormwater management, and urban cooling, would be threatened both directly through site clearance and indirectly through changed growing conditions caused by altered wind patterns and shadowing from the tower.
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION AND DEMOCRATIC PROCESS
The scale and impact of this proposal demand the most rigorous community consultation and assessment processes. Residents deserve meaningful opportunity to understand and respond to development proposals that will fundamentally alter their living environment. Any approval process that does not include comprehensive community engagement, independent expert assessment of heritage impacts, and transparent consideration of alternatives would represent a failure of democratic planning principles.
CONCLUSION AND REQUEST
For all the reasons outlined above, I respectfully but firmly urge the responsible planning authority to refuse this application in its entirety. The proposed development is fundamentally inappropriate for this location and cannot be modified or conditioned to achieve acceptable outcomes. The heritage character, established amenity expectations, infrastructure limitations, and community values at stake require protection through decisive rejection of inappropriate development proposals.
I request that this objection be given full consideration in the assessment process and that I be notified of any community consultation opportunities, expert reports, or decision-making meetings related to this application.
The precedent set by this decision will reverberate throughout our community for decades to come. I trust that the planning authority will demonstrate its commitment to heritage protection, appropriate development assessment, and community amenity by refusing this inappropriate proposal.

• The proposal significantly breaches the height limits for the R2 Low Rise Residential Zoning (by almost 4 times) and breaches the heights allowed under the Transport Oriented Development (TOD) program by over 22%.
• The Government’s aim was to develop low/medium-rise buildings around transport hubs. This is a high-rise development which is completely incompatible with the locality and hence, is not in the public interest. The mass and scale of this development is totally out of proportion to the street and suburb in general.
• Stanhope Road is one of Killara’s most important Heritage areas. This development takes little or no consideration of heritage issues and/or the heritage homes at 1A, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 12 and 18 Stanhope Road., which surround the proposed site. The Heritage Impact Statement has fundamental flaws.
• The development has a combination of huge visual impacts, overshadowing, loss of privacy and loss of amenity issues for more than 50 residences directly to the north, south, east and west of the proposed development.
• The Community Engagement on this project was not undertaken correctly. Hence, many residents were unaware of the proposal until well after its lodgement on 9th May on the SSD site. As a result, residents and other interested parties have not had sufficient time to adequately read, understand and respond to the proposal. The lack of numbers at the developer’s so called “drop-in” session on 3rd April reinforce the breach of the community engagement process.
• There are critically endangered Sydney Blue Gum trees on the site, which are at risk if the development proceeds.
• The deep soil of 7% is far below the Ku-ring-gai Council required amount.
• The Developer’s EIS submission contains multiple major contradictions and omissions. It is impossible to understand the actual size and scale of the proposed development as well as what level of benefit the affordable housing is proposed. It needs to be fixed, and the process recommenced from the beginning to give residents a chance to understand same.

• The proposal significantly breaches the height limits for the R2 Low Rise Residential Zoning (by almost 4 times) and breaches the heights allowed under the Transport Oriented Development (TOD) program by over 22%.
• The Government’s aim was to develop low/medium-rise buildings around transport hubs. This is a high-rise development which is completely incompatible with the locality and hence, is not in the public interest. The mass and scale of this development is totally out of proportion to the street and suburb in general.
• Stanhope Road is one of Killara’s most important Heritage areas. This development takes little or no consideration of heritage issues and/or the heritage homes at 1A, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 12 and 18 Stanhope Road., which surround the proposed site. The Heritage Impact Statement has fundamental flaws.
• The development has a combination of huge visual impacts, overshadowing, loss of privacy and loss of amenity issues for more than 50 residences directly to the north, south, east and west of the proposed development.
• The Community Engagement on this project was not undertaken correctly. Hence, many residents were unaware of the proposal until well after its lodgement on 9th May on the SSD site. As a result, residents and other interested parties have not had sufficient time to adequately read, understand and respond to the proposal. The lack of numbers at the developer’s so called “drop-in” session on 3rd April reinforce the breach of the community engagement process.
• There are critically endangered Sydney Blue Gum trees on the site, which are at risk if the development proceeds.
• The deep soil of 7% is far below the Ku-ring-gai Council required amount.
• The Developer’s EIS submission contains multiple major contradictions and omissions. It is impossible to understand the actual size and scale of the proposed development as well as what level of benefit the affordable housing is proposed. It needs to be fixed, and the process recommenced from the beginning to give residents a chance to understand same.

There are more but these are the major issues.

The proposal significantly breaches the height limits for the R2 Low Rise Residential Zoning (by almost 4 times) and breaches the heights allowed under the Transport Oriented Development (TOD) program by over 22%.
• The Government’s aim was to develop low/medium-rise buildings around transport hubs. This is a high-rise development which is completely incompatible with the locality and hence, is not in the public interest. The mass and scale of this development is totally out of proportion to the street and suburb in general.
• Stanhope Road is one of Killara’s most important Heritage areas. This development takes little or no consideration of heritage issues and/or the heritage homes at 1A, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 12 and 18 Stanhope Road., which surround the proposed site. The Heritage Impact Statement has fundamental flaws.
• The development has a combination of huge visual impacts, overshadowing, loss of privacy and loss of amenity issues for more than 50 residences directly to the north, south, east and west of the proposed development.
• The Community Engagement on this project was not undertaken correctly. Hence, many residents were unaware of the proposal until well after its lodgement on 9th May on the SSD site. As a result, residents and other interested parties have not had sufficient time to adequately read, understand and respond to the proposal. The lack of numbers at the developer’s so called “drop-in” session on 3rd April reinforce the breach of the community engagement process.
• There are critically endangered Sydney Blue Gum trees on the site, which are at risk if the development proceeds.
• The deep soil of 7% is far below the Ku-ring-gai Council required amount.
• The Developer’s EIS submission contains multiple major contradictions and omissions. It is impossible to understand the actual size and scale of the proposed development as well as what level of benefit the affordable housing is proposed. It needs to be fixed, and the process recommenced from the beginning to give residents a chance to understand same.

• Stanhope Road is one of Killara’s most important Heritage areas. This development takes little or no consideration of heritage issues and/or the heritage homes at 1A, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 12 and 18 Stanhope Road., which surround the proposed site. The Heritage Impact Statement has fundamental flaws.
• The development has a combination of huge visual impacts, overshadowing, loss of privacy and loss of amenity issues for more than 50 residences directly to the north, south, east and west of the proposed development.