I am writing to formally object to the proposed infill housing development planned for the site diagonally behind my property at 2 Nelson Road, Lindfield.

I have been a resident of Lindfield for over 20 years, and it saddens me to see development proposals being brought forward without clear regard for the very real and worsening traffic congestion issues in the area.

Over the years, significant development has already placed a strain on our local infrastructure. A 5 minute walk to Pacific Highway, Lindfield, now regularly takes up to 12 minutes in the car during peak periods due to traffic congestion. Additionally, it takes me 20 minutes just to get out of Lindfield in the morning on my commute. It’s difficult to imagine how the road network will cope with additional high-density housing especially since it all seems to be concentrated around Lindfield Station. There are other parts of Lindfield in both the West and East which are quiet and untouched in terms of development and I think careful thought needs to be put into the viability of these areas instead of having everything in the one hub.

My primary concerns are:
1). Traffic Congestion

2). Safety & Character: The increase in traffic poses risks for pedestrians, including children and elderly residents (of which Lindfield has a significant portion) and takes away from the quiet, safe residential character of the neighbourhood that it is known and loved for.

3). Lack of Community Engagement: The ongoing approval of multiple developments without proactively engaging residents who will be directly impacted by it, is unfair on the local community.

I urge the planning authority to seriously consider the impact of this development in the proposed location in Lindfield and to give local residents the opportunity to be informed about such proposals going forward.

I am writing to object to the proposed apartment development. While I support the need for new housing in Ku-ring-gai and endorse Ku-ring-gai Council’s alternative Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) plan, this proposal is unsuitable for this location due to its excessive scale and adverse impacts.

1. Excessive Scale and Height
The proposal includes 220 units across nine storeys (33m), well above the permitted building height. The density and bulk are completely out of scale with the surrounding low-density housing.

2. Poorly Located at Edge of TOD Zone
The site sits at the outer edge of the TOD boundary and outside the areas identified in Council’s alternative plan. There is no appropriate transition to the surrounding detached homes.

3. Negative Heritage Impacts
The development sits within a Heritage Conservation Area and next to four heritage-listed properties. The scale and design are incompatible with the area’s heritage character.

4. Amenity and Environmental Impacts
The proposal will cause significant overshadowing, loss of privacy, and solar access for neighbouring homes. It also involves the loss of mature trees and tree canopy, harming local environmental values.

5. Noise, Traffic, and Parking Issues
The scale of development will increase traffic, noise, and congestion on streets not designed for this intensity of use.

In summary, this proposal is inconsistent with good planning principles for this location and should not proceed in its current form.

To: Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure
Re: Objection to SSD-79276958 – Trafalgar Avenue and Valley Road, Lindfield
Date: [Insert Date]
Dear Assessing Officer,
I write to lodge a strong objection to the proposed State Significant Development application SSD-79276958 for 59–63 Trafalgar Avenue and 1A & 1B Valley Road, Lindfield. This proposal is inappropriate for its site and local context and should be refused for the following reasons:
________________________________________
1. Inconsistency with Ministerial Statements and Policy Frameworks
This proposal contradicts both public representations by government and established planning definitions:
• The NSW Planning Minister’s media release (21 February 2025) states that the Low and Mid-Rise Housing Policy aims to “fill the missing middle” with buildings generally 3–6 storeys in height.
• The NSW Planning Portal similarly defines “mid-rise” as “generally 3–6 storeys.”
• The proposed development is 10 storeys (33 metres)—more than double the typical “mid-rise” height—aligning it with high-rise typology.
• The misuse of the term “mid-rise” to justify this scale misleads the public and risks undermining administrative legality, consistent with Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v SZSSJ [2016] HCA 29 and Plaintiff M61/2010E v Commonwealth [2010] HCA 41.
• Accurate and honest government communication is essential to uphold procedural fairness and community trust.
________________________________________
2. Overdevelopment and Breach of Statutory Planning Controls
• The site is zoned R2 Low-Density Residential under the Ku-ring-gai LEP 2015, with a 9.5m height limit.
• Even with TOD incentives, the maximum allowable uplift is 30%, equating to a maximum height of approximately 26.8m.
• The proposed 33m height represents a 52% increase over the TOD uplift and an unprecedented breach of planning controls.
• The scale is inconsistent with the established built form of Lindfield and incompatible with the Middle Harbour Road Heritage Conservation Area.
• This clearly contravenes Section 4.15(1)(a)(i) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, which mandates compliance with planning instruments.
________________________________________
3. Misuse of the SSD Pathway and Lack of Strategic Merit
This application:
• Pre-empts the finalisation of the Ku-ring-gai Lindfield TOD Framework, which is still under consideration by Council and the Department of Planning;
• Ignores Ku-ring-gai Council’s draft TOD Scenario 3B, which retains the site’s R2 zoning and 9.5m height limit;
• Bypasses community consultation and statutory plan-making processes;
• Fails to demonstrate extraordinary public benefit or strategic merit;
• If approved and constructed will becomeg a planning anomaly, driven by political expediency rather than good planning as any future development applications on or in the same block as the subject site will be limited to 9.5m height .
________________________________________
4. Inadequate Clause 4.6 Justification
The applicant's request to vary the height standard under Clause 4.6 of the Housing SEPP is unsubstantiated:
• Economic feasibility and site slope are not sufficient grounds for breaching planning controls.
• The site could accommodate a compliant development within the TOD height envelope while still delivering affordable housing.
• The Wehbe v Pittwater Council (2007) LGERA 446 tests are misapplied:
a) Misuse of the First Wehbe Test
• The claim that the development satisfies the objectives of clause 15A (facilitating affordable housing) simply by delivering units ignores the need to meet height limits that shape appropriate urban scale.
• There is no evidence that affordable housing could not be delivered within the 28.6m TOD limit.
b) Failure to Identify the Underlying Objective
• The applicant does not engage with the purpose of height controls: to ensure built form respects its context. Instead, the submission claims irrelevance, contrary to the legal tests under Wehbe.
c) Mischaracterisation of Site Constraints
• The site’s slope is a known constraint. A well-designed, compliant development that steps with the terrain is achievable and common.
• No analysis is provided to show that affordable yield cannot be maintained in a compliant scheme.
d) Public Interest is Not Served
• A 33m height (exceeding the TOD height by over 52%) is not in the public interest, and no justification exists for such a deviation.
________________________________________
5. Failure to Satisfy Chapter 5 Housing SEPP Aims
The applicant misapplies Section 150 of the Housing SEPP:
• s150(a): Increased density can be achieved within the 28.6m height—no need to exceed it.
• s150(b)(i): “Well-designed mid-rise buildings” must still meet planning controls.
• s150(b)(ii): The development fails the requirement for “appropriate bulk and scale.”
• s150(b)(iii): Amenity is not height-dependent and can be preserved within compliant form.
• s150(c): Only 17% of floor area is allocated to affordable housing—not exceptional, and certainly not enough to justify breaching planning controls.
________________________________________
6. Poor Urban Design and Amenity Impacts
• The proposed form is incongruous with the surrounding low-rise residential neighbourhood.
• It creates significant impacts in terms of overshadowing, overlooking, and privacy loss.
• Upper storey levels exceed acceptable mid-rise proportions and are unjustified.
• BCA compliance issues are also evident.
________________________________________
7. Environmental Degradation and Tree Canopy Loss
• The development would remove mature, endangered trees that form part of Ku-ring-gai’s urban forest canopy.
• This contradicts the Ku-ring-gai Urban Forest Policy and Biodiversity Strategy 2030.
• The loss will reduce biodiversity, increase heat island effects, and weaken environmental resilience.
________________________________________
8. Heritage Impacts
The proposal fails to meet the heritage protection requirements of Ku-ring-gai DCP Part 19 – Heritage and Clause 5.10 of the LEP 2015:
Key Failures
• No substantial Heritage Impact Assessment has been provided.
• The development disregards:
o Curtilage and setting of listed heritage properties;
o Middle Harbour Road Conservation Area;
o Federation-era streetscapes and adjoining heritage-listed properties at 1 and 3 Valley Road;
o Potential design alternatives that could mitigate these impacts.
1 and 3 Valley Road: Contextual Damage
• 1 Valley Road is a fine example of the Federation Arts and Crafts style, with a mature garden and picket fence contributing to its historic character. The development would overwhelm it and destroy its curtilage.
• 3 Valley Road holds cultural, architectural, and municipal value and is critical to Valley Road’s rhythm. A 10-storey building nearby would erase its spatial context and compromise its integrity.
• No assessment or mitigation has been attempted.
This is a clear breach of planning law and policy. On heritage grounds alone, the application should be refused.
________________________________________
9. Administrative Law and Good Governance
• Government must act lawfully and transparently.
• The manipulation of planning language to justify non-compliant development is contrary to the principles in Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Teoh (1995) 183 CLR 273.
• The strong objection by Ku-ring-gai Council must be afforded due weight, per the Local Government Act 1993 and principles of participatory planning.
________________________________________
Conclusion
This application exemplifies planning overreach, marked by:
• Premature application of an unfinished TOD framework;
• Unjustified breaches of planning, environmental, and heritage controls;
• Irreversible harm to local character, tree canopy, and community amenity;
• Misuse of State Significant Development powers in the absence of compelling public interest.
For the sake of procedural integrity, environmental protection, and community trust, this application should be refused in its entirety.

Several serious concerns for the existing community:
1. Loss of Family Privacy
The proposed height and scale of the building will severely compromise the privacy of surrounding residents. Homes that currently enjoy a degree of privacy will be directly overlooked by multiple apartment units, affecting the comfort and wellbeing of families living nearby.
2. Increased Traffic Congestion
The additional number of residents and vehicles introduced by this development will place significant pressure on local roads and intersections. The area is already experiencing congestion during peak hours, and this project will only worsen the situation, increasing travel delays and raising the risk of accidents.
3.Excessive Building Height
The proposed height is not in keeping with the character of the neighborhood, which consists mainly of low-rise family homes. A reduction in height would help the development blend more appropriately with its surroundings and reduce the impact on sunlight and skyline views for nearby properties.
4.Safety Concerns
With increased density comes increased risk. A large-scale development can contribute to overcrowding, strain on public services, and greater foot and vehicle traffic, which may impact the safety and sense of security for residents, particularly children and the elderly.
Many thanks in advance and kind regards, Sherry

I object to the proposed 220 units being built at 59-63 Trafalgar Avenue & 1A-1B Valley Road, Lindfield.
I am in support of the supportive of development of new housing in Ku-ring-gai via the Ku-ring-gai Council’s alternative plan for TOD, but not what is proposed for the location - 59-63 Trafalgar Avenue & 1A-1B Valley Road, Lindfield.
The building is completely out of character with the adjacent local heritage conservation surrounds. The building is 9 stories & 33m tall which is above maximum building height. The building is on the very edge of TOD where buildings should be scaled down to transition to established housing on all sides. 9 stories on the north aspect of the block will have significant overshadowing to neighbouring properties and result in lack of privacy & limitations to solar production.
The proposed development will have negative impacts to our natural environment as the removal of mature trees is unacceptable & will take decades to replace.
Significant traffic flow issues already exist with limited access on major arterial roads out of Lindfield. The traffic near Lindfield station is bottlenecked causing access issues to the local shops and it is very congested trying to access the local Lindfield public school.
Please don’t rush developments and work with the local Ku-ring-gai council so the communities preferred scenario can be implemented

To whom it may concern,
I object to the planned development at 59-63 Trafalgar Avenue 1A&1B Valley Road Lindfield. This proposed development is within a heritage conservation area and totally out of keeping with the local environment. Ku-Ring-Gai council has proposed a Preferred Scenario that will provide the required number of new homes while protecting the heritage and natural environment and beauty of this area and any decision on this proposed development should not be made until the council's Preferred Scenario has been resolved.
Thank you.

Please see my objection attached.