LINDFIELD Heritage in Peril Walk

On Saturday 26 April 2025 FOKE led a walk around Lindfield highlighting its ‘Heritage in Peril.


  • Duration: 9.45am – 12.15pm, 1.5-2 hours, covering ~2.5 km
  • Moderate; some gentle slopes
  • Wear comfortable shoes
  • Bring raincoat/umbrella in case of rain


Ku-ring-gai Council’s artist impression of Ku-ring-gai Council’s Preferred Scenario for Lindfield looking south, April 2025:







Lindfield Preferred ScenarioDownload







Thank you for coming

  • Thank you to the over 50 attendees, from Ku-ring-gai and across Sydney, who showed their interest, curiosity and concern about Lindfield’s heritage and their awareness that what is allowed to happen in Lindfield affects every suburb of Greater Sydney.

Introductory Questions

  • How many live in Lindfield?
  • How many live in Ku-ring-gai?
  • How many live in another Sydney local government area?
  • Who is a National Trust member?


Itinerary

  • Lindfield Railway Station, Pacific Highway, Wolseley, Treatts, Blenheim, Woodside, Highgate, Reid, Lindfield, Woodside, Nelson, Russell, Trafalgar, Middle Harbour road/street/avenue

PLEASE

  • take photos of the tour and email them to info@foke.org.au
  • let us know if you DO NOT WISH TO BE IN A PHOTO
  • try and stay together on the walk

INTRODUCE FOKE

  • Who is a member of FOKE?
  • Who is for the first time attended a FOKE event?

Friends of Ku-ring-gai Environment (FOKE) is a dedicated community voluntary organization advocating for the preservation of Ku-ring-gai’s unique heritage and environment. Founded to protect the Ku-ring-gai’s architecture – know to contain some of the best domestic 20th Century architecture in the nation, FOKE has been a leading voice against overdevelopment since it was formed in 1994. Today, FOKE actively campaigns for stronger heritage and environmental sustainability protections.

Thank you to the FOKE Committee Members in attendance.


PLEASE: During this ‘Lindfield Heritage in Peril’ think about a letter you could write to:

Dear …………………………….

On Sunday 28 April, 2025 I attended the Australian Heritage Festival ‘Lindfield Heritage in Peril Walk’ organised by Friends of Ku-ring-gai Environment (FOKE).

During this walk I was distressed to learn …………………………………, amazed to discover ……………………………. and very concerned about ……………………………………

I respectfully ask you to ……………………………………….

Yours sincerely

……………………………………….

ALSO PLEASE:

  • Send your photos of this walk to Friends of Ku-ring-gai Environment (FOKE) info@foke.org.au
  • Send copies or your letters to FOKE info@foke.org.au
  • Sign onto receiving FOKE Newsletters HERE
  • If you wish to sign onto Save Greater Sydney Coalition email savegreatersydneycoalition2@gmail.com

Acknowledgement of Country

Friends of Ku-ring-gai Environment (FOKE) acknowledges the Guringai/Darramuragal people as the traditional custodians of the land on which Lindfield stands, paying respect to Elders past, present, and emerging.

For tens of thousands of years, the Guringai/Darramuragal have nurtured this Country, traversing its tracks and ridgelines to connect communities and sustain cultural practices. We express deep regret for the profound loss and disruption the Guringai/Darramuragal people when timber cutters cleared their forests, altered the fire regime, and took this land for farming, disregarding their deep spiritual and cultural connection to Country.

Unlike modern economic notions of ownership, the Guringai/Darramuragal lived in harmony with the land, without attachment to possession.

We are grateful that the forests and trees have regrown, fostering a strong affinity for place amongst the many who now live in Ku-ring-gai. We honor the Guringai/Darramuragal‘s enduring legacy, reflected in the ancient pathways that underpin Lindfield’s roads and railways, including those along the North Shore line – a railway line of outstanding scenic beauty.

We commit to respecting their ongoing connection to this land, its tall Blue Gum High & Sydney Turpentine Ironbark forests, waterways and wildlife.


Australian Heritage Festival 2025

The Australian Heritage Festival, 18 April-18 May 2025, focuses on the theme “Unearthed”, which focuses on revealing lesser-known histories and stories, such as FOKE’s 30 years of advocacy and connections to:

  • 1920s: Ku-ring-gai resident, Annie Wyatt (1885-1961) forms the Ku-ring-gai Tree Lovers’ Civic League
  • 1945: Ku-ring-gai resident, Annie Wyatt instrumental in forming the National Trust (NSW)
  • 1997: National Trust (NSW) recommended 27 precincts in Ku-ring-gai be classified as Urban Conservation Areas (UCAs), more than any other local government area in NSW
  • 2000: FOKE, Winner, NSW Heritage Office Cultural Heritage Conservation Award “Heritage Watch over our place of National Significance – Ku-ring-gai” Keep Australia Beautiful Council (NSW) (NSW) Metro Pride Award PRIDE Awards
  • 2007: FOKE nominated Ku-ring-gai for the Australian National Trust’s “Most Endangered Places” list due to the NSW Government’s urban consolidation polices, which threatened Ku-ring-gai’s unique built and natural heritage. The National Trust of Australia (NSW) further underscored the national significance and vulnerability of Ku-ring-gai’s Urban Conservation Areas within the context of the Original Blue Gum High Forest by nominating them for the “Top Ten Heritage @ Risk Places in Australia”. 
  • 2008: NSW Government Heritage Volunteers Award
  • 2008: FOKE produced A Photographic Record of Sites and Streetscapes, documenting ~2,000 homes, including many in Lindfield, threatened by state-mandated rezonings. Copies are archived at Ku-ring-gai Library, Ku-ring-gai Historical Society, and the National Trust, Sydney
  • 2009: National Trust Heritage Awards Highly Commended. 
  • 2015: National Trust Heritage Festival Annie Wyatt, Gordon
  • 2015: National Trust Heritage Festival walk: Sheldon Forest, Turramurra
  • 2015: National Trust Heritage Festival walk: Turramurra
  • 2016: National Trust Heritage Awards Highly Commended
  • 2016: National Trust Heritage Festival talk: Biodiversity Matters
  • 2016: National Trust Heritage Festival walk: Paddy Pallin, Lindfield
  • 2016: National Trust Heritage Festival walk: Sheldon Forest, Turramurra
  • 2017: National Trust Heritage Festival walk: Butterflies, Blue Gums and Camellias, Killara

FOKE’s walk closely aligns with the Australian Heritage Festival “Unearthed” theme.

‘Lindfield Heritage in Peril Walk’ ‘unearths’ Ku-ring-gai’s rich, often under appreciated heritage, exposing threats to its preservation and encouraging community involvement in safeguarding these stories for future generations.


  1. Reveals Hidden Histories: ‘Lindfield Heritage in Peril Walk’ highlights Ku-ring-gai’s built and natural heritage, including its twentieth-century architectural gems and conservation legacies, which have been historically ignored, dismissed and threatened by NSW Governments planning policies.

    ‘Lindfield Heritage in Peril Walk’ stories of the Gammeragal people’s stewardship, the area’s pioneering conservationists (e.g., Lindfield’s Paddy Pallin and Charlie Veron) and the natural, built and cultural significance of the Sydney’s 20th Century town planning movement as exemplified by town planning/architect icon John Sulman.
  2. Addresses Threats to Heritage: ‘The ‘Lindfield Heritage in Peril Walk’ highlights the imminent densification threats to Ku-ring-gai’s heritage from developer-led planning that the NSW Government has succumbed to with the Transport Oriented Development (TOD), Low to Mid-Rise Housing and Dual Occupancy ‘one size fails all’ planning policies. The narrative of loss , grief and resilience resonates with the theme’s emphasis on unearthing stories that are often ignored by the mainstream media.
  3. Empowers Future Custodians: Through the ‘Lindfield Heritage in Peril Walk’, FOKE engages, educations and builds appreciation for Ku-ring-gai’s unique, outstanding and beautiful heritage and environmental significance. By connecting modern roads and railways to ancient Gammeragal pathways and highlighting conservation efforts, the walks inspire participants to advocate for heritage preservation, aligning with the festival’s goal of fostering custodianship.
  4. Drives Community Storytelling: As a community group, FOKE’s walks embody the festival’s community-driven ethos, offering a platform to share local knowledge and advocate for the protection of Ku-ring-gai’s unique character.

Ku-ring-gai’s National, State and Local Heritage Significance

Ku-ring-gai:


  • has exceptional collection of twentieth-century housing, showcasing a diverse range of high-quality designs by prominent Australian architects.

  • embodies twentieth-century town planning and conservation philosophies.

  • has been the home of influential conservationists, including Gordon’s Annie Wyatt (1885-1961), founder of the National Trust (NSW); Turramurra’s Eccleston du Faur (1832-1915), who established Ku-ring-gai Chase National Park, one of Australia’s earliest national parks; Lindfield’s Paddy Pallin (1900-1930), a pioneering bushwalker and entrepreneur who championed the early twentieth-century bushwalking conservation movement; Turramurra’s Alex Colley (1909-2014), instrumental in securing World Heritage listing for the Greater Blue Mountains National Park; and Lindfield’s Charlie Veron (1945-), a marine biologist, who highlighted the devastating impact of climate change and warming ocean temperatures on the Great Barrier Reef. Their collective efforts underscore Ku-ring-gai’s enduring legacy in shaping Australia’s conservation movement.


Heritage Conservation Areas in Ku-ring-gai

Ku-ring-gai Council’s website states: A Heritage Conservation Areas (HCA) is an area recognised and valued for its special historical and aesthetic character. Important elements that contribute to the heritage significance of a HCA include the architectural style of buildings, fences, trees and gardens. Furthermore “HCA’s (are meant to) protect not just single homes but whole areas from inappropriate development.”


‘Conservation Areas – Guidelines for Managing Change in Heritage Conservation Areas (1996) are also defined as:

A heritage conservation area is more than a collection of individual heritage items. It is an area in which the historical origins and relationships between the various elements create a sense of place that is worth keeping.


A heritage area is identified by analysing its heritage significance and the special characteristics which make up that significance. These may include its subdivision pattern, the consistency of building materials or the common age of its building stock. The least important characteristic is the ‘look’ of the place, although the commonly held community view is that this is the determining factor.


Heritage areas reveal many different aspects of our cultural history. They show how Australians have responded physically, emotionally, socially and architecturally to the environment and how places have been variously occupied, used, ignored, refined, degraded or associated with Australian society over time.



NSW legislated Heritage Conservation Areas (HCAs) in Ku-ring-gai highlight Lindfield’s distinctive historical, aesthetic, and cultural value, encompassing exceptional architectural styles, mature canopy trees, and gardens and critically endangered Blue Gum High Forest and Sydney Turpentine Ironbark Forest.

Lindfield’s HCAs, renowned for its outstanding interwar Federation and Californian bungalow architecture showcases of twentieth-century Australian town planning. The National Trust (NSW) recommended 27 precincts to be classified as Urban Conservation Areas in 1997. This was more than any other local government area in NSW.


Map of the 28 conservation areas in the vicinity of the four TOD stations. Source TKD Architects. Ku-ring-gai Heritage Conservation Area Review, prepared for Ku-ring-gai Council, October 2024

OMC_30102024_AGN_AT_EXTRA_Attachment_15886_3-Draft-HeritageDownload



The Transport Oriented Development (TOD) State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) undermines heritage protections in Ku-ring-gai by prioritising high-density development, targeting approximately 23,200 dwellings.

Ku-ring-gai Council’s Preferred TOD Scenario (3b refined) to the TOD will rezone to create 9,419 dwellings in Lindfield with building heights ranging from 3–18 storeys within 800m of the station. This threatens the integrity of Heritage Conservation Areas (HCAs) in Lindfield despite 80% safeguarded under the Preferred Scenario (3b refined). It also leaves heritage streetscapes vulnerable to “development uplift” and State Significant Development (SSD) spot rezonings. The weakening of robust HCA protections will erode Lindfield’s irreplaceable heritage.


Transport Oriented Development (TOD) Impacts on Lindfield

Lindfield, along with Killara, Gordon and Roseville, is one of 37 railway stations identified to be rezoned as Transport Oriented Development (TOD). This proposed to rezone low-density and heritage conservation areas within 400 meters of Lindfield Station for mid-rise apartment buildings (6–8 storeys). This fundamentally threatens Lindfield’s heritage-rich, low-density character, defined by Federation and Californian bungalow homes, lush gardens, and Heritage Conservation Areas (HCAs).

Ku-ring-gai Council resolved to place on public exhibition (31 March 2025) an alternative Preferred Scenario (3b refined). This recommends 9,419 dwellings to Lindfield as part of a 24,562 dwelling target across the four railway precincts (Roseville, Lindfield, Killara and Gordon) with 3–18 storeys building heights and FSR range of 0.85:1 to 5.0:1 and 800 metres from Lindfield Railway Station.

The short timeline to consult with the community from November to December 2024 on an alternative TOD scenario resulted in the recommendation for the alternative Preferred Scenario (3b refined) that was placed on public exhibition from 31 March to 22 April 2024.  This public consultation was agreed as part of the Land & Environment Court Mediation Agreement between Ku-ring-gai Council Vs Minister for Planning.

Council must soon vote on the alternative Preferred Scenario (3b refined) and resolve it as a Local Environment Plan to be gazetted by the NSW Minister of Planning Paul Scully.  If Council does not meet this May 2025 deadline, the original TOD controls will be implemented. This has placed enormous pressure on communities as well as creating new ‘winners & losers’.

The short public exhibition deadline (31 March to 22 April 2025) limited community input. However, Council proceeded to put it public exhibition until 22 April 2022 and indicated it would only ‘tweak’ the draft Local Environment Plan (LEP).  This is despite considerable opposition at the 31 March 2025 Public Forum that preceded the Extraordinary Council meeting.  Many argued at the Public Forum that the Council’s alternative scenario “development uplift” proposal for heritage items, would devalue heritage items if they were integrated into larger developments.  Many heritage owners argued that developers would not wish to integrate their properties and they would be left ‘isolated’ and be financially disadvantaged.

Ku-ring-gai Council’s preferred scenario 24,500 dwelling targets:

  • Lindfield: 9,419 dwelling target; 18 storey maximum
  • Killara: 2,778 indwelling target; 8 storey maximum,
  • Gordon: 9,012 dwelling target; 28 storey maximum
  • Roseville: 3,353 dwelling target; 8 storey maximum

State Significant Development with DPHI, as of 25 April, 2025:
All currently at a stage of prepare EIS.

Lindfield

  • 9-21 Beaconsfield Road Lindfield
  • 12-16 Bent Street Lindfield
  • 2-4 Woodside & 1-3 Reid Street, Lindfield
  • 2-8 Highgate Road, Lindfield
  • 1-5 Nelson Road, Lindfield
  • 27-29 Tryon Road, Lindfield (currently on public exhibition)
  • 59-63 Trafalgar Avenue, 1A and 1B Valley Road, Lindfield
  • 11-19 Middle Harbour Road, Lindfield
  • 24, 26, 28 Middle Harbour Road, Lindfield

Killara

  • 10, 14, & 14A Stanhope Road, Killara

Gordon

  • 3-9 Park Avenue, Gordon
  • 3a,3b,5a, 7 Burgoyne and 1&3 Pearson Avenue and 4 Burgoyne Lane, Gordon

Roseville

  • 2-4 Larkin Street and 1-5 Pockley Avenue, Roseville
  • 2,4,6,8,10,12,14, & 16 Pockley Avenue, Roseville
    21-27 Roseville Avenue and 16-24 Oliver Road, Roseville
  • 17-21 Shirley Road, Roseville

Lindfield Heritage in Peril Maps:

Lindfield Heritage in Peril Itinerary
Stop 1: Lindfield Railway Station
  • Lindfield Railway Station Group, Heritage listed
  • Railway comes to Lindfield in 1890
  • Fiddens Wharf Road which was a major road for convict timber cutters
  • Building heights 3-28 storeys
  • Density FSR range 0.85:1 to 8.0:1
  • Extent within 800 metres from stations

Ku-ring-gai’s Green Corridors

Part of a group of 4

Appendix D_ Architectural Design Statement and SEPP …Download

Stop 2: Lindfield Avenue

  • Commercial block, 1–21 Lindfield Avenue, Heritage listed
  • Dr Refshaughe, NSW Planning Minister imposed 7-8 storey height
  • Ku-ring-gai Council then incorporated a petrol station and block of flats with increased heights
Stop 3: Havilah Road Railway underpass leading to Pacific Highway

  • Lindfield Village Hub – Preferred Scenario for 18 storeys
  • Shop fronts along Pacific Highway – Preferred Scenario for 18 storeys
Stop 4: 345 Pacific Highway

  • Preferred Scenario rezoning for 18 storeys
  • Preferred Scenario rezoning on western side of Pacific Highway
  • 270 Pacific Highway, Heritage listed
  • 386–390 Pacific Highway, Commercial building—Churchers Restaurant, Heritage listed

Photo from The Age article by Megan Gorrey, 26 March 2025 HERE

  • Lindfield named after the house owned by Mr List who built in in the 1880s located between Bent and Balfour Street on the Pacific Highway. It was named after a village home in Lindfield, West Sussex. Later in 1893 it became the home of William Cowan who became he first President of the Ku-ring-gai Shire.
  • 1810s onwards the timber for Sydney’s housing was supplied by Ku-ring-gai’s tall forests and transported on the Lane Cove River-. Convict Joseph Fiddens is remembered as the most famous river boatman.



Stop 5: Wolseley Road

  • Wolseley HCA to be abandoned by Preferred Scenario 3b
Stop 6: Treatts Road (west side of Lindfield Avenue)

  • 6 Treatts Road, Heritage listed
  • 8 Treatts Road“Mignon”, Heritage listed
  • 23 Treatts Road, Heritage listed
  • 26 Treatts Road,“Northhaven” (formerly Rosebank), Heritage listed
Stop 7: Ethel Turner’s Home
  • Blue Plaque, ‘Woodlands’ 1 Werona Avenue, Killara
  • Author and artist Ethel Sibyl Turner (1870-1958) wrote Seven Little Australians at Inglewood in Lindfield (now Woodlands, Killara) in 1893.
  • The bushland surrounding her home and became a key feature of her stories.
  • On her 23rd birthday, Ethel wrote in her diary,
    ‘Seven L. Aust. – sketched it out.’ (24 January 1893).
    ‘We have decided to go to Lindfield. It will be like being buried alive to live in a quiet little country place after the bustle and excitement of town life’, wrote Ethel Turner, who was not keen on her family’s move to the North Shore from the city suburb of Paddington in 1891. Although Ethel initially objected to the move,  she soon ‘liked the place awfully. It is a pretty square house with a long balcony and verandah, honeysuckle and white roses creeping up’ (29 Sept 1891[AW1] ).
  • Ethel Turner was born in England in 1870. In 1879 she migrated to Australia with her mother and two sisters. The family settled in Sydney where Ethel and her sister Lilian attended Sydney Girls High School. They both edited a schoolgirls’ magazine, Iris, and later the Parthenon, a literary magazine which ran for three years.
  • In 1892 Ethel took over the children’s page in the Illustrated Sydney News. Turner was prolific during her time in Lindfield, writing three novels as well as newspaper articles and short stories between 1891 and 1894.
  • One of Australia’s few unquestioned children’s classics, Seven Little Australians is a children’s classic and has sold several million copies in English. It has been translated into at least 13 languages and adapted for film, television and stage. In 2019 the manuscript, held in the State Library of NSW, was placed on the UNESCO Australian Memory of the World Register.



    State Library of NSW display collection item, Ethel Turner, 1927 / photographic portrait by May Moore, Sydney

    Her first novel, Seven Little Australians, was originally titled ‘Six Pickles’. When it was published in 1894 it became an immediate success and has been in print ever since. It was followed by a sequel, The Family at Misrule, in 1895.  Turner married a lawyer, H.R. Curlewis in 1896 and by the time of her death in 1958 had produced over 40 books as well as numerous short stories and poems.

    The Library holds Ethel Turner’s original manuscript for Seven Little Australians, hand-written in ink. The story has been translated into many languages, staged for the theatre (1914) and filmed (1939). Its frequent reprinting and an Australian Broadcasting Commission (ABC) television version in 1973 have confirmed its status as one of Australia’s few undeniable children’s classics.

Stop 8: Treatts Road (eastern side of Lindfield)

  • 42 Treatts Road, “Treetops”, Heritage listed
  • 45 Treatts Road, Heritage listed
  • 47 Treatts Road, “Coromandel”, Heritage listed
  • 50 Treatts Road, Heritage listed
  • 56 Treatts Road,“Brenchley”, Heritage listed
Stop 9: Blenheim Road

  • Heritage Conservation Area protected
  • 11 Blenheim Road, Heritage listed
  • 12 Blenheim Road, Heritage listed
  • 15 Blenheim Road, Heritage listed
  • “Lochinvar”, 19 Blenheim Road, Heritage listed

Stop 10: Kenilworth Avenue

  • 22 Kenilworth Road, Heritage listed
Stop 11: Highgate Road & Reid Street

  • 2-8 Highgate Road, STATE SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT (SSD)
Stop 12: Woodside Avenue

  • 2-4 Woodside & 1-3 Reid Street, STATE SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT (SSD)
Stop 13: Nelson Road

  • 1-5 Nelson Road, Lindfield
  • 14 Nelson Road, Billy Hughes’s home from 1924. Listed as a resident in 1926 Sands Directory
  • 9 Nelson Road, Heritage listed
  • 15 Nelson Road, Heritage listed
  • 31 Nelson Road, Heritage listed
  • 33 Nelson Road, Heritage listed
  • 42 Nelson Road, “Fieldhead”, Heritage listed
  • 43 Nelson Road, Heritage listed
  • 44 Nelson Road, Heritage listed
  • 50 Nelson Road, Heritage listed
Stop 14: Tryon Road

  • 10 Tryon Road, where the Lindfield Village Green that was once a council carpark where one of the largest demonstrations – “Fight the Height” Rally – took place in Ku-ring-gai. The 2002 rally took place in the Tryon Road car park, protested against the Planning Minister Dr Refshauge seizing and rezoning six sites in Ku-ring-gai. Residents and local groups, including Friends of Ku-ring-gai Environment (FOKE), raised concerns about the potential negative impact on the area’s unique character and environment, including concerns about disrupting the tree canopy, destroying Ku-ring-gai’s heritage, increasing traffic and congestion, and the potential for increased housing costs. 
  • ABC TV Stateline Program, “The Rape of Ku-ring-gai”, where ABC presenter Quentin Dempster interviewed NSW Planning Minister Frank Sartor about the NSW Government’s reluctance to protect Ku-ring-ai’s historic homes and endangered Blue Gum High Forest, 15 August 2008
  • 27-29 Tryon Road Lindfield, STATE SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT (SSD): currently on public exhibition49 Tryon Road, Heritage listed
  • 33 Tryon Road, Lindfield Uniting Church, STATE Heritage listed
  • 49 Tryon Road, Heritage listed
Stop 15: Tryon Lane

  • Rear of Tryon Road

Stop 16: Russell Avenue

  • Rezoning in Russell Avenue
  • 19 Russell Avenue, Heritage listed
  • 22 Russell Avenue, Heritage listed
Stop 17: Trafalgar Avenue

  • SSD: 59-63 Trafalgar Avenue, 1A and 1B Valley Road Lindfield

Photo from Ku-ring-gai Council Submission on Transport Oriented Development Program, (Department of Planning and Environment – December 2023), Endorsed by Council 20 February 2024

Stop 18: Middle Harbour Road

  • Middle Harbour catchment, leading to Garigal National Park. Early records show that there was once a creek running from near the Pacific Highway in Roseville and along Middle Harbour Road near Trafalgar Avenue in Lindfield. It then went via Tryon Road to Middle Harbour.
  • 9 Middle Harbour Road, “Laurabada”, Heritage listed
  • 11-19 Middle Harbour Road, STATE SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT (SSD)
  • 24, 26, 28 Middle Harbour Road, STATE SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT (SSD)
  • 31 Middle Harbour Road, Heritage listed (on a corner)
  • 32A Middle Harbour Road, Heritage listed
  • 34 Middle Harbour Road, Heritage listed
Stop 19: Lindfield Avenue

  • 1-5 Tryon Road, St Alban’s Anglican Church, Heritage listed
Stop 20: Lindfield Railway Station

  • Summary of Lindfield in Peril Heritage Walk

Ku-ring-gai Council Preferred TOD Scenario (3b Refined)
Council has had to submit an alternative preferred TOD plan to the to the NSW Government by the end of May 2025 as agreed to in the Mediation Agreement.

At the Extraordinary Council Meeting on 31 March 2025, the Director of Planning indicated that the Preferred Scenario could be “tweaked” based on feedback during the public exhibition.  With the end of May 2025 deadline agreed to in the Mediation Agreement rapidly approaching, there is not going to be time for major changes or to start from scratch.

The Preferred Scenario (refer Figure 12) is a refined version of Scenario 3b which meets the DPHI dwelling targets and maintains building heights like those proposed in Scenario 3b.

Overall

Building heights 3-28 storeys

Density FSR range 0.85:1 to 8.0:1

Number of dwellings 24,562 (Based on SJB consultants estimates)

Extent within 800 metres from stations



Conclusion

Thank you for joining the “Lindfield Heritage in Peril” walk. Lindfield’s heritage—its Federation homes, leafy streets, and historic landmarks like the railway station—defines its unique character. However, the Ku-ring-gai Preferred Scenario (3b refined), updated April 4, 2025, with 24,562 dwellings (9,419 for Lindfield), building heights up to 18 storeys, poses significant heritage threats.


The May 2025 deadline, agreed in the Ku-ring-gai Council Vs NSW Planning Minister’s Mediation Agreement, leaves little time for major changes, and SSD proposals could further undermine heritage preservation. Council has urged the DPHI to reject current SSD applications and impose a moratorium on new ones, but the outcome remains uncertain. FOKE encourages you to support heritage conservation efforts, such as advocating for stronger HCA protections and interim heritage orders.



SUMMARY: Key Issues from Friends of Ku-ring-gai Environment (FOKE) on Ku-ring-gai Council’s TOD Scenario 3b (Refined) for Lindfield


  1. Threat to Heritage Conservation Areas (HCAs) and Local Character
    Preferred Scenario (pressured by DPHI and to be approved by NSW Minister for Planning) aims to protect all Heritage Conservation Areas by shifting development away from these zones, but FOKE is concerned that high-density development within 400–800m of Lindfield Station could compromise the suburb’s heritage integrity. Lindfield’s historic character, defined by its Federation and inter-war architecture and garden suburb layout, risks being eroded by overshadowing, visual intrusion, or pressure from adjacent high-rise buildings, which clash with the area’s low-density aesthetic.


  2. Abandoning Federal, NSW and local environmental protections
    FOKE is gravely concerned about the environmental impacts of the Preferred Scenario (pressured by DPHI and to be approved by NSW Minister for Planning) on Lindfield’s critically endangered ecological communities, including the Blue Gum High Forest and Sydney Turpentine Ironbark Forest, both listed as critically endangered under state and federal legislation.


    The intensified development risks further loss of tree canopy, vital for maintaining Ku-ring-gai’s biodiversity and mitigating urban heat. FOKE warns that clearing or fragmentation of these habitats, even indirectly through expanded development zones, could accelerate biodiversity extinction, threatening native species such as powerful owls, microbats, and other flora and fauna dependent on these ecosystems. The lack of comprehensive environmental studies exacerbates these risks, leaving Lindfield’s ecological assets vulnerable.


  3. Climate Threats, Particularly Bushfire Risks
    FOKE is deeply concerned about the climate-related risks posed by Preferred Scenario (pressured by DPHI and to be approved by NSW Minister for Planning), particularly the increased bushfire threat in Lindfield due to its proximity to bushland and the presence of dense vegetation, including Blue Gum High Forest and Sydney Turpentine Ironbark Forest. The intensification of development, with high-density buildings up to 800m from the station, could heighten bushfire risks by placing more residents in fire-prone areas without adequate mitigation measures. FOKE argues that the absence of climate risk assessments, including bushfire hazard studies, in the TOD planning process endangers Lindfield’s community and undermines resilience to climate-driven extreme weather events.

    Ku-ring-gai is the ‘lungs of Sydney’. Ku-ring-gai’s giant trees keep Sydney cool. More important than ever with extreme heat waves.

  4. Insufficient Environmental and Infrastructure Studies
    FOKE emphasizes the absence of critical studies (e.g., environmental, traffic, parking, water, sewerage, and utilities) to support the intensified development proposed in the Preferred Scenario (pressured by DPHI and to be approved by NSW Minister for Planning), which includes apartment buildings up to eight storeys (or 10 with affordable housing provisions) within 800m of Lindfield Station. Without these studies, the scenario risks unsustainable development, straining local infrastructure and exacerbating environmental degradation.


  5. Overdevelopment and Community Impact
    The scale of development in the Preferred Scenario (pressured by DPHI and to be approved by NSW Minister for Planning), contributing to ~24,562 dwellings across Lindfield, Killara, Gordon and Roseville, is viewed by FOKE as overdevelopment for Lindfield. Extending high-density zones to 800m from the station could disrupt the suburb’s low-density residential areas, leading to increased traffic, parking challenges, and reduced amenity for residents, prioritising state-mandated housing targets over local community needs.


  6. Lack of Genuine Community Input and Transparency
    Although the Scenario 3b was the community’s preferred option during the November–December 2024 consultation, FOKE questions the council’s process for selecting the refined scenario, suggesting it may not fully reflect community preferences. The condensed 21-day feedback period (ending April 22, 2025) restricted meaningful input from Lindfield residents, particularly those within the 800m rezoning zone, whose concerns may be diluted by submissions from less-affected areas.


  7. Undemocratic State Government Influence
    FOKE views the TOD policy underpinning the Preferred Scenario (pressured by DPHI and to be approved by NSW Minister for Planning) as a top-down, state-imposed framework that overrides local planning controls. This approach limits Ku-ring-gai Council’s ability to protect Lindfield’s unique environmental and heritage values, with the NSW Government’s push for high-density development near stations prioritising housing quotas over the suburb’s character and sustainability.
  8. Undermining of Strategic Planning by State Significant Developments
    FOKE is deeply concerned that State Significant Development Applications, processed by the NSW Housing Delivery Authority, bypass Ku-ring-gai Council’s strategic planning processes, including Scenario 3b’s framework. In Lindfield, such developments could override local controls, leading to inconsistent, developer-driven projects that conflict with the council’s vision for balanced growth, heritage preservation, and environmental protection.


  9. Failure to Provide Genuine Affordable Housing
    FOKE criticised the Preferred Scenario’s approach to affordable housing, arguing that the provision for additional storeys (up to 10) in exchange for affordable housing lacks enforceable mechanisms to ensure meaningful outcomes. They contend that the TOD framework prioritises developer profits over delivering genuinely affordable housing for Lindfield’s residents, particularly low- and middle-income households, risking the production of high-cost apartments that fail to address local housing needs.


  10. Global Property Investments Overriding Community Interests
    FOKE is alarmed that global investment in Ku-ring-gai’s property market, facilitated by the state’s TOD policies, overrides the interests of Lindfield’s community. The push for high-density development in Scenario 3b attracts international developers and investors, driving up property prices and prioritising luxury apartments over community-focused housing. This trend threatens to displace local residents, erode community cohesion, and transform Lindfield into a speculative investment hub, undermining its livable, heritage-rich character.


  11. Corruption-Prone Development Processes
    FOKE is concerned about the potential for corruption in the development processes associated with the NSW Government’s planning reforms, driven by the influence of powerful developer interests and the state’s streamlined approval mechanisms. The bypassing of local planning controls through State Significant Developments and the lack of robust oversight in the TOD framework create opportunities for undue influence, favoritism, or opaque decision-making. In Lindfield, this could result in approvals that prioritise developer profits over community welfare, heritage preservation, or environmental sustainability, eroding public trust in the planning process.


  12. Proposed Open Space Acquisitions as Insufficient Mitigation
    Scenario 3b includes plans to acquire sites for open space to mitigate the impact of increased density. However, FOKE views these measures as inadequate to offset the environmental and social impacts of high-density development in Lindfield, particularly given the potential loss of tree canopy and increased pressure on public amenities due to population growth.


  13. Abandonment of Heritage in NSW
    FOKE is highly critical of the broader trend of heritage abandonment in NSW, which they see as exacerbated by the Preferred Scenario (pressured by DPHI and to be approved by NSW Minister for Planning) and the state’s TOD, Low to Mid-Rise and dual occupancy policies. The prioritisation of high-density development over heritage preservation threatens Lindfield’s significant Federation and inter-war architectural legacy. FOKE argues that the NSW Government’s failure to strengthen heritage protections, combined with weakened local planning controls, risks the irreversible loss of Lindfield’s cultural and historical identity, aligning with a statewide pattern of neglecting heritage assets.

    The ‘wicked problem’ of isolating heritage properties.


  14. Poor Planning Practices
    FOKE contends that the Preferred Scenario (pressured by DPHI and to be approved by NSW Minister for Planning) reflects poor planning practices, characterized by a lack of integrated, evidence-based strategies to balance growth with environmental and social outcomes. The absence of comprehensive studies on infrastructure capacity, environmental impacts, and climate risks, coupled with the rushed 21-day consultation period, undermines the planning process’s credibility. In Lindfield, this results in a development framework that fails to account for the suburb’s unique ecological and heritage constraints, risking haphazard, unsustainable urban growth.


  15. Undemocratic Nature of the NSW Housing Delivery Authority
    FOKE is deeply concerned about the undemocratic nature of the NSW Housing Delivery Authority, which processes State Significant Developments and exerts significant influence over the Preferred Scenario (pressured by DPHI and to be approved by NSW Minister for Planning) implementation. The authority’s ability to override local council decisions and bypass community consultation undermines democratic governance in Lindfield. FOKE argues that this centralized, developer-friendly approach prioritises state housing targets over the needs and voices of Lindfield’s residents, eroding local autonomy and accountability.


  16. Widespread Loss of Heritage and Character Across Sydney
    FOKE emphasises that heritage tours, such as those organized in Ku-ring-gai, vividly illustrate what is at stake, showing residents the tangible heritage and character that will be lost under the Preferred Scenario (pressured by DPHI and to be approved by NSW Minister for Planning). This issue extends beyond Lindfield, affecting every suburb and neighborhood across Sydney. The state’s TOD policies, which prioritise high-density development over local heritage, environmental, and community values, threaten to homogenize Sydney’s unique suburbs, replacing distinctive neighborhoods with generic high-rise developments. This widespread loss undermines the cultural, historical, and social fabric of the city, diminishing its livability and identity.

  17. Cumulative impact of increased housing densification across Greater Sydney and how Sydney is an integrated landscape.



    WHAT CAN YOU DO?
  • Join FOKE’s next Heritage in Peril Walks in Killara (3.5.25), and Gordon (4.5.25) as part of FOKE’s celebration of the Australian Heritage Festival.
  • Join FOKE as a member. Details at www.foke.org.au
  • Send your photos of this walk to Friends of Ku-ring-gai Environment (FOKE) info@foke.org.au   
  • Send copies of any letters you write to FOKE info@foke.org.au
  • Sign onto receiving FOKE Newsletters HERE
  • Join Save Greater Sydney Coalition Email savegreatersydneycoalition2@gmail.com
  • If you wish to sign onto Save Greater Sydney Coalition email: savegreatersydneycoalition2@gmail.com

PLEASE WRITE A LETTER ABOUT WHAT YOU HAVE LEARNT ON THIS WALK TO:

Dear …………………………….

On Saturday 27 April, 2025 I attended the Australian Heritage Festival ‘Lindfield Heritage in Peril Walk’ organised by Friends of Ku-ring-gai Environment (FOKE).

During this walk I was distressed to learn …………………………………, amazed to discover ……………………………. and very concerned about ……………………………………

I respectfully ask that you ……………………………………….


Yours sincerely

……………………………………….


Lindfield Heritage Items

  • Lindfield Dwelling house, 46 Archbold Road, Lot 40, DP 6678
    Local, I409
  • Lindfield “Lyncroft”, dwelling house, 4 Averil Place, Lot 4, DP 236336, Local, I410
  • Lindfield, “Audley”, dwelling house, 17 Bayswater Road, Lot C, DP 344475, Local, I411
  • Lindfield, Dwelling house, 14 Beaconsfield Parade, Lot 1, DP, 68629, Local, I412
  • Lindfield Dwelling house, 31 Beaconsfield Parade, Lot B, DP 324025
    Local
    I413
    Lindfield, Dwelling house, 28 Bent Street, Lot 17, DP 10189, Local, I416
  • Lindfield, Dwelling house, 11 Blenheim Road, Lot 142, DP 6608, Local, I33
  • Lindfield, Dwelling house, 12 Blenheim Road, Lot A, DP 369207, Local, I34
  • Lindfield, Dwelling house, 15 Blenheim Road, Lot 143, DP 6608, Local, I35
  • Lindfield, “Lochinvar”, dwelling house, 19 Blenheim Road, Lot 145, DP 6608, Local, I36
  • Lindfield, Dwelling house, 26 Chelmsford Avenue, Lot 7, DP 6678, Local, I419
  • Lindfield, Dwelling house, 25 Cocupara Avenue, Lot 59, DP 28888, Local, I420
  • Lindfield, Dwelling house, 12 Dangar Street, Lot 1, DP 525627, Local, I421
  • Lindfield, Lindfield Learning Village, former William Balmain Teachers College, 100 Eton Road, Part of Lot 2, DP 1151638, State, I422
  • Lindfield, Frances Street Bungalow Group, 1 Frances Street, Lot 1, DP 7723, Local, I423
  • Lindfield, Frances Street Bungalow Group, 2 Frances Street, Lot 12A, DP 307998, Local, I424
  • Lindfield, Frances Street Bungalow Group, 3 Frances Street, Lot 2, DP 7723, Local, I425
  • Lindfield, Frances Street Bungalow Group, 4 Frances Street, Lot 11, DP 7723, Local, I426
  • Lindfield, Frances Street Bungalow Group, 5 Frances Street, Lot 3, DP 7723; Lot 1, DP 1069076, Local, I427
  • Lindfield, Frances Street Bungalow Group, 6 Frances Street, Lot 10, DP 7723, Local, I428
  • Lindfield, Frances Street Bungalow Group, 7 Frances Street, Lot 4, DP 957045, Local, I429
  • Lindfield, Frances Street Bungalow Group, 8 Frances Street, Lot 9, DP 7723, Local, I430
  • Lindfield, Frances Street Bungalow Group, 9 Frances Street, Lot 5, DP 7723, Local, I431
  • Lindfield, Frances Street Bungalow Group, 10 Frances Street, Lot 8, DP 7723, Local, I432
  • Lindfield, Frances Street Bungalow Group, 12 Frances Street, Lot 7, DP 7723, Local, I433
  • Lindfield, Frances Street Bungalow Group, 14 Frances Street, Lot 6, DP 7723, Local, I434
  • Lindfield, Dwelling house, 21 Frances Street, Lot 1, DP 17918, Local, I435
  • Lindfield, Dwelling house, 24 Gladstone Parade, Lot 1, DP 220242, Local, I436
  • Lindfield, Dwelling house, 1 Grosvenor Road, Lot 2, DP 215626, Local, I437
  • Lindfield, “Longview”, dwelling house, 2 Grosvenor Road, Lot A, DP 343071, Local, I37
  • Lindfield, Dwelling house, 3 Grosvenor Road, Lot 1, DP 214630, Local, I438
  • Lindfield, Dwelling house, 7 Grosvenor Road, Lot 4, DP 215625, Local, I439
  • Lindfield, Dwelling house, 9 Grosvenor Road, Lot D, DP 364265, Local, I440
  • Lindfield, Dwelling house, 11 Grosvenor Road, Lot C, DP 364265, Local, I441
  • Lindfield, Dwelling house, 15 Grosvenor Road, Lot B, DP 363054, Local, I442
  • Lindfield, Dwelling house, 1 Highfield Road, Lot 1, DP 619255, Local, I38
  • Lindfield, Dwelling house, 6 Highfield Road, Lot 51, DP 133309; Lot 6, DP 2653, Local, I39
  • Lindfield, Dwelling house, 47 Highfield Road, Lot 1, SP 99702; Part of Lot 11, DP 1138930, Local, I443
  • Lindfield, Dwelling house, 22 Kenilworth Road, Lot 78, DP 6608, Local, I40
  • Lindfield, Dwelling house, 6 Lightcliff Avenue, Lot 3, DP 1061877, Local, I445
  • Lindfield, Dwelling house, 8 Lightcliff Avenue, Lot 4, DP 655054, Local, I446
  • Lindfield, Dwelling house, 12 Lightcliff Avenue, Lot 6, DP 8597, Local, I447
  • Lindfield, Dwelling house, 14 Lightcliff Avenue, Lot 7, DP 8597, Local, I448
  • Lindfield, Dwelling house, 19 Lightcliff Avenue, Lot 9, DP 8597; Lot B, DP 356699, Local, I449
  • Lindfield, Dwelling house, 3 Lindel Place, Lot 4, DP 233274, Local, I450
  • Lindfield, Dwelling house, 4 Lindel Place, Lot 31, DP 554288, Local, I451
  • Lindfield, Lindfield Railway Station Group, Lindfield Avenue, Part of Lot 1, DP 1131000, Local, I1109
  • Lindfield, Commercial block, 1–21 Lindfield Avenue, Lots 1–7, DP 17409 and Lot 1, DP 1264670, Local, I41
  • Lindfield, “Laurabada”, dwelling house, 9 Middle Harbour Road, Lot 6, DP 4665, Local, I42
  • Lindfield, Dwelling house, 31 Middle Harbour Road, Lot 3, DP 186607, Local, I43
  • Lindfield, Dwelling house, 32A Middle Harbour Road, Lot 4, DP 17373, Local, I453
  • Lindfield, Dwelling house, 34 Middle Harbour Road, Lot 5, DP 17373, Local, I452
  • Lindfield, Dwelling house, 9 Nelson Road, Lot 1, DP 525755, Local, I454
  • Lindfield, Dwelling house, 15 Nelson Road, Lot A, DP 359051, Local, I455
  • Lindfield, Dwelling house, 31 Nelson Road, Lots 4 and 5, DP 5168, Local, I457
  • Lindfield, Federation bungalow, 33 Nelson Road, Lot 6, DP 5168, Local, I458
  • Lindfield, “Fieldhead”, dwelling house, 42 Nelson Road, Lot 156, DP 6608, Local, I44
  • Lindfield, Dwelling house, 43 Nelson Road, Lots 11 and 12, DP 1012827, Local, I459
  • Lindfield, Dwelling house, 44 Nelson Road, Lot 155, DP 6608, Local, I45
  • Lindfield, Dwelling house, 50 Nelson Road, Lot 152, DP 6608, Local, I46
  • Lindfield, Dwelling house, 1 Ortona Road, Lot B, DP 343102, Local, I460
    Lindfield, “Heilbron”, dwelling house, 2 Ortona Road, Lot A, DP 334595, Local, I461
  • Lindfield, “Rathlyn”, dwelling house, 5 Ortona Road, Lot 1, DP 334136, Local, I462
  • Lindfield, Dwelling house, 270 Pacific Highway, Lot 1, DP 874953, Local, I47
  • Lindfield, Commercial building—Churchers Restaurant, 386–390 Pacific Highway, Lot 12, DP 629035, Local, I48
  • Lindfield, Dwelling house, 25–27 Polding Road, Lot A, DP 343615, Local, I465
  • Lindfield, Dwelling house, 7 Provincial Road, Lot 1, DP 923281, Local, I467
  • Lindfield, Dwelling house, 78 Provincial Road, Lot 57, DP 660952, Local, I468
  • Lindfield, Dwelling house, 88 Provincial Road, Lot A, DP, 60537, Local, I469
  • Lindfield Dwelling house, 114A Provincial Road, Lot 30, DP 15246; Lot 1, DP 329638, Local, I470
  • Lindfield Dwelling house, 19 Russell Avenue, Lot 20, DP 4215, Local, I49
  • Lindfield, Dwelling house, 22 Russell Avenue, Lot B, DP, 60135, Local, I50
  • Lindfield, Dwelling house, 6 Treatts Road, Lot 7, DP 4145, Local, I472
  • Lindfield, “Mignon”, dwelling house, 8 Treatts Road, Lot A, DP 302180, Local, I473
  • Lindfield, Dwelling house, 23 Treatts Road, Lot 1, DP 456178; Lot 67, DP 6608, Local, I51
  • Lindfield, “Northhaven” (formerly Rosebank), dwelling house, 26 Treatts Road, Lot B, DP 82429, Local, I474
  • Lindfield, “Treetops”, dwelling house, 42 Treatts Road, Lot A, DP 329281; Lot B, DP 359487, Local, I475
  • Lindfield, Dwelling house, 45 Treatts Road, Lot 148, DP 6608, Local, I52
  • Lindfield, “Coromandel”, dwelling house, 47 Treatts Road, Lot 149, DP 6608, Local, I53
  • Lindfield, Dwelling house, 50 Treatts Road, Lot A, DP 318483, Local, I476
  • Lindfield, “Brenchley”, dwelling house, 56 Treatts Road, Lot 1, DP 330347, Local, I477
  • Lindfield, St Alban’s Anglican Church, 1–5 Tryon Road, Lots 1 and 2, DP 501299, Local, I55
  • Lindfield, Lindfield Uniting Church, 33 Tryon Road, Lot 1, DP 724802; Lot 22, DP 3210, State, I54
  • Lindfield, Dwelling house, 49 Tryon Road, Lot 1, DP 579689, Local, I478
  • Lindfield, Dwelling house, 1 Valley Road, Lot A, DP 344051, Local, I479
  • Lindfield, “Hazeldean”, dwelling house, 3 Valley Road, Lot F, DP 408161, Local, I480
  • Lindfield, Dwelling house, 6 Valley Road, Lot 37, DP 3210; Lot 138, DP 456173, Local, I481
  • Lindfield, Dwelling house, 4 Waimea Road, Lot 23, DP, 667016, Local, I482
  • Lindfield, Dwelling house, 6 Waimea Road, Part of Lot B, DP 332267, Local, I483
  • Lindfield, Dwelling house, 17 Waimea Road, Lot 11, Section 2, DP 5653, Local, I56
  • Lindfield, Dwelling house, 23 Waimea Road, Lot 15, DP 1296801, Local, I485
  • Lindfield, “The Glen”, dwelling house, 2 Westbourne Road, Lot 1, DP 955268; Lot 822, DP 752031, Local, I57
  • Lindfield Dwelling house, 25 Westbourne Road Lot 21, DP 13028; Lot B, DP 378817, Local I487



References

Overview of Council response to NSW Government planning reforms

In December 2023, the NSW Government announced a range of major planning reforms to deliver additional housing.

This included:

Ku-ring-gai Council expressed concern that the proposed one-size-fits-all reforms would have a range of unnecessary and unwanted impacts on the Ku-ring-gai Council area, particularly in relation to Ku-ring-gai’s environment and heritage and the strain on existing infrastructure and facilities.

Submission

In February 2024, Council lodged a submission on the reforms.

Council work since this time

Since this time, Council has been undertaking a series of actions to plan for additional housing, which considers community feedback and responds to Ku-ring-gai’s unique local area.

These actions include:

Council also took legal action against the TOD policy. 

independent-heritage-advice-to-ku-ring-ai-council-housing-reforms-and-tod-seppDownload

appendix-4-land-eco-consulting-independent-assessment-of-potential-ecological-impacts (1)Download





Stay in Touch

Sign up for FOKE E-News HERE

info@foke.org.au

https://www.facebook.com/friendsofkuringgai/