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

Please see the attached document

It would be a disservice to the community to knock down the heritage homes and replace them with copy and paste apartments. Not to mention all of the cars, which would cause extreme congestion to an already high-traffic part of Roseville. Look at what has happened in lindfield near Harris farm. It takes ten minutes to get onto the highway during peak hour. Please consider this development for a less busy suburb.

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

Ruby Jackson
17 Clanville Rd
Roseville NSW 2069

For context, I live about 750m (a few streets away) north-west of the SSDA site.
I have lived at the above address for approximately 25 years.

I strongly oppose the proposed development for several key reasons:

Lack of Proper Consultation: The community engagement process has been extremely inadequate. My household, for example, has received no communication or information from the developer, which raises serious concerns about transparency.

Questionable Justification for ‘State Significant’ Status: The development offers limited social benefits, such as a small number of affordable homes, and provides virtually no economic advantage. Given these factors, it’s difficult to understand how this project qualifies as ‘state significant.’

Excessive Scale and Incompatibility with the Local Area: The size, height, and bulk of the proposed development are out of proportion with the surrounding area, which includes many heritage-listed properties. This is not in keeping with the character of the neighborhood.

Unjustified Height Exceedance: The proposal exceeds the allowable height limit without offering any reasonable explanation or justification for such an increase.

Negative Impact on Residents: The sheer size of the development will lead to significant overshadowing and a loss of privacy for nearby residents, causing further disruption to the community.

Destruction of Local Greenery: Around 90 mature trees will be destroyed in the process, which will have an irreversible impact on the local environment and ecosystem.

Underutilization of Existing Properties: Rather than demolishing perfectly livable homes, why not focus on redeveloping neglected properties along the highway? This would make far more sense in terms of preserving the integrity of the local community.

Disruption During Construction: The construction phase will likely be extremely disruptive, with heavy machinery, noise, vibrations, and dust creating a major disturbance. This could even lead to significant traffic disruption and damage to local roads, similar to (but likely worse than) the KOPWA redevelopment project.

Strain on Local Infrastructure: The development will put even more pressure on already overstretched local infrastructure, including roads, schools, and the North Shore railway line, which was recently reported to be the worst-performing railway line in Sydney over the past five years.

Difficult Access: Roads in East Roseville are narrow, often fully parked-out, and access to the area is complicated by the railway line and surrounding arterial roads. This will only be exacerbated by the increased traffic the development will bring.

Affordability Concerns: The properties in this development will likely be expensive. If the intent of the project is to provide affordable housing for young people trying to enter the market, then this goal is not being met.

This does not belong in a suburban area. Roseville is already overcrowded.

Looks a great project but does not belong in Roseville. Put this somewhere where family homes DON’T have to be knocked down.

This is god awful and should never happen would kill the community of roseville making the entire station area a nightmare, especially kia lights. Fuck off 🖕🖕🖕

Dear Sir/ Madam,

I am writing to object to the proposed SSD at 16-24 Lord Street & 21-27 Roseville Avenue Roseville (SSD-78996460).

As a home owner in Oliver Road Roseville, I will be directly impacted by the proposed development. I am one street away and the rear of my house will look on to it.

My key objections to the proposal are:

1. The size of the proposed development is excessive in terms of height and footprint. In particular, 9 storeys high will be significantly higher than the dwellings in the surrounding area - both current and potential future dwellings. The Sydney metro reserve directly adjacent to the site will restrict the size of potential developments and under Ku-Ring-Gai council’s current preferred scenario the area will continue to be zoned R2. Furthermore, the heritage Scout hall on Roseville avenue cannot be developed.

2. The proposed 259 apartments will put further pressure on the limited parking and traffic congestion on the surrounding streets. The streets are already parked out by commuters during the week. This has progressively become worse over the 11 years we have lived here and more recently after the metro opened.

3. There are only 309 resident parking spots. While this technically meets minimum planning requirements, it will be insufficient for the expected number of residents and larger sized apartments in the development. Regardless of ideologies on the number of cars each household should have, the reality is many apartment residents will have multiple cars out of necessity and will need to park their cars permanently on the streets. In turn this will further restrict the availability of parking for commuters and current residents.

4. Martin lane, despite being narrow, is a main thoroughfare due to the limited access points between Lord street and Roseville avenue. It can become heavily congested during peak travel hours. Such a large development and concentration of residents next to the lane will create additional traffic, making it dangerous for the many children who walk to and from school at nearby Roseville College and Roseville Public School.

5. There has been little to no community consultation as part of the development planning. My property will be directly impacted in terms of parking, infrastructure, looking into the development and during its construction. Despite this, I did not receive the community flyer that was allegedly distributed. My neighbours and others in the community have reported the same thing. As such we did not have an opportunity to attend the community session on 11 March 2025 at which only 5 people attended. This number is statistically too small compared with 1,355 flyers and inconsistent with the number of residents now publicly raising concerns.

6. A decision on this application should be put on hold until an agreement is reached between Ku-Ring-Gai council and the NSW state government regarding the future zoning of the area. Specifically, under the council’s preferred scenario the proposed development will not be in keeping with the surrounding heritage conservation area which the council and community has nurtured over generations.


Regards
Roseville Resident

I attach a document with the reasoning for my objection.

I grew up on Clanville Road and recently had my wedding in the backyard of this same house I grew up in. I have since moved out of the area but I would like to move back one day to start a family as it is such a beautiful place.

I strongly object to the proposed development on the following grounds:

- **Lack of Community Engagement**: There has been inadequate consultation, leaving residents uninformed. My household, for instance, has received no communication, information, or advice from the developer.
- **Questionable State Significance**: With minimal economic benefits and only a small number of permanently affordable homes, it is unclear how this project qualifies as a ‘state significant’ development.
- **Excessive Scale and Inconsistency**: The proposed height, bulk, and overall scale are disproportionate and do not align with the existing character of the area, which is rich in heritage-listed properties.
- **Unjustified Height Increase**: The development surpasses height allowances without providing any rationale or justification for exceeding established limits.
- **Privacy and Overshadowing Concerns**: The size and density of the development will cause substantial overshadowing and a significant loss of privacy for neighboring residents.
- **Environmental Destruction**: A considerable number of trees will be removed, negatively impacting local biodiversity and green spaces.
- **Unnecessary Demolition**: The project involves the destruction of viable homes. A more sensible approach would be to rehabilitate neglected properties along the highway rather than waste functional residences.
- **Construction Disruptions**: The scale of the project will generate excessive noise, vibration, and dust, while heavy vehicles will disrupt traffic and potentially damage local roads—similar to previous developments like KOPWA, but on a much larger and more complex scale.
- **Strain on Local Infrastructure**: The area’s already overstretched infrastructure—including roads, railways (especially the North Shore line), schools, and essential amenities—will struggle to support the additional demand.
- **Traffic and Accessibility Issues**: East Roseville’s narrow roads are already congested with parked cars, and access is further complicated by the railway and surrounding arterial roads.
- **Affordability Concerns**: Despite claims of providing affordable housing, the proposed properties appear to be priced beyond the reach of young buyers looking to enter the housing market.

This project only serves Hyecorp’s financial interests. ‘Affordable housing’ is nothing more than a false justification made by people with no desire to see it achieved. That this project has advanced to the public submission stage (despite many flaws and no tangible public benefit) raises serious concerns about transparency, governance, and potential conflicts of interest. It calls into question whether public interest has been sidelined in favor of corporate gain. I sincerely hope the relevant decision-makers can find the decency to prioritise the interests of local (voting) residents.

Don’t fucken do this shit and ruin Roseville you dog cunts

I object to the project on the following basis:
- the height and scale is and will continue to be extremely out of context with the surrounding area. The area East of the site is the end of the TOD precinct, apart from one small single lot that will not allow significant development. The West of the site is impacted by the Sydney Metro Tunnel Reserve for almost the full extent up to the retail precinct on Hill Street. This will continue onto the other sides of the two streets. Therefore the proposed buildings will tower over the surrounding 1-2 storey housing by 7-8 storeys.
- The height of the buildings all exceed the allowable height of 28.6m, reaching up to 31.1m on one building - almost 10% over the already increased height as a result of the affordable housing.
- on three sides are locally heritage listed buildings (22, 31 and 32 Roseville Ave, 19 Lord St) and including the old sandstone scout hall which will be materially overshadowed by the development and have a visual and heritage impact overall on the area.
- Further the overall heritage of the area will be materially and detrimentally impacted but the development which is completely out of keeping with the heritage, scale and landscaping of the surrounding suburb.
- The shadowing on surrounding housing is material given the 30+m height and will significantly impact the solar access of these houses - which again cannot be built up given the Sydney metro tunnel reserve.
- In addition the visual impact on surrounding houses is severe and limits views to the sky.
- the set back and articulation on Lord Street is completely inadequate. Lord St is the main road that leads up to the heart of the Roseville retail precinct and station. Yet it does not benefit from reasonable setbacks or articulation to the visuals along the length or height while also having the driveway extending out for all 344 car spaces in the building. There is no sense of grandeur or heritage taken into consideration.
- with 344 extra cars v an estimate of 30 previously the assumed impact on traffic will be material. The roads and entrances onto the Pacific Highway and Boundary Street are already congested during peak hours with local people heading to work and study combined with people who use the area as a rat run. This is then impacted by the traffic from elsewhere dropping commuters to the station plus the local schools including Roseville College one street over. Martin Lane is already too narrow for existing traffic with Glencroft also hard to traverse during peaks. If these streets can no longer have parking then parking will continue to spread throughout the suburb. The assumed traffic impact in the EIS cannot be real - 344 additional cars will have a much larger impact than that stated in the EIS and congestion will be material.
- Roseville is impacted already by sever flooding with inadequate stormwater. By building over more absorbable area the drainage will contribute to and increase the flooding in the area.
- The removal of 89 trees will have a significant impact on the vegetation and temperature in the suburb. Most of the trees that are 'softening' the project are on the footpath and not on the actual site. The building will exceed the canopy height of the trees.
- A large amount of the open space is internalised with the set backs from the roads not adequate for the height and scale of the development. There will be far less open space onto the street than previously.
- Due consideration needs to be given to the current proposal under consideration by Ku-ring-gai Council for submission to State Government regarding an alternative proposal for rezoning and changing height across Ku-ring-gai to deliver more housing without the same impacts on areas where there is significant heritage value that should be maintained for our city and future generations. This is particularly the case given a significant portion of the area in the Roseville TOD precinct is impacted by the Sydney Metro Tunnel reserve meaning this particular development will be and will continue to be materially out of context with the surrounding area and housing. Until the proposed rezoning is submitted by Ku-ring-gai Council this proposal should not be approved.
- overall this is not a project that should be considered appropriate given the above impacts on the heritage, the scale of the project in the context of the surrounds, the impact on traffic and stormwater given already inadequate infrastructure, flooding and congestion, the impact on the solar access and privacy of surrounding housing including into the future, and the impact on vegetation.

I state my objections to the SSD and Hyecorp development application and their EIS as follows:
1. SSD vs Ku-ring-gai (KRG) planning process
a. The process of this SDD is to bypass KRG planning and democratic community consultation possess. The only legitimate reason for the SSD to override the Councils planning scenario is the SSD project value and not the typical State Significance, as outlined in the purpose of SSDs on the NSW Government website. The application does not propose extraordinary public benefit nor strategic merit. SDDs typically are of State significance and include large scale industrial, infrastructure and mining developments and do not include stand-alone residential developments.
b. The KRG “Preferred Scenario” delivers greater housing numbers than the State TOD and aligns with local infrastructure capacity, environmental and heritage conservation, and has consulted the community. The preferred scenario concentrates development on the ridgeline of the Pacific Hwy and is not intrusive to the heritage and environmentally sensitive Conservation Residential Area (CRA) on the East side of Roseville. The Council process remains under consideration utilising consultative and democratic process. The local process should be able to reach its conclusion and not be autocratically bypassed by the State Planning Minister.
c. The SSD is proposed within a KRG CRA where individual households have been approached by developers. Good planning would see high rise development on the transport corridor at the Pacific Hwy and as illustrated in the preferred scenario proposed by KRG. Poor planning would see development amongst single residential lots like the consolidated SSD site of Lord Street and Roseville Avenue, Roseville. The transport corridor has existing walk-up residential strata developments which comprise multiple owners. The only possible outcome to approach individual East side residences in the SSD is to generate division amongst neighbours and provide an easier consolidation of sites for the developers.
d. We note there are multiple out of area submissions to other proposed SSDs in the KRG area. How is this possible that people outside of our area know about the submission and we have only found out via our community-based group opposing poor planning.
e. There has been significant consultation between the developers and the State Govt prior to any consultation with the KRG nor its residents. Therefore, the State Govt priorities are dictatory, misleading and illustrate an autocratic response and not a democratic planning process.
f. It is apparent that the authoritative way the SSDs are being forced upon our suburb is in reaction to the Federal Govts bribe of additional funding to States to provide additional housing – at any cost. There is a real cost and loss of amenity to the existing local community and environment. Once these heritage homes and trees are demolished there is no turning back and the amenity of the area, due to poor and lazy planning, will be lost forever.
g. As the infill affordable housing proponent of the SSD is not permanent, the overall significance of the development is not in line with usual SSDs. The use of “infill affordable housing” is therefore not transparent, is grossly misleading and is only used by The State Government to the bypass KRG preferred scenario.
2. When considering an increase in population and density, good planning should ensure that that community is granted additional services like schools, transport, hospitals etc. Not considering this is counter intuitive to the assessment of a SSD whereby the impact of local community, including environment both natural and built and the social and economic impacts need to be considered.
3. Dispute of Developer’s application and EIS
a. No community consultation
We did not receive flyers nor advice of the development from Hyecorp. The claims in the EIS that 1355 flyers were distributed must be challenged. Our residence did not receive advice from Hyecorp of the community drop-in session 11Mar25 and was not provided an opportunity to attend. As there was no community consultation in the preparation of the EIS and application, there is no reflection on the views of the local community.
The EIS does not reflect a high standard under the SSD section 5.3. It does not provide justification and evaluation of the project having regard to economic, environmental, and social impact nor illustrate the principles of an ecologically sustainable development.
b. Destruction of Trees
The application proposes the removal of 89 mature trees and 16 mature trees will be significantly impacted during the construction phase.
This substantial planned tree destruction can be avoided by ensuring development occurs along the Pacific Hwy and town centre as per the KRG preferred scenario. There will therefore be zero loss of tree canopy in development along the Pacific Highway and will result much less destruction to the tree canopy. Intentional loss of trees when alternate sites deliver better housing outcomes without the tree loss is counter intuitive to Net Zero and the effects of climate change and imposes significant future impact on the natural environment, flora, and fauna.
c. Poor Urban Design Principles
• The application does not contain technically robust assessment of the impacts of the project and therefore is not accurate. The EIS and application should accurately provide data collection, feasibility of mitigation measures or adaptive management, illustrating methods used to project impacts and criteria for evaluating the acceptability of the impacts. The data collection on the transport, traffic and social impact assessments are outdated, fascicle and not accurate. Therefore, the accuracy and data collection of the overall application must be questioned.
• The proposed development illustrates poor design interface by enabling 30+ metres buildings against single level residences. Good urban planning principle would have adequate regard for the interface zone between multi story development and single dwellings.
• The proposed development casts a significant shadow over the southern residents of Lord Street. In a typical June afternoon, the entire residence will be overshadowed. This illustrates the lack of consideration for future local amenity.
• A portion of the proposed development lies within the Metro second reserve. Excavation for the development will therefore lie within this reserve and generate potential encroachment upon the metro’s maintenance. Not unlike building upon an easement and reserve should be off limits too. There would be a conflict of interest between the State Planning and the State Transport given State Transport are a governing body in respect to the overall approval of the SSD.
• The proposed building material to be used for cladding the residential towers is not in keeping with the Roseville surroundings. A blonde brick depicts 1970’s or 2020’s design and the local Roseville residences depict 1900 and 1920 building materials and colours..
d. 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%). Of the 17% or 48 dwellings, 2% will be held in perpetuity whilst 15% for 15 years. This does not represent true affordable housing over the long term..
I note that 28.6m is the maximum height with the 30% bonus for affordable housing. However, this proposal is seeking amendment to +30m.
e. Increase in Traffic Congestion
The data collection for the Transport assessment, Appendix Q, is flawed and outdated. The proposed development provides 344 car spaces however the claim that only 43 (am) and 32 (pm) car movements is ludicrous and without justification.
There are limited exit points from Roseville to Boundary Street and the Pacific Hwy The traffic congestion at these points is currently high and an increase of traffic movement from an additional 344 cars will only exacerbate the traffic congestion.
Conclusion The application SSD-78996460 should not be approved.
• The KRG preferred scenario provides a better outcome in terms of housing numbers and would not have a development of the scale and bulk in a sensitive and Local CRA.
• The preferred scenario must occur before any SSD projects are considered. It is not acceptable to consider both SSDs plus the preferred scenario.
• There has been a failure in process with a lack of community consultation, notwithstanding the claims in the applicant’s EIS.
• The destruction of multiple mature trees is unacceptable.
• The basis of the design on affordable housing is not permanent and therefore misleading and not really the true and honest basis of the SSD – infill affordable housing.
• The pushing through of an SSD over local preferred scenarios can only be concluded to benefit developers and not the local community.
• There will be significant increase in traffic congestion and the EIS data should be challenged.
• The use of SSD for this approval undermines public confidence in fair, democratic and transparent planning processes.

Roseville should be left as family homes

1. Connection to the Proposed Development
We are local residents living very close to the proposed site (within 400 meters), and the suburb of Roseville is such a unique and beautiful place that everyone loves it for its character full of elegancy, quietness, history of heritage culture. When hearing about the proposed plan (not from the developer as we did not receive anything in our mailbox) from our neighbors, we are very shocked and sad!! I strongly object to the proposed Hyecorp development and therefore submit to express my concerns and objection.

2. Premature Application Under the TOD Program
The development application has been submitted under the Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) program, and it is still under review, which means not being finalized by the Council. I think this is inappropriately misleading to regard this proposal as serving the public interest until a Preferred Option has been formally adopted. Should the Council’s Preferred Option be endorsed, this TOD program would no longer apply to this area.

3. Distribution of Hyecorp Community Flyers
I have never receive any Hyecorp’s community notification flyer, and this lacks transparency and fair community consultation. As a local resident whose interest to be adversely affected by such a big program, I deserve an opportunity to be notified timely and properly.

4. Incompatibility with Local Character and Planning Controls
The proposed development is excessive in scale and especially height, inconsistent with the existing low-density residential character of Roseville Eastside. The design damages the visual harmony, privacy, and our neighborhood. Roseville Eastside is not suited to the type of high-density R4 zoning envisioned under the TOD framework.

5. Support for the Council’s Preferred Option
I support Ku-ring-gai Council’s Preferred Option, and it has well preserved the existing density controls across most of Roseville East and considered the established character of the area. Only areas directly adjacent to the station (Hill Street and Victoria Street) may be appropriate for limited increases in density.

6. Concerns about Traffic and Parking Impact
The current suburb is already packed by cars during peak hours in the morning and in the afternoon everyday. According to the proposed development, the growth of hundreds of people will significantly worsen traffic congestion and parking shortages in an area as it already struggles with limited street parking. Lord Street and Roseville Avenue are very narrow streets, and they are not designed to accommodate the traffic volume this proposal would generate.

7. Visual Impact and Overshadowing
The scale of the proposed building will result in unacceptable visual bulk and overshadowing of surrounding properties. The Visual Impact Assessment clearly shows an adversely detrimental impact on the streetscape, especially looking at neighboring homes.

Declaration
I confirm that the information provided in this submission is true and not misleading. It contains no offensive, threatening, or defamatory content, and does not include any personally identifiable information about others without their consent.

Attachments
- Engagement Outcomes Report
https://majorprojects.planningportal.nsw.gov.au/prweb/PRRestService/mp/01/getContent?AttachRef=SSD-78996460%2120250416T085721.169%20GMT

- Social Impact Assessment
https://majorprojects.planningportal.nsw.gov.au/prweb/PRRestService/mp/01/getContent?AttachRef=SSD-78996460%2120250416T085718.360%20GMT



- Architectural Plans
https://majorprojects.planningportal.nsw.gov.au/prweb/PRRestService/mp/01/getContent?AttachRef=SSD-78996460%2120250416T085726.755%20GMT

- Visual Impact Assessment
https://majorprojects.planningportal.nsw.gov.au/prweb/PRRestService/mp/01/getContent?AttachRef=SSD-78996460%2120250416T085733.034%20GMT

Please see letter attached.

I am a resident at and the owner of 11 Lord Street Roseville. I am also a Managing Director, Head of Real Estate Investment Banking. In the course of my work, I have been involved with development over Sydney Metro tunnels.
Our house is over the first reserve of the metro line from Chatswood to Macquarie Park.
The following is based on my experience through my work, discussions with potential developers and agents who canvassed our neighbourhood after the introduction of the TOD program and neighbours.
From these discussions and as referred to in the Report prepared by Mitch Ayres Surveying dated 21 May 2025 (Survey Report), there are significant portions of the TOD area east of Roseville Station that are within the first and second reserves of the metro line which runs under Roseville. The metro stratum is at a relatively shallow depth as detailed on the RL plans referred to in the Survey Report which also details, based on the assumptions and methodologies used in the Report, the distance from the road levels to top of the metro owned stratum which is regarded as the First Reserve.
It is certain that Sydney Metro will not allow any construction activity within the First Reserve, including ground anchors, with the exception of investigation holes and installation of instrumentation (which are subject to assessment). It is also highly likely that deep excavations will be problematic in the Second Reserve also beyond the 2 metre depth referred to in section 4 of the Sydney Metro Underground Corridor Protection Technical Guidelines.
Based on my knowledge the Applicant, Hyecorp is also aware of the issues with developing over the Metro First and Second Reserves above and adjacent to the Metro Stratums as discussed in their EIS, Section 3.2.7, p41-42. In fact based on speaking to residents and agents, Hyecorp undertook due diligence over 6-14 Lord Street and 19 Roseville Avenue. Based on that due diligence, they did not proceed to take options over those sites, despite having terms agreed, due to identifying that they would not be able to built multi storey developments with basements over those lots.
This knowledge of not being able to deliver similar bulk between their site and the station goes counter to their supposition that the lots around their development can be and will be developed to be consistent with the bulk they are proposing - this is shown on page 56 of their EIS, Section 6.1.1.1.
An analysis of the tunnel trajectory and reserves as detailed in the Survey Report will show that a substantial swathe of land east of Roseville Station will be unable to have substantially increased density due to the Metro stratums incorporating the tunnels. In my opinion, when overlayed with the TOD zone, the proposed Hyecorp development will be an island development, even if the Ku-ring-gai Preferred Scenario were not adopted as the alternative planning scheme.
The metro tunnel situation is further rationale why Ku-ring-gai’s Preferred Scenario for Rosevile, east of the station, is a sensible planning outcome.

Please see attached my submission objecting to the project.

Please see attachment.

This is outrageous. This type of development does not belong here. Roseville is supposed to be a family friendly quiet suburb. You are destroying a family community.

This is extremely stupid. You are going to ruin a quiet area with kids around and roseville is already populated. If you want more houses build out west instead of destroying good quality homes. You are ruining my neighbourhood.