State Significant Development
Response to Submissions
Residential development with in-fill affordable housing, 16-24 Lord Street & 21-27 Roseville Avenue, Roseville
Ku-ring-gai
Current Status: Response to Submissions
Interact with the stages for their names
- SEARs
- Prepare EIS
- Exhibition
- Collate Submissions
- Response to Submissions
- Assessment
- Recommendation
- Determination
Want to stay updated on this project?
Residential flat building development with in-fill affordable housing
Attachments & Resources
Notice of Exhibition (1)
Request for SEARs (3)
SEARs (2)
EIS (38)
Exhibition (1)
Response to Submissions (1)
Agency Advice (8)
Submissions
Showing 21 - 40 of 400 submissions
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
ROSEVILLE
,
New South Wales
Message
Please see my objection letter attached.
Attachments
Yin Cheng
Object
Yin Cheng
Object
ROSEVILLE
,
New South Wales
Message
I 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)
We don't believe this project will benefit for local Roseville East side residents.
- We bought the house End of Aug 2024 because the nice heritage street, leafy trees, natural environment and quiet neighbourhood. Roseville East side is a small community but warm. We would prefer this kind of area to raise our children.
- 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.
- We bought the house last year however we didn't receive any flyers/ brochures related to this project/planning until neighbour talking to us. We never received any information / communication related to this application even at same street.
- Roseville has a few heritage streets so did Roseville Ave and Lord street. This project will destroy many established trees significantly causing destruction of native species and obviously greatly impacting the natural landscape.
- 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 issue. Local streets and lanes are already packed at peak hour. Roseville Ave and Lord street are fully parked on working days already. Also Martin's Lane. We can't imagine there are 200 Units more living residents how we could cope on the narrow street.
At Peak hour morning and evening, there are always long queue 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, full of cars and always traffic at peak hour!
- 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.
- Hope our voice can be heard and hope to keep our community as it is.
We don't believe this project will benefit for local Roseville East side residents.
- We bought the house End of Aug 2024 because the nice heritage street, leafy trees, natural environment and quiet neighbourhood. Roseville East side is a small community but warm. We would prefer this kind of area to raise our children.
- 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.
- We bought the house last year however we didn't receive any flyers/ brochures related to this project/planning until neighbour talking to us. We never received any information / communication related to this application even at same street.
- Roseville has a few heritage streets so did Roseville Ave and Lord street. This project will destroy many established trees significantly causing destruction of native species and obviously greatly impacting the natural landscape.
- 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 issue. Local streets and lanes are already packed at peak hour. Roseville Ave and Lord street are fully parked on working days already. Also Martin's Lane. We can't imagine there are 200 Units more living residents how we could cope on the narrow street.
At Peak hour morning and evening, there are always long queue 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, full of cars and always traffic at peak hour!
- 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.
- Hope our voice can be heard and hope to keep our community as it is.
Jason Lowe
Object
Jason Lowe
Object
ROSEVILLE
,
New South Wales
Message
I object to this development proposal. Please find attached my letter outlining the rationale for my objection to this development proposal.
Attachments
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
ROSEVILLE
,
New South Wales
Message
Please refer to Word document attached. It includes my entire submission.
Attachments
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
ROSEVILLE
,
New South Wales
Message
Re: Residential development with in-fill affordable housing, 16-24 Lord Street & 21-27 Roseville Avenue, Roseville (SSD-78996460)”
I am writing to object to the SSD-78996460 development.
I am a local resident in Roseville at 350 metres from the proposed Hyecorp development. I am writing to oppose the development application of Hyecorp on Lord Street/Roseville Avenue, Roseville. Housing uplift as well as providing affordable housing are important goals for our future strategy at all levels of government. This can be achieved with the same amount of housing uplift in Ku-Ringai council through thoughtful sites selection that takes into account local variations of heritage, road facility support and topography. There is currently active development and pending submission of Kuringai Council’s preferred scenario for TOD proposal. Hyecorp development has significant issues which are presented in the attached PDF
I am writing to object to the SSD-78996460 development.
I am a local resident in Roseville at 350 metres from the proposed Hyecorp development. I am writing to oppose the development application of Hyecorp on Lord Street/Roseville Avenue, Roseville. Housing uplift as well as providing affordable housing are important goals for our future strategy at all levels of government. This can be achieved with the same amount of housing uplift in Ku-Ringai council through thoughtful sites selection that takes into account local variations of heritage, road facility support and topography. There is currently active development and pending submission of Kuringai Council’s preferred scenario for TOD proposal. Hyecorp development has significant issues which are presented in the attached PDF
Attachments
Sydney YIMBY
Support
Sydney YIMBY
Support
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
ROSEVILLE
,
New South Wales
Message
This application under the TOD scheme should not, in the publics interest, be further progressed or determined until council's prefered scenario is resolved.
I have not received information from Hyecorp.
I have major concerns regarding the height and size of this project. Traffic is also a major concern.
The demolition of 9 houses and up to 91 trees is just so sad....
The negative impact caused by such a development is huge.
I DO NOT SUPPORT this development.
I have not received information from Hyecorp.
I have major concerns regarding the height and size of this project. Traffic is also a major concern.
The demolition of 9 houses and up to 91 trees is just so sad....
The negative impact caused by such a development is huge.
I DO NOT SUPPORT this development.
Name Withheld
Support
Name Withheld
Support
EPPING
,
New South Wales
Message
I strongly support this proposal.
The reason as to why are the following
1. I support this proposal as it is close to public transportation and shops. We need more housing supply as we are in a housing crisis.
2. It is excellent to see what seems to be almost an all electric building, saving future residents money & also reducing dependency and use of fossil fuels. I suggest that the gas boosting of the hot water heat pumps be revisited and replaced with a non-gas boosted option.
The reason as to why are the following
1. I support this proposal as it is close to public transportation and shops. We need more housing supply as we are in a housing crisis.
2. It is excellent to see what seems to be almost an all electric building, saving future residents money & also reducing dependency and use of fossil fuels. I suggest that the gas boosting of the hot water heat pumps be revisited and replaced with a non-gas boosted option.
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
ROSEVILLE
,
New South Wales
Message
Re: Objection to Residential Development with In-fill Affordable Housing at 16–24 Lord Street and 21–27 Roseville Avenue, Roseville (SSD-78996460)
As a resident on Roseville Avenue, I wish to formally object to the proposed development. The scale of this project raises serious concerns about its impact on local traffic, particularly on the east side of Roseville.
The surrounding streets are not designed to accommodate the significant increase in vehicle numbers that this development or any large scale future developments would generate. With 344 basement car parking spaces planned for this development, there will likely be a substantial rise in traffic volume. The car park entrance proposed on Lord Street would direct vehicles towards Martin Lane for going to and from Lindfield. This narrow lane is frequently reduced to a single lane due to street parking, especially on weekdays. As a result, vehicles tend to queue along both Lord street and Roseville Avenue.
In addition, traffic exiting east side of Roseville primarily rely on Hill Street, which connects to both Pacific Highway and Boundary Street. These two intersections are already heavily congested during morning peak hours and again from 5pm onwards. The short traffic light cycle at the Hill Street–Pacific Highway junction exacerbates delays, causing traffic to back up along Hill Street. A similar situation exists at the Boundary Street intersection.
While the Environmental Impact Statement provided by Hyecorp may deem this development feasible, it does not adequately consider the cumulative effect of similar future developments planned in Roseville under the TOD. The current road infrastructure on the east side of Roseville is not equipped to handle such increased demand.
As a resident on Roseville Avenue, I wish to formally object to the proposed development. The scale of this project raises serious concerns about its impact on local traffic, particularly on the east side of Roseville.
The surrounding streets are not designed to accommodate the significant increase in vehicle numbers that this development or any large scale future developments would generate. With 344 basement car parking spaces planned for this development, there will likely be a substantial rise in traffic volume. The car park entrance proposed on Lord Street would direct vehicles towards Martin Lane for going to and from Lindfield. This narrow lane is frequently reduced to a single lane due to street parking, especially on weekdays. As a result, vehicles tend to queue along both Lord street and Roseville Avenue.
In addition, traffic exiting east side of Roseville primarily rely on Hill Street, which connects to both Pacific Highway and Boundary Street. These two intersections are already heavily congested during morning peak hours and again from 5pm onwards. The short traffic light cycle at the Hill Street–Pacific Highway junction exacerbates delays, causing traffic to back up along Hill Street. A similar situation exists at the Boundary Street intersection.
While the Environmental Impact Statement provided by Hyecorp may deem this development feasible, it does not adequately consider the cumulative effect of similar future developments planned in Roseville under the TOD. The current road infrastructure on the east side of Roseville is not equipped to handle such increased demand.
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
Roseville
,
New South Wales
Message
The area is a very nice and peaceful area, the apartment will make it over crowded, it is not beside of the railway, it is in the middle of Roseville, will make the traffic hard, there is also a age care center, the apartment is too noisy to the old people!
Brooke Younger
Object
Brooke Younger
Object
ROSEVILLE
,
New South Wales
Message
⸻
To Whom It May Concern,
I am writing to formally object to the proposed development titled Residential development with in-fill affordable housing located at 16–24 Lord Street & 21–27 Roseville Avenue, Roseville.
This development is not in keeping with the existing character and heritage of the Roseville and Lindfield community. Our suburb is defined by its quiet streets, Federation and character homes, and strong village atmosphere. The introduction of high-density or in-fill developments in this particular location threatens to erode the area’s distinct charm, replacing historical streetscapes with structures that do not reflect the architectural identity or lifestyle of the community.
Furthermore, the proposal raises significant concerns regarding traffic and infrastructure. Increased density at this scale will undoubtedly lead to a higher volume of vehicles, which will cause congestion and safety issues, particularly around local schools and residential streets that are not designed to support such capacity.
Our public infrastructure is already under strain. Lindfield Public School, for example, operates on a limited land footprint and is already at capacity. Public schools in the broader area are bursting at the seams, and day care places are extremely difficult to obtain. Adding more families to the area without expanding education and childcare infrastructure places an unfair burden on local residents and diminishes quality of life for all.
Additionally, the Roseville shopping precinct is a small, beloved village centre that is already at full capacity in terms of service demand. On weekends and even weekday mornings, it is difficult to get a seat for breakfast or coffee. There is no room for meaningful expansion of this precinct, and increased demand will significantly impact access for current residents.
This development also poses a serious concern in terms of sustainability and environmental impact. The removal of existing green spaces, mature trees, and established gardens to accommodate in-fill housing directly contradicts the principles of sustainable urban development. Green spaces are essential for biodiversity, stormwater absorption, reducing heat island effects, and supporting mental wellbeing. Rather than promoting long-term ecological health and resilience, this development contributes to urban sprawl and environmental degradation.
Finally, this development contributes to the ongoing loss of heritage housing in the area. Over recent years, we have already seen a troubling trend of historically significant homes being demolished. Losing more of these structures would be an irreplaceable loss to our community’s identity and to the local history we take pride in preserving.
For these reasons, I respectfully request that Council reject this development proposal. We urge you to consider more community-sensitive alternatives that protect the character of our suburb, support sustainable growth, and address infrastructure shortfalls before approving further residential expansion.
Sincerely,
Brooke Younger
To Whom It May Concern,
I am writing to formally object to the proposed development titled Residential development with in-fill affordable housing located at 16–24 Lord Street & 21–27 Roseville Avenue, Roseville.
This development is not in keeping with the existing character and heritage of the Roseville and Lindfield community. Our suburb is defined by its quiet streets, Federation and character homes, and strong village atmosphere. The introduction of high-density or in-fill developments in this particular location threatens to erode the area’s distinct charm, replacing historical streetscapes with structures that do not reflect the architectural identity or lifestyle of the community.
Furthermore, the proposal raises significant concerns regarding traffic and infrastructure. Increased density at this scale will undoubtedly lead to a higher volume of vehicles, which will cause congestion and safety issues, particularly around local schools and residential streets that are not designed to support such capacity.
Our public infrastructure is already under strain. Lindfield Public School, for example, operates on a limited land footprint and is already at capacity. Public schools in the broader area are bursting at the seams, and day care places are extremely difficult to obtain. Adding more families to the area without expanding education and childcare infrastructure places an unfair burden on local residents and diminishes quality of life for all.
Additionally, the Roseville shopping precinct is a small, beloved village centre that is already at full capacity in terms of service demand. On weekends and even weekday mornings, it is difficult to get a seat for breakfast or coffee. There is no room for meaningful expansion of this precinct, and increased demand will significantly impact access for current residents.
This development also poses a serious concern in terms of sustainability and environmental impact. The removal of existing green spaces, mature trees, and established gardens to accommodate in-fill housing directly contradicts the principles of sustainable urban development. Green spaces are essential for biodiversity, stormwater absorption, reducing heat island effects, and supporting mental wellbeing. Rather than promoting long-term ecological health and resilience, this development contributes to urban sprawl and environmental degradation.
Finally, this development contributes to the ongoing loss of heritage housing in the area. Over recent years, we have already seen a troubling trend of historically significant homes being demolished. Losing more of these structures would be an irreplaceable loss to our community’s identity and to the local history we take pride in preserving.
For these reasons, I respectfully request that Council reject this development proposal. We urge you to consider more community-sensitive alternatives that protect the character of our suburb, support sustainable growth, and address infrastructure shortfalls before approving further residential expansion.
Sincerely,
Brooke Younger
Samantha Hellen
Object
Samantha Hellen
Object
ROSEVILLE
,
New South Wales
Message
Please refer attached for my submission opposing SSD-78996460 (16–24 Lord Street & 21–27 Roseville Avenue, Roseville).
Attachments
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
ROSEVILLE
,
New South Wales
Message
I strongly object to this project in this delicate area. Low lying, opposite a church, on a very very narrow street with very narrow street access at the cross road. Very bad traffic already along Hill St towards Boundary St and the narrow streets running down to Archbold cannot handle more traffic. Too high for the area, not right at all.
Helen Coolican
Object
Helen Coolican
Object
ROSEVILLE
,
New South Wales
Message
Re: Residential development with in-fill affordable housing, 16-24 Lord Street & 21-27 Roseville Avenue, Roseville. (SSD-78996460)
I live in Oliver Road, Roseville, one block directly opposite the proposed development and I strongly object to the Hyecorp proposal. I have deep concerns regarding the TOD proposal introduced just prior to Christmas 2023, which I outline in greater detail below. This development was advanced without any prior community consultation. Our objections to both the timing and the undemocratic process led to the opportunity for the community to contribute to a Council Preferred Scenario. It is not in the public interest for this application to proceed further until that scenario has been fully resolved.
Lack of Communication
At no point have I received information from Hyecorp, nor have I been contacted by representatives acting on their behalf. My observations and objections are based on the documentation available via the NSW Planning Portal.
Building Height & Overshadowing
The proposed blocks will significantly overshadow surrounding single- and double-storey homes. The upper four floors will introduce extensive night time light pollution and privacy concerns due to their large windows. Given restrictions on building near the Metro, this development will stand disproportionately tall—well above the established tree canopy that defines our neighbourhood’s visual character.
Traffic & Access Concerns
Roseville already suffers from limited entry and exit points. Congestion is a routine issue at Clanville Road and the Pacific Highway, Hill Street, and Boundary Road—while side streets only allow left turns. These constraints also compromise emergency vehicle access, as I personally experienced on July 9th, 2010.
Parking congestion around the station is already severe, as confirmed in Hyecorp’s own supporting application photographs. Buses and trucks often have to reverse due to meeting oncoming traffic in parked-out streets. Victoria Street in particular, becomes impassable during Roseville College’s pick-up and drop-off times. The addition of 309 resident and 35 visitor car spaces will only exacerbate safety risks for schoolchildren and pedestrians.
Public Transport Limitations
During peak hours, trains do not consistently stop at Roseville. Commuters already overflow into local streets to access the Metro at Chatswood, and no plans exist to address this issue through commuter parking or improved infrastructure. This intensifies stress for local families trying to meet daily commitments.
Absence of Community Engagement
As a long-term local resident directly affected by this development, I was not consulted by Hyecorp nor invited to participate in a community drop-in session or survey. It is troubling that the Social Impact Statement prepared by GYDE is based on feedback from only 34 survey participants and five drop-in attendees—some of whom may have participated in both. Even so, Table 16 of the Engagement Outputs reflects many community objections that remain insufficiently addressed.
Inadequate Infrastructure Planning
Chatswood High School is already operating 240 students over capacity (SMH, May 18th, 2025), and no plan has been proposed to accommodate the additional students that this development will bring. GP appointment wait times suggest a local doctor shortage, which the RACGP has flagged will worsen as a third of the workforce plans to retire within five years.
The influx of delivery vehicles (Coles, Woolworths, Amazon, etc.) will further clog our streets and compete for limited driveway access with the 305 proposed resident vehicles. Rubbish collection for 259 apartments will increase noise and reduce local amenity.
Water pressure in the area is already low, and there are no plans to upgrade sewer or stormwater infrastructure. The development site sits low on the slope and is adjacent to Moore Creek, which has a history of stormwater issues and flooding.
Environmental & Acoustic Impact
Air conditioning units will be essential in these apartments—especially the 103 units lacking cross-ventilation—further increasing ambient noise. URBIS’ inclusion of double glazing in the design appears to acknowledge the noise impact.
The green streetscape will be further degraded by the loss of existing front gardens while street trees that are regularly lopped due to overhead wires, cannot contribute to the missing canopy of 91 trees.
There has also been no consultation on noise or vibration damage during construction, which is a significant concern as many homes have sandstone footings built on clay soil.
A Call for Better Planning
I understand the need for more housing. Like many families, we support multiple generations under one roof. Sydney has a long history of repurposing existing buildings—such as old terraces and warehouses—for modern living. Why can’t we envision a future that respects our architectural heritage instead of erasing it? Must we demolish cohesive 20th-century Federation homes to move forward?
Our Shared Legacy
We live in a lovingly restored 1916 California bungalow with original Federation features—rimu timber floors, period doors, stained glass windows and handcrafted woodwork. The home overlooks a canopy of gums, jacarandas, camellias, and an ancient persimmon tree. Our street is a haven for wildlife, including magpies, king parrots, tawny owls, bush turkeys, and blue tongue lizards.
This is not just my home—it’s part of a larger heritage community, including three conservation areas and 54 heritage houses. The destruction of 91 trees and 9 homes to make way for this development would erase 125 years of cultural and environmental legacy. I fear that our home and others like it will become mere museums of a time when families had more opportunities and planners had greater vision.
Thank you for the opportunity to present a submission. I urge the NSW Department of Planning to reject or delay this application until meaningful community consultation is completed, infrastructure is reassessed, and the Council’s Preferred Scenario is finalised.
I live in Oliver Road, Roseville, one block directly opposite the proposed development and I strongly object to the Hyecorp proposal. I have deep concerns regarding the TOD proposal introduced just prior to Christmas 2023, which I outline in greater detail below. This development was advanced without any prior community consultation. Our objections to both the timing and the undemocratic process led to the opportunity for the community to contribute to a Council Preferred Scenario. It is not in the public interest for this application to proceed further until that scenario has been fully resolved.
Lack of Communication
At no point have I received information from Hyecorp, nor have I been contacted by representatives acting on their behalf. My observations and objections are based on the documentation available via the NSW Planning Portal.
Building Height & Overshadowing
The proposed blocks will significantly overshadow surrounding single- and double-storey homes. The upper four floors will introduce extensive night time light pollution and privacy concerns due to their large windows. Given restrictions on building near the Metro, this development will stand disproportionately tall—well above the established tree canopy that defines our neighbourhood’s visual character.
Traffic & Access Concerns
Roseville already suffers from limited entry and exit points. Congestion is a routine issue at Clanville Road and the Pacific Highway, Hill Street, and Boundary Road—while side streets only allow left turns. These constraints also compromise emergency vehicle access, as I personally experienced on July 9th, 2010.
Parking congestion around the station is already severe, as confirmed in Hyecorp’s own supporting application photographs. Buses and trucks often have to reverse due to meeting oncoming traffic in parked-out streets. Victoria Street in particular, becomes impassable during Roseville College’s pick-up and drop-off times. The addition of 309 resident and 35 visitor car spaces will only exacerbate safety risks for schoolchildren and pedestrians.
Public Transport Limitations
During peak hours, trains do not consistently stop at Roseville. Commuters already overflow into local streets to access the Metro at Chatswood, and no plans exist to address this issue through commuter parking or improved infrastructure. This intensifies stress for local families trying to meet daily commitments.
Absence of Community Engagement
As a long-term local resident directly affected by this development, I was not consulted by Hyecorp nor invited to participate in a community drop-in session or survey. It is troubling that the Social Impact Statement prepared by GYDE is based on feedback from only 34 survey participants and five drop-in attendees—some of whom may have participated in both. Even so, Table 16 of the Engagement Outputs reflects many community objections that remain insufficiently addressed.
Inadequate Infrastructure Planning
Chatswood High School is already operating 240 students over capacity (SMH, May 18th, 2025), and no plan has been proposed to accommodate the additional students that this development will bring. GP appointment wait times suggest a local doctor shortage, which the RACGP has flagged will worsen as a third of the workforce plans to retire within five years.
The influx of delivery vehicles (Coles, Woolworths, Amazon, etc.) will further clog our streets and compete for limited driveway access with the 305 proposed resident vehicles. Rubbish collection for 259 apartments will increase noise and reduce local amenity.
Water pressure in the area is already low, and there are no plans to upgrade sewer or stormwater infrastructure. The development site sits low on the slope and is adjacent to Moore Creek, which has a history of stormwater issues and flooding.
Environmental & Acoustic Impact
Air conditioning units will be essential in these apartments—especially the 103 units lacking cross-ventilation—further increasing ambient noise. URBIS’ inclusion of double glazing in the design appears to acknowledge the noise impact.
The green streetscape will be further degraded by the loss of existing front gardens while street trees that are regularly lopped due to overhead wires, cannot contribute to the missing canopy of 91 trees.
There has also been no consultation on noise or vibration damage during construction, which is a significant concern as many homes have sandstone footings built on clay soil.
A Call for Better Planning
I understand the need for more housing. Like many families, we support multiple generations under one roof. Sydney has a long history of repurposing existing buildings—such as old terraces and warehouses—for modern living. Why can’t we envision a future that respects our architectural heritage instead of erasing it? Must we demolish cohesive 20th-century Federation homes to move forward?
Our Shared Legacy
We live in a lovingly restored 1916 California bungalow with original Federation features—rimu timber floors, period doors, stained glass windows and handcrafted woodwork. The home overlooks a canopy of gums, jacarandas, camellias, and an ancient persimmon tree. Our street is a haven for wildlife, including magpies, king parrots, tawny owls, bush turkeys, and blue tongue lizards.
This is not just my home—it’s part of a larger heritage community, including three conservation areas and 54 heritage houses. The destruction of 91 trees and 9 homes to make way for this development would erase 125 years of cultural and environmental legacy. I fear that our home and others like it will become mere museums of a time when families had more opportunities and planners had greater vision.
Thank you for the opportunity to present a submission. I urge the NSW Department of Planning to reject or delay this application until meaningful community consultation is completed, infrastructure is reassessed, and the Council’s Preferred Scenario is finalised.
Suzanna Boyd
Object
Suzanna Boyd
Object
ROSEVILLE
,
New South Wales
Message
Re: Residential development with in-fill affordable housing, 16-24 Lord Street & 21-27 Roseville Avenue, Roseville (SSD-78996460)
My name is Suzanna Boyd and I live at 11 Lord Street Roseville which is across the road from the proposed development. I am supportive of an increase in density in Roseville and Kuringai.
I do however object to the proposal as listed for the following reasons.
- The council's Preferred Scenario will provide the required housing required by Government while preserving key community features for everyone. The Government says they are supportive of this approach. If the Hyecorp development is allowed, it will destroy what the council and government have agreed they are seeking to achieve.
- Hyecorp says they undertook a community consultation. We never received any communication or the invitation to the community drop-in sessions. The developer has not fulfilled its obligations under the process.
- Due to the metro under the east side of Roseville Station, only very limited numbers of blocks can support basements and multi storey development. This will create a very poor planning outcome with no transition between high rise and low rise. The community is significantly disadvantaged as some blocks receive massive upside and many downside as they are undevelopable. The council preferred scenario seeks to provide a better density outcome - 'density done well' - which is what I understand the government is trying to achieve
- traffic - it is already very difficult to get out of Roseville East in the morning and on weekends. There are very few exit points and they only allow very few cars at a time. Adding 300+ cars in this development will make it substantially worse.
- Martin Lane is already dysfunctional with only one lane of traffic available during week days due to parked cars. Adding ~250 apartments will materially increase the number of parked cars and traffic which will create gridlock in the neighbourhood.
- The Hyecorp EIS states the development fits in with the heritage environment of the neighbourhood. This is ludicrous. The proposal has sought to maximise FSR and height on boundaries. This destroys the heritage ascetic as well as sunlight due to the bulk and height.
My name is Suzanna Boyd and I live at 11 Lord Street Roseville which is across the road from the proposed development. I am supportive of an increase in density in Roseville and Kuringai.
I do however object to the proposal as listed for the following reasons.
- The council's Preferred Scenario will provide the required housing required by Government while preserving key community features for everyone. The Government says they are supportive of this approach. If the Hyecorp development is allowed, it will destroy what the council and government have agreed they are seeking to achieve.
- Hyecorp says they undertook a community consultation. We never received any communication or the invitation to the community drop-in sessions. The developer has not fulfilled its obligations under the process.
- Due to the metro under the east side of Roseville Station, only very limited numbers of blocks can support basements and multi storey development. This will create a very poor planning outcome with no transition between high rise and low rise. The community is significantly disadvantaged as some blocks receive massive upside and many downside as they are undevelopable. The council preferred scenario seeks to provide a better density outcome - 'density done well' - which is what I understand the government is trying to achieve
- traffic - it is already very difficult to get out of Roseville East in the morning and on weekends. There are very few exit points and they only allow very few cars at a time. Adding 300+ cars in this development will make it substantially worse.
- Martin Lane is already dysfunctional with only one lane of traffic available during week days due to parked cars. Adding ~250 apartments will materially increase the number of parked cars and traffic which will create gridlock in the neighbourhood.
- The Hyecorp EIS states the development fits in with the heritage environment of the neighbourhood. This is ludicrous. The proposal has sought to maximise FSR and height on boundaries. This destroys the heritage ascetic as well as sunlight due to the bulk and height.
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
ROSEVILLE
,
New South Wales
Message
Roseville Avenue is a quiet residential street with many heritage and character filled homes with established gardens. These homes are in excellent condition and they are sought after. There are no empty homes falling into disrepair so why should these homes be demolished, let alone for an apartment block to be plonked in the middle of the street? There are plenty of far more suitable sites along pacific highway for these types of development to take place. There are multiple old small 2 and 3 storey unit blocks that are in terrible condition that would be prime for re-development. Being on the highway they wouldn’t block local roads that are already incredibly congested with residents trying to access the highway. The highway is reasonably level, there are no big hills meaning residents of these developments could walk easily and safely to the train or access buses as well. Another option would be above shop fronts at Hill Street. This development would impede greatly on the streetscape, particularly on the direct neighbouring properties, and also on multiple heritage listed properties in close proximity. It does not fit within the local HCA context and will lessen the streets heritage charm. There is definitely an opportunity for developments in the suburb but not in the middle of a perfectly good street of quality houses that plenty of people want to buy as they are!
Benjamin Boyd
Object
Benjamin Boyd
Object
ROSEVILLE
,
New South Wales
Message
Re: Residential development with in-fill affordable housing, 16-24 Lord Street & 21-27 Roseville Avenue, Roseville (SSD-78996460)
My name is Benjamin Boyd and I live at 11 Lord Street Roseville which is across the road from the proposed development. I am supportive of a well planned increase in density in Roseville and Kuringai. I understand the Kuringai council is close to having an agreed proposal with state government that would achieve the required increased housing numbers in a manner that preserves key features of the community.
I do however object to the proposal as listed for the following reasons.
- This proposal will be at complete odds to the council's Preferred Scenario, which is imminently due to be agreed with Government. The developer would be exploiting a small window before both council and government would be in an agreed position that such a development would not be allowed under planning.
- Hyecorp says they undertook a community consultation. I never received the flyer or the invitation to the community drop-in sessions. I understand only 5 people attended which demonstrates the community wasn't notified.
- Given the Metro beneath the east side of Roseville station, the blocks to the west of the proposed development will not be able to support basements and multiple stories. The attachment shows the path of the metro including first and second reserves. This is a key driver of the council's preferred scenario. Between the metro and heritage listed houses, other than the site Hyecorp has managed to secure, there won't be any other feasible multi story development. An island site will be created which will be against the principles of sound planning or 'density done well'.
- Sydney Metro needs to be consulted as to this development and the potential to develop around the site. When the metro tunnels went underneath, it was never envisaged that high density development would be allowed under current zoning. Sydney Metro will not allow basements and multiple stories to be built above the first reserve exclusion zones and may resist development over the second reserve.If the TOD zoning stands, there will be very poor built form outcomes, completely at odds with what the TOD zoning pupports to allow. The Kuringai Council preferred scenario seeks to deal with the metro appropriately
- heritage listed houses - there are significant numbers of heritage listed houses in the surrounding area. The proposed development will significantly impact the heritage listed houses.
- Martin Lane is already dysfunctional with only one lane of traffic available during week days due to parked cars. Adding ~250 apartments will materially increase the number of parked cars and traffic which will create gridlock in the neighbourhood.
- The Hyecorp EIS states the development fits in with the heritage environment of the neighbourhood. This is ludicrous. The proposal has sought to maximise FSR and height on boundaries. This destroys the heritage ascetic as well as sunlight due to the bulk and height.
My name is Benjamin Boyd and I live at 11 Lord Street Roseville which is across the road from the proposed development. I am supportive of a well planned increase in density in Roseville and Kuringai. I understand the Kuringai council is close to having an agreed proposal with state government that would achieve the required increased housing numbers in a manner that preserves key features of the community.
I do however object to the proposal as listed for the following reasons.
- This proposal will be at complete odds to the council's Preferred Scenario, which is imminently due to be agreed with Government. The developer would be exploiting a small window before both council and government would be in an agreed position that such a development would not be allowed under planning.
- Hyecorp says they undertook a community consultation. I never received the flyer or the invitation to the community drop-in sessions. I understand only 5 people attended which demonstrates the community wasn't notified.
- Given the Metro beneath the east side of Roseville station, the blocks to the west of the proposed development will not be able to support basements and multiple stories. The attachment shows the path of the metro including first and second reserves. This is a key driver of the council's preferred scenario. Between the metro and heritage listed houses, other than the site Hyecorp has managed to secure, there won't be any other feasible multi story development. An island site will be created which will be against the principles of sound planning or 'density done well'.
- Sydney Metro needs to be consulted as to this development and the potential to develop around the site. When the metro tunnels went underneath, it was never envisaged that high density development would be allowed under current zoning. Sydney Metro will not allow basements and multiple stories to be built above the first reserve exclusion zones and may resist development over the second reserve.If the TOD zoning stands, there will be very poor built form outcomes, completely at odds with what the TOD zoning pupports to allow. The Kuringai Council preferred scenario seeks to deal with the metro appropriately
- heritage listed houses - there are significant numbers of heritage listed houses in the surrounding area. The proposed development will significantly impact the heritage listed houses.
- Martin Lane is already dysfunctional with only one lane of traffic available during week days due to parked cars. Adding ~250 apartments will materially increase the number of parked cars and traffic which will create gridlock in the neighbourhood.
- The Hyecorp EIS states the development fits in with the heritage environment of the neighbourhood. This is ludicrous. The proposal has sought to maximise FSR and height on boundaries. This destroys the heritage ascetic as well as sunlight due to the bulk and height.
Attachments
Name Withheld
Comment
Name Withheld
Comment
ROSEVILLE
,
New South Wales
Message
If the relevant Government Authority or Agency deems the residential development lodged by Hycorp as broadly meritorious, then there are significant implications for adjacent residential properties. These adjacent properties will be located between a zone permitting developments exceeding 6 levels along Hill Street down to and including 4 Roseville Avenue. Given that Ku ring gai Council has set aside Nos. 3 Roseville Avenue to be acquired for the creation of open space and has already acquired No. 5 Roseville Avenue for this purpose, the only 'transition' zone is a single property at No. 7 Roseville Avenue which could be developed to a 12 metre height, presumably allowing for the construction of townhouses. This is an arbitrary increase in height from 9.5 metres, presumably with 'transition' as the rationale. We note that the adjacent property at No. 6 Lord St already comprises multilevel townhouses. It is unlikely that development of this property would be economically viable; consequently, only No. 7 Roseville Avenue would operate as a transition zone. Any development of No. 7 would inevitably overlook Nos. 9 and 11 Roseville Avenue to a detrimental degree.
Furthermore, Nos. 9,11 15,17, and 19 Roseville Avenue properties would be isolated as remnant HCA properties effectively between Hill Street and the proposed Hycorp development. Any development of these remnant HCA properties would be prohibited. This to us would be a grossly unfair outcome.
We note that the block of properties bounded by Roseville Avenue, Martin Lane and Lord Street, of which the proposed Hycorp residential development is a part, contain no heritage listed properties. If the Hycorp development is permitted then the remaining properties in that block ought to be treated in the same manner and acceptable development of these other properties should be permitted. In other words, it would be fair to all owners if all the properties in this block were treated in same way.
The scale of the development proposed by Hycorp might be modified to reduce it's bulk, but if there is a fair and reasonable application of rezoning to increase residential densities near existing public transport hubs such as Roseville Station, then development of this block bounded by Roseville Ave, Martin Lane and Lord Street ought to be considered and permitted. It is a contiguous block of residential properties bounded by tree lined street frontages, a scout hall and a foreshadowed Ku ring gai Council owned open space adjacent to Roseville Lane the Hill Street shops. While the aforementioned block comprises properties that 'contribute' to the existing HCA its inclusion in any development program ought not be dismissed out of hand - as implied in Ku ring gai Council's preferred option for development. HCAs are nice to have but if there is a legitimate case for increasing housing density immediately proximate to Roseville Station, then some impacts may have to be tolerated. The aforementioned block of residential properties bounded by Roseville Avenue, Martin Lane and Lord St, with consideration given to height limits and streetscape bulk, could be a relatively non controversial development that addresses housing supply targets without transition impacts on properties sharing boundaries with the development.
The Mirvac development in Tryon Road Lindfield, constructed fewer than 20 years ago, is an example of a development that increases density, yet does not impact the local area adversely. A sensible approach to zoning and development in Roseville could be implemented with a similar outcome.
In summary, if there is to be development in the block bounded by Roseville Avenue, Martin Lane and Lord St, then the zoning ought to be applied fairly to all the contiguous residential properties in this block. To apply a new zoning to one section and not to another would be grossly unfair to those owners finding themselves located between large residential developments.
Furthermore, Nos. 9,11 15,17, and 19 Roseville Avenue properties would be isolated as remnant HCA properties effectively between Hill Street and the proposed Hycorp development. Any development of these remnant HCA properties would be prohibited. This to us would be a grossly unfair outcome.
We note that the block of properties bounded by Roseville Avenue, Martin Lane and Lord Street, of which the proposed Hycorp residential development is a part, contain no heritage listed properties. If the Hycorp development is permitted then the remaining properties in that block ought to be treated in the same manner and acceptable development of these other properties should be permitted. In other words, it would be fair to all owners if all the properties in this block were treated in same way.
The scale of the development proposed by Hycorp might be modified to reduce it's bulk, but if there is a fair and reasonable application of rezoning to increase residential densities near existing public transport hubs such as Roseville Station, then development of this block bounded by Roseville Ave, Martin Lane and Lord Street ought to be considered and permitted. It is a contiguous block of residential properties bounded by tree lined street frontages, a scout hall and a foreshadowed Ku ring gai Council owned open space adjacent to Roseville Lane the Hill Street shops. While the aforementioned block comprises properties that 'contribute' to the existing HCA its inclusion in any development program ought not be dismissed out of hand - as implied in Ku ring gai Council's preferred option for development. HCAs are nice to have but if there is a legitimate case for increasing housing density immediately proximate to Roseville Station, then some impacts may have to be tolerated. The aforementioned block of residential properties bounded by Roseville Avenue, Martin Lane and Lord St, with consideration given to height limits and streetscape bulk, could be a relatively non controversial development that addresses housing supply targets without transition impacts on properties sharing boundaries with the development.
The Mirvac development in Tryon Road Lindfield, constructed fewer than 20 years ago, is an example of a development that increases density, yet does not impact the local area adversely. A sensible approach to zoning and development in Roseville could be implemented with a similar outcome.
In summary, if there is to be development in the block bounded by Roseville Avenue, Martin Lane and Lord St, then the zoning ought to be applied fairly to all the contiguous residential properties in this block. To apply a new zoning to one section and not to another would be grossly unfair to those owners finding themselves located between large residential developments.
Sheila O'Meara
Object
Sheila O'Meara
Object
ROSEVILLE
,
New South Wales
Message
I object to his project due to its scale and bulk in a heritage conservation area in Roseville. The proposed developments sits on the boundary of the Chatswood to Epping metro line meaning that the single dwellings to the west of the development between the development and Roseville station cannot be developed in this manner. In defence of these residents they should not be abandoned by our community - stranded between a 10 story building robbing them of privacy and light and the inevitable redevelopment of the Roseville village shops above them as noted in Kuringais preferred plan.
I also object to the design and density of the development - designed clearly with only one goal in mind - maxmimum profits for Hyecorp. From the few floor plans supplied this is a massive block of tiny hot box apartments. I could not find one bathroom with a window or one apartment with cross flow ventilation, no open corridors or balconies or dual aspect properties. We should not be allowing developers to profit from poorly design buildings - 100s of apartments that will have to run air conditioning most of the time to cool or heat, 1000 new bathrooms that dont have windows that must run lights and extract fans at all times of the day to function. Where is the progressive and future focussed use of our valuable land. In my view this development offers nothing for our built environment
Storm water and flooding. During the last big flood in Roseville - when the Roseville bridge flooded - the homes just below this proposed monster concrete pour flooded. I see that Hyecorp is going to build flood walls to protect its own underground carparks. During the last flood the areas in Roseville where there were tennis courts on concrete slabs suffered the worst flooding as the water could not get away fast enough. I object to this project in support of our Roseville community that will be down the hill in Lord Street and Roseville Avenue as I am concerned that the storm water systems will not cope with half the block above them encased in concrete.
Heritage - if this project is approved there is no point in retaining any heritage listed items in Roseville. I object to leaving residents stranded in their single heritage listed buildings overlooked and overshadowed by multi level developments and with few real estate options to market their property if the heritage listings is not revoked.
I have attached earlier feedback submitted on the TODs in general
I also object to the design and density of the development - designed clearly with only one goal in mind - maxmimum profits for Hyecorp. From the few floor plans supplied this is a massive block of tiny hot box apartments. I could not find one bathroom with a window or one apartment with cross flow ventilation, no open corridors or balconies or dual aspect properties. We should not be allowing developers to profit from poorly design buildings - 100s of apartments that will have to run air conditioning most of the time to cool or heat, 1000 new bathrooms that dont have windows that must run lights and extract fans at all times of the day to function. Where is the progressive and future focussed use of our valuable land. In my view this development offers nothing for our built environment
Storm water and flooding. During the last big flood in Roseville - when the Roseville bridge flooded - the homes just below this proposed monster concrete pour flooded. I see that Hyecorp is going to build flood walls to protect its own underground carparks. During the last flood the areas in Roseville where there were tennis courts on concrete slabs suffered the worst flooding as the water could not get away fast enough. I object to this project in support of our Roseville community that will be down the hill in Lord Street and Roseville Avenue as I am concerned that the storm water systems will not cope with half the block above them encased in concrete.
Heritage - if this project is approved there is no point in retaining any heritage listed items in Roseville. I object to leaving residents stranded in their single heritage listed buildings overlooked and overshadowed by multi level developments and with few real estate options to market their property if the heritage listings is not revoked.
I have attached earlier feedback submitted on the TODs in general
Attachments
Suwandi Tan
Object
Suwandi Tan
Object
ROSEVILLE
,
New South Wales
Message
Please refer to the attached objection
Attachments
Pagination
Project Details
Application Number
SSD-78996460
Assessment Type
State Significant Development
Development Type
In-fill Affordable Housing
Local Government Areas
Ku-ring-gai