I have lived In Lindfield, on the eastern side of the railway line, for about 23 years and am very familiar with the site at 1-5 Nelson Rd. I strongly object to this development for the following reasons:
1. I did not receive a flyer about this development
2. This large development is to be positioned in a Heritage Conservation Area (Crown Blocks Heritage Conservation area) which is completely inappropriate and out of character
3. Two out of three properties in this development are outside of the original TODD zone ie they are more than 400metres from Lindfield Station. Considering this the height of this proposed development is in excess of the maximum building height limit. In the original TOD this area would have been eligible for low and mid rise housing (maximum 4 storeys). Even in the Kuringgai Council preferred alternative plan these blocks are zoned R2, not R4, and definitely not zoned for 9 storeys.
4.The bulk and scale of this development will overshadow and dwarf the residential houses adjacent. They will be robbed of sunlight and lose privacy.
5. The leafy streetscape, for which Kuring-gai is recognised and valued, will be destroyed and there will be a detrimental effect on the precious tree canopy and wildlife.
6. Crucially: The location of this development, on the corner of Nelson Road and Tryon Road will inevitably have a very negative effect on traffic flow and congestion within and entering and exiting Lindfield. This is already a very busy corner, adjacent to a school, and it is central to the alternative route in and out of Lindfield for residents on the eastern side of the railway line who wish to avoid the congested area on Lindfield Ave immediately adjacent to the railway station and Harris Farm. It iseems to be a confusing corner for many motorists who seem uncertain as to who has the right of way (those crossing Nelson Road from Tryon Road and heading west, or those turning on to Nelson Rd from Tryon Road, heading east. Extra traffic will increase the risk of accidents on this corner.
7. This proposal should not be accepted based on a concept drawing. There is no adequate provision for necessary new infrastructure and services to cope with this number of extra residents and vehicles and the number needs to be considered in addition to the number proposed in the several other SSDs currently being assessed for Lindfield, not in isolation. How are the roads, footpaths, crossings, schools, ...going to cope with the extra demand?
8. There is also inadequate explanation of how this development will impact storm water, flooding risk and soil. In fact the zoning map within the geotechnical report has the site shown as Middle Harbour Rd not Nelson Rd, which is a different area altogether.

In my opinion this proposal should be rejected.

As a 24 year old, I've spent my whole life growing up in this area and have been very proud of our local community's efforts towards conservation and heritage. This project spits in the face of everything and everyone in this community. It's ridiculous to think that we're going to be building an excessive 32m tall complex right within a heritage area right next to single and double story homes. How do you expect the existing infrastructure of Nelson and its neighbouring roads to accomodate all of this? A single 9 story building on a road full of homes next to a school... what a farce!

10 August 2025
To: The Consent Authority
Re: Objection – 1, 3 & 5 Nelson Road, Lindfield
SSD-82899468 – Stage 1 Concept DA for Residential Flat Building with Basement Parking
Summary of Objections
Heritage - Incorrect claim in application that there is no “Statement of Significance” for 9 Nelson Road – this
is factually wrong; NSW State Heritage Inventory records its architectural and historic value. Raises
concerns about accuracy and completeness of the entire application.
Bulk, Scale & Streetscape - Nine-storey (~32m) building grossly out of scale with surrounding
single/two-storey homes; minimal 6m setbacks and rooftop communal space will dominate and overlook
neighbouring properties; permanently alters established streetscape.
Privacy & Amenity - Direct overlooking into outdoor areas, bedrooms, and living rooms at 9 Nelson Road
and other nearby homes; rooftop communal space increases noise and light spill.
Environmental Impact - Loss of significant mature trees, including protected Turpentine and Blue Gum
species; potential harm to existing waterway; loss of treescape and biodiversity.
Traffic & Safety - Increased congestion on Nelson Road and Tryon Road intersection; greater safety risks
for children attending nearby special school.
Planning & Zoning - R2 zoning – height/density inconsistent with Council’s preferred Transit Oriented
Development (TOD) model; unclear if site is within required 400m TOD zone.
Conclusion - The proposal is excessive, inaccurate, and incompatible with the heritage, scale, and character
of the area. I respectfully urge the consent authority to reject the application.
Full Submission
Dear Sir/Madam,
I am writing to object to the proposed development at 1, 3 and 5 Nelson Road, Lindfield.
Although I currently reside at 15/3 Gladstone Parade, I grew up at my parents’ home at 9 Nelson Road — a
heritage-listed property that has been in my family since 1980. I have spent much of my life in this street and
remain closely connected to the house, the neighbourhood, and its distinctive heritage and environment.
Having reviewed the application and Environmental Impact Statement, I share my parents’ deep concerns
and wish to add my own objections.
Heritage - The applicant’s statement that “No Statement of Significance has been noted in the NSW State
Heritage Inventory” for 9 Nelson Road is plainly incorrect. The property is heritage-listed, with its
architectural and historical value documented in the NSW State Heritage Inventory. This error casts doubt on
the accuracy of other key details in the application and whether proper consideration has been given to
protecting heritage in this location.
Bulk, Scale and Visual Impact - A nine-storey building, approximately 32 metres high, will overwhelm the
surrounding single-storey dwellings and drastically alter the streetscape. The minimal setbacks, combined
with a rooftop communal space, will create severe overlooking into my parents’ property and others, and will
result in a permanent loss of privacy and amenity.
Privacy and Amenity - From my years living at 9 Nelson Road, I know that the proposed building will directly
overlook private outdoor areas, living rooms and bedrooms. The rooftop communal space will also increase
noise and light spill, intruding into spaces that have always been quiet, private, and residential in character.
Environmental Concerns - The removal of mature trees — including protected Turpentine and Blue Gum
specimens — will irreversibly damage the established treescape and reduce biodiversity. There are also
unanswered questions about the proposal’s impact on the existing waterway between 9 Nelson Road and
the development site.
Traffic and Safety - The development will add significant traffic to Nelson Road and the Tryon Road
intersection, increasing safety risks for children, particularly those attending the nearby special school and
using the pedestrian crossing and Kochia Lane pick-up area.
Inconsistency with TOD and Zoning - The site is zoned R2. The proposed bulk, height, and density are
grossly inconsistent with the Council’s preferred Transit Oriented Development (TOD) approach, which
emphasises heritage protection and appropriate scale. There also appears to be uncertainty as to whether
the site falls within the 400 m TOD zone.
In its current form, this proposal is excessive, insensitive to its surroundings, and fails to address its serious
impacts on heritage, amenity, and the environment. I urge the consent authority to reject the application and
require a design that respects the heritage and character of Lindfield.
Yours faithfully,
Stephen Wright
15/3 Gladstone Parade
Lindfield NSW 2070
Mobile: 0412 774 430
Email: [email protected]

Objection to Proposed development at 1-5 Nelson Road Lindfield
10/08/25
I object to the proposed Concept Development Application (SSD-882899468) development in Lindfield which is not in character with surrounding existing development.
About 85% of the site is outside the 400m radius to the station that determines the TOD development zone. Only one of the 3 sites is nominated as part of the TOD zone.
My objection based on the following.
Response to SEARs
Built Form and Urban Design

Despite assertions the assertions in Section 6 of the EIS, the submission does not demonstrate suitable or appropriate consideration of context, surrounding streetscape or existing and future character of the area. It significantly changes the character of the existing streetscape and area. The area, including most of the development site itself, is not affected by TOD planning changes and is not otherwise expected to experience change. Existing streetscape and local character likewise are unlikely to change.
The proposed building typology is at odds with the existing local setting:
• Front setback - The prevailing front setback in Nelson Road is 12-14m. The proposal shows a 6m front setback. The proposed building juts forward, and is much more massive, compared to neighbouring low scale buildings.
• Building height – Existing homes in Nelson Road and on all other site boundaries, are 8-9m high. The proposed development is up to 30m high - more than 20m higher than surrounding homes. Podium height, at 15-18m fronting Nelson Road, has no relationship to the height of existing neighbouring or other surrounding homes.
• Building footprint – typical existing home footprint is 300-325sqm. The development proposes a building footprint of 3,3675sqm which is not sympathetic to the prevailing context.
• Building separation – Existing homes fronting Nelson Road are 12-14m in width, separated at side boundaries with trees and planting. The proposed development fronts Nelson Road with unbroken 45m building length and no separation. The effect will be jarring and incompatible.


Suggest that the proposal does not take ‘cues from the surrounding development’, is not ‘recessive’ in form and does not appear to be ‘height compliant’ per the points outlined above. Rather, the development is blocky and out of scale compared to the surrounding low density residential setting.
Appropriate Interface with the Heritage Conservation Area
The development site is within the Crown Blocks Conservation Area which is considered valuable in heritage terms due to the and character of the local setting and several existing heritage buildings.
In the heritage report (Appendix ????) the applicant acknowledges that the proposal differs in typology and scale to the valued area and then justify it on the basis of ‘much needed high density housing supply. This cannot be considered a valid response to the SEARs request to consider interface with the HCA.
Further, it is claimed that the proposed setbacks will be consistent with existing setbacks on Nelson Road. This is not the case. The proposed front setback is 6m, only half of the prevailing existing front setback of 12-14m. This will significantly change the character of the valued HCA.
Overshadowing
The proposal results in devastating overshadowing to 5 private homes to the south of the development. These sites are not affected by TOD changes and are not otherwise anticipated to experience uplift.
Visual Impact
The visual impact includes viewpoints at considerable distance from the development site. The impact of the development in the immediate locality appears not to be assessed at all.
Note also that the submission relies heavily on future surrounding high density development on sites immediately adjacent to the proposed development site (ie also beyond the current LEP and TOD planning boundaries) to justify proposed building height, bulk, scale and typology incongruities. These developments, if they happen, will result in removal of existing mature tree vegetation. It is interesting that it this same mature tree vegetation that makes plausible the nil and/or negligible visual impact assessment in this report.

My Perspective on the Lindfield Tower Proposal
I’ve been in Sydney’s North Shore for some time, and I’ve seen first-hand how thoughtful growth can lift a community. That’s why the nine-storey, 35-metre development proposed for 1–5 Nelson Road gives me pause. It promises density but risks overwhelming a street built for low-rise residential life.
Context Matters
Nelson Road is a narrow, heritage-rich lane of single-storey Victorian and Federation homes behind generous garden setbacks. The current 9-metre height limit ensures a human-scale streetscape, where front yards and mature trees frame each home. A tower nearly four times that height would overwhelm the rhythm of the street and obscure those green vistas that define the precinct.
Key Concerns
• Zoning and Statutory Controls
Ku-ring-gai’s Local Environmental Plan 2015 zones this site R2 Low-Density Residential with a 9-metre cap.
The Development Control Plan demands a “contextual fit” in bulk, form, setbacks and landscaping.
SEPP 65 insists new apartment buildings respect neighbourhood character.
This proposal ignores all three.
• Heritage Impact
The street’s homes collectively form the Lindfield Heritage Conservation Precinct.
A monolithic tower would shatter the visual cohesion of the precinct and dilute its cultural narrative, rather than reinforcing the local story embedded in each roofline and garden.
• Streetscape and Design
Minimal street and side setbacks conflict with the generous front gardens and tree canopy that underpin Nelson Road’s leafy charm.
Sparse deep-soil planting within the tower’s footprint would cut into established green corridors, replacing living landscapes with concrete forecourts.
• Infrastructure Capacity
Nelson Road’s average 7-metre carriageway and adjacent laneways already struggle with commuter traffic.
Accommodating 167 dwellings and 251 parking spaces threatens to gridlock tight intersections and narrow rail underpasses.
Early-1900s water infrastructure were never sized for mid-rise runoff, so without major—and currently uncosted—upgrades, flood risk to neighbouring homes will rise sharply.
• Environmental Risks
Removing all on-site mature trees defies Ku-ring-gai’s Urban Canopy Replacement Policy.
An increase in hard surfaces exacerbates urban heat-island effects and fragments wildlife corridors that weave through private backyards.
Implications for the Community
Unchecked, this development could strain everything that makes Lindfield liveable: safe streets for kids walking to school, leafy outlooks for morning coffee, reliable stormwater drainage when the rain falls. Overloaded roads and drains threaten daily routines, and heritage loss chips away at the sense of place that drew many of us here, and for what we paid for, dearly, especially after NSW Stamp Duty.
A Balanced Path Forward
Boosting housing supply is vital—but so is respecting the framework that underpins community wellbeing. In Lindfield, that means:
Prioritising mid-rise opportunities on larger, less constrained parcels closer to Lindfield station.
Securing firm commitments to road, drainage and utility upgrades before any density uplift.
Designing buildings that step down from the station hub toward heritage streets, preserving garden setbacks, canopy cover and sightlines.
More broadly, it means a more comprehensive plan for Sydney including transport, and opening up houding in more suitable places, that can then be services with schools and other infrastructure.
Conclusion
Growth isn’t about mass deployment; it’s about sustainable scaling. The 1–5 Nelson Road proposal breaches zoning rules, undermines heritage values, overloads infrastructure and neglects environmental policies. We should all refuse this application and instead work with developers and planners to deliver a plan for Sydnty that balances the city's growth aspirations with the very character of its living places that makes it unique. Sustainable progress depends on honoring both our obligations to accommodate new homes and our duty to preserve the foundations we already cherish, without turning it a homogenous, heaving, infrastructure-straining mess.

I strongly object to this application on the following grounds:

1. Procedural & Consultation Failures
o Annexure A webinar date altered (21 May 2025 vs original 19 May) without re-notification, reducing participation.
o Community feedback indicates questions were discouraged, contrary to the NSW Community Participation Plan. We didn't recieve anything in our mailboxes and we are only 500m away. This really feels like it was snuck throuh late to avoid local council and community consultation given it is moslty outside the TOD area and across both Tyron and Nelson road so should not be allowed develop at this intensit

2. Geotechnical & Environmental Inaccuracies
o Appendix 13 misidentifies the site (Middle Harbour Rd vs Nelson Rd). Please check this
o Soil report is desktop-only, using data from unrelated sites. Surely this is not adequate
o Incorrectly claims no riparian land, despite Council confirming Category 3 & 3a under Clause 6.4 KLEP 2015.
o Proposal sits within a Heritage Conservation Area with significant tree canopy, yet arboricultural and heritage impacts are under-assessed. Please do these properly

3. Height, Bulk & Character Non-Compliance
o Proposed height (32m) exceeds the LEP maximum by 3m. It is also at the top of a hill
o Severe height transition: 9-storey building directly adjoining single-storey dwellings, breaching urban design principles under SEPP 65 and KLEP 2015. This will dwaf the local house all around? And the property has minimal set backs to single story homes all around - below and behind. Surely this is not appropriate
o 2 of the 3 affected houses appear outside the 400m TOD zone; inclusion is questionable. 2 of the properties are outisde of the TOD and they are across Nelson road (east side) which I am sure was not meant ot part of the original TOD. There should be a road to transition from large developments - this does not at all

4. Amenity Impacts – Overshadowing, Privacy, Solar Access
o Location on a hill and excessive bulk will overshadow neighbouring homes and yards, reducing solar access below the 3 hours required by the ADG.
o Elevated balconies/windows will cause significant overlooking into adjoining private open space and habitable rooms. Privacy breaches will occur in the surrounding houses.

5. Infrastructure & Traffic Constraints
o Inadequate local infrastructure to support the scale of development (water, sewer, transport).
o Site is at a busy intersection; traffic and pedestrian safety impacts are not fully addressed. These are two bust roads and this will create blind spots and already dangerous intersection will worsen
o Cumulative impacts from other nearby SSDs not assessed.

6. Flood & Visual Impact Assessment Deficiencies
o Flood report omits Council’s 2023 PMF maps, understating risk.
o Visual Impact Assessment viewpoints are unrepresentative, downplaying true visual dominance. it will be MASSIVE given the height bulk and the fact that it is high up looking down onto homes that are single storey.

Given the procedural irregularities, statutory non-compliance, and significant amenity, heritage and environmental impacts, this proposal fails the tests under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, relevant SEPPs, LEP controls, and the public interest (s4.15(1)(e)).
I request the application be refused or returned for full re-notification with corrected studies and assessments.

I am an owner and occupier of a property in Lindfield in a street that is adjacent to Nelson Rd so I know the area of the proposed development well and I walk my children to Lindfield station past the site daily. I have the following objections to the proposed development based on my more than 10 years of living in this location.
1) The properties in the proposed development are currently zoned as R2 residential under the Kuringai Council preferred TOD scenario. The bulk and scale of the proposed development is not compatible with the current streetscape, particularly the adjacent Heritage Conservation Area.
2) The excessive height of over 32 m exceeds the maximum permitted building height and is higher than dwellings closer to the train station which means you do not have that gradual transition between high rise and mid to low rise which is one of Council's planning principles. Also, it looks ridiculous to have one building so much higher than everything around it and it causes overshadowing and privacy concerns for neighbours in single story properties given that these neighbours do not have the same development rights because they are restricted in the HCA.
3) The 4-way intersection at the corner of the proposed development is already a bottleneck in the morning peak hour traffic. The pedestrian crossing is unsafe and will only become more dangerous with additional traffic.
4) The local zoned school (Lindfield Public) is already at capacity with students having classes in the school hall because there are no available classrooms and the existing infrastructure for green spaces / sports fields / childcare centres is not adequate to support the increase in density without significant investment which the state government has not provided.
5) The properties in the proposed development are more than 400m from the train station and therefore if 9 stories are allowed as per the proposal this sets a precedent for the suburb that the TOD boundaries are merely a set of guidelines which can be ignored by developers.
6) The Environmental Impact Statement submitted for this proposal contains numerous errors and misleading information.
7) The community engagement appears to have been deceitfully carried out (this has been a recurring theme with SSD developments in the Lindfield area) as the date for the webinar was both 19 and 21 May on various documentation prepared by Planning Ingenuity and therefore many community members missed the opportunity to have a say. The fact that the state government allows developers to treat community engagement as a tick the box exercise is appalling and does nothing to reassure the community about the integrity of the SSD process. When this kind of behaviour by developers is overlooked, it erodes public confidence in government officials and the process.
8) The Geotechnical report page 4 figure 2 is incorrect and has clearly been copied from the report done for the other Landmark development project on 11-19 Middle Harbour Rd Lindfield. If they can't even get basic things like this correct it makes you wonder whether they even bothered to do two separate reports or just cut corners with a copy and paste job.
9) The soil study was a desktop study and did not involve taking samples. The Geotechnical report page 4 states that the site is not in an area of riparian lands - this contradicts Kuringai Council's own planning assessment that part of the site is identified as category 3 and 3a riparian lands (KLEP 2015).
10) The Heritage Impact Statement does not even get the proposed building height correct (8 levels with 2 levels of basement carparking) and the Architectual plans show the site as adjacent to multi-story apartment blocks rather than single level dwellings and we know this won't change because these properties are in an HCA so are stuck at 9.5 metres. This is clearly designed to mislead and should be called out as such by government officials rather than being waved through. These reports should have to be corrected for the application to proceed.