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

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

See attached.

Re: Residential development with in-fill affordable housing, 16-24 Lord Street & 21-27 Roseville Avenue, Roseville (SSD-78996460)
Dear Sir/Madam,
I want to object to the proposed SSD at 16-24 Lord Street & 21-27 Roseville Avenue, Roseville.
I am a resident in rydeand have lived here for almost 6 years.
I object to the proposal for a few reasons
1.It’s excessive height. At a height of 9 storeys this will be over 31 meter which is significantly higher than its surrounding houses.
my friend live in Roseville and we see each other every week. We enjoyed having private time in their backyard. The proposed development will be causing overshadowing and reduce the privacy of a number of residences.
2. Every time I go to Roseville to visit my friends, find parking and traffic are always very difficult. I think the traffic and infrastructure overload already. The corner of Clanville Road as well as the traffic entering the Pacific Highway is already overloaded.
3. Isolation of Heritage homes. The development will destroy the heritage value of many homes adjacent and opposite the proposed development and nearby properties.
In summary. This project has no benefits to the community. And This proposal does not incorporate any public areas such as parks to benefit the community. It will only bring more people in, causing this area overwhelming, bring more pressure to the infrastructure.

Kind regards

I fully support the Council’s Preferred Scenario, which presents a more thoughtful and sustainable approach to development. I am not opposed to balanced and appropriate development.
There are many suitable locations in Roseville where apartment buildings could be appropriately built. Areas near the Pacific Highway, Boundary Street, and the upper part of Victoria Street offer considerable potential for higher-density development. Many of the existing shops and houses along the Pacific Highway and Hill Street are only one or two storeys high, making them far more suitable for redevelopment in case infrastructure can be improved. The Council’s Preferred Scenario rightly identifies these areas as appropriate for growth, achieving a balance between necessary development and the protection of our heritage and environment.
Given this, it is difficult to understand why the current proposal involves demolishing numerous houses with heritage features and approximately 91 trees, and why it would allow development so close to many heritage-listed homes within designated Heritage Conservation Area.
Moreover, why is this proposal being pushed forward before the Council has finalised a more comprehensive and well-considered development strategy?
For these reasons, I strongly object to this particular plan. Although framed as a plan for infill affordable housing, it appears poorly conceived and not truly in the public interest. It risks causing irreversible harm to our community character, our heritage, and our environment—threatening the very values we hope to preserve for future generations.

these homes are all beautiful traditional federation homes in the quiet neighbourhood of Roseville - do not rid of them in order to create another project. People’s homes, families and memories live within these properties

See attached.

I object to this application lodged under the existing TOD scheme, as it is not in the public interest. It should not be determined until Council’s Preferred Scenario is resolved with the State Government. The imposition of the TOD planning regime was without public consultation and will be cast aside if the Council’s Preferred Scenario is adopted. I believe Kuringai Council preferred scenario will be released early next month for approval and adoption.

The location, size and scale of this development does not comply with the new proposed scenario and if approved will be a desert island eye sore and scar on the residential landscape. Notwithstanding this, as a resident that is located only 100m from this proposed new development, there was no public consultation nor did I ever receive the Hyecorp flyer pertaining to the development. I had no idea there was a community drop in session relating to this development nor was I made aware of a dedicated project website by the developer.

I am fully supportive of Council’s Preferred Scenario as this recognises the unique character of Eastside Roseville . The Council’s Preferred Scenario mostly retains the existing zoning which is R2 in Eastside Roseville, except in the Hill St precinct and upper part of Victoria St ( zoned high density ). In essence the new proposed scenario keeps the historical residential neighbourhood in tact which is why I bought into this area.

I just cant understand why the developer would like to build a series of 9-storeys complexes. This will have significant impact on overshadowing / privacy / solar access / streetscape / character as the proposed new plan will only allow for R2 zoning - low density housing. In addition to this, the metro line that runs underneath upper Lord and Roseville sts precludes any new medium or high rise development so the proposed development will be in stark contrast to the remaining neighbourhood and streetscape.

I am also deeply concerned of the impact of the existing heritage conservation areas and surrounding heritage houses. My house is a heritage house and this development sits within 3 HCAs and 54 heritage houses. The existing TOD provisions state very clearly that any new development can not impact the heritage character of an area. This development clearly does.

The proposed development also has not taken into consideration traffic, water and sewerage implications. The surrounding streets are very small and are subject to a great deal of traffic already from Roseville school and peak hour traffic. The roads will simply not be able to handle the additional dwellings without significant road widening and traffic controls. During the construction phase it will be even worse with heavy machinery and vehicles.

Lastly I am concerned that the development will alter the existing tree canopy and wildlife that currently enjoys the variety of tree species for food and shelter.

I implore the State government to reject this proposed development for the reasons outlined above. It simply will be ludicrous for this development to go ahead as proposed in the middle of a HCA and totally out of context with Councils new proposed scenario.

Thanks

My family moved to 5 Gerald Ave in 1984. This home is 500 meters from the proposed development.
We moved to the area because of the environmental & social amenity.
It was a leafy suburb, I grew up in the country.
It was an harmonious built environment.
It had access to good schools, community facilities like parks and sporting groups, shops, public transport & main roads.
The social amenity is such that I still attend a book club with mothers I met at Roseville Public school where our children attended.
The leafy suburb and leafy suburb have been protected bu Council policies.
Ku -ring gai council is working towards a Preferred solution to satisfy the requirements to increase the number of dwellings in the council area. This particular submission should never be approved and not should any such proposal be approved until the Council has submitted its Preferred solution.
The environmental amenity of our community has been protected by Council policies. The destruction of 91 trees - will be like a cancer in the middle of a body. We all know the benefits of a leafy environments for the human & natural world. What is the impact of this project on climate change?
SSD - 78996460 should be rejected on the basis of environmental impact.
The social amenity will be significantly compromised.
The access to schools - how many more students can Roseville public school take
The access the playing fields and parks - the number of dwellings has increased significantly over the 41 years that we have lived here but the number of parks has not.
One should be able to exit and enter ones home by car. Currently the traffic congestion leaving the square of Boundary Rd; Hill St; Clanville Rd & Archbold Rd makes exiting & entering the square difficult. The creation of an extra 250 dwellings will make it even harder. There is added congestion associated with pick up & drop off at Roseville College & Roseville public school
What about parking? During our 41 years we have seen the number of cars parking by the station creep along Bancroft Ave; Lord St; & Roseville Ave. There is limited parling at the station. There has been an increase in the number of cars associated with students at Roseville college. The impact on parking - during & after construction is devasting to social amenity.
The height of the proposal - we have a harmonious built environment with Council limiting development to 2 stories and buildings which are consistent with conservation values. This has meant that developments do not negatively impact neighbors. Having a 9 story building in the middle of a conservation area has a huge negative impact on the suburb and current residents. It also has a negative impact on our social history.
SSD - 78996460 should be rejected on the basis of impact on social amenity.
This proposal has a negative impact on our social history.
The protection of the area from this development is a protection of our social history. We travel the world and positively remark on areas where the areas have been protected by development. We have The Rocks, in Sydney & Viictoria St in Kings Cross to thank for social action & far sighted decisions.
Please reject the Hyecorp proposal so that in the future you are applauded for protecting our social history.
I live part of my week in the country so I have not been able to attend community consultation meetings regarding the proposal. I have been made aware of the proposal by neighbours.
Within the Kuring-Gai Council area there are examples of what I call medium density development - 4 stories. Along Dumaresq St Gordon there are 4 story unit blocks that are completely consistent with the environment - social & natural. The height of the buildings is the same as the Eucalypts in the street.
The Council should be able to complete its Preferred Solution.
Please reject the SSD - 78996460 on the basis of:
Environmental Amenity
Social Amenity
Social History
Regards
Julia Wokes
5 Gerald Ave
Roseville
28.5.25

I object to the proposed SSDA 78996460, as outlined in the attached submission.

Re: SSD 78996460 – 16-24 Lord Street and 21-27 Roseville Avenue Roseville

I write in support of the proposed development of 259 apartments within the catchment of the existing Roseville train station at 16-24 Lord Street and 21-27 Roseville Avenue Roseville.
This development is well located, is within 5 minutes walk of the station and local shopping precinct. It is also proximate to schools, parklands and the major shopping, commercial and employment centre of Chatswood.
The development is of modest scale that is appropriate for the locality and is responsive to the topography and is substantially consistent with the planning controls that apply.
The proposal will positively contribute to dwelling mix in the area, responding to the need for diversity of housing choice, and also provides affordable housing options, which are essential to encouraging social mix. Approval of the development is in the public interest.
It is noted that the site is within an extensive area mapped for heritage significance, however none of the sites subject of the application are listed as having heritage significance. The application is supported by a Heritage report which confirms low levels of archaeological potential, and notes the development which progressed from the interwar period, World War II periods and remains relatively intact to present. Retention of existing vegetation and generous deep soil planting and setbacks maintain the streetscape features and integrates the development appropriately.
The subject site is part of the Roseville TOD locality. While this development is not consistent with the detached housing built over 75 years ago, it is consistent with the desired future character of the locality and should be supported.

Residential development with in-fill affordable housing, 16-24 Lord Street & 21-27 Roseville Ave, Roseville (SSD-78996460)
Lucy Steele, 63 Clanville Road, Roseville. Our home is only a few streets away from the proposed development and we strongly object to this project. We have lived in Roseville for 10 years. We love living here due to the leafy neighbourhood, quieter streets (compared to other areas) and the small community feel. Our three kids attend Roseville Public School which is a wonderful school.
I fear that if this development goes ahead there will be a huge impact on traffic congestion, there is already too much of that at various intersections around the area. One in particular is Martin Lane, the cars parked on both sides creates a major traffic pile up on either end at peak times. Getting my kids to school will take triple the amount of time given you can't turn right on to Archbold Road anywhere near my house.
A significant problem will be car parking in the area. Infrastructure including drainage, stormwater run-off, water pressure, sewerage, power, roads....during the works there will be even more major parking issues.
This application lodged under the TOD planning controls should not in the public interest, be further progressed or determined until Council's preferredd scenario is resolved. It seems the TOD Planning controls were introduced without public consultation and are best to be set aside when the Councils's preferred scenario is adopted.
We did not receive Hyecorp's community flyer in the first week of March 2025 and before 12 March. We have received a flyer since this date.
Lucy Steele

This project will adversely impact the whole suburb from all the aspects. Roseville is always recognised as a peaceful and silent suburb. It has very limited capacity to accommodate such large number of new residents without major infrastructure investments. The project will also severely affect the neighbouring home owners with privacy, traffic and overshadowing issues. The environment, living conditions and the values of the neighbouring homes are significantly reduced. Roseville is also a small station for commuters especially with recent frequent train disruptions, the traffic in the local area will be much worse with these new residents. Last but not least, a successful SSD project should be in the public interest, a SSD should never be a major residential project in the middle of a low density area and cause huge burden to the local area. Please reject this application.

Submission: Objection to SSD Proposal at 21–27 Roseville Avenue and 16–24 Oliver Road, Roseville

To Whom It May Concern,

I write as a long-standing resident of Ku-ring-gai (as a child and an adult) to lodge my strong objection to the State Significant Development (SSD) proposed at 21–27 Roseville Avenue and 16–24 Oliver Road, Roseville.

This proposal represents an alarming overreach that fundamentally disregards the statutory planning context, community consultation processes, environmental sensitivity, and the character of our neighbourhood. It is incompatible with both current and future land use strategies proposed by Ku-ring-gai Council, which have been developed through extensive community engagement and strategic foresight.

Statutory and Planning Concerns
It is deeply concerning that this SSD bypasses the democratic planning process. It overrides the Council’s transport-oriented development strategy - one underpinned by a mediation agreement with the State of NSW - and ignores the intent of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. The development’s scale is excessive, its justification flimsy, and its dismissal of local planning frameworks deeply disingenuous.

Design, Heritage and Environmental Amenity
Four 9-storey towers imposed on a streetscape of single and double-storey homes will irreversibly damage the visual and social fabric of Roseville. This proposal demolishes nine existing homes and severely undermines three surrounding heritage conservation areas containing over 50 listed properties. It sacrifices privacy, solar access, tree canopy, and the long-held character of a suburb known for the dominance of natural forms over the built.

Environmental and Biodiversity Loss
The planned removal of 91 trees—including specimens from Critically Endangered Ecological Communities such as the Sydney Turpentine Ironbark Forest and Blue Gum High Forest—will fragment critical wildlife corridors, directly threatening native birdlife, pollinators, and urban biodiversity that connects Roseville to Garigal National Park. The ecological significance of this area has been flagrantly downplayed by the applicant, with insufficient environmental studies provided.

Traffic, Safety and Infrastructure
The development’s traffic impacts have been grossly underestimated. Already congested streets - especially around Roseville College, Martin Lane and Lord Street - will become dangerous chokepoints, impeding emergency vehicle access and jeopardising pedestrian safety. No credible infrastructure analysis has been offered to demonstrate how existing roads, utilities, or services will cope with this density uplift.

Bushfire and Flood Risks
Given Ku-ring-gai’s high bushfire risk profile and recent extreme weather events, the lack of detailed bushfire modelling and stormwater mitigation is inexcusable. The site sits on a downward slope and near bushland corridors, increasing the risks to life and property during natural disasters.

Social Impact and Community Wellbeing
This proposal offers no meaningful public benefit. It erodes the community’s connection to place, inflicts widespread environmental grief, and generates a profound sense of loss - of trees, wildlife, peace, and heritage. It is an exercise in displacement and solastalgia, not sustainable growth.

Affordable Housing
The short-term, token provision of affordable housing for only 15 years is insufficient and fails to meet the long-term needs of the community.

Conclusion
This is not a development that reflects thoughtful planning. It is a high-density intrusion with unacceptable costs to our environment, community, infrastructure, and heritage. I urge the Department to reject the proposal in full and restore confidence in the integrity of our planning system.

Yours sincerely,
Resident, Lindfield NSW

I have lived in Roseville for over 40 years and consider it has an environment and amenities suitable for its population.
The streets are busy, especially around the station at peak hour time which is not surprising but nevertheless confronting. The thought of thousands of more cars is nigh on untenable. The proposed development is 320 car parking spaces and this is just one development.
The rectangle formed by Clanville Road, Archbold Road, Boundary Road and the Pacific highway is difficult to exit at the best of times. Thousands more people wishing to exit at peak times is a ridiculous outcome and this is what will eventuate if this proposal is allowed. Should this proposal be allowed the reality is developers will build lots more apartment blocks in this area by piggybacking on this approval.
No more amenities are planned for the thousands more people living around Roseville stationed. Parks and schools will be unable to satisfy the demand.
If this proposal is allowed there will be lots more like it: to think otherwise is naive.
Presently people from outside the above rectangle drive to the station to catch the train. Allowing the proposal to go through will result in very limited parking with the result these commuters will drive to work which is contrary to the purpose of more train usage.

Dear Sir / Madam,
Re: Residential development with in-fill affordable housing, 16-24 Lord Street & 21-27 Roseville Avenue Roseville (SSD-78996460)
My name is Emily Lewis of 61 Ashley Street Roseville 2069. My property is within the same suburb of the proposed development. This development is also in the suburb where my children attend the local primary school, Roseville Public School. My oldest child uses Roseville Station to commute to her high school and I drive her to/from Roseville Station each morning and afternoon/evening.

I am writing to object to the proposed development. This application lodged under the TOD scheme should not proceed in the public interest. The imposition of the TOD planning regime was introduced without public consultation and is to be set aside if the Council's Preferred Scenario is adopted.

Height - the proposed height of this development is totally out of character with the entire suburb. It will tower over the adjacent houses, ruining their privacy, creating shade on many adjacent houses and gardens. It will be an eyesore in the topography of the suburb which is characterised by one or two storey traditional, federation houses.

Character of the suburb - The local council has always stringently assessed developments and renovations to ensure that the houses remain in line with the character of the area. This proposed development is the complete opposite to this. This modern block will destroy the character of an area steeped in historical houses. This type of development is much better suited to up along the highway, as has occured elsewhere.

Heritage - it is completely unsuitable to demolish 9 houses in a heritage conservation area, and ruin the character of a the area which contains 54 heritage houses. What is the point of having these heritage rules if a massive apartment block is going to be plonked right in the middle ? Existing home owners purchased into the area partly because of the heritage character.

Traffic - The increased traffic that this development will bring cannot be supported by the current infrastructure. The east side of Roseville is already constrained with traffic issues, it is terribly slow and difficult to get out the area onto the highway, Archbold Road or Boundary St. The backlog of traffic queueing in peak hour is already a problem. The trains on the north shore line are the most unreliable in Sydney, per a recent report in the newspaper, a problem that will be added to with an influx of people.

I understand the need for additional housing in Sydney. However, ruining a suburb by allowing developmemnts like these in the middle of a heritage area is completely unsuitable particuarly where there are other viable alternatives. Build the apartments along the Pacific Highway and directly next to the station, as has occured in other suburbs. But allow the historical houses, trees, street scape and character of the suburb to be maintained. You will ruin a beautiful part of Sydney by allowing this to proceed.

Please refer to attached submission

To the NSW Department of Planning,

I wish to register my strong objection to the proposed State Significant Development at 21–27 Roseville Avenue and 16–24 Oliver Road in Roseville.

This proposal represents a drastic and ill-conceived departure from responsible planning. It sets aside the considered work of Ku-ring-gai Council, circumvents genuine community consultation, and imposes a scale and intensity of development wholly out of step with the local context.

Process and Planning Integrity
It is unacceptable that this project proceeds under the guise of State Significance, stripping away the oversight of our local council and disempowering the very community it affects. The fact that a Mediation Agreement exists between Ku-ring-gai Council and the State of NSW makes this attempt to sideline Council even more egregious. If agreements and consultation processes can be so easily overridden, what confidence can the public place in future planning processes?

Infrastructure and Community Strain
The proposed density far exceeds what local infrastructure can reasonably support. There has been no transparent evidence of how our ageing sewer, stormwater, electrical, or transport systems will cope with a nine-storey development in a low-rise area. Roseville’s roads - already narrow and heavily congested during peak periods - will be choked with construction vehicles, trade parking, and eventually hundreds of additional cars.

This development fails to demonstrate how it will avoid overburdening essential services, from water pressure and waste management to emergency access and parking availability.

Construction Impact and Amenity Loss
If approved, this project will subject local residents to a minimum of two years of heavy construction - cranes, excavation, noise, dust, and disruption. For those living on neighbouring streets, this is not a temporary inconvenience; it is a prolonged degradation of quality of life, with risks to health, safety, and access. No clear plan has been provided to manage or mitigate these construction impacts on a tightly bound residential area.

Environmental Recklessness
The proposed removal of 91 trees is not only environmentally irresponsible—it is reckless. The site sits within a critical corridor of tree canopy that forms part of Greater Sydney’s ecological lungs. Destroying this canopy will accelerate urban heat, diminish local biodiversity, and directly harm wildlife already under pressure from habitat loss. That this proposal risks damage to two Critically Endangered Ecological Communities - without rigorous environmental assessment - is appalling.

Visual Scale and Incompatibility
Four towers rising up to 9 storeys will loom over single-storey homes, churches, and schools, severing the scale and visual harmony of the area. This is not a natural evolution of the suburb; it is an abrupt imposition, with severe and lasting consequences on privacy, solar access, and neighbourhood character.

Conclusion
This development offers no benefit to existing residents. It disrespects our planning system, our local environment, and the values we hold as a community. I call on the Department to reject the proposal in its entirety and reaffirm the principle that growth should serve - not overpower - the communities it enters.

Sincerely,
Resident, Lindfield NSW

I object to this project on two grounds.
1: Excessive height. The allowance is 28.6 m (includes the 30% affordable housing bonus). All 4 towers exceed that limit by between 5.6% and 8.7%. The development has asked for extra height in order to have 9 levels. Removing the extra floor would take 3.3 m off the height. 28.6 m should be considered the absolute maximum, and it is only reasonably possible to achieve 8 storeys in that window.
2: Heritage. This area is part of a conservation area. The plans make the assumption that similar RFBs will be built in this area. However, Kuringgai Council is about to approve a new LEP, which still will provide the same level of housing as TOD, and the new LEP maintains this area is 9.5 m R2. THis new development would be compeltely out of character.
Thank you

I would like to object to this project.
Traffic congestion
Roseville is bound on three sides by RTA managed roads and junctions. The Hyecorp application references traffic data from 2016. Since that time there have been many changes to our roads as to how we can exit and re enter our suburb. While we understand that the RTA needs to keep the major arterial roads moving the result for us is less traffic light intervals when we can exit Roseville and therefore we already have major back ups in the suburb on weekdays and also on weekends. The congestion pictured below is a regular occurrence.

We need innovative solutions to getting people to and from the station – since the Sydney metro opened and Roseville’s ready access to the metro at Chatswood our all day parking on the avenues has increased and most days extends to 500 m up both sides of Bancroft Avenue, Lord Street, Roseville Avenue and Oliver Road.
Having lived in London and Zurich where there are many measures to deter motorists, reduce car ownership, increase use of public transport and ebikes I think we need to be more innovative in our approach to increasing accommodation density in Roseville. Adding more people with vehicles is certainly not going to help.
I object to the Hyecorp development as it offers no transport related innovation or focus on sustainability – lots of private car parking spaces, a very small number of car share spaces etc or consideration of the high level of existing congestion that is a feature of Roseville streets today. Martin Lane which bounds the eastern side of the block is one of the narrowest streets in Roseville and this is the street via which all cars if this development is approved would enter and leave the property. Martin lane is almost always one way due to to all day commuter parking.
I am calling upon the State Government and planning authority to do better and think about the long term practical and environmental implications of approving large developments in areas already struggling with congestion on its roads.

Whilst I am not against development in the proposed 400 meters from the station, I believe that this proposal is too large for the area and do not think that adequate research has been given to traffic, Martin Lane, entry to Hill and Boundary Street as well as parking considerations.