We have lived in Killara for 8.5 years and have been concerned for some time about how busy Stanhope road is. There is a constant flow of traffic as local residents and tradesmen use it as the main access between Killara and the Pacific Highway. There are also cars regularly parked on Stanhope between the railway line and Pacific Highway which adds to the congestion. The proposal for 135 apartments will increase the traffic to the Pacific Highway and will have a major impact on noise, traffic flow, safety of pedestrians and congestion at peak hours and with only 195 parking spaces, inevitably more cars will park on the road. We are also concerned that Stanhope is one of Killara's most important heritage areas and this development takes little or no consideration of heritage issues with heritage homes at 1A, 2,3,4,5,6,7,12 and 18 surrounding the proposed site.

I object the building of the apartments as it will create bottlenecks necks on such a tight road as Stanhope road. It will create a build up on a road where there are only houses, ruining the look and feel of the Stanhope road community.

The key issues of the project are:
- Inconsistent with Ku-ring-gai council's Preferred Scenario: The proposal is inconsistent with Council's Preferred Scenario, supporting new housing without sacrificing our heritage and natural environment, determined following consultation with the community.
- Isolation of Heritage Homes: Positioned adjacent to heritage homes, the development will destroy the heritage value and culture of our neighborhood
-Devastating tree canopy and wildlife impact
-Traffic and Infrastructure overload
-No community benefits

The key issues of the project are:
- Inconsistent with Ku-ring-gai council's Preferred Scenario: The proposal is inconsistent with Council's Preferred Scenario, supporting new housing without sacrificing our heritage and natural environment, determined following consultation with the community.
- Isolation of Heritage Homes: Positioned adjacent to heritage homes, the development will destroy the heritage value and culture of our neighborhood
-Devastating tree canopy and wildlife impact
-Traffic and Infrastructure overload
-No community benefits

01 June 2025
Attention: Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure
Online Submission Portal: [Insert Link to Online Submission Portal - if available]

Subject: Objection to State Significant Development Application SSD-81890707 – 10, 14 & 14A Stanhope Road, Killara
Dear Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure,
I am writing to formally object to State Significant Development Application SSD-81890707 for residential flat buildings at 10, 14, and 14A Stanhope Road, Killara. This proposal seeks to transform three residential lots into a high-density residential complex comprising 135 apartments. I am deeply concerned about the significant and irreversible impact this development would have on the local community, heritage conservation, and environment.
As a frequent visitor to Stanhope Road, Killara, I've been consistently drawn to the area. I absolutely love the grand Federation-era houses and the overall character of the conservation streetscape. It's a truly unique and beautiful part of Sydney. I am appalled by the sheer scale and height of this proposed development, which is completely out of character with the area.

Key Grounds for My Objection:
• Excessive Size, Scale, and Bulk: The proposed development's bulk and scale are entirely unreasonable. The significant increase in height would overshadow neighbouring properties and dramatically disrupt the local landscape.
• Unjustified Height: The proposed 10-storey building is far larger than the highest building currently in Killara (which is only 5 storeys). The visual impact would be unacceptable. With 6 storeys visible from Stanhope Road (4 directly, 2 set back on Building A) and 10 storeys at the rear, the development would be a jarring presence, especially given its location within a Heritage Conservation Area.
• Severe Heritage Impacts: This development would irrevocably change the character and landscape of Stanhope Road and Killara. The proposed high-rise buildings are entirely inconsistent with the low-density character of the surrounding neighbourhood, which is primarily composed of single and two-story homes within a Heritage Conservation Area. The future character of this locality must consider the context of the 9 heritage listed houses in the immediate vicinity.
• Unacceptable Traffic and Parking: Parking along Stanhope Road is already at capacity. The increased traffic congestion associated with the 195 cars from the proposed development when exiting and entering Stanhope Road from the Pacific Highway, and along Culworth Avenue, will create an unacceptable safety hazard.

Conclusion:
While I understand that development is essential to address housing needs, it absolutely must be done with sensitivity and respect for the existing community. Any development should aim to preserve the unique character of Killara's Heritage Conservation Areas and respect these values while addressing the housing crisis.
I submit that the State Significant Development Application SSD-81890707 should not be approved in its current form.
Thank you for considering my submission.
Yours sincerely

Bonnie

I strongly object to SSD-81890707 - Residential flat buildings with infill affordable housing -10, 14 and 14a Stanhope Road, Killara. This development is inappropriate for Killara, not in the public interest, it contradicts Ku-ring-gai Council’s Preferred Alternative Scenario for Killara, and prioritizes corporate profit over community well-being.
I urge the NSW Government to reject Stanhope Road Residence Holdings Pty Limited’s proposal and adopt Ku-ring-gai Council’s approach, which, unlike the NSW Planning TOD or, the Stanhope Road SSD, was developed through extensive community consultation.

• The proposal significantly breaches the height limits for the R2 Low Rise Residential Zoning (by almost 4 times) and breaches the heights allowed under the Transport Oriented Development (TOD) program by over 22%.
• The Government’s aim was to develop low/medium-rise buildings around transport hubs. This is a high-rise development which is completely incompatible with the locality and hence, is not in the public interest. The mass and scale of this development is totally out of proportion to the street and suburb in general.

I object to this project for the following reasons.

The proposal significantly breaches the height limits for the R2 Low Rise Residential Zoning (by almost 4 times) and breaches the heights allowed under the Transport Oriented Development (TOD) program by over 22%.

The Government’s aim was to develop low/medium-rise buildings around transport hubs. This is a high-rise development which is completely incompatible with the locality and hence, is not in the public interest. The mass and scale of this development is totally out of proportion to the street and suburb in general. Stanhope Road is one of Killara’s most important Heritage areas. This development takes little or no consideration of heritage issues and/or the heritage homes at 1A, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 12 and 18 Stanhope Road., which surround the proposed site. The Heritage Impact Statement has fundamental flaws. Additionally, the development has a combination of huge visual impacts, overshadowing, loss of privacy and loss of amenity issues for more than 50 residences directly to the north, south, east and west of the proposed development.

Furthermore, the Community Engagement on this project was not undertaken correctly. Hence, many residents were unaware of the proposal until well after its lodgement on 9th May on the SSD site. As a result, residents and other interested parties have not had sufficient time to adequately read, understand and respond to the proposal. The lack of numbers at the developer’s so called “drop-in” session on 3rd April reinforce the breach of the community engagement process. Finally, there are critically endangered Sydney Blue Gum trees on the site, which are at risk if the development proceeds.

I state my objections to the SSD -82395459 development application and their EIS as follows:
1. SSD vs Ku-ring-gai (KRG) planning process
a. The process of this SDD is to bypass KRG planning and democratic community consultation possess. The only legitimate reason for the SSD to override the Councils planning scenario is the SSD project value and not the typical State Significance, as outlined in the purpose of SSDs on the NSW Government website. The application does not propose extraordinary public benefit nor strategic merit. SDDs typically are of State significance and include large scale industrial, infrastructure and mining developments and do not include stand-alone residential developments.
b. The KRG “Preferred Scenario” delivers greater housing numbers than the State TOD and aligns with local infrastructure capacity, environmental and heritage conservation, and has consulted the community. The preferred scenario concentrates development on the ridgeline of the Pacific Hwy and is not intrusive to the heritage and environmentally sensitive Conservation Residential Area (CRA) on Stanhope Road Killara.
c. The Council process remains under consideration utilising consultative and democratic process. The local process should be able to reach its conclusion and not be autocratically bypassed by the State Planning Minister.
d. The SSD is proposed within a KRG CRA where individual households have been approached by developers. Good planning would see high rise development on the transport corridor at the Pacific Hwy and as illustrated in the preferred scenario proposed by KRG. Poor planning would see development amongst single residential lots like the consolidated SSD site on Stanhope Road, Killara. The transport corridor has existing walk-up residential strata developments which comprise multiple owners. The only possible outcome to approach individual East side residences in the SSD is to generate division amongst neighbours and provide an easier consolidation of sites for the developers.
e. We note there are multiple out of area submissions to other proposed SSDs in the KRG area. How is this possible that people outside of our area know about the submission and we have only found out via our community-based group opposing poor planning.
f. There has been significant consultation between the developers and the State Govt prior to any consultation with the KRG nor its residents. Therefore, the State Govt priorities are dictatory, misleading and illustrate an autocratic response and not a democratic planning process.
g. It is apparent that the authoritative way the SSDs are being forced upon our suburb is in reaction to the Federal Govts bribe of additional funding to States to provide additional housing – at any cost. There is a real cost and loss of amenity to the existing local community and environment. Once these heritage homes and trees are demolished there is no turning back and the amenity of the area, due to poor and lazy planning, will be lost forever.
h. As the infill affordable housing proponent of the SSD is not permanent, the overall significance of the development is not in line with usual SSDs. The use of “infill affordable housing” is therefore not transparent, is grossly misleading and is only used by The State Government to the bypass KRG preferred scenario.
2. When considering an increase in population and density, good planning should ensure that that community is granted additional services like schools, transport, hospitals etc. Not considering this is counter intuitive to the assessment of a SSD whereby the impact of local community, including environment both natural and built and the social and economic impacts need to be considered.
3. Dispute of Developer’s application and EIS
a. Poor Urban Design Principles
• The EIS does not reflect a high standard under the SSD section 5.3. It does not provide justification and evaluation of the project having regard to economic, environmental, and social impact nor illustrate the principles of an ecologically sustainable development.
• The application does not contain technically robust assessment of the impacts of the project and therefore is not accurate. The EIS and application should accurately provide data collection, feasibility of mitigation measures or adaptive management, illustrating methods used to project impacts and criteria for evaluating the acceptability of the impacts. The data collection on the transport, traffic and social impact assessments are outdated, fascicle and not accurate. Therefore, the accuracy and data collection of the overall application must be questioned.
• The proposed development illustrates poor design interface by enabling 30+ metres buildings against single level residences. Good urban planning principle would have adequate regard for the interface zone between multi story development and single dwellings.
• The proposed development is set against a Heritage item at 112 Stanhope Road which is unfair and poor planning.
• The proposed building material to be used for cladding the residential towers is not in keeping with the Killara surroundings. A blonde brick depicts 1970’s or 2020’s design and the local Roseville residences depict 1900 and 1920 building materials and colours.
• The 10 storey building at the rear of the site will overshadow the Southern aspect of Marion Street and that valley will be dark and wet.
b. Affordable housing not permanent
A 30% bonus on height is awarded for meeting affordable housing targets. A concern is that the allowance for affordable housing in the development is not permanent. Hence the bonus is awarded on a temporary affordable housing solution.
The affordable Housing element is not permanent and therefore does not truly represent affordable Housing. The Affordable Housing is only used to claim SSD status and to bypass the KRG planning process. This does not represent true affordable housing over the long term.
Conclusion The application SSD-82395459 should not be approved.
• The KRG preferred scenario provides a better outcome in terms of housing numbers and would not have a development of the scale and bulk in a sensitive and Local CRA.
• The preferred scenario must occur before any SSD projects are considered. It is not acceptable to consider both SSDs plus the preferred scenario.
• There has been a failure in process with a lack of community consultation.
• The destruction of any mature trees is unacceptable.
• The basis of the design on affordable housing is not permanent and therefore misleading and not really the true and honest basis of the SSD – infill affordable housing.
• The pushing through of an SSD over local preferred scenarios can only be concluded to benefit developers and not the local community.
• There will be significant increase in traffic congestion.
• The use of SSD for this approval undermines public confidence in fair, democratic and transparent planning processes.