I write to formally object to the proposed State Significant Development Application (SSDA) for 10, 14, and 14A Stanhope Road, Killara. While I support appropriate development to meet community needs, this proposal is fundamentally flawed in scale, design, context, and process. It should not proceed in its current form.
1. Inappropriate Scale and Zoning Conflict
The proposed development, seeking to build 135 apartments up to 35 metres in height, is grossly incompatible with the surrounding R2 low-density residential zoning. My own property, zoned R2 and limited to a 9.5-metre building height, would be entirely surrounded by 5–10 storey apartments with no effective transition between R2 and R4 zones. This stark contrast in built form constitutes overdevelopment and results in visual dominance, overshadowing, and a significant loss of residential amenity.
This type of development is also inconsistent with Ku-ring-gai Council’s alternative Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) strategy, which envisions lower-scale development in this precinct. Approval would set a dangerous precedent for incompatible intensification in otherwise low-density areas.
2. Design Failures and Architectural Merit
The architectural design lacks merit and fails to meet the Apartment Design Guide (ADG) principles. The excessive number of apartments per floor and minimal setbacks have resulted in monolithic building forms with poor articulation and large, blank facades. The scale, bulk, and form are unrefined and visually intrusive, with minimal regard for integration into the existing streetscape or heritage context. These characteristics should have disqualified the project from approval via the State Design Panel.
Furthermore, the reliance on long, singular internal corridors for resident access raises legitimate safety concerns regarding emergency egress, potentially creating dangerous bottlenecks during evacuations.
3. Impact on Amenity: Overshadowing and Privacy
The submitted shadow diagrams are limited in scope, lacking any seasonal context or comprehensive assessment. My property will experience severe overshadowing and loss of natural light. Additionally, multiple balconies and windows from the proposed buildings will directly overlook my outdoor living spaces, seriously infringing on privacy.
4. Heritage and Streetscape Ignored
The development is wholly out of character with the existing streetscape and provides only token acknowledgment of nearby heritage-listed properties, such as 12 and 18 Stanhope Road. The demolition of Federation-era housing to make way for high-rise apartments disregards the established architectural character of the street and the heritage significance identified in the LEP.
5. Traffic and Infrastructure Impact
Traffic volumes on Stanhope Road and surrounding intersections, particularly at Culworth Avenue and the Pacific Highway, are already at capacity. The development provides no realistic mitigation or assessment of the increased traffic burden. The morning and afternoon peaks are already dangerous, particularly for commuters accessing Killara Station or making hazardous turns onto the highway. The development would significantly worsen these conditions.
6. Flawed Application Process
The proposal uses a proforma letter from Echo Realty to nominally qualify under the Affordable Housing provisions of the Housing SEPP, enabling it to bypass the standard DA process. This mechanism has been used across multiple SSDA applications and lacks accountability and assurance that genuine affordable housing outcomes will be delivered. This calls into question the validity of the SSDA planning pathway used here.
7. Inadequate and Misleading Community Consultation
Community consultation has been minimal, insufficient, and in some cases misleading. The materials provided did not accurately reflect the visual and environmental impacts of the development. For a project of this scale, the lack of genuine community engagement is unacceptable and fails to meet the standards expected under the SSDA process.
Conclusion
In light of the above, I urge Council and the relevant planning authorities to reject this application in its current form. The proposal conflicts with established planning frameworks, fails to demonstrate design excellence, significantly harms the amenity and character of the area, and undermines the integrity of the community consultation process.
A substantial redesign — aligned with local planning controls and urban design principles — is the minimum required to even consider approval.

I have been vising family in the street for the last 13 years and can say that it is a beautiful street with huge heritage value. It would be such a shame to have a development of this scale, bulk and size built here. The street is a connector street that is very busy. Access to the Pacific Highway travel North particularly is insanely busy and impossible to exit. One can only imagine how an additional 135 units coming and going from this street will impact the traffic flow. Parking in the street is extremely difficult and often at capacity. Additional cars from 135 units plus visitors to these units will be ridiculous on a street that is only 300 metres long with more than 21 driveways.

Please find attached my objection to this proposal.

The proposed development comprises 10 storeys, 135 residential apartments, and 195 car parking spaces. This scale and intensity of development is unprecedented in the corridor between Gordon and Roseville. Currently, the apartment buildings in Killara do not exceed five storeys in height. As such, this proposal represents a dramatic departure from the established built form and character of the suburb. The increased building height and bulk will result in a dominant visual presence on the skyline, impacting not just the immediate vicinity but the broader suburban landscape. Additionally, solar access to existing residential properties at 12, 8, and 6A Stanhope Road will be significantly diminished, affecting residents’ quality of life and property values.

The development site is home to ecologically significant vegetation, including remnants of Blue Gum High Forest and Sydney Turpentine-Ironbark Forest. Both are listed under the NSW Threatened Species profiles (as of May 2025) as critically endangered ecological communities. The submitted Heritage Impact Statement indicates that all trees on the site are to be removed, a measure that would result in irreversible environmental degradation and the loss of important biodiversity. This is of grave concern, particularly given the increasing need to preserve native vegetation in metropolitan areas.

The site falls within a designated Heritage Conservation Area (HCA) and is located on a street that contains nine heritage-listed residences. The introduction of a large-scale, high-rise development in this context would undermine the heritage values and established character of the area. The scale and form of the proposal are incompatible with the historical fabric of the neighbourhood, and its approval would set a damaging precedent for future development in heritage precincts.

The construction phase is likely to result in significant disruption to local traffic conditions, particularly regarding on-street parking availability for residents and visitors. The existing road network, especially Stanhope Road, is not designed to accommodate such an increase in construction-related traffic. Once the development is completed, the additional 195 vehicles associated with the apartments will contribute to long-term congestion, further straining the existing road infrastructure.

Contrary to statements in the development reports, there is no defined “Killara Village” in the immediate area. There are no retail or commercial services nearby, with the closest shops located in Lindfield. This raises significant concerns regarding the adequacy of local infrastructure to support such a large influx of new residents. The impact on educational institutions, particularly Killara High School, local primary schools, and preschools, has not been adequately assessed or addressed in the proposal.

Destroying beautiful and unique houses to create apartments is a mistake. The Upper North Shore is renowned for its big houses and leafy environment and should be preserved for future generations to admire and aspire to. The one size fits all that the TOD makes is a mistake. If the TOD has its way there will be no houses near the train stations. The TOD is a blunt instrument. Better to have suburbs where apartments prevail and suburbs where houses prevail. Unfortunately the best Federation and Californian Bungalow houses on the North Shore are predominantly near train stations. It would be a great pity to lose all these to the TOD. It reminds me of the fights in the 1970s to preserve the Rocks in the Sydney CBD - today people realise it would have been a great mistake to put high rise in the Rocks. It will be the same with the classic homes of Killara, Gordon, Lindfield and Roseville.

I strongly object to the proposed development at 10-14A Stanhope Road due to its significant ecological and heritage impacts. The site hosts blue gum, turpentine, and ironbark trees that contribute to local biodiversity, yet the construction will inevitably damage this fragile ecosystem. Additionally, the proposal shows no regard for streetscape character, replacing a house with original features with a four-storey, out-of-style design that contradict heritage conservation principles. The excessive height and bulk at the rear exceed limits and will create an unpleasant visual impact when viewed from street level, while the artist impressions fail to show how it will block views and invade the privacy of neighboring properties, particularly No. 12.
This development sets an alarming precedent by disregarding ecological value, local heritage and cultural values, and community interest. The noise transmission, loss of privacy, and visual dominance of the building are simply unacceptable. I urge the state to reject this proposal and instead make a decision that truly reflects the best interests of Ku-ring-gai’s community and environment.

Please find attached my objection to this proposal