Dear Madam/Sir,

My family and I live in Lindfield. We are aware that SSDs are being planned for this suburb. This email is in regard to the proposal to develop 11-19 Middle Harbour Rd.

We object to developments that bypass council planning and approvals. The scale of these developments will have a lasting and detrimental impact on the local community, environment and infrastructure. Specifically, ...
- there is little clarity about how council infrastructure and rates will be impacted by all these developments and higher population density,
- the speed and rate with which these proposals are being proposed and pushed through does not allow the local community to accept these developments at a measured pace.

Regards.

I wish to formally object to the above State Significant Development (SSD) Concept Proposal on the following grounds:

SSD Threshold Not Met:
Claimed construction cost of $68M is below the $75M SSD threshold. The application should be assessed as local development.

Misrepresentation of Public Transport Proximity:
Actual distance to Lindfield Station is ~500m, exceeding TOD eligibility. TOD incentives should be rejected.

Sunlight/Shadow Diagrams Missing:
No compliant diagrams provided, preventing proper assessment of overshadowing on neighbouring properties.

Excessive Height & Housing SEPP Bonus:
Proposed 33.6m height exceeds the 28.6m limit by 17.5%, harming amenity and local character. Height bonus use is unjustified.

Heritage Impact:
The site adjoins heritage-listed Lauradaba and Conservation Areas. Reliance on a future Heritage Impact Statement is insufficient.

Setback & Streetscape:
Encroachment forward of heritage-listed neighbours disrupts sightlines and character.

Neighbourhood Character:
Scale and bulk conflict with R2 Low Density zoning and local landscaped character.

Impacts:
Overshadowing, visual intrusion, privacy breaches, traffic/parking underestimation, and noise impacts are inadequately addressed.

Construction Impacts:
Noise, vibration, dust, and traffic impacts must be assessed now, not deferred.

Tree Loss & Biodiversity:
Removal of mature trees, including Turpentines, causes irreversible ecological loss. Biodiversity mitigation is inadequate.

Deficient Consultation:
Consultation fails NSW Community Participation Plan requirements and is inadequate for a development of this scale.


Conclusion:
The proposal fails SSD thresholds, breaches planning and heritage controls, risks environmental and amenity harm, and has not undergone adequate consultation. I urge the Department and Council to refuse this application.

Thank you for considering my submission.

Further ..... I am a deeply concerned and saddened resident of Middle Harbour Road. I am witnessing a particularly opportunistic and voracious property developer systematically carving up our heritage suburb, deploying poorly planned project solutions with little architectural merit, leading to cheaply constructed and generic mass apartment building designs with very profitable outcomes due to the outrageous 30% uplift provisions placed on these projects

This developer is capitalising on the NSW State Government’s haste to bypass a properly crafted Master Plan for the area — one that would have applied best practice design principles and sympathetic building solutions which would have enhanced and uplifted the suburb's streetscape for the benefit of the entire community ( both existing and future dwellers).

Instead we are being fed Dross, for the sack of expediency to resolve the housing pressure points and secure needed political outcomes

I write as a resident of Middle Harbour Road Lindfield to object to the proposal. Whilst I support increased housing in Lindfield, the proposed development has been rushed through to take advantage of TOD provisions before more balanced planning is achieved with the state government and local council working together. The development is inappropriate for the site and surrounding area for the following reasons:
• The proposal fails to demonstrate a high standard of environmental amenity for surrounding residential properties and other sensitive land uses.
• Potential adverse impacts include loss of privacy, reduced solar access, overshadowing, and diminished outlook for existing dwellings.
• At up to nine storeys, the development significantly exceeds the prevailing and anticipated built form of the neighbourhood.
• The excessive height will have detrimental effects on multiple streetscapes, resulting in visual bulk, overshadowing, and a loss of neighbourhood character.
• The overall size is disproportionate and incompatible with the existing and planned context.
• The proposed scale will negatively affect the current low-rise character of the area, which predominantly consists of one- to two-storey dwellings.
• The development is inconsistent with Ku-ring-gai Council’s Preferred Scenario, which seeks to integrate larger developments with smaller dwellings.
• The proposal will have a detrimental impact on the surrounding heritage fabric, eroding the historic character, architectural integrity, and visual setting of nearby heritage buildings and precincts.
• The scale, bulk, and contemporary form of the proposal are incompatible with the established heritage context.
• The projected increase in traffic generation will have significant adverse impacts on the local road network, road capacity, vehicular access, and street parking/loading availability.
• Existing street parking is already inadequate, particularly on Middle Harbour Road and Lindfield Avenue.
• Additional traffic will increase safety risks for drivers, pedestrians, and residents, especially in emergencies when access for ambulances, fire engines, or police may be impeded.
• The development will have significant negative visual impacts from adjoining properties and the public domain.
• It will result in the loss of significant vegetation and greenery, removing a defining element of Lindfield’s environmental heritage where the natural landscape currently dominates the built form.
• The loss of canopy and habitat will have irreversible impacts on the suburb’s character, amenity, and biodiversity.
• The removal of large gum trees to accommodate the development is unacceptable.
• The site is part of Lindfield’s garden suburb character and forms part of a wildlife corridor linked to Garigal National Park.
• Removal of trees and vegetation will reduce nesting, food, and shelter for birds, possums, insects, and other fauna.
• The applicant has failed to provide a comprehensive and independent ecological assessment, despite the site’s high environmental sensitivity.
• The development will cause irreversible loss of amenity and quality of life for existing residents.
• It offers no tangible community benefit while placing heavy demands on local infrastructure and services.
• The loss of trees and canopy will diminish neighbourhood identity and connectedness, contributing to environmental degradation and resident distress.
• The applicant has failed to provide critical, independent studies—covering ecology, traffic, parking, water, stormwater, sewerage, energy, and utilities—to justify the significant intensification of use.

The proposal represents an over-scaled, environmentally destructive, and socially detrimental development that is inconsistent with the existing, planned, and heritage character of the area. It fails to protect environmental values, undermines community amenity, and imposes unacceptable traffic, biodiversity, and infrastructure impacts.

This is a conservation area. Sydney should have a variety of residential densities, with some areas being higher and others lower. Residents in this suburb have paid a premium to enjoy the benefits of low-density living. We do not want this project to ruin the character of our suburb.

Submission attached

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.