Residential development with in-fill affordable housing, 16-24 Lord Street & 21-27 Roseville Avenue, Roseville

This is a preliminary submission. It may be supplemented. The proposal should be refused for reasons including because it is against the public interest because:
1. The Minister and the Department have said contributory items are not to be demolished and, contrary to that position, the proposal proposes the demolition of contributory items. The proponent's heritage report is inconsistent with heritage reports prepared for and on behalf of the existing registered proprietors of the subject properties when those proprietors have lodged past development applications. That is, the proponent purports to dismiss the properties as non contributory when that is entirely inconsistent with what the current registered proprietors have said about the contribution of their properties. See for example Statement of Heritage Impact for 22 Lord Street Roseville regarding DA0199 and Addendum; Statement of Heritage Impact for 24 Lord Street Roseville prepared by Darren Campbell Architect in relation to DA269_13; and Heritage Impact Statement prepared by Wisden Architects for DA 115/17 (for property in vicinity). The assessing team should seek from the applicant all heritage impact statements prepared by current and former registered proprietors in respect of the subject properties since 2010. The assessing team should seek information from the applicant regarding whether any of the registered proprietors have sought heritage home grant funds from Kuringai Council in the last 15 years (which is reserved for items or contributory properties).

2. Views to and from heritage items are to be preserved and, contrary to that position, the views to and from heritage items on Roseville Avenue, Lord Street and Bancfroft Avenue are not preserved. In this regard, the application represents some views from some properties but does not show the scale of the view affected to and from heritage items in the vicinity of the proposal. Although, that in itself shows the bulk and scale of the project in that all that can be shown by the proponent in its view from 17 Lord is the first few floors - probably only half of the view. THe proponent knows the mammoth block rises from the ground to the sky obscuring the view as if it was the moon eclipsing the sun.
3. The Minister and the Department have explicitly said that any development in an HCA (as well as not involving removal of contributory items) needs to improve and enhance the heritage values of the location. The proposal does not do that. There is no attempt to do that.
4. The Government's own guidance says that new design in heritage areas would need to "relate to the predominant scale and grain of the setting….New infill buildings should generally be no higher than neighbouring heritage buildings” (See page 24 at this link Design Guide for Heritage (nsw.gov.au) which is referred to Guidance to Transport Oriented Development (nsw.gov.au) at page 11.) This guidance also makes plain "Infill design should recognise the predominant scale (height, bulk, density, grain) of the setting and then respond sympathetically. The impact of an inappropriately scaled building cannot be compensated for by building form, design or detailing." See page 19 of Design in context: Guidelines for infill development in the historic environment (nsw.gov.au). Contrary to that requirement, the design does not at all reflect the predominant scale - garden settings of 1 and 2 storey buildings.
5. The supporting material provides unsatisfactory assurance and is heavily qualified in relation to engineering and affordable housing. The assessing team could not be satisfied that the project is permissible or possible from an engineering perspective.
6. So far as it is said that the development represents the future development of the area, that is false as is it fails to recognise 1) council's preferred scenario which will exclude the area; 2) development constraints of the metro tunnell; 3 development requirements in the vicinity of heritage items. Put simply, it is disingenuous to suggest that the development scale is ok because the rest of the area will be heavily developed. This was drawn to the attention of proponent and there was no response.
7. On communication, I am in the area said to be the subject of flyer drops. I received no such flyers. That raises a real concern in relation to whether the asserted communication occured as represented. That is a very serious matter. The failure to respond to community communications; the failure to consult effectively; and the concern that consultation did not occur as represented raises a real question as to whether it was in fact a properly lodged application. The failures in this regard is a factor relevant to public interest.
8. It is insufficient in relation to landscaping.
9. It will have an adverse impact upon the heritage significance of the heritage conservation area and heritage items in and around it.
10. This submission does not deal with all of the requirements a proponent is to satisfy. I encourage close and thorough review of the applicant's material as i have real concerns that incomplete, inaccurate or heavily qualified information is provided. I have raised examples of this in relation to engineering and community consulation and heritage reports. I would be pleased to provide further details.
11. I have concerns about parking and flooding.
12. The proposal should be refused. If not refused, heigh reduced dramatically and setbacks increased dramatically.
13. The above comments are on the assumption that Lord and Roseville Avenue remain included in TOD zones. If they are excluded, then the development will be entirely impermissible.

Sydney has an affordable housing crisis for which the solution is more medium density housing near train stations.
Roseville needs to contribute its fair share. Projects like this are exactly what Sydney needs.
The development will replace several old detached houses. That is fine. Roseville has thousands more like these -- but detached houses on large blocks should not be located near train stations. That is a wasteful use of valuable land.
i expect the new development will be accompanied by more shops and cafes and more frequent public transport -- as higher density usually is -- so neighbourhood amenity will increase.

Please do not make any long term decision on the project until the state and the council has reached an agreement as it will affect the long term living conditions of the flora, fauna and the existing residents as well as the heritage values of the area

This submission is in relation to: Residential Development with in-fill affordable housing, 16-24 Lord Street & 21-27 Roseville Avenue, Roseville (SSD- 78996460).
My name is: Robert Fredericks of 50 Bancroft Avenue Roseville.
The proposed Development is : approximately 200 metres from my residential Address.
My objection is: this application lodged under the TOD Scheme, should NOT in the public interest, be further progressed or determined until Council's preferred Scenario is resolved.
Further, please note that the residents of this address, including myself, did NOT receive Hyecorps community Flyer at any time. I was advised of the Development by a concerned neighbour.
Please note that finally, I have no objection to the TOD Scheme to create additional dwellings in Roseville, and I agree with the Councils preferred scenario, which will to a greater extent, maintain the integrity of our beautiful suburb. It would not be fair or in the best interests of the community to put this massive high rise development in an area which is not in the preferred scenario which has been carefully considered by the Council and the community. thank you and Regards, Robert Fredericks 0450 625 053

I have lived at 46 Lord St Roseville for 47 years and value the unique heritage conservation and the number of trees in the area. There has been a massive increase in traffic in recent years particularly affecting Pacific Highway to Archbold Rd via Clanville Rd bridge, Martin Lane and Lord St. The proposed development must, unequivocally, aggrevate this traffic congestion. Parking in Lord St is extremely difficult currently and we are very concerned this will be worse if the development proceeds.
The proposed 10 storey development will be surrounded by mostly one to two storey Federation houses, many of which will be affected by shadowing.
We are also very concerned about the effects on infrastructure such as stormwater drainage, power, sewerage etc.
The treasured heritage listed scout hall would be totally overwhelmed by this huge building.
This TOD development also seems inappropriate due to the lack of major shopping outlets at Roseville.
I am not against an increase in population in the area (such as on Pacific Highway) but I believe this current proposal is totally inappropriate for the reasons outlined above.

I respectfully submit my personal objection to the proposed complex on the parcels currently occupied by fewer than thirty residents. My concerns focus on the public interest: critical infrastructure failure, environmental degradation, and irreversible damage to our Heritage Conservation Area’s character and culture.
1. Critical Infrastructure Overload & Public Safety Risks
– Road Network: Lord Street and Roseville Avenue, they are two-lane streets that have already experience severe gridlock during peak hours. Hundreds of additional vehicles will bring daily traffic to a standstill, delaying emergency services, public transit, and school buses.
– Utilities & Stormwater: Water mains, sewer lines, storm drains, and electrical transformers here are sized for low-density use. A sudden eightfold increase in residents will trigger frequent outages, sewage backups, flooding, and public-health hazards.
2. Environmental Degradation
– Loss of Green Space: Mature trees, permeable gardens, and local wildlife habitats will be removed or paved over, accelerating urban heat-island effects and diminishing air quality.
– Runoff & Pollution: Expanded impervious surfaces will increase stormwater runoff, carrying oil, sediment, and debris into nearby creeks and wetlands, harming aquatic ecosystems.
3. Destruction of Heritage Conservation Area
– Historic Streetscape: The proposal would superimpose a modern high-rise over single- and two-storey cottages, shattering the visual harmony and human scale that define our Heritage Conservation Area.
– Cultural Continuity: Traditions and community events tied to our historic setting will be displaced by a transient, high-density population, eroding the living history that enriches our city.
4. Construction & Operational Impacts
– Prolonged Disruption: Months of excavation, pile-driving, and demolition will generate dust, noise, and vibration, adversely affecting the health and well-being of residents, workers, and nearby schools.
– 24/7 Activity: Once occupied, continual deliveries, garbage collection, and mechanical systems will impose nonstop noise and light pollution.
For the sake of public welfare, environmental stewardship, and preservation of our city’s heritage, I urge the Commission to:
• Reject this application in its entirety.
• Enforce infrastructure-capacity and zoning guidelines that ensure responsible, sustainable development.
• Protect the integrity of our Heritage Conservation Area for current and future generations.
Thank you for your diligent consideration of this matter. I stand ready to provide any further information or testimony.

I am a resident of East Roseville and I strongly object to the proposed development on the following grounds:
1. Environmental destruction: loss of tree canopy, established gardens, impact on native wildlife
2. Visual impact: the height and size of the building is completely out of place in East Roseville. With one development, the suburb would be ruined.
3. Traffic and infrastructure impact: the small surburban streets of East Roseville are not suitable for an extra 315 car parking spaces. Add to this, local public schools are already full and overflowing.
4. The combination of these factors will lead to loss of value in our homes, damage to lifestyle and environment.

I am writing in support of this proposal. Roseville is a perfect spot for more in-fill housing, and desperately needs more affordable housing. Its location close to the train station and the shops make it ideal. My grandparents lived down the street so I know the area well. I am strongly in favour of this development.

I strongly object this large project due to below reasons.
1. The DA's material implies broad council support with minor suggestions, which can be quite misleading. The Ku-ring-gai council was actively seeking community feedback about 5 different planning scenarios yet finalized. Also, the preferred scenario council displayed on 31 Mar 2025 indicates no flat building allowed on this site. Therefore, I am questioning how the feedback is sought and the validity of this report. Not sure how to validate other components, but this critical component is not convening at all.
2. The proposed FSR 3.2 with 9 stores building, 250 unit is a huge project in this area. That is too much for this conservation area with many heritage items surrounded. This would raise all overshadowing, reducing solar access, traffic and parking issue, environment negative impact etc. They are the reasons why community don't opt this in council's feedback.
3. The stakeholder's engagement is not that representative, only some parties are involved. Whereas the council preferred scenario has adopted a comprehensive approach to get residents' feedback. The engagement level of this project is below the standard though it should be as it does have a much bigger impact for this suburb.
4. Approving this DA would set a negative precedent not only for these two streets but for the broader Roseville and Ku-ring-gai Conservation precincts, undermining the careful, community-driven approach to locally responsive planning.

Overall, this is one very problematic proposal. I respectfully request the State Government speak with Ku-ring-gai council, reject this project eventually.

Last but not least, can you please change the status of this SSD to 'exhibition' as it has started already?

Thank you.

If this project goes ahead, it will stick out, overlooking and overshadowing all around it. It does not fit in the council's proposed alternative of development which will meet the housing needs without affecting this part of Roseville.

I enthusiastically support this development for the following reasons:
There is a housing crisis in Sydney, and projects like this are needed to address the issue;
There is a shortage of affordable housing for critical workers within Ku-ring-gai, and projects like this are needed to address the issue;
The project is well located, being a three-minute walk to Roseville station. Sydney needs more well-located homes near to transport hubs like this to alleviate the strain on the road network;
The façade has been well designed, is aesthetically attractive, and will contribute positively to the character and value of the surrounding area;
The retention of significant trees on site together with the addition of new trees, will result in a tree canopy of 40% of the site, which is larger than the sites’ current tree canopy (32%). This should be applauded, and should become the benchmark that other projects seek to emulate;
There are no heritage items impacted by this project. According to the Heritage Impact Statement, the existing properties to be demolished have minimal heritage value as they have been substantially altered in appearance over many years;
Projects like this will have a positive impact on the viability of redeveloping the Hill Street retail precinct, which is in need of redevelopment as it is currently lacking in amenity and not fit for purpose;
The developer of the project has a strong track record and reputation on the north shore, and should be supported by government, council and the community in delivering projects of this quality.

We live across the road from the proposed development. The proposed project seems to be directly at odds with the broader TOD programme changes which have been proposed by Ku-Ring-Gai council, wherein the majority of the housing target has been redirected to other suburbs, mainly
Gordon. Accordingly, if the proposed project is approved in isolation, it will significantly affect the local area in and around Lord and Roseville streets, where there is presently not even low density development, let alone a project of this scale/magnitude which will take years and disrupt the local area in every way.

We strongly feel that this should not be a unilateral decision by the state and consultation with KRG council should be sought so the intent of the TOD programme is aligned with this development, which clearly it is presently not given the local council’s proposal.

If indeed the state believes that this development is aligned with the objectives of the TOD and the local area more broadly, then in this case a fast track to development for the immediate neighboring properties should be afforded so there is consistent application of the rules in the area.

In summary all we are asking for is consistency. If the intention for the area is for it to be high density residential, then the whole area should be as such (not what is being proposed by KRG and being reviewed by state) or if not, then the proposed development should be rejected.

I would be happy to discuss the matter further in person or by phone.

I support this proposal. This application will increase housing density in Sydney, which is the most efficient way to solve the housing crisis.

Please see documents (in Word and PDF) attached

Subject: Objection to SSD-78996460 – Proposed Development at 16–24 Lord Street & 21–27 Roseville Avenue, Roseville NSW 2069

To Whom It May Concern,

I am writing to formally object to the State Significant Development (SSD-78996460) application for the proposed residential development at 16–24 Lord Street and 21–27 Roseville Avenue, Roseville. While the intention to provide affordable housing is commendable, I believe the scale and nature of this development are incompatible with the character and heritage of the Roseville area.

1. Incompatibility with Local Heritage and Character

The proposed development's scale and design are inconsistent with the established low-density, heritage-rich character of Roseville. The area is known for its significant twentieth-century architecture and conservation efforts, which are at risk of being overshadowed by such large-scale developments. The introduction of a 10-storey building in this context could irreversibly alter the area's aesthetic and historical integrity.

In addition to this, as strict development rules imposed by Ku-ring-gai Council on residents living in both Heritage and Heritage Conservation Zones with the intention of protecting and conserving the heritage of the Roseville local area have been in place, many residents have spent significant amounts of hard earned money to comply. This development completely undermines these Council rules and the efforts and financial impacts these have caused the local families as they have worked together to come to a common balance to both improve their homes and retain the architectural heritage character of their community.

2. Overdevelopment and Infrastructure Strain

The proposal involves the consolidation of nine existing properties to create a high-density development. This level of intensification is concerning, as it will place unnecessary pressure on local infrastructure, including roads, public transport, and community services, which are already operating at capacity. The potential for increased traffic congestion and strain on public amenities warrants a thorough assessment. Given the proximity to local schools, this also poses a huge safety risk for families and their children with the increase in traffic and vehicles that would be using the local streets putting pressure on parking and access to local streets.

3. Environmental and Ecological Concerns

Roseville's natural environment, including local flora and fauna, contributes significantly to the area's appeal. A development of this magnitude could lead to the loss of green spaces and negatively impact local biodiversity. It is essential that any new development considers the ecological footprint and implements measures to mitigate environmental degradation.

4. Community Consultation and Engagement

There is a need for more comprehensive community consultation regarding this development. Residents and local stakeholders should have a meaningful opportunity to engage with the planning process and express their concerns. Transparent communication and consideration of community feedback are crucial in ensuring developments align with the values and needs of the local population.

Conclusion

While the provision of affordable housing is important, it should not come at the expense of the community's heritage, environmental integrity, and quality of life. I urge the Department of Planning and Environment to reconsider the proposed development in its current form and explore alternative solutions that balance housing needs with the preservation of Roseville's unique character.

Thank you for considering my submission.

Sincerely,

Mrs Naomi Reiter
14 McLeod Ave Roseville, NSW 2069
Ph: 0404 866 460

As a resident of Roseville, at this same address for 11 years, I feel as though I am in a good position to give feedback on this submission. My four children have attended and one currently attends a local school.
My husband and I chose to buy a heritage listed house and have spent much time and money restoring and enhancing this home and its gardens, as we love the area and respect the significance of the architecture.
I totally appreciate that we are very fortunate to live in such a beautiful suburb, conveniently located close to the railway line. I realise that Sydney needs more affordable housing in close proximity to public transport.
However, Roseville as it currently stands, cannot accomodate more cars and traffic. It is very difficult to drive in and out of Roseville in peak traffic times, as there are only a few local streets where we are able to turn onto a main road and these get highly congested with cars.
Roseville Avenue and Lord Street are already full of parked cars during the weekdays, as is particularly Martin Lane, where this development has been proposed. There was once an instance when my son was on the bus, on his way to Roseville Public School, headed down Martin Lane, when the bus driver asked him to exit the bus, to push the rear vision mirrors of the parked cars inwards, so the bus could fit down the street... he was seven years of age at that time!
The proposed Hyecorp development will increase the number of cars in these streets, which are already well past capacity.
The height of the proposed development is absolutely not in keeping with the area and will look ridiculously out of place.
The preferred scenario put forward by Kuringai Council will allow for more residents to enjoy living in this area of Sydney, whilst much better respecting the local environment.
The Hyecorp development is in are area which, if the preferred scenario is accepted, will remain as a 1-2 storey housing area.
There are many other parcels of land, closer to the Pacific Highway, which will much better accomodate such a development, and these should be explored.

I strongly object to the proposed development at 6-24 Lord Street & 21-27 Roseville Avenue, Roseville. The apartment building, at 8 or 9 storeys, is out of character with Roseville's established houses and tree lined streets. We have seen many examples of ugly apartment developments in surrounding areas, and this proposal risks repeating those mistakes here. Approving this development will open the floodgates to ever more aesthetically jarring development ultimately reshaping the suburb into something bland and homogenised, like so many other areas of Sydney.

Re: Residential development with in-fill affordable housing, 16-24 Lord Street and 21-27 Roseville Avenue, Roseville (SSD-78996460)

Dear Minister,
I am writing to object to the SSD application pertaining to 16-24 Lord Street and 21-27 Roseville Avenue (SSD-78996460) submitted by Hyecorp developments and urge the minister to wait until an agreement is reached between Kuringai council and the State Government in regards to future planning of the area including the necessary numbers of housing, affordable housing and infrastructure to support the proposed and necessary resulting increase in the population of the local area. I live in Roseville and whilst my home is not within the 400m current TOD boundary nor directly impacted by the development my concerns are for the impacts and amenity on the area generally and are as follows.

Traffic impacts:
The Hyecorp SSD proposed development is located at an area of Roseville that is already choked with traffic at peak hour and school drop off/pick up times and Martin Lane, which borders the proposed development, being a particularly narrow and dangerous street already regularly is restricted to 1 lane at a time due to commuter parking on both sides of the street. Martin lane is a significant rat- run to both Boundary street and Archibald Road. Access to the main city routes of Pacific highway, Boundary street or Archibald road are already severely compromised from this small east side pocket of Roseville and queues of cars line up for considerable time in Hill street and Clanville Roads during the morning peak hours in attempts to access the main roads. A significant increase in population in this pocket will create even more gridlock and safety concerns for motorists and in my opinion will be unsustainable.

Height and overshadowing:
The proposed 9 story development will completely overshadow neighbouring homes impacting privacy severely as well as negatively impacting the character of homes within a heritage conservation area.

Lack of community engagement or consultation:
I was unaware of the development by Hycorp. There has been no engagement with the community that I have been made aware of by Hyecorp and no opportunity to have a say on the size, scale and appearance of the development. I have not received any flyers or information from them even though my home is within reasonably close proximity to the development and will be impacted by the increase in construction vehicles during the building of the project and increases in traffic and loss of parking and general amenity once it has been completed. I was only made aware of the development recently after discussions with neighbours.

Impact on the heritage conservation area:
Kuringai council goes to great lengths to preserve the unique character of this and other areas recognised by being included in Heritage conservation zones. There have been strict guidelines imposed on all residents who live in these zones with regards to developing and altering the homes in order to preserve what is a unique pocket of early Australian architecture in Sydney. If we disregard these controls which have been put in place I feel we will lose significant history and heritage of Sydney represented by these homes. They are a unique glimpse of our past since federation and once they are demolished a huge chunk of our history and culture will be lost and never recovered. To me this is extremely sad and distressing. The SSD development will be grossly overbearing and with its flat roof and box like structure would add nothing to the architecture or character of the area whatsoever.

There are areas within Roseville, for example the strip that runs along both sides of the highway and also along Hill street that are already given over for commercial use or low level apartments with no character or heritage value that I believe would be more appropriate to be developed for affordable and increased housing. I urge that the SSD be refused and that developers are required to wait until council and the state government reach an agreement on an alternate plan to provide the same number of dwellings required but with less impact on the cultural, environmental and heritage value of the area as well as planning and providing facilities and infrastructure to support the needs of the increased population in the area.

Just another effort by a dictatorial state government in destroying the community and culture of Roseville. I object to the proposed development in Lord street and Roseville Avenue Roseville. My reasons for objecting are increased traffic, soft surfaces for trees, storm water and sewerage capacity.
Flora and Fauna destruction in this area, loss of amenity, flow of water over riparian land and privacy.
The quality of the affordable housing being questionable.
This development would place increased strain on occupants and overcrowding.

I and my family strongly object to the development of the proposed Residential development with in-fill affordable housing, 16-24 Lord Street & 21-27 Roseville Avenue, Roseville (SSD-78996460)

This project will not benefit Roseville residents nor the people who may want to reside.
- This application lodged under the TOD scheme, should NOT in the public interest, be further progressed or determined until Council’s Preferred Scenario is resolved.
- Even we are at Lord street (same street), we never received any flyers/ brochures regarding to this project/planning until neighbour mentioned to us. We never received any information / communication regarding to this application even at same street.
- Lots of houses in Roseville are heritage. We love the area with heritage buildings and leafy trees. This project will destroy many established trees significantly causing destruction of native species and obviously greatly impacting the natural landscape.
- East side of Roseville Station is with one story or 2 stories houses. This project has excessive height and is of poor design. It will cause significant overshadowing to adjacent homes and streets. The site is in the middle of three heritage conservation areas, with 54 heritage listed houses nearby; more like an isolated island surrounded by 1-2 storey houses totally changed the Suburb’s character. The tall building impacts on overshadowing, privacy, solar access, streetscape to the nearby or surrounding neighbourhood.
- Local Traffic nightmare. Local streets and lanes are already jammed at peak hour. Hardly find parking on working days on Lord street and Roseville Ave already. Martins Lane is a very narrow street fully parked during working days.
At Peak hour, it is long queue to get out from Roseville Key intersections- eg. Hight street North Bond left turn to Pacific highway; high street South bond left turn to Boundary st; Bancroft Ave, East Bond to Archbold Rd, all busy! (Photos attached taking 14/05 Wednesday morning around 7:10am) Lord street both side all fully parked.
- Local Public school is already crowded and struggle with capacity.
- Impact on local drainage, stormwater run-off, water pressure, sewerage, power, etc
- The project appears to have been no/very less consultation with residents in the area and the issues I have outlined appear to have not been fully considered or addressed.