*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 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.
*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.
*Developers are decimating the value of properties in this area by diminishing heritage value, nature, wildlife and by trying to to use the argument of affordable housing near infrastructure that is already burdened by current population numbers.

It is clearly inappropriate to build such a large-scale residential community in a small-scale community like this one at present.
This will destroy the current foundation of various resources and humanistic elements.

The proposal has multiple adverse impact on the built & natural environment including:
- Unacceptable negative impact on biodiversity and tree canopy including critically endangered Sydney Blue Gum trees which will be at risk
- Disregard for heritage items and the significance of the street and area which is in contradiction to the clause 5.10 of the LEP namely “significant adverse effect” on the amenity of the surrounding area.
- Overdevelopment in terms of height, FSR, mass, open area creating issues with privacy, overshadowing and significant loss of amenity for neighbouring houses in all directions of the proposed development
-Inadequate community engagement

Date: 25-5-2025


To: Dept of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure
NSW State Government

OBJECTION TO PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 10, 14 AND 14a STANHOPE ROAD KILLARA.

I strongly object to the scale of the proposed development, for two main reasons:
1. The scale of the project
2. Traffic concerns

1. Scale

The scale of the proposed development is for almost twice the number of units that could reasonably be accommodated with considering the size of the block, the nature of the suburb, and the effect on existing property owners.

The proposed height of the units abutting our properties at 10 Marian St should comply with the normal restrictions of 5 storeys above ground level. From our apartment at the rear of 10 Marian St, we abut 10 Stanhope Rd. While there are trees to the rear of number 10, there is no guarantee that these will survive the development, and in recent years they have already thinned and we can see number 10 in part. So with a much larger height building proposed closer to our boundary, the trees will provide very little visual protection for us.

We will also suffer occupier noise, and be looked in upon. Both issues would mean a significant reduction in privacy for us.

2. Traffic:
Stanhope Road is a two lane road the often has vehicles parked both sides of the road, will become increasingly congested with another 100 to 200 cars using the road, and parking in the road. Stanhope is also a major through road from East Killara and Lindfield to the Pacific Highway.
Culworth Ave (south) is now almost fully built out with apartment blocks of the normal height (one to be completed with another 50 or more cars). Culworth Avenue (south) is used as a thoroughfare for traffic to the station, as well as being the only access to Marian St and Caithness St for traffic coming from the south along Pacific Highway. It is also the route used by railway replacement buses when trackwork is being undertaken, causing more congestion.
Culworth Avenue (south) has never been widened or upgraded, with the result that we cope with regular flooding, and because of the narrowness creating effectively a one lane road, traffic hold-ups when meeting on-coming traffic. Any increase in traffic on this road will cause major jams and very much affect the already marginal access to Marian St from the Pacific Highway.

The Government is keen to increase housing density in the area, but this must be done in accordance with the nature of the properties already built, and with regard to the traffic disruption it will cause with overdevelopment.

Yours faithfully,

David Rands

Dr David Rands
Unit 56, 10 Marian St
Killara, NSW 2071

Areas near all North Shore train stations are already very busy, and we are experiencing a lot of traffic jams on the Pacific Highway. With much higher density expected from this development, the traffic conditions will definitely get worse. Without a major overhaul of the infrastructure in North Shore, building high-rise along the pacific highway is just a bad idea.

I oppose inappropriate development

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 the project .

To the relevant authorities,

Regarding the application for the proposed development of 135 residential units to 10, 14 & 14a Stanhope Road, Killara, I object to the proposal in its current form.

I do not believe that the proposal adheres to the minimum controls set out in the Housing SEPP and Ku-ring-gai Local Environment Plan. These controls are vital in ensuring new development, however necessary in a housing crisis, meets the minimum standards that are considered acceptable to preserve amenity and protect the existing ecological environment as best as possible.

My family has lived on Stanhope Road for 10+ years, and while I don’t personally live in the area, I write to object given the risk of significant loss of existing amenity to not only my family’s home but neighbouring homes that have enjoyed the abundance of natural light and leafy outlook of Stanhope Road for so long.

I refer to the Strategic Environmental Assessment Report (SEAR) provided by the applicant and the relevant points as listed under the Issue and Assessment Requirements of the SEAR:


6. Built Form and Urban Design
Demonstrate how the proposed built form (layout, height, bulk, scale, separation, setbacks, interface and articulation) addresses and responds to the context, site characteristics, streetscape and existing and future character of the locality. Where relevant explain and illustrate the application of any bonuses under an EPI.

A maximum building height of 22m is set by Clause 155 of the SEPP (Housing) 2021 (Maximum building height and maximum floor space ratio, within Chapter 5 - Transport Oriented Development).

A bonus concession of 30% additional maximum height is allowed under Clause 18 of the SEPP if the development has a minimum 15% of GFA as affordable housing (which the proposal does contain). This would put the maximum building height at 28.6m.

The proposed maximum height is 36m. This is a 25.8% variation to the maximum bonus height, or a 63.6% variation to the maximum height without the bonus. This is a gross non-compliance with the relevant legislative requirements and is not justified in the Clause 4.6 variation request.

It should be noted that while the Clause 4.6 variation request notes the maximum proposed building height as 35m, the architectural plans (drawing DA300 - Section Sheet 1) measure 36m from existing ground level to top of building (RL149,300). The applicant’s own Pre-DA submission notes the proposed maximum height as 36m.

The applicant’s Clause 4.6 variation request seeks to argue that the height control is unreasonable or unnecessary. In acknowledging that the proposed design sits up to 6.4m above the bonus maximum height, the arguments that the development would be suited to a potential future character of the area is unacceptable as it is impossible to predict the built form of the surrounding area, which may never be substantiated. It also argues that by sitting below the maximum height plane at the front of the site, they are justified in protruding above the maximum height plane at the rear of the site. Not only is this proposed argument ridiculous but the method of justification is unfounded, with no precedent being provided as to how or why this should be entertained as justification in breaching the maximum bonus height limit.

I request that the maximum height plane of 28.6m be enforced as is intended by the legislated controls established in the Housing SEPP, which would include deletion of the top two floors of Building 2 and 3.


14. Trees and Landscaping
If the proposal involves impacts to trees, provide an Arboricultural Impact assessment that assesses the number, location, condition and significance of trees to be removed and retained including:
any existing canopy coverage to be retained onsite.
tree root mapping. if the proposal involves significant impacts to tree-protection zones of retained trees identified as being significant

While the proposed development notes that the significant established trees in the North-East corner of the are to be retained (T8, T10 and T11), the Arborcultural report provided notes that the required pruning of T10 & T11 would be so significant that retention of the trees would likely be unsuccessful (i.e. they will die) and “the removal of the trees may be the most feasible option for the submission”.

Alternatively, the design can be amended to have a large enough setback from the significant trees to ensure that their health is maintained.

The arborist’s report also notes that “often on sites where the development activities are considered significant, retaining trees like these is in vain”.


Having witnessed the number of birds that sit in these trees, the removal of these 20m+ tall trees would be a significant loss not only to the ecological health and biodiversity of the local area, but to the natural amenity of all surrounding properties that enjoy the outlook of gumleaf against the blue sky.



For these reasons I believe that the proposed development in its current state should not be approved without significant alterations to its design to ensure the existing amenity that makes this site and the surrounding sites so uniquely special be maintained to the existing and future residents of Killara.