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

See attached

Please see attached

I write to formally object to the proposed development by Hyecorp in Roseville. While I support the overarching goals of the NSW Government's TOD strategy, including increased housing density in appropriate areas, this particular proposal is deeply flawed in both process and substance.

1. Disregard for Ongoing Community Engagement and Local Planning Frameworks
Ku-ring-gai Council is actively working with the community on amendments to the TOD strategy, including the development of ‘preferred scenarios’ that aim to preserve the unique heritage and character of the area while responsibly meeting state housing objectives. The Hyecorp proposal appears to be deliberately rushed in order to bypass local council input and community consultation. This undermines the collaborative planning work currently underway and erodes public trust in the process.

2. Inadequate Infrastructure and Severe Traffic Impacts
As a resident of Roseville for nearly 40 years, I can attest to the growing strain on local infrastructure. The current train services are already stretched, and traffic congestion around the proposed site is at an all-time high. Morning and afternoon peak periods, especially during school drop-offs and pick-ups, make the area nearly impossible to navigate for locals.

3. Misleading Traffic Assessment
The development application relies on a traffic analysis dated back to 2016—a report that no longer reflects current conditions. Streets like Roseville Avenue, Lord Street, and Martin Lane are completely parked out on weekdays within 600m of the station. I have personally witnessed buses needing to reverse out of Martin Lane due to lack of space—an alarming safety and traffic flow issue. Adding hundreds of new vehicles into this already gridlocked area will severely compromise access and safety for all road users in East Roseville.

4. Misrepresentation of Affordable Housing
While the proposal is promoted as an affordable housing initiative, it falls far short of this goal. According to Hyecorp’s own documentation, only eight apartments are to be permanently classified as affordable housing. The remaining 40 units are classified as affordable only for a 15-year period, after which they revert to market rate. This limited commitment undermines the integrity of the project and calls into question the developer’s intentions.

5. Inadequate Community Engagement
Hyecorp’s engagement with the local community has been minimal and ineffective. I only became aware of the proposal through conversations with other residents at a local cafe by Roseville station, despite living within the range of the supposed distributed flyers. A community feedback session was held on Wednesday, 12 March 2025, at the Lindfield Seniors Centre, which I would have attended had I known about it. This lack of transparent communication further reinforces the perception that the developer is doing the bare minimum to inform residents and gather feedback, in an effort to push the proposal through with minimal scrutiny.

In light of these concerns, I respectfully urge the relevant planning authorities to reject this proposal in its current form. It is critical that developments of this scale are aligned with proper planning processes, take into account real community input, and reflect the current capacity of local infrastructure.

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

I am a resident three streets away from the above proposed development and I am writing to object to the above development.

I believe that the determination of the application which has been lodged under the TOD scheme should not proceed until Council has resolved it’s preferred scenario for the area.

MINIMAL COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
Apparently, community flyers were distributed by Hyecorp regarding this development however, we did not, and have not received one nor any engagement from any of their representatives . Nor has Hyecorp provided any information regarding any meetings, community drop-in sessions or website information.

HERITAGE DESTRUCTION AND TREE REMOVAL
We do not object to development in the area however, there are logical areas in the suburb where multi-height development would have minimal impact on the heritage nature of the suburb while providing for the increased density the TOD is looking to achieve. I understand Council has submitted an alternative development plan which increases the density of the area while maintaining the beauty, of which heritage housing and tree cover is essential. Once heritage housing is demolished, it can never be regained, and Sydney will be the poorer for it.

I submit that allowing this development is short-sighted and actively diminishes what makes some of Sydney’s suburbs unique, desirable, interesting and beautiful

Council’s preferred scenario of increased density in Hill St and the upper part of Victoria Street is a logical solution.

If the above application were to proceed and the Council’s proposal then adopted, this development will be completely out of character with the surrounding houses as well as the fact it will have significant impact on the surrounding resident’s quality of life due to privacy concerns and overshadowing.

TRAFFIC CONCERNS
Additionally, traffic in this area is already very congested at certain times of the day and this development would make this significantly worse.

I reiterate that I strongly object to the advancement of the above development in light of the proposal forwarded by Council to improve the density of the Roseville area.

Kind regards

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


Dear Sir/Madam,

I hereby lodge my objection to the above proposed development application.
I have resided at this location for the past 46 years. My property is one street from Roseville Avenue and approximately 150 meters from the proposed development.

Roseville has been a wonderful environment in which to live and bring up a family. The abundance of natural beauty, the bird life, the magnificent trees, beautiful gardens, wonderful architecture and above all the wonderful community spirit enhanced and developed by knowing your neighbours.

Whilst growth is natural and welcome, we must protect as much of the natural beauty of this area as possible.

I acknowledge that with growth there needs to be an increase in housing, including within the Ku-Ring-Gai environment. My objection to this proposal is that I believe that this development will undermine the unique beauty and character of this particular area and further impact on the quality of life of its residents.

I further believe that that a decision of this development application should not be made until Ku-Ring-Gai council’s Preferred Scenario has been decided.
The council’s Preferred Scenario while meeting the accommodation requirements will preserve so much of the natural beauty, the shade providing and air cleansing trees, the environmental assets and beautiful homes that have made this area unique.

The location of the proposed development is within a heritage listed area and should this development go ahead, it would be surrounded by many historic beautiful homes some of which are heritage listed. The sheer size (4 buildings of up to 9 storeys) of this development would over shadow many of these homes and the visual impact of such a large development would be so out of character for this area.

Many developments are built on or close to Highways or main roads or thoroughfares. The main advantage of this is that it enables efficient access to roadways into and out of the suburb. For example: Boundary Road Roseville and Lindfield Road Lindfield, near Lindfield station.

Traffic
Access to and from the east side of Roseville is restricted. The main access point is via the Clanville Road and Pacific Highway intersection.
Access was further restricted when no right turn from Boundary Road into Hill Street Roseville and no right turn from Hill Street into Boundary Road was implemented.

The main access to Boundary Road (a major road when driving from east side Roseville) is via Wandella Avenue. As a result, to get to Wandella Avenue, there are heavy traffic flows in the am and pm peak hours via Roseville Avenue and Martin Lane. The most congestion is at Martin Lane where parking is permitted on both sides of this narrow roadway, creating a one car only access. If two cars enter Martin Lane from opposite ends, one car must give way to the other. As the name suggests (Martin Lane) is not a Road or Avenue or even a Street. It is a narrow lane. These are local streets not major roadways and the increased number of vehicles on these roads, as a result of this planned development, will only cause greater congestion resulting in increased frustration for drivers and pedestrians and local residents.

Parking is very limited in this area, especially with the nearby Roseville College.
Even though 3 levels of underground parking are planned for the development, it is unlikely that all cars belonging to the residents will be accommodated and thus an increase to a now existing parking problem, can be expected.

Notification

I was never notified of this planned development even though I am only one street from where it is planned to be built. I did not receive a brochure or any such notification in my letterbox and I was never informed of the community feedback session that happened in March 2025. I was advised of the planned development by one of my neighbours who lives in Roseville Avenue. I am not aware of any resident in my street having received a letter box drop to inform of the planned development or advise of the planned community feedback sessions.

I urge the State Government / Planning Authorities to reject this development proposal and adopt Ku-Ring-Gai council’s Preferred Scenario.

Sincerely,

Submission opposing proposed development in Lord St/Roseville Ave Roseville.
Firstly I wish to say that I support additional medium to high rise housing in Roseville, provided that it is does not negatively impact the existing community’s ability to live comfortably in the area largely if not completely as they bought into it.
This is not a NIMBY attitude. We all should expect to take our share of the additional housing Sydney needs. We are just asking for it to be well planned so that current residents can still enjoy what they value in their neighbourhood
I oppose the proposed development in Lord St/Roseville Ave Roseville on several grounds:
- The height and expanse of the development will be totally out of harmony with the low profile of the surrounding suburb on all sides, unlike Ku-ring-gai Council’s latest proposals for medium to high development to be close to the rail corridor which will restrict high buildings to a limited area. This approach has already been successfully applied in other Council suburbs such as Lindfield.
- Surely it is possible for increased housing to be provided without desecrating the suburb’s character. If the Council’s alternative proposal for rail corridor development is accepted, this Lord St/Roseville Ave development will be out of keeping with it and become an isolated and unsightly blot on the landscape.
- The demand for facilities such as street parking in Lord St and Roseville Avenue, already high, will be overwhelmed by additional resident and visitor parking near the development. Roseville also provides significant parking for residents of suburbs east of the Roseville Bridge who for whom Roseville railway station is their closest point of access to the Sydney rail network.
- Most east-side Roseville streets are already too narrow to provide safe two-way traffic and there is already limited access to the shopping area. There is also considerable traffic travelling through the suburb from residents of suburbs further up the line seeking to escape the clogged Pacific Highway and Arterial Road. Adding an additional 300+ cars to the area will make it even more difficult for the suburb to accommodate this traffic load smoothly and safely.
- The eastern side of Roseville is already a very difficult suburb for residents to drive out of and away from, especially at peak times. Leaving via the Clanville Rd rail bridge, via Hill St onto Boundary St and via Bancroft Ave onto Archbold Rd can all involve considerable delays. The addition of over 300 cars of the proposed development’s residents will make passage through these exits even more difficult.
I would like to propose that approval for this development be suspended and reconsidered under any revised Roseville housing plan yet to be agreed with the State Government. To allow it to proceed beforehand would be bad planning. The results will stand for years and in perpetuity condemn the government that allowed it to proceed.
The views of the residents who have agreed to sell their homes to this development should be disregarded. They will not have to live with the outcome as the rest of us will.

We have lived in Roseville for over 20 years and appreciate the garden character of our suburb, set off by the number of well cared for Federation homes.
We are not happy to see the character destroyed and feel extra housing could be included while retaining the ambience of Roseville.

I am writing to object to the development proposal for 16-24 Lord St and 21-27 Roseville Ave Roseville.
There are a number of concerns that I have.
I bought in Roseville for a number of reasons. As it is a heritage conservation area, the streetscape, the heritage and the beautiful tree lined streets were a perfect Sydney suburb for our family to grow.
I believe:-
i. The height of the proposed Hyecorp development (up to 9-storeys) will impact on overshadowing of neighbouring properties (including my current residence), our streetscape, and our privacy as well as the character of the suburb. Hyecorp acknowledge in their submission that the area has been largely unchanged since the 1940's. The purchase of our property in this street was made in the good faith that this wouldn't change. The visual impact of the proposed development particularly from adjoining properties and from the suburb as a whole will be appalling. The site is in the middle of three heritage conservation areas, with 54 heritage listed houses nearby. I strongly recommend you consider the Architectural Plans – pages 23, 24, 31, 32 which contain visual impacts from the north, south, east and west.
ii. The proposed development area is in a flood zone which makes it an environmental hazard and as such is a major concern for a state significant development.
iii. The size of the planned development (4 buildings up to 9-storey each) will put significant development constraints of surrounding houses (including my own) due to the Metro tunnel reserves. From a planning perspective the houses situated above the metro tunnel and the first reserve corridor are unable to be developed which leaves residents stranded and makes a mockery of good town planning. Effectively this will be like an isolated island of 4 towers surrounded by 1-2 storey houses.
iv. There is currently no preferred scenario for TOD SEPP fin Ku-ring-ai. This development is being pushed through without a clear outcome from the residents/council for the direction of the suburb.
v. There is a significant environmental impact on the tree canopy (91 trees are to be removed if this development is successful) and the negative impact on the scout hall cottage (currently heritage listed) adjacent to the proposed development
vi. Hyecorp state in their proposal that their design is sympathetic to the surrounding homes many of which are heritage listed and will remain so. It is DEFINITELY NOT sympathetic. The surrounding houses are beautiful federation homes. The proposed architecture is modern and distasteful and not in keeping with the suburb.
vii. There will be an enormous impact of the additional traffic that will be generated by the proposed development particularly during peak periods including in and around Martin Lane, congestion at key intersections out of Roseville and Roseville College drop-off and pick-up.
ix.Hyecorp did a letter box drop of their "community drop in session" after the date it was performed. This is concerning in itself.

I would be grateful for your careful consideration of my concerns and object to the Hyecorp project at 16-24 Lord Street and 21-27 Roseville Ave Roseville

Please see attached document for my reasons for objecting to the project.

OBJECTION
Re: Residential development with in-fill affordable housing, 16-24 Lord Street & 21-27 Roseville Avenue, Roseville (SSD-78996460)
To Whom It May Concern,
I am writing to express my strong opposition to Hyecorp’s proposed development, which I believe would have a profoundly negative impact on the character and liveability of Roseville.
I fully understand and mostly support the Government’s transport-oriented development initiative. However, it is important to strike a balance. There are many suitable locations for high density residential buildings in the vicinity of Roseville station that would do far less damage to heritage and put far less strain on infrastructure that is already struggling to deal with existing traffic.
The proposed site and surrounding areas have enormous heritage and cultural value that has been developed, maintained, and protected by many generations of Australians. I believe the proposed development seeks to unjustly extract a large portion of that value into the coffers of a single development firm.
According to the Transport Oriented Development (TOD) website:
No change to heritage clauses in local environmental plans [and] Applications involving heritage considerations will continue to be lodged with and assessed by councils. Any new development needs to improve and enhance the heritage values of those locations.
There is no doubt in my mind (and that of the council and great majority of residents) that heritage would be damaged and certainly not enhanced by the proposed development. Furthermore, the only feasible way to support this kind of development would be to widen many of the streets in the area, which would involve the felling of dozens of very old native trees lining the streets and further damaging the heritage and natural beauty of the surrounding areas.
I support the Council’s Preferred Scenario, which acknowledges and seeks to preserve the unique heritage of Roseville. Developments of this magnitude should be directed to more suitable areas, and I strongly urge that this application—lodged under the TOD planning framework—not proceed until the Council’s plan is finalized.
The proposed site is surrounded by three heritage conservation areas, characterized by predominantly Federation-style homes that are one or two storeys tall. The introduction of a nine-storey complex would severely undermine the historical integrity and charm of two of Roseville’s most beautiful streets. The scale of this development is completely out of place in this location, and the existing infrastructure is ill-equipped to handle an influx of over 700 new residents and their vehicles.
Moreover, the project does not appear to deliver genuinely affordable housing. The online materials suggest these will be luxury apartments, out of reach for those in real need of affordable options. Only 51 out of 259 apartments are planned to meet the criteria of “affordable”—less than 25%. Furthermore, only 2% will be technically (but not actually) affordable after 15 years, making the contribution negligible. If affordability is a key justification for the project, this representation is highly misleading.
Traffic and parking issues will significantly worsen because of this development. Hyecorp has proposed using Hill Street as a primary access route for construction trucks, which is particularly concerning. Hill Street is already narrow and congested, with access to Boundary Road often reduced to a single lane due to parked cars. This leads to long traffic backups and extended wait times for drivers accessing nearby schools and moving between main arterial roads. Introducing additional trucks onto this already strained road will cause traffic chaos. Furthermore, the construction will likely disrupt Martin Lane, a key route providing access to the eastern part of Roseville. Given its heavy daily use, any closure of this road would cause major traffic congestion, forcing buses and cars to reroute through the already overwhelmed Hill Street.
Parking for commuters is already a significant concern. Streets such as Lord Street, Roseville Avenue, and Martin Lane are frequently congested with parked cars on weekdays, often stretching all the way to Gerald Avenue and Glencoft Avenue. Hyecorp has proposed 309 parking spaces for the development, which is grossly insufficient for the projected 750 residents. This raises the question: where will the additional vehicles park? And what about visitors? The surrounding streets are already fully occupied. Based on car ownership data from the 2021 census, it’s likely that residents of the new development will own around 410 cars. This creates a significant shortfall in parking spaces, leaving over 100 cars to compete for already limited street parking.

In light of these concerns, I reiterate my strong opposition to this development on Lord Street and Roseville Avenue. I believe it will seriously damage heritage value that the NSW Government has promised to protect and enhance.
Thank you for considering my submission.

To whom it may concern,

I strongly object to the Hyecorp proposed development due to, in summary, it will not fulfill what the government is trying to fulfill ie affordable housing, whilst at the same time, causing major and unnecessary negative impacts to east side Roseville.

Hyecorp did not make any contact with be about this development nor any other local resident I know, yet they allege they did.

Hyecorp has stated there will be additional significant social benefits ie permanent jobs created (a gardener and a secretary). These are not significant or additional. We have gardeners. Im not sure what the secretary is for?

They have stated these units will be affordable housing. Affordable has not been quantified and of the 270 units proposed, only 8 will have the ongoing future status of affordable housing (again not quantified). The rest of the 262 units will not be affordable. This proposed dwelling will have a cinema, gymnasium, a pool and a secretary. This will not only mean the cost will be minimum $1.5m but the strata fees will be in excess of $10,000 per year. Then there are rates to pay. So this demonstrates that this development will not be fulfilling what the government is trying to attain ie affordable housing.

The impact on the area will be massive and cannot be ignored. Overshadowing and privacy issues for all houses and streets up to 200m away. Traffic congestion, zero street parking, no suggestion of improving infrastructure. A 10 storey building in the middle of a residential area overlooking heritage homes is totally out of place.

The local character of the suburb will be destroyed.

It's a complete waste to destruct perfectly clean and occupied homes, in order to build 270 non affordable units (which in all likelihood will become more investment properties).

The Hyecorp development exceeds TOD height rules and regulations

89 trees are proposed to be removed. This is likely to increase. This will affect, privacy and character, not to mention local birds wildlife and the air quality.

In excess of 25 tonnes of landfill waste created in the demolition. Then they have to dig down for the proposed garages creating more landfill and possible flooding as it is built over a creek and the garages are underground. There will not be enough garages or car spaces to fill the requirements of the units , so more cars from these dwellings will be on the local streets despite there being almost no free spots left to park locally.

The construction impact on the local streets will go on for years. The roads will be badly damaged from all the trucks, the noise the dust, the traffic congestion will cause great hardship for all living and parking in the area.

Hyecorp suggest only 2 years to develop this, but based on the amount of time KOPWA took to renovate their aged care home in Trafalgar Rd, and how long it took to build the corner of Archer st and Boundary road, the actual time will be at least 5 years. Both of these developments were much smaller and in keeping with the identity and character of the area. They were 3 storey. Hyecorp is 10 storey development in the middle of a residential area, well away from the highway.

There is not nearly enough infrastructure in the area to support such a development. We dont have the trains, buses or schools to deal with such a large scale build, nor do we have the street parking. As is, we don't have enough trains for the commuters, many of whom come from the northern beaches and park in residential Roseville streets.

Council have another more appropriate and well-planned proposal, which will not have the unnecessary destructive impact Hyecorp's proposal will have. Government will still have to sort out the lack of infrastructure but at least it won't be so rushed and ill planned as Hycorp's proposal, which takes none of the local issues into consideration, most of which I have highlighted above

Yours faithfully
Ann Meagher
17 Clanville Road
Roseville

A project of this size and scope is wholly unsuitable for a heritage conservation area like Roseville. This heritage area has preserved the suburb's character since Federation, and to allow a development such as this right in the centre of it undoes literally decades of careful local planning and sacrifice for the sake of delivering a windfall a single developer.

The character of the suburb aside, its location would be disastrous for Roseville. Roseville has limited access already with morning traffic regularly banked at Clanville Rd (the only access from Roseville to Pacific highway) and significant congestion around the zebra crossings at the end of Lord St.

Martin Ln and the single-lane Glencroft Ave are the only cross streets linking Roseville Ave, Lord St and Bancroft Ave. With the traffic pressures already significant from the school and station, locating this development at the centre of this critical thoroughfare will bring Roseville to a complete standstill every morning.

If a project of this size abutted the station it would be a different story, but to locate it right in the centre of Roseville's low density heritage conservation area would be catastrophic to the local area.

I'm suspicious of how affordable the housing will be. I'm also concerned of how the project will affect the traffic in the local area.

I fully support the project.

I believe it will be a fantastic edition to the Roseville area. I also believe it will give more people more choice on where they wish to live as well as improve housing affordability in that area.

Also, by building close to the railway station, it will encourage more people to use public transport.

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

My name is Guy Gavagna. Since 2011, I have lived with my family at 42 Victoria St Roseville. Our house is a few blocks away from the proposed development in Martin Lane/Lord St/Roseville Ave. I wish to register my strong objection to this proposed project.

**Please do not proceed with this project until we have the outcome of Kuringai Council's Preferred Scenario process**
This proposed project, consistent with the whole ethos of the TOD, has proceeded through sleight of hand in the absence of community consultation. I am aware that Kuringai Council is seeking a Preferred Scenario – along with many other local residents I provided feedback to council earlier this year. This project should not be permitted to proceed until Council's Preferred Scenario is adopted. As a local body Council understands that Roseville has a unique character which should be preserved. Council is in a much better informed position to make determinations about local issues such as building permits and planning. Council recommends development in the Hill St area near the train station and shops, and the railway end of Victoria St. Council does not support this development in this location, and neither do I.

**Absence of community consultation by developer**
I never received a flyer from the developer (who I now understand is Hycorp). Specifically, I was never made aware of any community consultation or discussion by these developers. I have only very recently been made aware of this development by neighbours. Having now seen this flyer, I understand that 9 existing houses will be replaced with 250 new apartments. Previous experience with promises made by developers (upper end of Victoria St) suggests there will be approximately 250 car parks provided within the development, meaning there will likely be an extra 250 cars vying for on-street car parking in an area that is already completely bumper-to-bumper on-street parking during the working day. I am skeptical about the claims of “”high quality landscaping” – developers at the upper end of Victoria St promised the same, but delivered something of much lower standard. And they knocked down all the gum trees bar one. The final product bears little resemblance to the impressive photographs. I fear this project would do the same.

**Traffic into and out of Roseville shops on Hill St will increase**
Currently Roseville has one set of traffic lights to access Pacific Hwy via Hill St onto the Clanville St bridge. This takes at least 15 minutes in peak times. At the other end of Hill St the traffic backs up to the shops, also taking around 15 minutes to travel from the shops onto Boundary St to access Chatswood. The proposed project will add to this chaos and reduce amenity in Roseville. The proposed project provides no information about how it may assist in improving traffic flow.

**"Rat run" traffic zone - already difficult for pedestrians to negotiate, will become worse and more danerous**
Martin Lane, the narrow street which connects Lord St and Roseville Ave, is already a very busy "rat run" for commuters seeking to avoid traffic congestion on Pacific Hwy and Archbold Rd during morning and evening traffic. This route is also used by parents for drop off and pick up of their children at the local Roseville Public School and Roseville College. These streets are also on the local bus route; I do not envy the bus drivers negotiating the tight corner into Martin Lane with cars approaching from the other direction and children trying to cross the street to get to school or to the train station.

**Commuter parking congestion of Martin Lane, Lord St, Roseville Ave - narrow streets that cannot accommodate more on-street parking**
What may not be immediately apparent to a non-resident of the area is that these streets (Martin, Lord, Roseville) are also where train commuters park and leave their cars during the working day. In essence, during working hours Martin Lane is a very narrow, single lane street. Commuter cars are parked either side. Cars and buses are negotiating the single lane heading north and south, while school children attempt to cross the street to get to school or to the train station. Roseville Ave and Lord St have similar issues - cars are permanently parked on both sides of the street meaning these streets are quite tight spaces, with drivers swinging 3-point turns and U-turns vying for morning car park spots, while rat-runners speed through on their way to or home from the city. Episodes of road rage are a daily event. With the current high levels of local traffic, what should be a quiet suburban area is already dangerous. With the additional traffic this development will bring, I hold significant concerns for the safety of local residents, especially schoolchildren and elderly pedestrians.

**Precedent of negative consequences for local traffic and amenity - large scale development in Victoria St Roseville**
In Roseville we have already experienced a similar phenomenon following the building of several large apartment blocks at the railway end of Victoria St. Developers allowed one car park per apartment, optimistically (or was it naively, or cynically?) citing that new residents would use public transport instead of driving a car, hence there would be no significant increase to local traffic. Of course this was completely false and misleading. I can see the same negative consequences happening in the proposed project.

Lived experience has proven local traffic has greatly increased as a consequence of these developments, with both sides of Victoria St being permanently filled with parked cars from the residents of the newly built apartments. These residents compete for on-street parking with parents dropping off and picking up their children at Roseville College. Every other day removalist trucks block the street as short term tenants move in and out of the apartments, something that would be a logistical nightmare for Martin Lane. Traffic exiting Roseville to Boundary St and Pacific Hwy is much worse. The proposed project will only further exacerbate this situation.

**Negative impact on streetscape and local character**
Quite recently, the owners of a house in Martin Lane jumped through hoops to ensure their new carport met with local planning laws relating to local character and streetscape, to be built in sympathy with the local Scout Hall. In contrast, this proposal seeks to propel local residents into a situation where a multi-storey apartment block will demolish a local landmark Scout Hall and will be smack bang in the middle of a suburban area with lovely old houses sitting on large blocks.

Different areas have different attributes. I previously lived in Naremburn and loved the experience of proximity to shops and restaurants, a small house with an easy care courtyard. In contrast, people choosing to live on the north shore move to this area for very different reasons. We seek an area with leafy tree lined streets, larger houses, bigger back yards for kids to run around, without the spectre of overhanging apartment blocks compromising privacy.

**Conclusion**
The proposed project is not in keeping with the nature of Roseville. Sticking a high rise block with 250 apartments where 9 houses current exist is not in keeping with the nature of the suburb. The additional cars will create an even more dangerous traffic situation. The hundreds of extra on-street parked cars will become a major impediment to pedestrian and traffic flow. Lastly, I am angry that I was not made aware of this project earlier - the developer did not seek to ensure an appropriate community consultation process. For these reasons I object to this project.

I strongly object the project. The proposed project is in the heart of the Roseville heritage conservation area. If approved and developed as planned, the development will adversely impact the heritage of this area for ever and for any future generations. Additionally the suburb will not be able to cope with increased traffic. I have supported the the preferred alternate scenario proposed by the Ku-ring-gai Council which will meet the NSW state governments new housing quota and I am all for a solution that is achieves this whilst preserving heritage areas.

I object to the Project because it is an inappropriate development which would have a negative impact on the surrounding site. These impacts have not been adequately identified or addressed in the Applicant's Environmental Impact Statement (the EIS). In particular, the EIS contains several statements about the future development potential of the site immediately to the West of the proposed development, which are demonstrably false (based on information known to the Applicant at the time of the Applicant's submission), because:
• It was known that the TOD SEP provisions were soon to be replaced by the Ku-ring-gai Council’s alternative scenario, which would not allow for any such development in this area; and
• As highlighted in the Applicant’s own submissions, no construction can occur in the Sydney Metro First Reserve, and therefore the area to the West of the proposed development and to the East of Roseville Station will not support High Density development, irrespective of the zoning of this area (see page 88 of the EIS "...[T]he proposed basement falls outside the first reserve, with a small portion being in the second reserve. In accordance with the Guideline, no construction activity is proposed within the first reserve".

Several areas in the EIS make representations about high density “uplift” being likely in the area, and rely on these misstatements for reaching conclusions about the impact of this proposal, notably:
• the Conclusion and Recommendations of the Heritage Impact Statement, which includes the following statement as the basis upon the Recommendations in the report: “The area’s future character is expected to evolve significantly due to the subject site’s proximity to Roseville train station and the effect of the TOD SEPP.’
• page 56 (Figure 17 shows high density future developments on top of the Sydney Metro First Reserve)
• page 76 (“The visual impact from the increased scale of this development, relative to the existing houses adjoining the site, is assessed as severe but permissible within the context developments in this area”)
• page 105 (“The area’s future character is expected to evolve significantly due to the subject site’s proximity to Roseville train station and the effect of the TOD SEPP.”)
• page 121 (“However, given the intended affordable residential housing programme, the proximity to the Roseville Railway corridor and the planned high-density uplift affecting the future character of the area, the proposal is on balance considered as acceptable for the subject site from a heritage perspective”).

For the reasons outlined above, these forward-looking statement are demonstrably false, and result in the EIS's failure to adequately underestimate and address the impact of the proposal on the surrounding areas and should not be relied upon as the basis of the recommendations and conclusions in this EIS.

It is clear that a development of this scale, standing in isolation and out of context with the surrounding areas, would result in an inappropriate planning outcome and these negative impacts have not been adequately addressed in the EIS and for these reasons, I object to the proposal.

I do not support Hyecorp’s proposed development for 16-24 Lord Street & 21-27 Roseville Avenue, Roseville (SSD-78996460).

Subject: Formal Objection to State Significant Development (SSD) Application SSD-78996460. Residential development with in-fill affordable housing, 16-24 Lord Street & 21-27 Roseville Avenue, Roseville

To Whom It May Concern,

I wish to strenuously object to State Significant Development (SSD) Application SSD-78996460, a nine-storey residential development with in-fill affordable housing, at 16-24 Lord Street and 21-27 Roseville Avenue, Roseville.

In my opinion, this proposal represents a severe overreach that contravenes established planning controls, disrespects heritage protections, and fails to align with the values and expectations of the local community.

1. Denial of Procedural Fairness
This application pre-empts ongoing negotiations between Ku-ring-gai Council (Council) and the NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure (DPHI) regarding a more suitable Transport Oriented Development (TOD) framework for Roseville. My understanding of Council’s “Preferred Scenario”, endorsed in response to the NSW Government’s Low and Mid-Rise Housing Reforms, proposes measured growth that aligns with local infrastructure capacity, heritage conservation, and community expectations.

In my opinion, the lodging of this SSD application – prior to the finalisation of the TOD framework – undermines democratic planning processes and denies residents the opportunity for genuine input. It represents a failure of procedural fairness and community input, and an unacceptable sidelining of local governance.
In my opinion, this SSD application, as lodged under the TOD planning controls, should NOT be progressed further or determined until Council’s Preferred Scenario is resolved. The TOD planning controls were introduced without public consultation and are to be set aside when the Council's Preferred Scenario is adopted.
I fully support Council’s Preferred Scenario given that it recognises the unique character of Roseville having regard to the existing built form in and around the proposed development. My understanding is that Council’s Preferred Scenario mostly retains the existing zoning in the area except for the Hill St precinct and upper part of Victoria St.

2. Lack of Community Consultation by the Developer
From my perspective, there has been a complete lack of appropriate and meaningful engagement and consultation by the developer with the local community, viz:
• I have never received a copy of a flyer that I understand the developer said was distributed to the local community on or before Wednesday 12 March 2025.
• I was never made aware of a community drop-in session at Lindfield Seniors Centre/Community Hall between 4:00-6:30pm on Wed 12 March 2025.
• The suggestion that one community session is adequate to accommodate the needs of the local community is ridiculous
• I was never made aware of the proposed development before the end of March 2025, so I was never able to:
• Visit the developer’s website; nor
• Complete the survey on the developer’s website
• I was only made aware of the project through my contact with neighbours and fellow residents well after the end of March 2025

3. Non-Compliance with Planning Controls and Excessive Height
It is my understanding that the development proposes a nine-storey structure exceeding 30 metres, flagrantly breaching the existing Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2015 (KLEP 2015) and Ku-ring-gai Development Control Plan (KDCP), which impose a maximum building height of 22 metres in the area. Even factoring in the State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing) 2021, the scale of this development vastly exceeds what might be reasonably allowed under any bonus provision.

This excessive height and bulk is entirely inconsistent with the fine-grained character of Roseville, particularly on the eastern side of the railway, and would dominate the streetscape to an unacceptable degree.

4. Irreparable Heritage Impacts
It is my understanding that the subject site is in the middle of three Heritage Conservation Areas (HCA), with 54 heritage listed houses located nearby; properties protected under Schedule 5 of KLEP 2015 and the NSW Heritage Act 1977.

Furthermore, in my opinion, the proposal:
• involves the demolition of nine houses that contribute to these HCA,
• will result in visual isolation and overshadowing of significant heritage assets, and
• makes no serious attempt to integrate or defer to the prevailing heritage streetscape, and in doing so, risks eroding the historic identity of the area.

The proposed development fails to observe Section 3.9 of the KDCP, which requires that new development adjacent to heritage items must respect established scale, roof forms, setbacks, and architectural detailing.

5. Failure of Good Urban Design Principles
In my opinion, the proposed development is incongruous with the urban fabric of Roseville, violating core town planning principles, including those outlined in the NSW Urban Design Guide (2015) and Better Placed: An Integrated Design Policy. Notably:
• Contextual Incompatibility: The building’s scale, bulk and bland “box-like” design ignores the area’s topography, established residential character, and heritage fabric.
• Amenity Impacts: There will be significant overshadowing, overlooking, and loss of privacy to surrounding dwellings, with non-compliant setbacks and poor interface transitions.
• Public Domain Impact: The overdevelopment of the site will cause substantial visual clutter, lack of sunlight in the public domain, and degradation of pedestrian amenity.

6. Environmental Destruction and Loss of Tree Canopy
My understanding is that the application proposes the removal of many mature trees (as many as 91), many of which form part of the Ku-ring-gai tree canopy, a recognised ecological and visual asset. This would:
• Contravene the aims of the Ku-ring-gai Urban Forest Policy and Biodiversity Strategy 2030,
• Destroy habitat for protected and locally significant fauna, including Kookaburras, Galahs, Rosellas, Echidnas, and Ringtail Possums, and
• Accelerate heat island effects and significantly reduce the suburb’s environmental resilience.

7. Infrastructure and Traffic Overload
In my opinion, the proposed development will place unsustainable pressure on local infrastructure:
• Traffic congestion, at the already critical Hill Street/Mowbray Road and Hill Street/Clanville Avenue intersections, will worsen,
• Local roads and street parking are inadequate and insufficient to accommodate the resulting increase in vehicle movements. My understanding is the developer has relied on a traffic survey that is nearly 10 years old. If this is true, it is further evidence of a flagrant disregard of a proper and reasonable planning process,
• Existing water, stormwater, and sewerage infrastructure – not upgraded to accommodate such density – will be severely strained, contrary to planning principles that require development to match service capacity. I have lived in area for over 20 years and the water pressure at my property has been in gradual and continued decline over many years. So much so now, I can no longer run a bath in my house!
• Where are the children meant to go to childcare/school? My understanding is that all the local schools are at or above capacity.

8. Misuse of State Significant Development Pathway
There is no apparent legitimate basis for this proposal to be classified as “State Significant.” It does not demonstrate any extraordinary public benefit or strategic merit that would warrant bypassing Council oversight and community engagement mechanisms.
My understanding is the proposed development of 259 units only includes eight (8) truly ‘affordable’ dwellings. An additional 40 units have put forward as ‘affordable’ but they are only temporarily ‘affordable’ as they have a life of only 15 years.
The use of the SSD pathway in this case appears to be a deliberate tactic by the developer to circumvent local controls, which must not be rewarded.

9. Conclusion
In my opinion, this application fails all tests of reasonableness and fairness, as well as almost every relevant good planning principle:
• It is non-compliant with applicable height limits and planning controls,
• It inflicts severe and permanent damage to Roseville’s heritage and character,
• It undermines public confidence in fair and transparent planning processes, and
• It disregards the environmental, amenity, and infrastructure needs of the community.
For these reasons, I urge the NSW Department of Planning to reject this application in full, and to support Ku-ring-gai Council’s evidence-based, consultative planning approach for Roseville’s future.

With warm regards,

To whom it may concern,

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

I live in Roseville, around the corner from this proposed development and I have lived on and off in Roseville since 1969. I object to the proposed residential development at 16-24 Lord St Roseville & 21-27 Roseville Ave Roseville.

My first objection is the scale of this development in an already traffic heavy area of Roseville. These two streets (in the area of the
proposed development) are already very heavily congested. St Martin's Lane, which joins the two streets and is practically adjacent to the development is even more congested. It will be impossible for traffic to move in the area if the proposed development is allowed to proceed. Commuter parking in the area extends along Lord Street and Roseville Ave and is already at capacity.

I also object to this development being allowed to go ahead in this area of Roseville where existing infrastructure cannot even cater for the current population. We have had to undergo significant sewerage works at our property due to Sydney Water's ageing sewage network running down our street where old pipes were broken and damaged by tree roots. In a heavy rain event last year we had storm water rising up through all our drains as the system could not cope. How on earth will the sewerage and storm water system cope with the proposed 250 new residences?
Roseville Public School is already at capacity - how will it cope with the extra students?
The trains at peak hour are also at capacity and I understand that it is impossible to increase anymore train crossings over the Harbour Bridge at peak hour.

I also object to the proposal on heritage and environmental grounds. The proposal is completely out of keeping with the area of predominantly one and two storey dwellings and leafy gardens that are home to a varied population of flora and fauna. Roseville has always had its own character as distinct from say Chatswood's 'high rise hell'. Why have successive Governments always been intent on destroying Sydney's heritage? If Paris and London can manage to keep theirs, why can't we?

And I would like to bring attention to the "affordable housing" inclusion of the proposal. We all know there is NO such thing as affordable housing on Sydney's North Shore. I understand developers withold a certain percentage of apartments for 'affordable housing' so they are able to get through planning controls. After a few years of renting these apartments at an affordable rate, the developers are then able to sell them at market rate. So much for ongoing affordable housing, it's a complete lie.

I'd also like to address the inequality of the whole arrangement where people with heritage listed properties in so-called 'heritage zones' cannot participate in this redevelopment land grab as their properties are now a liability. Previously deemed highly desirable now they are worse than worthless, they are a liability as developers won't touch them nor will they be able to be sold. A heritage listed house next to an eight story apartment block will become a white elephant museum piece, just like in the movie"Up". It's a disgraceful way to treat people who have looked after and preserved these homes.

This application lodged under the TOD planning controls, should not be further progressed or determined until Ku-Ring-Gai Council’s Preferred Scenario is resolved. The TOD planning controls were introduced without any public consultation. I totally support the Council’s Preferred Scenario and how this recognises the unique character of the eastern side of Roseville having regard to the existing built form in the area of the proposed development. The Council’s Preferred Scenario mostly retains the existing zoning in the eastern side of Roseville and I understand that the Preferred Scenario actually delivers the Government more dwellings than it has asked for.

It's just so disappointing for our State Government to have such little regard for its constituents when it has come to the TOD Planning Controls. It has caused a lot of grief, unhappiness and uncertainty in the community when considered consultation could have gone some way to averting this and providing solutions that would be acceptable to both sides.