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

To even be having to do this submission is something I cannot even begin to comprehend. The words 'development' and 'Roseville' should never be in the same sentence. Roseville has always been known as a peaceful suburban area with heritage homes and large backyards. This is what many hard working Australians spend their life working to afford and live in. The fact that the government wants to come in and destroy beautiful homes just to squish in more people into this suburb is a disgrace. Roseville is not the place to fix the housing crisis as this is not an affordable housing area. Every development already happening was always meant to be affordable housing however I am yet to see one being advertised as affordable housing. Every single one says 'luxury apartments' or 'luxury living.' Roseville used to feel like a community walking up to hill street and seeing familiar faces around the shops and cafes. Bringing in more development will kill Roseville and it will just become another soulless suburb where every building looks the same and everyone walks around not knowing each other. Just for context I am 22 years old and have lived here my whole life. I am worried for the future of this country as everything is in decline. Bigger isn't always better and in Roseville particularly it thrives on community and keeping its heritage. Roseville is known for its beautiful homes and small village like feeling. Roseville is not designed for large developments and neither is it wanted here. Hyecorp claims in their submission at least 150 times the word 'affordable', however Roseville is the least affordable of the 37 TOD sights chosen by the government. So clearly based on that the apartments will not be affordable and this is highly unethical. I hope when you read this you understand the frustration and disappointment I and behalf of many other young kids growing up here in Roseville and nearby suburbs feel. When we are told amazing homes that one day we could aspire to live in with large backyards so called the 'Australian dream' will be replaced with squished in apartments forever ruining the demographic of the area.

Dear assessor of the project,

I am writing to you to strongly oppose this proposal by Hyecorp.

I live directly across the street on Lord Street, and my room faces north, i.e. facing the proposed development site. I am going to be significantly negatively impacted!

My room is filled with warm sunlight with its North facing window and this will be taken away by Hyecorp's development of a 30m+ concrete wall in right outside my place...

Not to mention that with such a building across the street, to retain privacy I will always need to keep my window and blind shut. The environmental impact statement does not consider this at all...

I also have to drive to work. There are two immediate traffic problem that a 250+ apartment residential complex will escalate on my street.

1. On the corner of Lord St and Hill St, there are two pedestrain crossing that is heavily used each morning as commuters travel to Roseville Stations and as students from Roseville Ladies College arrive at Roseville Station and walk toward their schools. Currently with limited local traffic, there is already a congestion point as cars will need to give way to both pedestrian cross Hill Street, and as they cross Lord Street. This could result in hundreds of meters of queued cars when Hyecorp's proposed development introduces hundreds more commuters

2. On the other end of Lord Street toward Archbold Road, Lord Street splits into two one way lane that often has cars parked on either side. And where the road split is a very narrow Y intersection, and there are difference in elevation. Currently local drivers already need to slow down significantly and take extra care entering and leaving Lord Street from Archbold Road. This will again cause significant traffic congestion and is something Hyecorp fails to consider adequately.

In summary I urge you to please reject this development proposal. It is rushed to go through SSD and by pass refinement of TOD which I am aware that the State and Local government are working on, and it has many flaws. Developers should not be rewarded for exploiting loopholes in policy transition period. They should be assessed fairly after the refinements are confirmed.

Kindly,
Concerned resident living on Lord Street

I strongly object to the proposed development on the grounds outlined in the attached.

Too much traffic. No Road for the CARS and this main issue to object the proposal.

I strongly object to the proposed State Significant Development Application (SSD-78996460) by Hyecorp. This development is inappropriate for Roseville, not in the public interest, it contradicts Ku-ring-gai Council’s Preferred Alternative Scenario, and prioritizes corporate profit over community well-being.‘
I urge the NSW Government to reject Hyecorp’s proposal and adopt Ku-ring-gai Council’s approach, which, unlike the NSW Planning TOD or Hyecorp’s proposal, was developed through extensive community consultation.

I am in the same area as the development and in the 400m distance to the station. I am all for development for Sydney and the area but wish it could be planned in a sensible and equitable way.
Now we are in a situation where the Hyecorp development can be approved as a SSD under TOD Sepp, yet after 13 June no other developments under the same conditions can be, and if the council scenario is accepted then very restricted development areas in the HCA area near the station.
This leads to a situation where you will have a 6-9 storey building at the extreme end of the 400m with only R2 houses around it and between it and 6-9 storey buildings at the shops. How is that good urban planning?
In this area there were numerous properties and groups that were for either for sale or talking to developers until the uncertainty that came from the council legal action and NSW State Government policy of TOD Sepp. Now with the council scenario expected to be accepted by the NSW government, by approving this SSD you will isolate and now restrict those same owners and groups that were accepting of the need for development.
I am against the development if it means an isolated 6-9 storey building surrounded by R2 zoning that is closer to the station than this SSD with no possibility of development in an HCA and the council scenario.



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

I am providing feedback regarding the HyeCorp development under the State Significant Development Application SSD-78996469.

There are a number of issues regarding the size of the development in this heritage location.

The development is very close to the station, hence its appeal, but the local streets will not cope with a development of this size with garaging. There is already a lot of traffic on these streets during peak times with passengers being picked up from the station and commuters with their cars parked in the local streets.

There are also a lot of cars using the local streets as a rat run avoiding highway traffic during peak hours both am and pm.

The streets on weekdays surrounding the station have always been parked out with commutrers since we moved here in 2004. Since the Metro opened last year there are many more commuters parking and using the station to gain access to the Metro as Roseville Station is one stop away.

It is often difficult to even get in or out of the driveway, with traffic flow and parking making visibility poor. Since we have purchased the property we have backed into the drive as it is too dangerous to back out with lack of visibility, but with the Metro the situation has become a weekday grind. Twice in the last fortnight we have had a commuter block our driveway completely, no car in or out for an extended period.

With previous changes to right hand turns onto Boundary and there being only a single left hand turn lane onto Boundary at Hill Street the traffic along Hill Street and over the single lane each way Clanville bridge to the lights on the Pacific Highway often stretches back for blocks during morning peak hour. This is also impacted by parents dropping children to Roseville College which is situated in Bancroft Avenue one block south of the proposed development, parking in the area is also impacted by the College. There is also a before and after school care run in the church near the corner of Martin Lane and Lord Street which adds to traffic congestion in both am and pm peak times, often when parking is at a premium.

There is an issue with the Metro exclusion corridor which due to restrictions on surrounding homes will mean that the streetscape will be adversely impacted with single story dwellings abutting this 9 story development. These properties have not been picked up by the developer due to these restrictions and will be presumably of no interest to developers in the future.

At no time were we consulted by HyeCorp regarding the development and the impact on the local amenity. I feel that their experts’ assessment of a number of the properties to be demolished to make way for the development are for some self serving.

The alternative proposals being worked through by Ku Ring Gai Council provide outcome that meets the requirements of the State Government’s target housing. The NSW Government has emphasized collaboration with councils to ensure place-based outcomes are achieved. I feel that these assurances given by the state government should be honored ( I do realize that the council have been slow to act), but at the same time I feel that HyeCorp has rushed through the application hoping to get a foot in the door without community consultation.

Thank you for taking the time to read my feedback,

Kind regards,






Sent from my iPad

I have been a proud resident of Roseville for the past 11 years, and I am writing to formally object to the proposed 9-storey residential development in our community. The height and scale of the project are completely out of character with the surrounding area and would set a concerning precedent for future developments. I am particularly worried about the increased traffic congestion such a large development would bring to our already strained local roads, as well as the lengthy construction period, which would cause significant disruption to daily life. Additionally, the development poses a serious threat to the heritage and unique charm of Roseville, which is one of the key reasons I chose to raise my family here. This proposal should not be approved in light of its lasting impact on our community’s character, infrastructure, and livability.

All my objections are in the attached submission.

To NSW Government Major Projects team
Re: Proposed residential development at 16-24 Lord Street & 21-27 Roseville Avenue, Roseville (SSD-78996460)
I have lived a street away from this proposed apartment complex for over 10 years. I object to a 9 storey, 267 unit complex being built in this location as it will stick out like a sore thumb in what is a uniformly low rise house & garden neighbourhood, famous for its heritage character. The huge scale of this development will also badly exacerbate parking issues near the station (which people living out of the area rely on) as well as the traffic in peak periods where we find it almost impossible to exit east side Roseville due to severe restrictions on where we can access the Pacific Highway, Boundary Street or Archbold Road. It will be a devastating blow to the tree canopy and wildlife that inhabit the 91 trees that are to be destroyed. I understand Council has a plan that will result in a significant increase in housing supply but in a more planned and considered way that will preserve the special characteristics of this area. I don't understand why our neighbourhood has to be destroyed forever when there are more appropriate locations on the table.
Please consider this obection, thank you
Alex

Dear Sir/Madam,
I am writing to formally object to the proposed development on the following grounds:
1. Concerns About the Pace and Impact of the Development
While I support balanced and thoughtful development, this proposal appears rushed and inappropriate, especially given the long-term environmental and social consequences it may have for future generations. In particular, the plan to demolish numerous houses with heritage features and remove many trees within a designated Heritage Conservation Area—an area that has existed for about a century—is deeply concerning. Decisions of this magnitude should be made with due care and respect for heritage and the environment. Furthermore, the Council is still working on the preferred scenario for an improved development plan. Such rapid development is more characteristic of countries still building their regulatory frameworks, not of Australia, where due and fair process and sustainable planning should prevail.
2. Lack of Genuine Community Engagement
The developer's application appears to have bypassed thorough and meaningful community consultation. Despite public claims to the contrary, the process did not reflect the level of transparency and engagement expected. For example, our household had no knowledge of the community drop-in session at Lindfield Seniors Centre/Community Hall on 12 March 2025. This raises concerns about how widely and effectively the consultation process was communicated.
3. Insufficient Consideration of Infrastructure Capacity
The proposed development does not adequately address the capacity of existing infrastructure, including drainage, stormwater management, water pressure, sewerage, power supply, and roads. Existing to Pacific Hwy and Boundary Street during peak hours is already difficult. In addition, our property already experiences subfloor flooding, and the council’s drainage system becomes overwhelmed during the rainy season. Introducing further development without resolving these issues will only exacerbate the problem for current and future residents.
4. Availability of a Better Alternative
The Council’s Preferred Scenario offers a more balanced and considered approach to development. It is essential to ask: if we can do better, why don’t we? There is no need to compromise so much our heritage, our environment, and the well-being of future generations when more suitable alternatives are available.
Thank you for your consideration.

Please see attached document

Due to the location of the Hyecorp development it is in a part of the exclusion zone of the metro tunnel.
If it is approved it will always be a stand alone 9 storey building at the end of Roseville Ave and Lord St to Martin Lane as the houses west of it ,between it and the station ,are part of the exclusion zone and cannot (even according to Hyecorps own submission) be developed. This makes a mockery of the diagrams from them showing it being one of a series of residential 6-9 storey buildings between it and the station.
This will look like a mini Blues Point tower equivalent in a suburb where if the State Govt accepts the council scenario everything around it will be R2 residential, especially on those properties that are in the exclusion zone.

Please see attached document

I object to this project. The reasons and objection letter are in the attachment below.

It is criminal that a proposal like this has come this far. It is insulting to the history associated with the dress circle streets of Roseville, namely Lord Street and Roseville Avenue, that the NSW Government would entertain this proposal. Additional housing can be built away from the most beautiful part of our suburb.

Our streets and transport are not built for the construction traffic let alone additional residential traffic. Roseville is a thoroughfare for families from the northern beaches using the train line to get to school and work. We can’t accommodate unit complexes that will bring even more traffic. Parking is already difficult on any given weekday, apartments will make this worse.

And where on earth are the children of the families in these apartments going to go to school?

Enough said, say no to this ridiculous proposal. Please and thank you.

Developer extracting maximum value by destroying heritage character, they are plan to build a 31.1m towers in area Council plans for 9.5m maximum heigh! 728 additional residents will bring a local Infrastructure Overload, road traffic and storm water system will not be able to afford it , it is already overcrowed and the infrastructure will not be able to support so many residents, this rushing application exploits transitional TOD policy to rush approval for 31.1m buildings in an area Council's
preferred update would limit to 9.5m maximum height with R2 zoning. This represents systematic abuse of
policy transition periods, rewarding corporate profit over genuine strategic planning. It will be very disappointing for such plan to get approved.

To whom it may concern:

I am a resident on Lord Street and I live in close proximity to the planned site of this project.

I strongly object this project because it has significant impact on my home.

I love a good sunbath in my yard and I consistently exercise outdoor at home. The noise and dust pollution caused by the construction significantly impacts my life style and with people potentially staring down at my backyard, look over the roof and my house because the apartment is 30+ meters tall, I would feel very violated!

I can only say I imagine the same for all house residents on all FOUR sides of the proposed apartments. They could not have picked a worse site! They should really start building apartments radiating from the train station.

Having an high-rising apartment complex in the middle of a patch of detached houses is a poor choice and a significant disruption of the neighbourhood character.

This apartment is also designed with no shop front so it has no positive impact on the community such as attracting more restaurants and stores to the region. It only adds traffic and high density to the region and forces the cost on surrounding residents.

I strongly ask for this project to be turned down or reduced so that it leaves me enough privacy and sunlight!

Regards,

Concerned Resident of Roseville

I object to State Significant Development (SSD) Application SSD-78996460.
I support increasing housing density and meeting the objectives of the Housing policy however any increase to housing must be well planned and well thought through to ensure there is minimal impact on heritage, environment, and community. The SSD-78996460 fails as it does significantly impact, environment, heritage, and community.
My reasons for the objection are below:

1. Does not align with Preferred Scenario of Kuring-Gai Council
There is an ongoing process between Ku-ring-gai Council and the NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure (DPHI) regarding an alternate Transport Oriented Development (TOD) plan for Roseville.

The SSD-78996460 conflicts with the preferred scenario. The preferred scenario, after extensive community consultation provides greater housing numbers than the TOD and aligns with local infrastructure capacity, environmental conservation, heritage conservation.

Proceeding with SSD-78996460 which conflicts with the preferred scenario will result in extremely poor planning outcomes and leave the locality with a stranded island development (in terms of scale and bulk relative to the immediate area) that causes permanent damage to environment, heritage, and community.

The development will be stranded due to the immediate adjacency of the metro reservations will restrict matching height/scale development and future planning under the preferred scenario will provide density along the ridge line / Pacific Highway and town centres.

The potential to have both a glut of SSD approved projects and the preferred scenario accepted is an outcome that indicates the State was not genuine in its intent to allow Ku-ring-gai to develop an alternative to the TOD. This will result in permanent damage to the community.


2. Lack of Consultation with Community

Our residence did not receive a flyer nor advice of the development.

The claims in the EIS page 512 that 1355 flyers were distribute must be challenged.

Our residence did not receive advice of the community drop-in session 11Mar25 and was not provided an opportunity to attend.

Due to the failure to provide notice or information there was not adequate community consultation in developing SSD-78996460.

A State Significant Development must consider community feedback. Page 2 of Appendix K Engagement Outcome Report provides guidelines for proponents to follow in respect of engagement. The proponents of SSD-78996460 have not met the guidelines. As an example, they did not ensure the engagement was effective.

Despite the claim of distribution of flyers, this has not been evidenced. Further the fact that only 34 online surveys were completed (Page 8 appendix K) from an alleged total of 1355 flyers distributed raises the question adequacy of making information made available to the community?

The conclusion is that Hyecorp have failed to provide for the correct community engagement process, did not ensure the process was effective nor considered feedback that was received. This is because the Hyecorp was working under a tight TOD timeframe to rush the process.

3. Destruction of Trees
The application proposes the removal of 89 trees (page 120 of EIS)

This substantial planned tree destruction can be avoided by ensuring development occurs along the highway and town centres (Roseville shops) as per Councils preferred scenario will result much less destruction to the tree canopy.
Intentional loss of trees when alternate sites deliver greater housing numbers without the tree loss is crazy and is a failure of the State to protect the environment in times when climate change and environmental protection are the priority for future generations.

4. Failure of Good Urban Design Principles

Adjacent to the proposed development North, South, East and West (as detailed in the report and page 2 of the Appendix H Clause 4.6 Variation Request) there are single dwellings. Having a development of +30m adjacent to these single dwelling is a failure of good design principles.

As previously mentioned, the development will become an island in terms of size and bulk due to the immediacy of the metro reservation area restricting the scale and bulk of future developments to the west.

The proposed buildings will be oversized to the future development plans (under Councils preferred scenario) and will fail to provide good interface of stepped / reducing height away from the Roseville station. Good urban planning principle would have adequate regard for the interface zone between multi story development and single dwellings. This development places a 30+ m development in the middle of single dwellings.

As well as conflicting with the preferred scenario, the development will become an island in terms of size and bulk due to the immediacy of the metro reservation area restricting the scale and bulk of future developments to the west.


5. Affordable housing not permanent

A 30% bonus on height is awarded for meeting affordable housing targets. A concern is that the allowance for affordable housing in the development is not permanent. Hence the bonus is awarded on a temporary affordable housing solution.

The development has 259 apartments, 211 market, 48 affordable (17%).

28.6m is the maximum height with the 30% bonus for affordable. However, this proposal is seeking amendment to +30m.

Of the 17% or 48 dwellings, 2% will be held in perpetuity whilst 15% for 15 years. This does not represent affordable housing over the long term. It results in an oversized development which does not provide long term solution to the housing outcomes.

If the affordable housing is not permanent how can this project be titled “in fill affordable housing” in the SSD heading?


6. Traffic Congestion

The data collection for the Transport assessment must be challenged. The proposed development provides 344 car spaces however the claim that only 43 (am) and 32 (pm) car movements is without justification. There is no basis for these numbers provided in the EIS nor Appendix Q.

There are limited exit points from Roseville to Boundary Street and the Pacific Highway. The Clanville Pacific Highway exit is an extremely dangerous and congested intersection during peak and adding volume will result in increased risk and congestion. To say otherwise is completely false.

Overall community amenity and safety will decline.

7. The Use of State Significant Development Pathway

The classification of this project as an SSD has the effect of by-passing council and hence community. There does not appear a legitimate basis for this proposal to be classified as “State Significant” other than project value.

When investigating the SSD web page – residential development is not mentioned as a type of project that is of State Significance. This development does not provide extraordinary public benefit or strategic merit that would fit within the SSD pathway. It appears to be used to enable bypassing the Council oversight and community engagement mechanisms.

As previously mentioned, the affordable housing is not permanent, how then can this project be classified as infill affordable housing?

8. Conclusion
The application SSD-78996460 should not be approved.
• Kuring-Gai preferred scenario provides a better outcome in terms of housing numbers, the conclusion of the process with DPHI and Council to conclude the preferred scenario must occur before any projects are considered.
• There has been a failure in process as there has been a lack of community consultation notwithstanding the claims in the EIS.
• The destruction of trees is unacceptable.
• The basis of the design on affordable housing is not permanent.
• Traffic congestion
• The use of SSD for this approval undermines public confidence in fair and transparent planning processes.
• It disregards the environmental, amenity, and infrastructure needs of the community.
For these reasons, I urge the NSW Department of Planning to refuse SSD-78996460in full, and to support Ku-ring-gai Council’s evidence-based, consultative planning approach for Roseville’s future.

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing to formally object to the proposed Hyecorp SSD at 16-24 Lord Street and 21-27 Roseville Avenue, Roseville (SSD-78996460). Having lived in Roseville for several years and intending to return, I have a deep appreciation for its unique heritage, community charm, and environmental character—qualities seriously threatened by this proposed development.

Firstly, it is essential that this application, submitted under Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) planning controls, does not progress until the Ku-ring-gai Council's Preferred Scenario has been fully resolved. The introduction of TOD controls occurred without adequate community consultation, undermining transparency and democratic process. The Council’s Preferred Scenario offers a sensible approach that respects Roseville’s unique character by preserving current zoning, particularly beyond designated precincts like Hill Street and upper Victoria Street.

I have significant concerns regarding Hyecorp's inadequate community engagement. I have heard from numerous community members that the flyer announcing the community drop-in session on 12 March 2025 was not widely distributed in a timely manner, nor was there sufficient invitation to participate in community surveys. This lack of broad-based communication undermines transparency and genuine public consultation.

My primary concerns about this development include:

Scale and Building Height: The proposal includes four buildings up to nine storeys high, drastically disproportionate to the surrounding area predominantly characterised by single and double-storey homes. Such height will cause severe overshadowing, extensive night-time light pollution, loss of privacy, and substantial degradation of solar access and visual character.

Heritage and Community Character: Located among three heritage conservation areas, this proposal threatens to demolish nine historically significant houses, severely impacting local heritage. Roseville’s distinct architectural identity and historical continuity are at risk, potentially replaced by visually jarring high-rise structures isolated amidst a community of low-rise heritage homes.

Traffic and Parking Congestion: Roseville already struggles with significant congestion, notably around Roseville College, Clanville Road, Pacific Highway, Hill Street, and Victoria Street during peak periods. The addition of 309 resident and 35 visitor parking spaces would exacerbate existing conditions, increasing safety risks for pedestrians and schoolchildren, and reducing the quality of daily life.

Infrastructure Capacity: Local infrastructure—including schools, healthcare facilities, public transport, water, sewerage, and stormwater management—is already under considerable strain. Chatswood High School operates significantly above its capacity, GP wait times indicate a local healthcare shortage, and water pressure and sewer infrastructure are already inadequate. Introducing substantial population growth without corresponding infrastructure enhancements is irresponsible and unsustainable.

Environmental and Ecological Impact: Removing 91 established trees will significantly impact local biodiversity and environmental quality. Such environmental degradation cannot be compensated by new plantings in the short to medium term. Further, increased reliance on air conditioning due to poor cross-ventilation in the proposed buildings would significantly increase ambient noise and negatively impact local wildlife.

Construction Disruption: A two-year minimum construction period involving heavy vehicles, cranes, and trucks poses a substantial risk of noise pollution, vibration damage to homes (many with sandstone footings on clay soil), traffic disruptions, and further deterioration of local road conditions.

In conclusion, while I recognise the need for increased housing and affordable living options, this must be balanced with preserving Roseville’s unique community character, environmental integrity, and local heritage. This proposed development, in its current form, fails to achieve this balance. I urge the NSW Department of Planning to reject or pause this application until meaningful community consultation has taken place, infrastructure needs have been properly assessed, and the Council’s Preferred Scenario has been conclusively resolved.

Thank you for considering this submission.

Yours sincerely,

Dan Pooley