This proposal supports infill housing in a well-connected location just a short walk from Lindfield Station, helping to meet growing demand within the existing urban footprint. By incorporating affordable units, it addresses local housing needs and contributes to diversity in housing supply. It strikes a balanced approach between increased housing delivery and respect for Lindfield’s established built character

I completely support the construction of a nine storey residential flat building with in-fill affordable housing, containing basement level parking, around 71 market residential units, and around 27 affordable housing units.

Not only will this improve housing availability in Lindfield, it will encourage more people to use public transport.

If this project and the proposed SSD for the top end of Beaconsfield Parade both go ahead, then the area in between - where my 1 Newark Crescent property lies - will essentially be flanked and dwarfed and flanked on both sides by 2 x 10-12-storey residential dwellings. This will necessarily have a significant impact on the current, largely single occupancy dwelling for the area, place significant additional stress on the local infrastructure (roads/traffic/water flow, etc). Noting this, the zoning for the area in between these two multi-storey residential developments, should be amended to allow the same or similar (8-storey +) developments on and around Newark Crescent. This should be expedited to prevent current residents of this area having to endure several more years of construction work (noting he recent completion of the new Coles after several years of construction inconvenience, coupled with the development of 2 x 4-storey block at the end of Newark Crescent still in construction. Further to this, it is extremely disappointing as a taxpayer to see rate contributions wasted on political handballing between local and State government (ref current court proceeedings between NSW State Government and Ku-ring-gai Council)

Please refer to the attached document in which I detail at length the issues with this development, the errors/omissions/inconsistencies/flaws in the supplied documentation, the negative impact it will have on the local biodiversity environment (both fauna and flora) and the huge negative impact it will have on myself and my family.
This development should NOT be approved and be REJECTED.

I’m writing to object to more properties being added to the State Significant Developments (SSD’S) in Ku ring gai which brings the total SSD’s to 19 with 4 pending.
The approach being taken by the State Government in dealing with the housing shortage lacks planning forethought and a one size fits all approach shows little regard for the environmental and existing character of the area. The idea of building high rise blocks of units within 400 to 800 meters of railway stations needs to be thought about having regard to the existing environment and facilities such as schools, shopping centre, open space and other amenities.
To allocate a population number to selected suburbs with a train station 30 minutes from the city and impose a one size fits all development regime on them is frankly ridiculous and will not result in a good planning outcome.
In most countries there are high and low density residential areas and Ku-ring-gai is certainly in the high density category. To treat it as one will destroy the garden suburb environment and heritage depriving Sydney of an important suburban character and lifestyle option.
There are a number of existing high density areas across Sydney which should be further developed.
Existing high density areas north of the harbour are St Leonards, Chatswood and Macquarie which is where further high density housing should be built. These areas and Macquarie in particular has the capacity to provide considerably more high density unit housing, has an excellent shopping centre, 2 train stations, an increasing number of businesses providing employment opportunities, a university and sport fields.
On the other hand, Roseville, Lindfield, Killara and Gordon in Ku-ring-gai are low density areas with heritage properties set in a bush land and garden setting. It should be noted that on weekdays, particularly on the eastern side of these stations the streets are full of commuter car parking making any sort of development difficult in terms of access and would increase resident parking. These areas also lack access to facilities and infrastructure to support high density living.
The local community action group FOKE have prepared a comprehensive document detailing objections to the current development proposals which has received strong community support. What is being proposed by Government and responded to by developers is unnecessary and excessive in the Ku-ring-gai environment.
Ku-ring-gai residents will continue to protest the introduction of the one size fits all TOD type high rise developments while the majority of residents are accepting of low rise 5-6 story unit blocks and town house developments in suitable areas with a number currently under construction.
The Governments current development approach in Ku-ring-gai will not make a major contribution to the housing shortage but will unnecessarily destroy the environment of the area and Sydney will lose a lifestyle and housing choice which would be the envy of many countries around the world.

I am writing to object to the SSD proposal for 19-25 Balfour Rd.
The proposal is overimposing, up on a slope and situated higher than its surroundings to the west and does not fit in with either present built form or with future developed form proposed for the area by the council's alternative TOD, currently awaiting gazettal.
The proposal is also destructive of existing tree canopy on a part of the site, nor will it favour the health of the tree canopy and natural environment on land adjacent to the site and in the properties along Highfield Road. Mature trees, with their minute water droplets given off on hot days, provide a natural cooling mechanism for their surroundings (and its free!) and should not be destroyed without a very adequate justification. This is particularly important for the world in which we live at present with its dramatically changing climate and ever more frequent natural events that adversely effect all of us today. Even this afternoon, just a few hours ago my husband and I raced inside from our verandah on hearing a deafeningly loud rogue thunderclap accompanied by a lightning flash the brightness of which I have never witnessed before in my not short lifetime! Our electric equipment fortunately survived and so I am able to write this submission of objection at this very moment on my PC!
The proposal also flies in the face of the future zoning for the area, which envisages a lower HOB and FSR than that sought by the applicant. I have always supported the council's alternative TOD, believing that the high density zoning on the west side of Lindfield station is a necessary compromise that will save other areas of lindfield from excessive overdevelopment. It is highly concerning that due to SSDs such as Balfour Road 19-25 (and the myriads of others popping up all over Lindfield) my support could have been in vane.
Yes, people need to have a place to live in the right place and within reach of their economic circumstances. But this should be the "right fit", and not at the expense of the natural environment that we all share and on which we all, in the long run, depend..
I hope that the department will offer thoughtful planning for the Balfour Road site and ensure that the present proposal is modified appropriately.

re Application No: SSD – 82709458
19-25 Balfour Street, Lindfield
(Lot 12 DP 654363, Lot 1 DP 121527, Lot 13 DP 657173, Lot 13 DP 663524)
Applicant: Balfour Group Pty Ltd

Objection
I object to this application for a proposed development that is out of scale with its surrounds. The supporting documentation for the application is partly inaccurate and inconsistent. The proposed development does not conform with all existing planning controls. Please refer to the submission by BBC planning on our behalf. See also the submissions from No 14 Highfield Rd.
In my view, the proposed development entails destruction with little discernible benefit to the built or social environment.
1.1 The natural environment
The proposal involves destruction of all trees. Some months ago, a tree was illegally removed on Sunday morning at 19 Balfour St. Both Council and police attended and were unable to prevent this. I was a witness to this. These was not a small tree. Another tree had been cut down on one of the other properties comprising the site on a Sunday morning two weeks earlier. In addition, a tree on the land of No 19 Balfour has all the appearance of being poisoned. It continues to stand as a ‘dead’ tree. My understanding is that the trees lost are ‘remnant native vegetation’ and include an angophora, a Sydney blue gum and a turpentine, the latter a species with additional protections. At the same time a tree on the land of No 10 Highfield Rd close to No 19 has all the appearance of being poisoned. It too for all purposes appears ‘dead.’ This destruction of trees and canopy interrupts a corridor of tall blue gums, turpentine and other species between Holy Family School and the back of the Wallace Pde houses. To describe the canopy as mostly exotic and non locally occurring native vegetation is, in my view, to misrepresent the situation as it fails to take into account what was recently there. The application, I believe, misidentifies trees on neighbouring properties. There is no proposal for purposeful replanting and the set back is insufficient for replacement trees. ‘Ground level planting to integrate the site’ does not replace or mitigate the loss of several 100 year old trees. The community engagement report states there will be landscape plans. There is an appendix entitled Landscape Plans. It is not clear that the redeveloped site and soil depths can maintain mature trees. My prior experience with developments and proposed landscaping is that the landscaping often fails to materialise. The destruction of habitat has already impacted wildlife. We have noticed increased possum activity on our roof. The bulk and the scale of the proposed development also mean loss of the open sky.
2.1 The built environment
The Balfour Rd Highfield Rd conservation area consists largely of pretty Federation houses. It is significant for its architecture and for the history of its inhabitants. Our neighbours have undertaken extensive work on the built heritage values of this area. The built environment and history of the social environment of this part of Lindfield are intrinsically linked. Over time, the houses have been inhabited by well-known entrepreneurs, musicians, artists and writers, not to mention senior health and legal professionals as well as teachers, and trades people. These include the owner of one- time iconic Australian product, Perkins Paste; a founder of Link Up, the organisation dedicated to putting Aboriginal people separated from family in touch with their families; a noted novelist and former Chair of the Australia Council; and a renowned concert pianist. Destruction of the built environment destroys the material aspect of the social environment. The application appears to erroneously suggest that the built heritage of 19-25 Balfour is of little value as changes have been made to the rear of the buildings. This is, in my view, risible as it is the streetscape that is germane to a heritage conservation area. So far, the pretty Federation street scape has been maintained. The bulk and scale of the proposed development of 19-25 is out of keeping with this area. The application uses 9 stories in some parts and 10 stories in other parts. The application suggests this is a built-up area. This is not correct. The earlier developments on the other side of Balfour St and in Bent St increased density yet are not inappropriate in bulk, scale, and appearance. New development should have architectural merit.
3.1 Privacy and social amenity
This is an area of families. Children and grandchildren including until recently also in 19-25, live and gather here. Until recently we were often aware of teenager parties coming from back gardens in the 19-25 direction celebrating for instance the end of school terms. In the visual impact statement, it is unclear to me where the photograph for Figure 4 has been taken. In the documentation it purports to be from 8 Highfield Rd. It seems to be taken from the ground, possibly the footpath across the road north of this house. This footpath is considerably higher than the road. The proposed development towers over the barely discernible house and garden. The photograph certainly does not represent the visual impact from the rear of the house and our back garden. To call the development a low to moderate visual impact seems to me to be misleading. Our house is a multi-generational household and has been over many decades. The proposed development at 19-25 will destroy the privacy of our family. It impacts the privacy of our grass tennis court and trampoline area, garden, back decks, internal living rooms and bedrooms. Lack of privacy will affect our young grandchildren. It will undermine the easy sociability of the neighbourhood.
4.1 Traffic and Parking
Highfield Rd has 2 schools that cater to preschoolers, infants and primary school children. Numbers of children walk to school. Numbers of children are driven to school utilising entrances on Balfour St and along Wallace Parade and entrances and exits on Highfield Rd. This area is particularly congested at school drop off and pick up times. It is difficult to park on the street. The proposed development at 19-25 Balfour will only add to this congestion. This traffic buildup risks driver frustration and decreased safety for child pedestrians and children in cars. Many children walk from the direction of Lindfield train station either along the Pacific Highway or through the underpass and cross Balfour St and Highfield Rd. The Balfour Rd Pacific Highway crossing is already dangerous. Increased traffic from the proposed development at 19-25 Balfour St will exacerbate risks to child safety. It is also a risk to the safety of cars entering and leaving the driveways in the surrounding area.
5.1 Noise
Our house has 4 adults who write books, publish internationally and in Australia, and run businesses. Most of this is done from home. We have young children who practice musical instruments at a high level for their ages. The noise from construction will directly impact our quality of life. It is not clear to me that the noise report is of assistance to neighbours. It is not clear how contractors will actually measure noise and ensure it occurs only within legally permissible times and at legally permissible levels. While a complaints mechanism is recommended, there is no indication of how a construction noise complaints mechanism for this development will work in practice.
6.1 A personal note
Our family has lived in this house since 1969, that is getting close to sixty years. Four generations have lived here. My husband and I hoped, in time, to die quietly and with privacy in this house. We hoped that our grandchildren would live here until they are adults and beyond. Our house has a culturally significant history that is unnecessary to go into in this objection. We have seen many changes in this neighbourhood and welcomed most of them. This proposed development is not one of them.
6.1 9-17 Balfour St
There is a further SSD adjacent to 19-25 Balfour St. It is also for a 9 to 10 story building directly behind us. I request that this application re 19-25 Balfour St be assessed together with an application for 9-17 Balfour St.
6.1 Declarations
I declare that I have made no political donations in the last two years.
I accept the disclaimer and declaration.
I do not give permission for my name to published with the publication of this submission.