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

I write as a concerned resident of Roseville, living approximately 400 metres from the site of the proposed unit complex lodged by Hyecorp under the new Transit Oriented Development (TOD) planning controls.

I respectfully request that this development application not be progressed or determined until Ku-ring-gai Council’s Preferred Scenario is finalised and adopted. The TOD controls, introduced without public consultation, are not aligned with the character or planning vision for the east side of Roseville. The Council’s Preferred Scenario rightly preserves the existing low-density character of most of the east side of Roseville and better reflects the values and heritage significance of the area.

Lack of Community Engagement
I did not receive Hyecorp’s community flyer prior to the community drop-in session on 12 March 2025. In fact, I was not aware of this session at all and therefore had no opportunity to engage or provide feedback in a timely and informed manner.
I was also not aware of the community survey on the Hyecorp website and was not able to complete it.
This limited and ineffective engagement undermines the community consultation process and raises serious concerns about transparency and genuine public input. Meaningful consultation cannot occur if local residents are not adequately informed.
Before moving to Roseville I lived near the Channel 9 redevelopment in Willoughby. This included authentic community consultation, the development of a number of options that the community could provide feedback on. The design was shaped with direct community involvement and the resulting development is excellent.

Heritage Impacts
The development proposes to demolish nine houses that contribute to the heritage conservation area and is located in the middle of three such areas, with over 50 heritage-listed homes nearby. The loss of these homes will cause irreparable damage to the historic character of Roseville. The area is valued precisely for its consistency of detached Federation and Interwar homes, its mature streetscape, and its tree-lined avenues — all of which are under threat from this scale of development.

Incompatibility with Existing Houses
The proposed development — comprising four buildings up to nine storeys high — is completely out of character with the surrounding built environment. This part of Roseville is almost entirely composed of 1-2 storey detached homes. The scale and density of the proposed buildings are visually dominant, will overlook neighbouring properties, and result in significant overshadowing, reducing solar access and privacy for nearby residents.

Environmental and Urban Impacts
The proposed removal of 91 trees to accommodate this project represents a serious loss of urban canopy and biodiversity. Tree cover is a defining feature of Ku-ring-gai and contributes to its appeal, liveability, and environmental sustainability.
The development also lacks sufficient planning for infrastructure and services. Adding a substantial number of new dwellings will place further pressure on already stretched resources — including schools, parks, supermarkets, roads, and public transport nodes. There is no clear strategy in the proposal to address this increased demand.

Traffic and Access Concerns
Eastside Roseville has limited road exits, and traffic congestion is already a daily challenge, particularly around Roseville College and Martin Lane. A development of this scale would significantly increase vehicle movements, worsen peak-hour delays, and create unsafe conditions in narrow residential streets.

Conclusion
This development proposal is fundamentally inconsistent with the values, heritage, and planning context of Eastside Roseville. I urge that the outcome be:
- Defer consideration of the application until the Council’s Preferred Scenario is resolved, this will deliver a similar number of homes by concentrating development around larger stations and commercial areas in Kuringai;
- Reject any development that does not reflect the low-density residential character of the area;
- Ensure meaningful, inclusive community consultation before progressing such transformative proposals.
Thank you for the opportunity to make this submission. I am committed to the responsible planning and preservation of our unique neighbourhood and appreciate your consideration of these concerns.

Objection letter provided in the attachment.

Please see the submission attached

We are strongly opposed to this development. Many factors lead us to this conclusion, as listed below:
1. HEIGHT of development and density of apartments. The outlook, privacy, and character of the surrounding houses will be adversely impacted. We would support the Council's preferred scenario, which retains existing zoning in Eastside Roseville.
2. TRAFFIC. As Roseville lies between 3 major roads, there is often heavier traffic, particularly at school times. This causes congestion currently, and will be exacerbated by having 259 extra apartments constructed. The infrastructure as it stands is not adequate to support this development.
3. STREET PARKING, which is already at a premium for people travelling by train from Roseville, and for the staff and students at Roseville College, will be severely negatively impacted.
3. HERITAGE. Roseville is a beautiful suburb, with historic houses of significant heritage value, and many trees. Both of these will be adversely affected by building this 9 storey block in the middle of the suburb. The streetscape and character of the local neighbourhood will be negatively impacted.
4. IMPACTS DURING DEVELOPMENT. The aforementioned parking, access and traffic issues will create serious difficulties for local residents during the development phase.
5. INFRASTRUCTURE. The extra pressure put on ageing essential services such as power, water pressure, stormwater run-off, and drainage will adversely impact all of Roseville's residents. Mobile phone services and NBN may also be affected.
Roseville Public School often runs at capacity already, having extra apartments means that further pressure is put on the school.

We completely understand that Sydney requires more housing, but allowing developments like this to go ahead (too tall, too many in a small concentrated area), are not the solution. Lower height and less dense developments may be a better option.

Please see attached Word document

Please see attached.

“Re: Residential development with in-fill affordable housing, 16-24 Lord Street & 21-27 Roseville Avenue, Roseville (SSD-78996460)”
I am writing to object to the proposed Hyecorp development lodged under the Transit Oriented Development (TOD) planning controls. I’m a local resident of Lord St Roseville; my family has been living in the local area for 70 years & I live approximately 400 metres from the site of the proposed Hyecorp development. Calling the redevelopment of residential housing in Roseville a State significant development is as abuse of power to fast track inappropriate development.
I strongly believe this application should not proceed until Ku-ring-gai Council’s Preferred Scenario is finalised. These TOD controls were introduced without community consultation and do not reflect the community’s vision for our area. The Council’s Preferred Scenario rightly protects the character of the east side of Roseville and maintains most heritage conservation houses.
Lack of Community Engagement
I did not receive Hyecorp’s community flyer before the community drop-in session on 12 March 2025 and were not made aware of the session beforehand. This meant our family had no opportunity to participate in the consultation process.
We were also not aware of the online community survey until after 25 March 2025.
This lack of notice and engagement reflects a broader failure to properly consult with local residents about a project that would dramatically reshape the Roseville neighbourhood. If I had known about the drop-in session and online survey, I would have participated in it. I lived near the Channel 9 Mirvac redevelopment in Willoughby, and I was involved in constructive community consultation with local residents, the council and our local member Gladys Berejiklian involved. The community consultation resulted in the final development aligning more with the local community and residents wishes.
Heritage Impacts
The proposed demolition of nine houses that contribute to the surrounding heritage conservation areas is deeply concerning. This development sits among three conservation areas and over 50 nearby heritage-listed homes. The removal of these contributing properties would permanently erode the historic character that makes the east side of Roseville such a unique and desirable community. The development only adds 8 long term affordable housing units, with the other 40 affordable units only held for 15 years. It is grossly inadequate to knock down 9 heritage conservation houses for little gain to Sydney’s affordability crisis.
Incompatibility with Existing Built Form
The plan for four buildings up to nine storeys high is entirely out of scale with the surrounding homes, which are predominantly single and double-storey houses. The development would dominate the streetscape, cause overshadowing, and compromise the privacy of surrounding residents, including families like ours who value the low-density character of the area. The proposed development is next to the Heritage listed Scout Hall and would be completely out of character with this historic building and cause significant overshadowing.
Environmental and Urban Impacts
The proposed removal of 91 mature trees is unacceptable. Our suburb is defined by its greenery and tree-lined streets, and this level of loss would have a lasting environmental impact. It takes generations to rebuild these trees and the effects to the local birdlife would be drastic.
In addition, the proposal lacks proper consideration for infrastructure and community services. The area is already under pressure, and this development would place even greater strain on local schools, transport, parks, and essential amenities — without offering any clear plan to address that burden.
Traffic and Access Concerns
With only a few exit points from the east side of Roseville, traffic congestion is already a daily problem. The additional vehicle load from this project would severely worsen bottlenecks, particularly trying to access Archibold Road, Roseville school, the Pacific Highway at Clanville Road, around Roseville College and Martin Lane, and pose safety risks on our narrow local streets and when trying to turn onto Archibold Road. To analyse the local traffic impact Hyecorp is using an outdated 2016 traffic assessment to report an additional 32-43 cars using Lord St in peak time. The traffic assessment underestimates the local traffic impact, Hyecorp reports that 56% of Roseville’s residents drive to work and has estimated car ownership for development at 417 cars this would equate to an extra 230 cars at peak times.
Conclusion
As a local resident and parent, I am deeply concerned about the impact this development would have on the character, safety, and liveability of our community. I respectfully urge the Council and relevant planning authorities to:
- Defer any determination of this application until the Council’s Preferred Scenario is resolved;
- Uphold the established residential character of the east side of Roseville;
- Ensure that future development proposals are subject to genuine community consultation.
Thank you for considering this submission. My family and I care deeply about the future of our neighbourhood, and we hope our voices are heard in the decision-making process.

Objection to proposed State Significant Development Application for Lord Street and Roseville Avenue, Roseville

The Hyecorp development proposal is misleading in intention and will only serve to offer expensive apartments in an area where the current infrastructure and environment has not been appropriately assessed for such a development.

Unfortunately, I was not given the opportunity to participate in the developer’s (Hyecorp) community consultation phase because Hyecorp’s community flyers was only placed in my mailbox after 12 March when the date was set for consultation. Thus, please investigate and consider the following key concerns that I raise as a resident on Lord Street which do not make this proposal viable and highlight the requirement for greater infrastructure considerations to land on the most appropriate solution that both helps the housing crisis and works in the current location.

1) Water Management – Flood Zone – please refer to the Flood Study done by BMT Commercial Australia Pty Ltd for Ku-Ring-Gai Council dated 10 February 2023 which highlights the topography including the underground natural water ways in this specific area. The proposed development is in the Flood Study area and will have significant downstream impacts on residents.
2) Traffic bottlenecks joining exit points to major artillery roads – please review the significant limitations of the entry and exit points out of this part of Roseville. Assuming every house to be demolished in this development currently has parking for 2 cars (at best), the proposal replaces 18 resident cars from 9 current houses that access the area for everyday living with 344 cars based on carparks. That is 1811% increase of cars. The increase does not factor in residents of the proposed new site having two cars which they then attempt to park a second car on already overcrowded streets.
3) Metro traffic increases –there has been no analysis of traffic in Roseville done prior to or since the opening of the new Metro line from Chatswood to the City. Roseville residents are not filling the streets, but commuters driving and parking to access the Metro.
4) Pedestrian safety – children are encouraged to walk to schools in their local catchment. Approving such a development and increasing the traffic without requiring pedestrian solutions is negligent of developers and approvers. Similar concern should be raised for the elderly.
5) Construction phase – work hours - why would this development be able to work on site from 7am-8pm Monday to Friday when the current tax paying residents currently and previously can only have development work from 7am-3pm. Impact to the neighbourhood of construction noise until 8pm can not be considered reasonable by any level of Government for such an area.
6) Construction phase – access – further to the bottleneck concern should such a development go ahead, there is no ability for trucks/demolition equipment/removal to access this area.

Re affordable housing, the proposed development only offers 2% of affordable housing in perpetuity which equates to 8 apartments. Key to affordable housing needs to be a long term ongoing plan.

I strongly object to this State Significant Development Application being made before the Council’s Preferred Scenario is agreed with NSW State Government. I acknowledge and agree that all Council areas need to address the housing crisis and participate in a solution. However, this proposed development does not address affordable housing and has been rushed through seeking approval without consultation or effective analysis of the area to specifically avoid a well considered proposal due shortly thereafter (the “Preferred Scenario”) that works for the area alongside the need to increase housing.

There is no denying, and to the frustration of local residents, the Ku-ring-gai local government has moved too slowly in responding to the TOD with a proposal that is appropriate for the area and submitted and agreed with State Government (the “Preferred Scenario”). However, that does not justify the State Government approving this Roseville development which does not help with affordable housing and only destroys an area and local community.

The current proposal is not in the spirit of the Government’s communicated objectives of the TOD.

Please refer to my attached submission.

Objection to Development Application SSD-78996460 – Residential Development at 16-24 Lord Street & 21-27 Roseville Avenue, Roseville
Dear Sir/Madam,
I am a resident of Roseville, and I formally object to the proposed development application SSD-78996460 for the following reasons:

1. Severe Impact on Residential Privacy
As a resident who chose this neighbourhood in 2022 for its tranquil environment, heritage character, and privacy, the proposed 9-storey building would irreversibly compromise my quality of life. My property, located approximately 100 metres from the development site, would suffer direct visual intrusion into my backyard and swimming pool area. During the summer months, I routinely use my private pool; however, the elevated height of the development would render this space entirely exposed to the occupants of the new building, stripping me of my basic privacy rights. This constitutes a blatant disregard for the low-density residential zoning principles that originally defined Roseville.

2. Failure in Community Consultation
The developer, Hycorp, has demonstrably failed to meet statutory obligations for transparency and community engagement:

No Notification Received: Despite claims of distributing community flyers in early March 2025 and hosting information sessions, I received zero communication from Hycorp
Inaccessible Project Information: The dedicated webpage on Hycorp’s website was neither advertised nor discoverable through routine searches.
Reactive Awareness: I became aware of this proposal only through neighbour-led efforts, highlighting systemic flaws in public disclosure.
This lack of consultation violates Clause 2.3 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, which mandates "meaningful engagement with affected residents".

3. Unmanageable Traffic Congestion
The development’s location adjacent to critical infrastructure would exacerbate existing traffic pressures:

Current Bottlenecks: Roseville Avenue already struggles with parking saturation and congestion, particularly near the railway station intersection and the Pacific Highway access point.
Projected Gridlock: Adding high-density residential units without proportional upgrades to road capacity or parking facilities would create daily gridlock, severely impacting local mobility and emergency vehicle access.
A 2023 Transport for NSW report confirms that Roseville Avenue operates at 98% peak-hour capacity; this proposal would push it beyond breaking point.

Conclusion & Requests
I firmly assert that this application, lodged under the TOD (Transit-Oriented Development) planning controls, must NOT be progressed or determined until:

Council’s Preferred Scenario is finalised and integrated into the planning framework.
The TOD controls – introduced without genuine public consultation – are set aside in favour of community-endorsed strategies.

Objection to DA SSD-78996460 – 16-24 Lord Street & 21-27 Roseville Avenue Development
Dear Planning Authority,
I am a resident of 11 Roseville Avenue, Roseville 2066 NSW, strongly oppose the proposed development application SSD-78996460 for the following critical reasons:
1. Systemic Failure in Community Consultation
The proponent’s engagement process has been fundamentally flawed and non-compliant with statutory requirements:
No Direct Notification: Despite claims of distributing flyers in March 2025 and hosting consultations, I received zero official communication from Hyecorp.
Opaque Information Disclosure: The project webpage was neither advertised nor accessible through standard searches, contravening Section 2.23 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021.
Reactive Discovery: Awareness of this proposal came exclusively through community networks, not through mandated developer-led engagement.
This breaches Clause 3.9 of the NSW Community Participation Plan, which requires "proactive, accessible consultation with directly affected residents".
2. Irreversible Damage to Heritage Values
As a resident who deliberately chose this area for its historical significance, the development would catastrophically undermine its heritage integrity:
Critical Location: The site sits at the convergence of three Heritage Conservation Areas (HCAs), acting as a visual and contextual bridge between these protected zones.
Heritage Loss: The demolition of 9 contributory houses within the HCAs – structures that collectively define the area’s 19th-century Victorian terrace character – constitutes cultural vandalism.
Contextual Harm: With 54 heritage-listed properties within 150 metres, the proposed 4-tower development would create a jarring visual discontinuity, violating Principle (b) of the Burra Charter regarding setting preservation.
A 2024 Heritage NSW report identifies this precinct as having "State-level significance" for its intact Federation-era urban fabric – a value this proposal would obliterate.
3. Unreasonable Development Constraints from Metro Reserves
The project’s isolation due to Metro infrastructure creates an unsustainable planning outcome:
Physical Isolation: The Metro tunnel reserves will permanently restrict surrounding land to 1-2 storeys, rendering the proposed 4 towers an artificial high-rise island amidst low-scale heritage housing.
Precedent Risk: Approval would set a dangerous benchmark allowing "pocket high-rises" disconnected from existing urban character, contraventing Clause 4.3 of the Roseville Local Environmental Plan 2012 on contextual density.
Equity Concerns: Existing homeowners face permanent devaluation risks from this incongruous development, while being denied equivalent development rights due to Metro constraints.
This violates the "fairness doctrine" in Section 7.12 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, which prohibits approvals creating disproportionate impacts on adjacent properties.
Conclusion & Demands
I urge the rejection of this application.

I have a close friend living on Lord Street. When he explained the situation to me I am genuinely upset with what Hyecorp is attempting here.
As a young person, like many others in this generation we are confronted by the housing problem. However developers like Hyecorp are trying to fool the public.
Their PR stunt framing the project as affordable housing is laughable. With 8 genuine affordable apartments they are trying to maximise their profit with hundreds of still expensive as heck apartment. If they are allowed to do this it will encourage more developers to make this type of manipulation of the PR stunts.
This is not the solution, this is contributing to the problem!
Please REJECT!

To whom it may concern,

I would like to make strong rejection on this project.

I have a close personal friend who lives on Lord Street and I visit Roseville very often. I must say it will be a shame to have the character of the region destroyed by this eye sore.

When I visit my friend I often drive up Lord Street from Archbold Road and some times via Hill Street. I can imagine how crowded the street will be if suddenly a few hundred cars are added.

There will inevitably be lots of congestion on both end of the street and the traffic would overflow to nearby blocks of residential streets as well. This will cause a lot of disturbance.

Also I am very shocked to find the impact this development would have on my friend's property. More than 71% sky view, rated severe impact is inhumane. During winter the entire front yard will be covered by shadow for almost the entire day from the building across the street this is unacceptable.

Not to mention the privacy issue. My friend showed me the illustration Hyecorp provided for privacy. It is confusing and misleading in my opinion. First of all it does not provide a robust analysis of what someone from this building can see into the windows directly facing the building over the hedges my friend has. Also the illustration only contains five levels whereas the proposed development is nine storey... This feels very misleading.

Bottom line is I do not enjoy having hundreds of audiences when I grab a beer with my mate in his backyard. This proposal should get rejected.

As a resident in east lindfield, i drive to roseville station every business day to park my car near the station to take the train to work. Needless to say, Roseville already has a lack of commute car park and many park on the streets, including lord street, roseville avenue and a few others.
I believe Hyecorp has significantly under estimated how much additional cars and traffic this project will bring to the streets nearby. Many families have multiple cars and they used a data source from 2016 to estimate how much car and traffic volume will be incurred. this is far outdated and understated.
I strongly urge to reject this proposal...

It would cause roseville to be to crowded. The roads will be even worse. Families live in those homes and it should not be taken from them.

Hi. I understand that our residential lot is within TODD development similar to Residential
development with in-fill affordable housing, 16-24 Lord Street & 21-27 Roseville Avenue, Roseville

As our lot is so much nearer to Roseville train station it should be retained for redevelopment (under TODD) like The
SSD application for Hyecorp for Residential development with in-fill affordable housing, 16-24 Lord Street & 21-27 Roseville Avenue, Roseville

It is not fair if the above housing development is approved but our lot (though so much nearer to Train Station) is subjected to Kuringai Council Alternative Plan which does not include / approve our lot for redevelopment

To sum up, I am pro-development for 16-24 Lord Street but It should also be a fair process to let our lot and our neighbours (closer to the train station) to be approved/included for Residential development in the near future

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

I am writing on behalf of my parents, Dr Malcolm and Mrs Jenette Galloway, of 17 Bancroft Ave Roseville. My parents are in their mid-80s and have lived in Roseville for 52 years. My parents and I strongly object to the Hyecorp SSD on Roseville Ave and Lord St, Roseville.
My parents have received a barrage of development flyers which they have found very stressful. This includes the one from Hyecorp.
Since 1973 my parents have lived in Roseville, as I did for my first 23 years. We love the local heritage and feel that is should be preserved. The proposed development is in the middle of 3 heritage conservation areas and will destroy the heritage significance of east side Roseville.

The imposition of the TOD planning regime was introduced without public consultation and should t be set aside if the Council’s Preferred Scenario is adopted.
This Hyecorp SSD application lodged under the TOD scheme is not in the public interest and should not be further progressed or determined until Council’s Preferred Scenario is resolved.

My parents and I support the Council’s Preferred Scenario and how this recognises the unique character of east side Roseville, having regard to the existing built form in the area of the proposed development. The Council’s Preferred Scenario mostly retains the existing zoning in east side Roseville, except in the Hill St precinct and upper part of Victoria St. The Hyecorp development does NOT.

I implore you to deny this development going ahead. Roseville is a beautiful and significant suburb in Australia’s history and this needs to remain so.

I am a resident of 2 Belgium Avenue, and I write to express my deep and unequivocal objection to the proposed redevelopment in Roseville. This project is fundamentally wrong for our neighborhood and threatens to irreversibly damage the character, liveability, and community fabric of Roseville.

1. Gross Overdevelopment Threatening Suburb’s Identity
The proposal to replace 9 family homes with approximately 250 apartments is an outrageous example of overdevelopment. This is not sensitive planning—this is profit-driven proliferation at the direct expense of a well-established, low-density suburb. The sheer scale is dramatically inconsistent with the predominantly single-family character of the area and will obliterate the very qualities that make Roseville unique and desirable.
This development risks transforming Roseville into a high-density corridor, contrary to the interests and wishes of its residents.

2. Severe Traffic and Safety Impacts
Adding hundreds of new residents and vehicles will severely worsen local traffic congestion and create dangerous conditions for pedestrians, cyclists, and children. Streets like Belgium Avenue are narrow and already struggle during peak times—this development will exacerbate gridlock, noise, and hazards. Proposed basement parking is insufficient, and overflow parking will damage the everyday convenience and safety of current residents.

3. Critical Overstretching of Local Infrastructure
Roseville’s schools, medical services, parks, and public transport are already struggling under their current load. This project, if approved, will push essential infrastructure well past breaking point, impacting quality of education, healthcare, and public amenity for all. Such intense densification without substantial, upfront infrastructure investment is irresponsible and unsustainable.

4. Significant Loss of Amenity, Privacy and Quality of Life
This proposal directly threatens the day-to-day enjoyment and privacy of existing residents. Towering apartment blocks will invade private yards, overshadow gardens and family spaces, increase noise pollution, and erode the tranquil environment we have long valued. The size and proximity of the buildings stand to destroy the privacy, sunlight, and peace that are foundational to the suburb’s allure.

5. Environmental Harm and Green Space Destruction
Claims of tree retention are misleading. Experience shows large-scale developments inevitably endanger mature trees and local flora, despite assurances. The removal and fragmentation of green space and tree canopy will harm local biodiversity, contribute to urban heat, and destroy habitat for native species. Once destroyed, these vital assets cannot be replaced.

6. Tokenistic Approach to Affordable Housing
The affordable housing provision—supposedly for key workers—amounts to a mere fraction (17%) of total apartments. This fails to meet genuine social or community needs and is clearly used as a pretext to justify excessive densification. The real beneficiaries are the developer and future investors, not the key workers or the community itself.

7. Precedent for Ongoing, Damaging Overdevelopment
If this proposal is approved, it creates a dangerous precedent for similar oversized developments across Roseville and neighboring suburbs. We risk a domino effect that will permanently destroy the suburb’s irreplaceable character, reduce green space, and displace long-standing residents. The community faces existential threat from one poorly-considered planning decision.

8. Inadequate and Disingenuous Consultation
Despite official processes, there has been no genuine effort to collaborate with or respect the concerns of local residents. The community is being sidelined in favor of short-term gain. Decisions of this magnitude must reflect the views of those most affected—yet there is a tangible sense that community objections are being ignored or dismissed.

In conclusion:
I urge the Department to firmly reject this proposal. To approve such a massive, inappropriate development against overwhelming resident opposition would be a clear failure of planning, governance, and care for community wellbeing. Roseville’s heritage, environment, and future are at stake.

I demand that the community’s voice be taken seriously. Any redevelopment in Roseville must be sensitive, measured, and genuinely responsive to the needs and wishes of existing residents—not imposed upon us for financial reasons.

Respect our suburb. Protect its heritage. Reject this destructive overdevelopment.

Submission updated to remove certain personal information as described and sent to Jasmine Tranquille

This. project will result in a building of unacceptable height and many, many cars in an area that already has peak hour traffic problems