Prity Cleary,
Senior Planning Officer, Affordable Housing Assessments
Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure

Dear Prity,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on SSDA 82899468 for a proposed development at 1-5 Nelson Rd., Lindfield.
I believe that this application is incomplete and inaccurate, and may also contravene the planning controls in place at the time of application. I also believe the reason for this is that the application was rushed, as evidenced in communications from the developers planner (attached). As such, it should be assessed and rejected for further refinement. A design that is the result of consideration of heritage, biodiversity, stormwater management and privacy for surrounding residents would be acceptable and I welcome a re-submission that takes these and other issues into account.
These are the main impacts on me, and I have detailed these in the attachment titled, "SSD-82899468 Response from David Walker.pdf".
In addition to this document, nearly all owners of the properties adjoining the proposed development site have contributed to a document which lists all the errors and inadequacies that are relevant to us. As such, this document should also form a part of their submissions, where they have referred to it. This document, attached, is titled, "Errors and Inadequacies.pdf".
Other attachments are referred to within the documents above.
I welcome any contact if anything in this submission needs clarification or further details. Thanks again and I look frward to hearing the determination of this application.
Kind regards,
Dave.

This proposed development at 1-5 Nelson Street compounds my deep concerns surrounding two other Landmark developments in our neighbourhood, namely 59-63 Trafalgar Avenue, Lindfield (SSD-79276958) and 11-19 Middle Harbour Road (SSD-82900461).
The scale developments in close proximity, individually and in combination:
1. Will destroy the character of our neighbourhood, characterised by heritage homes and a tree canopy.
2. Endanger the environment, given their proximity to the endangered turpentine forest with abundant fauna.
3. Will exacerbate existing traffic congestion at the key entry / exit points:
a. Lindfield Road / Havilah Road turning onto the Pacific Highway
b. Strickland Ave and Clanville Road, turning onto the Pacific Highway
c. Tryon Road turning onto Archbold Road (creating road safety hazards, where motorists seek to access Archbold Road at intersections without lights)
4. The construction phase for these and other projects in the neighbourhood – which could go for years – will be a nightmare.
5. The mass and scale of Landmark’s developments is inappropriate, given their distance from the train station - at best at the fringe of the TOD zone or potentially beyond it.
The scale and volume of 1-5 Nelson Street is overbearing and will be a blight on the streetscape. As a concept proposal, it is difficult to assess without proper planning and design. We have no idea what the product will look like and cannot assess its full impact on the neighbourhood. This process is unacceptable.
I support Ku-ring-gai Council’s superior alternative TOD proposal adopted on 5 June. This proposal, developed with community consultation, delivers the required increase in housing while better protecting heritage areas and the environment and creating a more appropriate transition from high density close to transport infrastructure to low density further away from the station.
Since the Landmark and other developments were announced, I have engaged broadly within our local community. As a community, we strongly oppose these developments.

I object the development application for 1-5 Nelson Rd Lindfield (SSD-82899468)

1. Excessive height and bulk and overshadowing of neighbours.

2. Pressure on existing surgeries, there are only 3 in Lindfield, some doctors have already closed their almost full lists

3. Pressure on the local schools as some local children can't attend a school in the area and are been sent to Chatswood, and now E Lindfield Primary has become an 'OC or AC' school more children will be coming from outside the area causing more traffic.

4. Insufficient outdoor areas for children to play or locals to enjoy outside social activities

5. Traffic congestion and Parking is already a problem, dangerous to cross roads.

6. Nelson Road is often used as the back route to Gordon so will become extremely busy and dangerous as drivers find other ways on local quiet streets to avoid congestion.

7. With the other proposed developments in the surrounding streets, the environment is in danger of losing more tree canopy. Mature tree loss can never be replaced.

8.The necessity of preserving the Heritage Conservation Area.

9. The TOD scheme has been rushed through with no proper Town Planning and pleases mainly the developers. Plus the fact the area has been zoned as a Flood danger.

To Whom it May Concern,
I believe that SSD 82899468 has a number of significant errors, omissions and questionable issues such as eligibility, such that it should be denied for further refinement and if appropriate, resubmission. The concept as it stands cannot be adequately assessed.
Residents from most of the adjoining properties have helped to compile a list of issues. This list is attached to this submission and is titled "Errors and Inadequcies.pdf". This document therefore also forms a part of their submissions, and they may reference in their submissions that this document is attached to my submission.
In addition to the Errors and Inadequacies document, also attached are more details regarding the impact to me ("SSD-82899468 Response from David Walker.pdf"), as well as a copy of an email from the developers planner regarding the time pressures which may have contributed to the incomplete SSDA ("Email - Planning Ingenuity Consultation.pdf").
I look forward to the outcome of the application.

I object to this proposal. See attached document