To: Adela Murimba (Planner, NSW Department of Planning, Housing & Infrastructure, DPHI)

I have lived with my family in Lindfield for over 10 years and reside within 1km of the proposed development at 19–25 Balfour Street, Lindfield. I object to development application SSD-82709458 as my family and I will be impacted by this proposal. My concerns are as follows:

Poor Design Quality
The building is visually inconsistent with the surrounding area and lacks architectural merit relative to nearby heritage conservation homes and other developments. It is a 9–10 storey block that will tower over adjacent 1–2 storey homes and sit directly opposite more modest 3-storey developments. The tallest apartment building on Balfour Street—and indeed in Lindfield (the Coles mixed-use development)—is only 6 storeys.

Overbearing Bulk and Inadequate Setbacks
The proposed building mass is excessively large and out of step with the existing and evolving character of surrounding properties.

The proposal is based on FSR 3.25:1, far exceeding the 1.3:1 applicable to adjacent and surrounding homes under Ku-ring-gai (KRG) Council’s proposed amendments to the NSW Government’s TOD policy—making it at least three times larger than likely neighbouring structures.

The developer seeks a total height of 32.7m, which is 4.1m higher than the already enhanced 28.6m height limit for developments including affordable housing under the NSW Government’s regime. KRG’s proposed TOD height for adjacent properties is 18.5m. The result would be a dominating, out-of-context building. This is excessive; other developers have delivered 3-storey buildings with viable returns, so there is no justification for this enhanced height.

The development at 19–25 Balfour Street is therefore unreasonable and excessively large in the local context.

Environmental Amenity
The development adds disproportionate density and would negatively impact nearby homes on Balfour Street, Wallace Parade, and Highfield Road through loss of sunlight, overshadowing of homes and gardens, and loss of privacy due to height and direct sightlines into private residences.

Biodiversity
From April 2024, the owners of 19 Balfour Street appear to have poisoned and/or removed ecologically significant trees without a Council permit, seemingly to maximise development value and evade obligations to protect a recognised biodiversity corridor. Trees on 21–25 Balfour also appear to have been poisoned.
Removing/killing trees without a permit is illegal and has caused significant harm to Lindfield’s environment and tree canopy. DPHI must not allow the owners/developer to profit from any unlawful conduct; doing so would set a dangerous precedent for environmental destruction.

The protected biodiversity corridor bordered by Balfour Street and Highfield Road comprises critically endangered Blue Gum High Forest and Sydney Turpentine–Ironbark Forest. Prior to 2024 (before development negotiations for Nos. 19–25), mature protected species on those properties were healthy—this is evident in freely available aerial photos. From mid-2024 (around the time the development agreement was likely concluded), once-thriving trees at Nos. 19–25 had “mysteriously” died, and several were removed without approval. Notably, adjacent properties’ trees remain healthy.

Under KRG Council FOI, neighbours lodged the following reports from mid-2024:

RMTR24/04400 (25 Balfour) – suspected poisoning of Turpentine (protected)

RMTR24/04393 (23 Balfour) – suspected poisoning of Sydney Red Gum

RMTR24/04399 (21 Balfour) – suspected poisoning of Melaleuca

RMTR25/01479 (19 Balfour) – suspected poisoning of Blue Gum; poison may have seeped into water table, also killing a neighbour’s gum at 10 Highfield Road

RMTR24/04459 (19 Balfour) – suspected poisoning and illegal removal of a mature oak

Although penalties were not issued (criminal standard of beyond reasonable doubt), Council investigators noted signs of “toxic shock.” Meanwhile, adjacent properties’ valuable species continue to thrive, reinforcing that the subject trees did not die of natural causes.

It is risible that the developer’s EIS (6.10.1) and Biodiversity Assessment Report (5.3) conclude there is “no significant” biodiversity value on 19–25 Balfour, while referencing dead protected trees. These conclusions are only possible because the trees were most likely destroyed to erase biodiversity value. The report then argues that, due to the site’s now-negligible value, the developer should not be required to purchase biodiversity credits.

DPHI should not allow this to pass without consequence. The developer must calculate biodiversity credits by reference to the pre-destruction value of the protected trees, and must not benefit from any additional development area gained through their removal. A reduction in FSR is therefore appropriate.

Trees and Landscaping
The developer currently commits only to the minimum 32.5% landscaping required under KRG’s DCP. Given the removal of protected trees and the corridor’s decimation, additional landscaping and restoration should be required—specifically, re-establishing protected species and the biodiversity corridor to meaningful maturity. Approval should be conditioned on restoration milestones (e.g., canopy and age benchmarks), not just planting.

Transport and Parking
While close to the train station, increased traffic and reduced parking will impact Balfour Street, Bent Street, Wallace Parade and Highfield Road. Even with rail proximity, the proposed unit numbers will inevitably increase car ownership and on-street parking demand.

The EIS (6.7.2) incorrectly states that Balfour and Bent have two lanes in each direction; with all-day kerbside parking, they operate as one lane each way.

Peak congestion is already compounded by two nearby schools—Holy Family Catholic School (Balfour St) and Highfield Preparatory School (Wallace Pde/Highfield Rd).

Cumulative impact is material: five SSDs (12 Bent St; 5 & 9 Beaconsfield Pde; 19–25 & 9–17 Balfour St) will generate 904 apartments, further stressing narrow local roads feeding the Pacific Highway. The EIS (6.7.3) assertion that added traffic will be “minimal” is therefore misleading.

Noise and Vibration
Construction noise, vibration and heavy-vehicle traffic will disrupt nearby residents—including children and people working from home—for at least two years given the excavation and depth required for a 9–10 storey build. Dust and waste will also affect properties and potentially health.

Recommendations

The development should not proceed in its current form. Reduce scale, height and bulk to 6 storeys (consistent with the Coles development at 1 Balfour Place) to align with local context.

Do not allow any net gain from alleged unlawful clearing:

Calculate biodiversity credits on pre-2024 canopy,

Reduce FSR to remove any uplift derived from lost trees, and

Mandate restoration and enhanced landscaping beyond DCP minima with enforceable maturity milestones.

Reassess traffic using the correct lane configuration and cumulative SSD base case before any determination.

Thank you for considering this submission.

Objection Submission

To: NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure – Major Projects Assessment Team
Re: Development Application SSD-82709458 – 19–25 Balfour Street, Lindfield NSW 2070
Submitted by: Jian Jin, Owner of 1 Wallace Parade, Lindfield NSW 2070
Submission Date: 03/09/2025
1. Introduction
I, Jian Jin, as the owner of 1 Wallace Parade, Lindfield, hereby lodge a formal objection to the proposed residential flat building at 19–25 Balfour Street, Lindfield (SSD-82709458).

This submission is made pursuant to Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW). While I acknowledge the NSW Government’s Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Program, the current proposal is inconsistent with both the statutory planning framework and the stated objectives of TOD.
2. Grounds of Objection
(a) Environmental Impacts
Solar access and overshadowing
- The applicant’s shadow diagrams show that during winter solstice (22 June), surrounding low-density dwellings, including my property at 1 Wallace Parade, would not achieve the minimum three hours of direct sunlight between 9:00 am and 3:00 pm as required by the Apartment Design Guide (ADG, Objective 3B-2).
- With a proposed height of 32.7m, the building substantially exceeds the R2 low-density residential context, creating an excessive overshadowing effect.
- Long-term loss of sunlight would reduce amenity, increase winter heating demand, impair natural ventilation, and inhibit vegetation growth. Land and Environment Court precedents have recognised severe overshadowing as an unacceptable environmental impact that justifies refusal.
Privacy and overlooking
- The proposal does not meet ADG Objective 3F-1, which requires minimum 12m separation between habitable room windows.
- Upper-level balconies and windows would directly overlook the rear yards and habitable rooms of neighbouring properties, including mine, resulting in continuous visual intrusion.
- This is inconsistent with the privacy principles established in Tenacity Consulting v Warringah (2004).
- Planting or screens would not resolve the issue, as the scale and height of the building create unavoidable overlooking impacts.
Traffic and safety
- Wallace Parade and Balfour Street are narrow local roads that cannot accommodate large increases in traffic volumes.
- The site is close to schools including Lindfield Public School and Holy Family Catholic Primary School, where congestion during school hours is already severe.
- Additional residents’ vehicles would worsen bottlenecks. Insufficient parking would cause overflow parking, obstructing residents, garbage collection, and emergency vehicles.
- Increased vehicle movements near schools would heighten risks to students, elderly residents, and pedestrians.
Construction impacts
- Given the project scale, construction is likely to last 18–24 months or more. This would cause:
• Noise pollution from excavation, piling, and trucks, exceeding the Construction Noise Guideline thresholds;
• Dust and air pollution from earthworks and transport, affecting residents’ health;
• Traffic disruption from frequent heavy vehicle access;
• Daily disruption such as delays to waste collection and service access.
- Unlike small-scale developments, this project’s magnitude and duration would impose significant and long-term negative impacts on the community.
(b) Suitability of the Site
Incompatibility with Heritage Conservation Area
- The site is within the Balfour Street/Highfield Road Heritage Conservation Area (HCA), characterised by detached houses, landscaped setbacks, and consistent rooflines.
- The proposed 32.7m tower is completely out of scale with this context. Its bulk and modern façade undermine the streetscape and heritage values.
- The Ku-ring-gai LEP 2015 and DCP require that new development in HCAs respect and reinforce the established character, which this proposal fails to do.
Site Isolation
This proposal directly creates isolated sites, including 1 Wallace Parade and 23 Bent Street. These properties were originally identified within the NSW Government’s TOD high-density redevelopment area. However, due to the way this project is designed and delivered, they are now effectively “trapped” between large-scale buildings and have in practice lost the ability to be redeveloped as part of the TOD high-density precinct.
This represents a clear case of planning inequity: adjoining landowners are deprived of their reasonable redevelopment potential, their property values and planning opportunities are significantly diminished, and a classic site isolation effect is produced. The consequences are:
• Departure from TOD objectives – TOD seeks to achieve fair and orderly high-density development through comprehensive land consolidation. Instead, this project produces fragmented and unbalanced outcomes.
• Erosion of neighbouring property rights – Development rights that should reasonably be available to adjoining owners are effectively removed, with substantial loss of land value and redevelopment potential.
• Contradiction of government policy goals – TOD policy emphasises integration, fairness, and sustainability. The outcome of this project runs directly counter to those principles.
The NSW Land and Environment Court has consistently recognised site isolation as an undesirable planning outcome. In Karavellas v Sutherland Shire Council [2004] NSWLEC 251, the Court established that developments must avoid creating isolated sites, and where isolation is unavoidable, the assessment must consider:
1. whether amalgamation with adjoining land was reasonably attempted;
2. whether genuine acquisition negotiations were pursued; and
3. whether the remaining isolated site can still achieve a reasonable planning outcome.
This principle has been reaffirmed in 193 Liverpool Road Pty Ltd v Inner West Council [2017] NSWLEC 13 (Moore J), which confirmed that Karavellas remains authoritative. Earlier cases such as Melissa Grech v Auburn Council [2004] NSWLEC 40 and Cornerstone Property Group Pty Ltd v Warringah Council [2004] NSWLEC 189 were cited in Karavellas as foundational authorities. More recently, the principle was applied in ABC Planning Pty Ltd v Cumberland Council [2019] NSWLEC 1278, demonstrating its ongoing relevance even where an LEP does not expressly address site isolation.
Accordingly, approval of the current proposal would result in an outcome already recognised by the Court as inequitable, fragmented, and contrary to sound planning practice, while also undermining the credibility of the TOD program itself.
Infrastructure Constraints
- Local roads are too narrow to accommodate increased traffic.
- Schools and community facilities are already at or near capacity.
- Utilities such as drainage and electricity have not been upgraded to support additional demand.
- TOD policy requires infrastructure first, which is not met here.
(c) Planning Instruments and TOD Policy
Conflict with Ku-ring-gai LEP 2015
- The site is zoned R2 Low Density Residential under the Ku-ring-gai LEP 2015, where residential flat buildings are prohibited.
- The proposed 32.7m height and excessive FSR significantly exceed statutory controls.
Inconsistency with TOD objectives
Even under TOD reforms, the proposal contradicts key principles:
1. Gradual density transition – TOD promotes staged growth, not abrupt high-rise intrusion.
2. Land amalgamation and fairness – TOD requires equitable consolidation. This proposal creates isolated sites.
3. Respect for character and heritage – TOD stresses integration with local identity. This proposal undermines a heritage conservation area.
4. Infrastructure alignment – TOD requires density to align with infrastructure readiness, which this site lacks.
Misuse of TOD policy
- TOD reforms are intended for orderly, integrated, sustainable growth around transport nodes.
- This proposal misuses TOD to justify an over-scaled, ad hoc project, undermining policy credibility and public trust.
(d) Public Interest
Undermining planning integrity
- Approving a development that contravenes statutory planning controls would weaken the integrity of the planning system and erode public trust.
Precedent setting
- Approval would set a precedent for further high-rise intrusion into low-density and heritage areas, creating cumulative negative impacts across Ku-ring-gai.
Equity and community confidence
- By isolating neighbouring sites, the proposal creates inequitable outcomes for landowners, contrary to TOD fairness objectives.
- This would reduce community trust in planning reforms.
Infrastructure and sustainability
- The proposal would overload local infrastructure including roads, schools, parking, and drainage systems, with no upgrades.
- This contradicts TOD’s infrastructure-first principle and undermines long-term sustainability.
3. Conclusion
The proposed development fails to satisfy the statutory assessment requirements under section 4.15 of the EP&A Act, conflicts with the Ku-ring-gai LEP 2015, contradicts TOD policy objectives, and would result in unacceptable impacts on the environment, amenity, and public interest.

I respectfully request that the Department refuse Development Application SSD-82709458 in its entirety.
References
*Karavellas v Sutherland Shire Council* [2004] NSWLEC 251
*193 Liverpool Road Pty Ltd v Inner West Council* [2017] NSWLEC 13
*Melissa Grech v Auburn Council* [2004] NSWLEC 40
*Cornerstone Property Group Pty Ltd v Warringah Council* [2004] NSWLEC 189
*ABC Planning Pty Ltd v Cumberland Council* [2019] NSWLEC 1278

Sincerely,

Jian Jin
Owner – 1 Wallace Parade, Lindfield NSW 2070
Date:03/09/2025

Please see my objection in attached file