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

I reside directly adjacent to the proposed development site and wish to lodge a strong objection to the project. This submission outlines my concerns and observations regarding the proposal and its impacts on our local community.

Timing of Submission and Request for Deferral
This application has been lodged under the TOD (Transport Oriented Development) Scheme. I strongly believe that the project should not proceed until Council’s Preferred Scenario has been adopted and implemented. The TOD planning regime was imposed without public consultation and is due to be reconsidered. Proceeding with this application now is premature and not in the public interest.

Community Engagement Deficiencies
I did not receive Hyecorp’s community flyer before the community drop-in session on 12 March 2025. In fact, I only became aware of this development proposal in April through community members—not through Hyecorp. Had I been informed in time, I would have attended the drop-in session. I also was not aware of the dedicated project pages on the Hyecorp website or the online survey until well after 25 March.

This lack of engagement meant that I, like many neighbours, was unable to provide meaningful feedback early in the process. It raises serious concerns about the quality and inclusiveness of the consultation process.

HEIGHT AND VISUAL IMPACT
The proposed buildings reach up to 9 storeys, which is completely out of scale with the existing character of Roseville East. Our area is comprised primarily of 1–2 storey detached homes, and the contrast would be stark and jarring. This proposal will severely impact streetscape character and dominate the surrounding low-density built form. The Visual Impact Assessment confirms that the towers will be visible from multiple directions, intruding into the visual privacy and enjoyment of neighbouring properties.

HERITAGE IMPACTS
The development site sits in the middle of three heritage conservation areas and within close proximity to 54 heritage-listed homes. The proposal will result in the demolition of nine existing houses, several of which contribute positively to the area’s heritage character. This will irreversibly damage the historical fabric and identity of East Roseville.

TRAFFIC AND PARKING
The scale of the proposed development will significantly increase traffic congestion in an area already burdened by narrow streets and local chokepoints.

The Martin Lane rat-run already poses traffic and safety issues, which this development will exacerbate.

Peak-hour traffic at the intersections exiting Roseville will worsen.

School-related congestion, especially around Roseville College, is already challenging and would become unmanageable.

There is insufficient provision for on-site parking, and overflow will impact nearby residential streets already under pressure.

INFRASTRUCTURE PRESSURES
The development will place significant stress on local infrastructure, including drainage, stormwater, water pressure, sewerage, and electricity. Our area was not designed to support the density proposed, and these systems are already under strain.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT – TREE REMOVAL
The proposal would see the removal of 91 trees, a staggering loss of greenery in a neighbourhood known for its leafy character. This would significantly alter the environmental character of Roseville Avenue and contribute to urban heat island effects.

CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS
Construction over a minimum two-year period will severely disrupt the daily lives of residents. We are concerned about:

Noise and dust;

Heavy trucks and cranes operating in a narrow street;

Limited parking for construction workers and the risk of road degradation.

INAPPROPRIATENESS OF THE TOD IN ROSEVILLE EAST
The TOD framework is wholly inappropriate for the Eastside of Roseville. It was introduced without genuine public consultation and does not reflect the local context. The Council’s Preferred Scenario, which retains low-density residential zoning for this area, reflects the community’s values and should be respected. Approving this development would be a complete departure from the scale and character that makes Roseville such a desirable place to live.

CONCLUSION
For the reasons above, I respectfully urge the Department of Planning and Environment to reject this application. The proposed development is excessive, incompatible with the surrounding area, poorly consulted, and premature given Council’s impending decision on the Preferred Scenario.

1) the government has an agreement to work with council to have time to submit a proposal that the local residents would like which allows for the number of new dwellings as demanded by the state but at the same time the local residents prefer. This preferred scenario has been decided. Why not show respect to the local residents and fulfil your agreement to council to wait for their submission and don't consider any development application until then.
2) As you travel the world, the most people love the most beautiful cities that do not allow high rise such as Paris and in Italy.When are we going to lift our sites above the mundane and respect the value of beauty. This is an old suburb with beautiful houses, gardens and streetscape.If under your orders it is destroyed it will never be be replaced and left for future generations to enjoy. Retaining and creating beauty is one of the most important responsibilities of a government. The less beauty the more destitute with lack of meaning our lives are. This development will destroy the vista of trees and greenery in a heritage precinct
.

Objection: I am writing to object to the proposed development (SSD-78996460)

In Summary: The application made by Hyecorp under the TOD scheme, should NOT in the public interest, be further progressed or determined until Council’s preferred scenario is resolved. I support the Council’s Preferred Scenario which recognises the unique and historical character of East Roseville and is sympathetic to the existing built form in the area. The Preferred Scenario has the support and backing of the East Roseville community, with development in the Hill St precinct and upper part of Victoria St Roseville. The lodging of this SSD application – prior to the adoption of Councils preferred scenario - undermines democratic planning processes and denies residents the opportunity to provide genuine input.

Please refer to attachment which outlines the key points of my objection.

I object to the application on the grounds stated in the attached letter

To Whom It May Concern,

I am writing to express my firm objection to the proposed Hyecorp development referenced above. I live at 60 Roseville Avenue, just a few houses from the development site, and I am deeply concerned about the consequences this project would have on the character, amenity, and livability of our local neighbourhood.

The Process Should Be Halted Until Council’s Preferred Scenario is Decided
This development has been put forward under the TOD scheme, which was introduced without genuine community consultation. It is my understanding that Ku-ring-gai Council is currently finalising a more appropriate plan for future development in our area—the Preferred Scenario. I believe it is both premature and inappropriate for this project to proceed before that process has concluded. Planning decisions of this scale should not be made in isolation from local strategic directions.

Community Notification Was Inadequate
I did not receive a flyer from Hyecorp before the 12 March 2025 community drop-in event. In fact, I was not made aware of any consultation opportunities until long after the fact—through neighbours, not the developer. If I had been properly informed, I would have attended the session to raise my concerns. It is disappointing that a development of this size proceeded without ensuring all affected residents had a fair chance to engage.

I was also unaware of the online project pages or community survey until late March. I feel the engagement effort was limited and ineffective, and this undermines the credibility of the so-called consultation outcomes.

Excessive Height and Density
The proposed buildings—up to 9 storeys high—are completely out of scale with our residential neighbourhood, which is predominantly made up of single-storey and double-storey homes. These towers will dominate the skyline, block sunlight, and overlook many existing homes, including mine. The impact on privacy and solar access is unacceptable.

Heritage and Neighbourhood Character
This part of Roseville is defined by its leafy streets, heritage homes, and low-density charm. The proposed development would sit within three heritage conservation areas and remove several homes that contribute to our area’s historical identity. Once these houses are gone, they cannot be replaced. The proposal threatens to permanently erode the character of East Roseville.

Traffic, Parking, and Safety Concerns
Our street is already under strain from through-traffic, school drop-offs, and limited parking. Adding hundreds of new residents and vehicles will make this significantly worse:

Martin Lane is already misused as a shortcut and can’t cope with more cars;

Congestion around Roseville College is a daily struggle;

Intersections out of Roseville are bottlenecks during peak hours;

Many of our local roads are narrow and not suitable for increased traffic volumes.

Parking overflow is also a real worry, as existing on-street parking is already limited.

Infrastructure Not Fit for High Density
The scale of this project would place an enormous burden on stormwater systems, sewerage, water pressure, and electricity networks. I doubt these services were ever designed to cope with the demands of four high-rise buildings in a suburban street.

Loss of Trees and Environmental Impact
I was shocked to learn that 91 trees will be removed if this development proceeds. Roseville’s beauty lies in its greenery—this mass clearance will damage the ecosystem, reduce shade, and increase urban heat. The community has long valued our natural environment, and this project shows little regard for that.

Disruption from Construction
Two or more years of construction will be intensely disruptive to daily life. Heavy machinery, road blockages, noise, and dust will affect everyone living nearby. Our streets were not built to accommodate the trucks and cranes needed for a project of this magnitude. The impacts on safety, mobility, and amenity will be unavoidable.

This Development is Out of Step With the Community
In my many years living in Roseville, I’ve seen gradual, thoughtful change—but this proposal represents a sudden and aggressive shift, out of alignment with the area's identity and future. I support Council’s Preferred Scenario, which acknowledges our community’s needs while preserving its heritage and liveability. This application should not be allowed to leap ahead of that important process.

For all of these reasons, I respectfully ask that the Department refuse this development application.

I respectfully request that the proposed development not be approved. Growth and development are vital, but I feel they must only be pursued in a manner that respects heritage and the environment, manages local infrastructure, and enhances community well-being. Please refer to my letter attached.

Dear Planning Team,

I am writing to object to the above development proposal, which is situated just a few houses away from my home on Roseville Avenue. Having lived here for many years, I have strong reservations about how this project will affect the amenity, safety, and unique character of our local community.

Premature Application Under an Unsettled Planning Framework
This proposal has been submitted under the TOD framework, which remains controversial and is currently under review. Ku-ring-gai Council has developed a more community-sensitive Preferred Scenario that would retain the low-density nature of East Roseville. It is entirely inappropriate for the Department to assess or approve this development while such a major planning policy is unresolved. Doing so would be premature and deeply unfair to residents like myself who relied on consistent local planning controls when buying or renovating our homes.

Lack of Sufficient Community Engagement
I did not receive any direct communication from Hyecorp until after the key engagement session on 12 March. I never saw a flyer in my mailbox, and by the time I became aware of the proposal, it was through concerned neighbours—not the developer.

If I had been properly notified, I absolutely would have participated in the consultation process. The failure to reach nearby residents like myself undermines the integrity of Hyecorp’s community engagement claims. Many of us were simply not given the chance to speak up early.

Incompatible Scale and Height
The planned development—featuring four towers up to nine storeys—is totally out of character for this area. Roseville East has always been defined by single-dwelling homes and a low-rise, leafy streetscape. Placing four tall buildings in the middle of such a neighbourhood would create an eyesore, diminish privacy for nearby properties, and set an alarming precedent for further inappropriate densification.

Traffic, Parking, and Safety Concerns
The development will place an enormous strain on already congested local roads. We are already experiencing significant traffic during peak hours, particularly near Roseville College and at the Pacific Highway intersections. Martin Lane is frequently used as an unofficial thoroughfare and cannot safely support more volume.
Additional residents will also exacerbate parking shortages, especially during school drop-off times and on weekends.

Heritage and Environmental Loss
The site is surrounded by three heritage conservation areas and dozens of heritage-listed homes. The proposed demolition of nine existing dwellings, some of which contribute to local heritage character, would permanently harm the fabric of our suburb. Furthermore, the plan to remove over 90 trees is deeply concerning and inconsistent with the environmental values of our community. Roseville is prized for its greenery and tree canopy. This project shows a careless disregard for that.

Strain on Infrastructure and Services
The scale of the proposal is not supported by the existing infrastructure. Our street and surrounding network are not equipped to handle the water, sewage, drainage, and power demands of hundreds of new residents. These systems are already under stress during storms and peak usage periods.

Unacceptable Construction Impacts
A development of this size will bring years of construction disruption—with heavy vehicles, noise, road blockages, and safety hazards in an area with many children, elderly residents, and narrow streets. These effects should not be imposed on a peaceful residential pocket for the benefit of a single developer.

This Is Not the Right Fit for Our Community
I love living in Roseville because it is quiet, green, family-friendly, and cohesive. This development would fundamentally change that. It is out of place, poorly communicated, and untimely. I fully support the Council’s more balanced vision for this neighbourhood and urge you to delay or reject this application until that process is finalised.

Thank you for considering my views. I hope the voices of the local community will be heard.

I strongly object to the development. I attach my reasoning.

Roseville is a suburb of outstanding heritage value. It is distinctively characterised by Federation/Edwardian architecture comprising freestanding homes of one or two stories set in tranquil tree lined streets.
The proposal is both in scale and architecture totally unsuited to this suburb. It is more suited to the nearby suburbs of Chatswood or Hornsby or along the route of the Metro Line between Macquarie Uni and Chatswood.
Specifically, the proposal:
1. Neither adequately acknowledges nor makes reference to the various scenarios proposed by Ku-ring-gai Council to accomodate the State Government's requirements for additional housing in this LGA.
2. Will be excessive in height and destroy the existing architectural distinctiveness and heritage value of the suburb.
3. Will contribute to the destruction or degradation of the established tree canopy and habitat of the suburb with consequential impacts on native bird and fauna populations
4. Will overburden existing storm water and sewage systems in this hilly terrain particularly during flood or near flood events exacerbated by the hard surfaces created to accomodate this proposed development.
5. Will significantly exacerbate traffic gridlock in these and adjoining streets particularly during school drop of and pick times for students at nearby Roseville College. These streets are simply too narrow and already congested to cope with the additional traffic volumes this proposed development will create.

Refer to attachment

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 am a resident of 30 Roseville Avenue, Roseville, a close neighbour of the proposed site.

I am lodging my objection to the proposed development SSD-78996460. As a young person, I am very concerned about the housing shortage and environmental degradation. I therefore support increasing Sydney’s housing stock by increasing density as opposed to sprawl. However, this needs to be done in a way that puts people first through engagement with community and by developers who activity listens to and consider community. I do not believe the proposed development undertook sufficient community engagement, promotes sustainable human dwellings, and considers the safety of people.

Insufficient community engagement
A major issue with the proposal is the lack of community engagement that was undertaken. In the EIS, it is stated that “Key engagement activities included providing contact information and project details on a dedicated webpage, distributing a flyer to 1,355 residences and businesses with project information, an invitation to the drop-in session, and survey links” (page 9).

The notification of this drop-in session being held between 4-6:30pm on a weekday was delivered to my home on the day of the event. There was insufficient time given to allow for my availability that day and for preparations to be made for the event if I was able to attend.

Additionally, it appears that the claim that businesses were notified of the project information through a flyer is false. It is my understanding that none of the businesses on Hill Street received this flyer after speaking with them. Even if the flyer was given to the landlords of the businesses, Hyecorp is still making a false and misleading claim in their EIS.

For a development of this scale there should have been significantly more attempts at engagement and allowance for different lifestyles and time constraints. The lack of engagement speaks to the lack of care and consideration of the local community from the developer, their unwillingness to listen to valid and level-headed concerns, and the rushed nature of this proposal.

Inadequate consideration of traffic and infrastructure capacity
An additional 728 residents will generate an increase in traffic that the EIS does not take fully into consideration. The EIS acknowledges the TIA figures that 56% of residents travel to work by private vehicle and 39% by public transport. While I support the promotion of increased usage of public transport, I also need to drive to my workplace, as do many others due to areas of Sydney’s public transport network that are lacking. The inability for local roads to contain the increased number of vehicles on the road will result in increased levels of pollution due to increased traffic and higher rates of road accidents due to congestion.

Negatively impact the community’s perspective of multi-resident dwellings
I support increasing urban and suburban density in opposition to urban sprawl on environmental and social grounds. However, due to the lack of community engagement and stark contrast between the proposed development and the rest of the area (which will remain due to heritage buildings and issues with developing over the metro line despite what the EIS implies) I do not believe that this development will promote the beneficial aspects of expanding Sydney upwards. Rather, this development exposes the willingness of developers to disregard local communities, non-human communities, local businesses and even local governments for profit. By supporting and following the Councils ‘Preferred Scenario’ more people will be in support of increased development and density in the area as it recognises the community character, infrastructure capacity and local expectations.

While the need for housing and the need for affordable housing is clearly a valid and valued goal for our community, this development is not the answer. It is a bad plan, done badly and without genuine consideration of the public interest. The Developer appears to be trusting that the Minister and Government will be so interested in the broader agenda that they will ignore the reality of what is being put forward.
The block and mass of the proposed development is so out character with the rest of the immediate neighbourhood as to be indefensible and the temporary provision of affordable housing to get extra profit unsupportable.
It is clearly in the public interest to reject the proposal and to await the decision of the Governments (Local and State) in the preferred scenario.
Details of the objection are contained in the attachment.

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 am a resident of a home on Roseville Avenue, Roseville, within sight of the proposed development.
I object to the project for the following reasons:
1. The negative impacts that the development will have on the local community and the living environment that exists.
2. The failure to deliver the NSW Governments desired outcomes.
3. The negative impacts on the native flora and the fauna that occupy it.
4. The negative effects a successfully application would have on the community’s faith in the State and Local level Government.
5. The lack of good faith engagement by the developer with the local community and their lack of understanding of the values and heritage of the area.
The Council’s preferred scenario that has been put to the NSW State Government would allow the NSW State Government to achieve its goal while maintaining the character and heritage of Roseville. To support the proposed development before the resolution would cause irreversible damage to the local area.
Hyecorp has not acted in good faith to this point and it stands to reason they will not do so in the future; while claiming to have conducted community outreach, the only evidence I have seen is a flyer that was delivered to my address on the day of the community consultation that occurred between 4:30-6:00pm. This occurred prior to the time I get home from work, leaving me no reasonable opportunity to be consulted. Furthermore, I saw no advertising regarding the history workshop that they say was hosted on the 14th January 2025. Clearly there were others in the same position as me, given only 5 members of the wider community attended the session, and I have spoken to a number of other local residents who are in the same position as me.
Having grown up in Roseville, the local community is a large part of life here and the addition of a 9-storey, 259 apartment building would be in direct contradiction to the values of the community and the aspects of Roseville that attracted residents to it. Should the development go ahead, I fear that we would see an exodus of residents as a direct result, and thereby loss of community.
The application submitted by Hyecorp contains a number of flaws that sit at the heart of the concept itself:
• The streets surrounding the proposed site are commonly full of the parked cars of commuters from the Northern Beaches who utilise Roseville Train Station. It is not uncommon to have cars parked on both sides of the road from Hill St to beyond Martin Ln. As a result, it can already be hard at times to find parking close to home. The addition of 259 apartments will result in additional cars parked in the surrounding area irrespective of the developer’s claim that underground parking will prevent impact.
• The application claims that there will be minimal increase in the number of vehicles coming into and leaving Roseville by way of the surrounding arterial roads; however given they are proposing 344 basement car spaces and their submission states that 56% of residents use cars as their primary commute, therefore it would be an additional 193 cars entering and leaving Roseville on a daily basis and there is not empirical evidence that this percentage would be different for the residents of the development. As a resident who has previously had to commute by car, I can say that it is already hard enough to get onto any of the surrounding arterial roads during peak times, sometime having to wait several sets of lights. This does not even consider the increased traffic during construction.
• The proposal to cut down 91 trees, and the other flora that isn’t mentioned in the application is home to native animals that we see in the area, including Kookaburras, Galahs, Possums, Magpies and Bees to name a few. The destruction of their habitat will have irreversible negative impacts on local populations and the positive effects they have on the flora and the enjoyment of the local community.
• There has been no appropriate consideration given to the impact of placing a 9-storey building into an area completely comprised of 1 or 2 storey homes. It is clear that the applicant is looking to rush to make profit and has not given sufficient consideration to the surrounding Clanville Conservation Area and heritage sites. The aesthetic of the proposal is not in-keeping with that of surrounding buildings and would stick out like a sore thumb.
• Further to being an eye-sore, the application states that some surrounding houses will be in shadow from 2pm daily. Not only would this have a negative impact on those residence, but also the flora in the impacted areas, reducing the sunlight and ability to grow, further negatively impacting the local wildlife.
• The data used by Hyecorp and the 3rd party consultants that it has hired is out of data and brings into question the legitimacy of their assessments. For example, the Traffic Impact Assessment is using data from 2011 and previous assessments conducted in Lindfield.
It is for the aforementioned reasons that I strongly oppose the development proposal.

I refer to the above application and record my strong objection to this proposal.

The proposal:
1. ignores planning by the Kuring-Gai Council which, following community consultatio,n does not allow this height of building in this location
2. Is significantly excessive for the local area resulting in excessive loading on the immediate streets which are already operating at maximum capacity
3. Is of poor design with minimal setbacks, lack of building modulation and a box like design clearly designed to provide maximum profit to the developer
4. Is completely inconsistent with the heritage buildings located with the adjacent area, which have actively been preserved by residents and council
5. Will result in devastating tree loss and impact on wildlife

In summary, it is objectionable that a poorly designed block of units has been proposed, which is completely unsuited to the Roseville heritage streetscape, tree canopy and fauna, and imposes more problems on an already difficult transport situation in Roseville Ave, Lord Ave and Martins Lane (spilling into surrounding backstreets) and which will detract from the liveability for all Roseville residents.

Thank you.

See attached objection. It can be read in replacement of SUB-83442208 which can be disregarded.

Please refer to the attached document.
Thank you for considering my objection.

This submission is made by me on my own behalf and on behalf of my wife, who has participated in and approved this submission. We live in a nearby house in Roseville Avenue.
We object to the proposed development. It is not in the public interest and shouldn’t be further progressed or determined until the Kuringgai Concil’s Preferred Scenario is resolved, and in any event it should be rejected.
I note the Hyecorp flyer advising the project and meeting was delivered into our mailbox some time after we checked the mail on 12 March, and not received by us until 13 March. Accordingly we were not aware of the meeting until after it occurred. We would have attended if we had known about it.
The application relies on the TOD planning regime. That regime was introduced with limited or insufficient consultation - and as a state process is necessarily broad brush. Kuringgai Council has now followed a detailed consultation process specific to the area. The Kuringgai Council Preferred Scenario will provide the housing the Government wants with less negative impacts through reduction of green habitat (including deep soil areas), damage to heritage) and with preservation/encouragement of the Roseville shopping village.
We also believe that the height of the proposed development will create an unreasonable and unacceptable interface with the adjoining strip of houses on the western side in the direction of Roseville station. This is particularly the case as that strip is affected by the Metro tunnel, which we understand will constrict development of those houses. Other nearby houses in Roseville Avenue, including at least 10, 12 and 16, are excluded from the TOD presumably on heritage grounds. This will also prevent material development of houses nominally included in the TOD such as 14. Thus our subarea will be overwhelmed by this proposed development without being able to develop our own site.
We are further concerned that if this application is successful it will be used as a precedent to gut the effect of the Council’sPreferred Scenario, resulting in worse outcomes for the area generally, and leaving our small pocket of 1-2 story residences surrounded by a “forest” of 9 story buildings.
Thank you for considering our objection

To Whom It May Concern
As a mum of three grown up children I recognise the importance of providing affordable homes for our growing population, in particular for our essential service workers and first home buyers. However I object to Hyecorp's proposed development of a 9 storey building with 247 apartments in Lord St/Roseville Avenue for the following reasons.
1.Conflict with Ku ring gai Council's Preferred Development Scenario (PDS)
I understand that Ku ring gai Council has worked hard with the local community and State Government to develop the Preferred Development Scenario (PDS) which, if approved, allows the Council to meet the NSW Government housing targets whilst preserving local heritage and the tree canopy. Hyecorp's proposed development is entirely inconsistent with the PDS. If the PDS is approved Hyecorp's 9 storey high apartment block will be an isolated building within the heritage conservation area, surrounded by 1 and 2 story freestanding houses.
2. Lack of Community Engagement
Like my neighbours and friends in the Roseville Community I did not receive any information about the proposed development by Hyecorp. I did not receive the 'community flyer' supposedly delivered to over 1300 local residents and was not aware of the 'drop in' event on 12 March. I was therefore unable to provide any community feedback which i understand that it is a legal requirement for the developer to seek in order to to meet the requirements of the SEAR's.
3. Lack of infrastructure
I am aware of the negative impact that this development would have on the local infrastructure. I am particularly concerned about street parking and traffic in the local area, school capacity and water/sewerage. I don't believe the developer has adequately attempted to address these issues.
4. Lack of affordable units
Given the location of the apartments i think it's unlikely this development will deliver the 'affordable' housing we need. The Hyecorps Juliet apartments on Pacific Highway in Roseville are advertised on Urban.com.au from $1, 000, 000 for a 1 bedroom apartment increasing to over $4, 000, 000 for a 4 bedroom apartment. Even with a 25% discount I think this will be out of reach for our essential service workers and first home buyers.
Conclusion
I oppose the development of the Residential Development with in-fill affordable housing 16-24 Lord Street & 21-27 Roseville Avenue Roseville for a number of reasons. It is inconsistent and conflicts with the Ku ring gah's Preferred Scenario and there was clearly a lack of community engagement and a failure to meet the requirements of the SEARs. I don't believe the developer has addressed the negative impact the apartments would have on the local infrastructure nor will it provide the affordable housing we need for our growing population. I would emphasise I am not opposed to development in Roseville but would argue that it it should be in line with the Ku ring gah's Proposed Development Scenario which would meet the NSW Government housing targets whilst preserving the local heritage character and tree canopy.

As a young person in the local area I object to this proposition on many grounds, all with the vision I have educated myself on both sides of the argument, thus adamantly register my objection.


- Roseville is currently overwhelmed with immense traffic at almost all hours of the day, due to Roseville College, the train line, current developments, all of which are supported by many narrow streets which were designed to accomodate the flow of slow residential traffic. Currently Victoria Street is effectively a one way street due to the disastrous set up of Roseville College's car line. Further, multiple lanes which connect the residential streets of Roseville are wide enough only for 3 cars, and will be one way traffic 24 hour a day.

- I am now 19, and when I learnt to drive at 16, I had to wait until 9pm to drive around my area as the volume of constant traffic, coupled with multiple narrow roads. Further I have to be extra cautious crossing hill street at peak times, as the volume of busy drivers is insane, and they have blinders to pedestrians. Arguably this could be helped my putting more than one zebra crossing along Hill street, though clearly no one from council or otherwise has actually been to assess what daily life in our busy suburb is like.

- I feel the council has already skimped in terms of developing roads etc to accomodate the increasing infrastructure, all at the cost of the local residents. If it is absolutely necessary to increase the layout of housing in Roseville (i.e., not primarily just to line the pockets of a huge company, and actually to contribute effectively to the housing crisis), the council needs to make a significant sacrifice by way of facilitating an increase in infrastructure, it the same way it is expecting its' residents to sacrifice by dealing with a terribly thought through project.

Counter proposal?
I am sympathetic to the need to increase infrastructure Australia wide due to our expanding population. I however do not see how this project is going to contribute to our housing crisis more than it serves to line the pockets of a massive company. Roseville has already undergone immense changes on Victoria Street to accomodate development, and it seems slightly ludicrous to slowly destroy the character of this subject by breaking up residential streets with developments, when it would make much more sense to develop all of Victoria Street, thus preserving the integrity of the remaining streets, and also serving to isolate the inevitable traffic disasters to a smaller area. I understand they have already purchased houses along the street they plan to construct, however I have little sympathy for this move as they obviously should have sought community feedback, or considered how they could help negate the wildly obvious negative implications of their decision, such as by contributing to widening roads.

In summary, I fail to see how this project can claim to benefit literally anyone other than some rich company, and potentially the 6 home-homers who now get to comfortably move away for the brewing chaos about to hit our streets.

Re; SSD-78996460 in Roseville:
I object to this development. There has been zero community engagement by the developer. It is an opportunistic, rushed-through proposal that will permanently damage the neighbourhood. The bulk and scale of development is ludicrously out-of-place here; it will ruin the heritage character which needs to be preserved amongst the changing face of Kuringai; destroy dozens of trees which we cant afford to lose; reduce street parking for commuters, add to the traffic congestion at pinch points in peak periods; and further overload strained infrastructure. Most importantly, it undermines the Councils good faith efforts to apply tailored planning principles to deliver the required number of dwellings in Kuringai. I agree with "denisty done well" but this development is not an example of it - we can and should do better.