I object to the proposed SSD for 59-63 Trafalgar Av & 1A-1B Valley Rd Lindfield proposal for the following reasons:
1. The proposal is over any height limit for any TOD, being 9+ stories & 33m in the proposal, significantly higher than the limits allowed
2. Its outside the boundaries of the Ku-ring-gai Councils Proposed TOD
3. Its on the edge of the 400m TOD which does not consider any transition to low density housing, a totally unfair planning proposal for the 1-2 storey neighbours.
4. There will be significant increased to traffic & parking for an area already jammed by commuters looking to utilise the train. Just try to park locally now or even get onto a train or metro in peak hour, or in and out of the pacific highway... its already chaos.
5. This is a huge impact to the heritage conservation area, bulldozing our heritage of Sydney.
6. Has a huge impact on the environment of Lindfield, destroying mature trees.
7. It will destroy the local landscape and streetscape which has been so beautifully preserved by council & local residents.

People have significantly invested in the area when purchasing their properties buying into the area. It is totally unfair to have an unnecessary huge negative financial, mental and wellbeing impact on so many people. The state government should embrace the Ku-ring-gai council TOD modified plans, which are supported by the community, help to maximise homes (to their targets) whilst preserving the heritage areas, trees and local areas for the majority and minimising impact on the community . Please approach development in a more 'democratic way' than this state governments dictatorial/communistic approach.
The State Government and NSW department of planning should respect its communities, its councils and its beautiful city and not accept any SSDs that are not in Ku-ring-gai Councils plan. This only results negative impacts for everyone excpet the money hungry developers who try to bend every rule to make an extra dollar wherever they can.

I reside at 40 Middle Harbour Road Lindfield, with my wife and three daughters. Our property is approximately 30m from the eastern boundary of the Development.
I strongly object to the proposed development for the following reasons:
1. Detrimental impact on the environment

• At least one endangered powerful owl lives in the close vicinity of the development site. I and other members of my family have witnessed on occasions at least one powerful owl at or near our home.
• My conclusion that the sightings were of the endangered powerful owl are based on:
o Size – powerful owls can reach up to 60cm in length
o Face markings – unlike many other owls, powerful owls do not have the heart-shaped rings around their eyes (The only other owl with similar face markings are not found in eastern and southeastern Australia)
• While not all owl sightings have been captured on camera, I have attached:
o a video of what appears to be a powerful owl taken at 37 Middle Harbour Road (Attachment 1)
o a photo of a powerful owl perched over our back deck (Attachment 2). Moments after this photo was taken, we saw it silently fly away, revealing its impressive wingspan
• Owls are sensitive to light pollution, which will be inevitable with a 9-storey, 220-unit development. I fear that the development will drive owls out of their habitat. Further, a neighbour pointed out one of the trees earmarked for removal appears to have a hollow, which owls typically inhabit.
• The Development is within 15 metres of the endangered turpentine forest which runs through our back yard – as does Gordon Creek. The area abounds with fauna including an echidna (Attachment 3), water dragons, frogs, ducks (seasonal) and a variety of bird life: king parrots, cockatoos, lorikeets, kookaburras, whip birds (audible in Attachment 4) and eagles (Attachment 5 and Attachment 6)
• Two additional concerns arise:
o 33m / 9 floors of glass windows will create a (potentially fatal) bird strike danger; and
o Having read Appendix S of the Development proposal, it is not clear to me that the Development will not have a detrimental impact on Gordon Creek. My concerns relate to both the quality of the water (and impacts on biodiversity) and volume (risk of flooding).
• My personal observations of the powerful owl contradict the conclusion in Appendix 1 of the Biodiversity Development Assessment Report, namely that the powerful owl is a “Threatened species assessed as not on site.” This brings into question the reliability of other assertions in the 81-page report.

2. Detrimental impact on our neighbourhood and community

• The scale and siting of the 33m high, 9-floor Development on the top of the hill is inappropriate and unsympathetic with surrounding Trafalgar Ave, Middle Harbour Road and Valley Road precinct, with many heritage homes and abundant mature trees. The Development will be visible from kilometres away and will dominate the neighbourhood.
• The proposal appears to maximise site coverage with minimal set-back and no apparent attempt to transition from the high-density are near the station to the single-family dwellings beyond the TOD boundaries. The 3-level unit blocks on Tryon Ave – in fact, closer to Lindfield Station – provide a better model for high density living at the fringe of the TOD zone. This development is set back and with appealing landscaping.
• While our home environment will be adversely affected by the Development (see 3 below), I am most sympathetic to our neighbours at 30A to 34 Middle Harbour Road. They will most likely be deprived of direct sunlight, being on the south side of a hill close to the 9-storey south wall of the Development (these houses are set to the back the block due to the riparian zone).
• It is difficult to imagine the impact of additional traffic from 220 units, combined with the impact of other planned developments in the immediate vicinity.
• The only positive aspect of the Development is how it has drawn our neighbourhood together in unified opposition to it.

3. Detrimental impact on our property and family living environment

• The 33m, 9-story Development is only 30 metres our property. Positioned high on the hill, it will present a jarring contrast from our currently green and private outlook. We will suffer oversight, with the balconies overlooking our back yard, rear deck and upper bedrooms.
• With siting of the Development to the NNW, we are likely to lose the winter sun during the afternoon.

4. Lack of process

• I only became aware of this Development through word of mouth in our neighbourhood. I was told that some adjacent properties received notice from the developers. However, due to the massive scale of the Development, there is a much wider radius of affected properties.
• I find it surprising that a Development so consequential upon our lives would not be required to provide us notice directly. Due to these circumstances, I have had only 2 days to review the proposed development and respond.

5. Conclusion

• As described in 1) above, our property includes remnants of the old turpentine forest and abounds in wildlife. We feel privileged to have such proximity to the natural environment and feel a strong obligation, as current custodians of one small portion of this forest, to protect it from degradation. This Development in its current form poses such a threat.
• The Biodiversity Development Assessment Report appears to be flawed.
• The Development pushes the boundaries. It is so massive and inappropriate in its scale, it has all the hallmarks of being an ambit claim with a de-scaled (but still over-sized) version to be presented as a compromise. If so, such tactics should not be rewarded.
• I recognise the legitimate policy objectives in creating higher density and affordable housing close to the transport hub. However, this should be done in a manner more harmonious with the natural environment and surrounding neighbourhood.
• This Development, if allowed, will be a grotesque, 33m monument to poor urban planning for decades to come.
Peter Girdis

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