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

Dear Ms Tranquille,
Please find attached Eastside Roseville Action Group Inc's submission and supporting documents in relation to SSD-78996460, Residential development with in-fill affordable housing, 16-24 Lord Street & 21-27 Roseville Ave, Roseville:
1. Eastside Roseville Action Group Inc letter & submission
2. Storey & Gough letter
3. Planning Report, SJB Planning with attachments as follows:
a. Heritage Report, Lisa Trueman, Heritage Advisor
b. Survey Report, Mitch Ayres Surveying
c. Community Engagement Report, Margaret Harvie, PlanCom
Yours sincerely,
Natasha Sherwood
Chairperson
Eastside Roseville Action Group Inc

Please refer to attachment.

Please refer attached objection letter to SSD-78996460

I have been a long term resident over of Roseville and Lindfield, having lived in these 2 suburbs for c35 years. I accept the need for additional housing. The proposed development is not in keeping with the local heritage area and if approved would also not be in keeping with the councils proposed alternative scenario. The main issues include:
- Traffic congestion, already impacted by Roseville College
- Parking
- Flood risk
- Tree loss
- Further degradation to the fact the development is near I Heritage conservation area
- I support the councils proposed alternative scenario which would put limits on these buildings and transitional impacts would be better managed. It would return this area of Roseville to HCA, which would balance out the wider impacts of the TOD.
Other issues with the submission include:
- transitional considerations are not addressed into the surrounding streets
- poor design quality, its just a high box
- construction for such a large building will course significant disruption to the surrounding community
- appropriateness of water and flood risk mgmt
- availbility of open public space.

To Whom It May Concern,

As a long-time resident and deeply invested member of the Ku-ring-gai community, I write to object in the strongest terms to the proposed development at 21–27 Roseville Avenue and 16–24 Oliver Road, Roseville.

This project is wholly inappropriate in scale, style, and intent for the area in which it is proposed. Roseville is defined by its strong heritage character, generous tree canopy, and peaceful residential streets. The proposed development - comprising four 9-storey buildings - would irreparably damage that character, replacing it with a form more suited to inner-urban centres, not heritage conservation precincts.

I am particularly concerned about the proposal’s dismissal of Ku-ring-gai Council’s carefully considered local plans, which emerged from extensive community consultation. To ignore the Council’s position - and by extension, the views of its residents - is to undermine public trust in the entire planning system. The process should not allow developers to leapfrog community-backed policies simply by appealing to state-level fast-track mechanisms.

The demolition of homes that contribute to the surrounding heritage conservation areas is a disgrace. Heritage, once lost, cannot be recovered. The risk this development poses to the architectural integrity and social cohesion of the neighbourhood should be reason alone for refusal.

This project is not about genuine community-building. It is an opportunistic attempt to overdevelop land at the expense of long-term community values. I urge the Department to reject the proposal in full.

Sincerely,
Ku-ring-gai Residence

To whom it may concern,

I am writing as a long-term resident of Roseville, living at 19 Dudley Avenue Roseville, to object to the proposed development of a 9-storey apartment block within a conservation area approximately two blocks from my home. While I understand this project has been classified as a State Significant Development (SSD), I believe that its approval would result in serious and irreversible harm to the character, heritage, and amenity of the local area.

Two main points:
1. This project should not proceed under the TOD controls. These were introduced without public consultation and are due to be replaced by Ku-ring-gai Council’s Preferred Scenario, which keeps the low-rise character of East Roseville. That plan reflects the area’s unique built form and should be respected. It’s not in the public interest to approve anything major until that process is finalised. As someone who has grown up here and long been apart of the community and heritage of this area, it is extremely disappointing that controls that have been in place to maintain years of heritage would be so easily overlooked, when we have all had to abide by them so stringently to respect the heritage of the area.

2. Hyecorp’s community engagement was inadequate. I did not receive a flyer before the 12 March session. I only became aware of the proposal much later, by word of mouth of a community group that was established out of shock about the proposal. I didn’t know about the website, the survey, or the drop-in session in time to participate.

This development is completely out of character for the area: up to 9 storeys high, it would tower over homes, remove 91 trees, destroy local heritage houses, and cause major traffic, parking and construction disruption for years. It belongs in a high-density zone, not here.

Please reject this application.

Sincerely,
Harrison Chiew
19 Dudley Ave, Roseville NSW

I support balanced and appropriate development to ensure sustainable growth for the future. However, this proposal has raised serious concerns within the community. It involves demolishing existing homes, removing trees in the Heritage Conservation Area (HCA), isolating heritage-listed properties, and overlooking critical infrastructure issues.
According to media reports, the developer claimed, “Our approach has been guided by a deep respect for Ku-ring-gai’s unique character and heritage.” But how can demolishing houses and trees, and isolating heritage-listed homes in the HCA, be considered respectful of Ku-ring-gai’s unique character and heritage? Also, for ordinary residents, it is entirely reasonable and essential to seek expert advice to understand complex policies and regulations before providing feedback on a major development in the suburb where they live. In addition, I don’t think speaking out against inappropriate development means you’re opposing affordable housing — that’s a totally different issue.
Submitting this proposal before the completion of the TOD Framework and the Preferred Scenario undermines the democratic planning process and denies residents a genuine opportunity to participate. It does not reflect the inclusive, forward-thinking spirit we associate with Sydney, nor does it feel like “a fair go.”
I support the Council’s Preferred Scenario, which offers a more thoughtful, balanced, and sustainable approach to development—one that respects both our community's needs and the heritage and environment we all value. We have better solutions, and let us do better.

I clearly state that I object to this application and that it should not be progressed,
I clearly state that I have not received Hyecorp's community flyer in the first week of March 2025 and before 12 March 2023.
My objections are based on the following issues:
1. My family moved to Roseville because of the appeal
to live in a pleasant, convenient tree lined suburb
2. It is a heritage conservation area
3. I oppose my suburb becoming high density, heavy parking, heavy traffic.
4. I have seen no evidence of community engagement from Hyecorp. I only became aware of the plans through flyers from the Eastside Roseville action group.
5. The height of the proposed development worries me greatly in terms of changing the character of Roseville. It will cast shadows, remove trees and change wind patterns. Block sunlight.
6. Several streets are narrow and only suitable one way such as Martin Lane. Our streets will become overloaded with on street parking and increased regular traffic. I'm concerned my street will become gridlocked at peak hour.
7. I object to years of major disruption caused by major construction work.
8. I'm greatly concerned by the impacts on drainage, sewage and other infrastructure from a significant increase in dwellings.
9. In the 26 years I have lived peacefully in this street I strongly oppose having changes forced on my family.
10. Affordable housing will change the social cohesion of my suburb.

I am a 26 years old civil engineer living in Victoria Street, Roseville.
I am opposed to the Hyecorp development for a number of reasons which I summarise below:
· I was not provided with notification of the proposal by the developer and as a consequence had no opportunity to attend the information session or review the plans prior to the application being lodged.
· Approval of this development would be entirely contradictory to the intent of the Council’s Preferred Scenario. The Council’s approach is the result of extensive community consultation and is supported by a majority of residents
· A 9 storey development in this heritage conservation area would change the fundamental nature of the suburb to the detriment of current residents, the broader Sydney community and future generations.
· The infrastructure in the area is already at capacity and without significant new investment will be unable to cope with the significant increase in population.
· The argument that apartments within the development will be “affordable’ for essential service workers is flawed. I am contemplating moving out of home but would be unable to buy or rent within a development such as this despite being a fully qualified civil engineer with 3 years post grad experience.
· My role is working on infrastructure projects such as the M6 tunnel and Western harbour Tunnel and as such I would be part of the demographic used by the Government to incorrectly support their argument for developments such as these providing accommodation for essential services workers.
For the reasons state, I support the Council’s preferred scenario and oppose the Hyecorp development

To the Department of Planning,

I strongly oppose the proposed State Significant Development at 21–27 Roseville Avenue and 16–24 Oliver Road, Roseville.

As someone who values the health and sustainability of our community - both for current residents and future generations - I find this proposal deeply troubling. The removal of 91 trees in a suburb known for its canopy and biodiversity is a reckless and short-sighted act, especially in the face of escalating climate impacts. These trees are not just decoration - they provide habitat, reduce heat, filter air, and create the very character that makes Roseville liveable.

The proposal underestimates the environmental significance of the area, including the presence of Critically Endangered Ecological Communities such as the Sydney Turpentine Ironbark Forest and Blue Gum High Forest. It also fails to explain how hundreds of additional residents will be supported by local infrastructure, which is already under pressure. Our roads are narrow, our schools are full, and our sewer and stormwater systems were not designed for this level of density.

Furthermore, the construction phase alone - expected to last years - would impose intolerable disruption on surrounding residents, including noise, dust, safety risks, and road congestion. The lived experience of this project would be one of ongoing stress, disruption, and community degradation.

This is not a sensible response to the housing crisis. It is a textbook example of overdevelopment without proper environmental or social accountability. I respectfully call on the Department to act in the long-term interest of Roseville and its residents, and to reject this proposal.

Kind regards,
Ku-ring-gai resident

I have recently moved in the area in February 2025 from neighboring suburb that has become over-crowded with apartments and traffic, to this suburb for the area's peace and quiet, and for its unique character of Eastside Roseville. I live opposite the development on Roseville avenue, diagonally opposite Martin Lane. I have concerns with the four building of up to nine-storey development, which will create additional traffic chaos in the area, with respect to traffic flow, at its current state.
As it stands now, there is high traffic flow in both directions from Martin Lane, with parked cars on both side, resulting in a one-lane pass. This is also the case on Roseville Avenue in some sections resulting in one lane pass. All exits to major road from my location are congested during peak hour traffic: Hill street turning into Boundary Street, Clanville Road turning into Pacific Highway, Wandella Avenue turning into Boundary Street and any of the street turning onto Archbold Road. Further to this, other than the Clanville Road, all other exist do not have traffic lights, making it extremely dangerous turning into high-speed moving traffic. It would create further blockage with this four buildings of development.
I was not aware of this development during exchange of my house, and I didn't receive Hyecorp's community flyer at any stage. I was also not aware of the community survey on the Hyecorp website. I therefore propose this development to be placed on hold until Council's Preferred Scenario is resolved, and with further engagement with the community.

There are plenty of sites on the Pacific Highway for high rise.

The introduction of this high rise accomodation in Roseville will be a visual eye sore, is out of kilter with the character of the suburb and will create traffic difficulties in a street which is already impacted by its proximity to Roseville College

Attached is my objection to SSDA 78996460.

Dear Sir/Madam,

I have been a resident of Ku-Ring-Gai Council for more than 20 years. I love my home and the area I live in.

The proposed residential development by Hyecorp with in-fill affordable housing at 16-20 Lord St & 21-27 Roseville Avenue, ROSEVILLE has created a major concern not only for me but also for the many residents around the proposed area.

Whilst the initiative by the government to combat the housing crisis within the state is to be commended, the methodology that it is applying is far from exemplary. In fact, the NSW Government is setting itself up for future problems if this proposed development is to be approved as it will become a case of precedent for future developments.

My concerns are listed as follows:
1. Project Magnitude - Historically, Roseville has always been known as a low-density housing area, filled with sun-drenched low-rise housing with leafy outlook. A project this magnitude will not only butcher the entire streetscape but also be an imposing structure that will create shadowing problem to the area surrounding it.

2. Traffic - With the number of apartments in this project, we must never underestimate the number of vehicles that will be in it. While there are many streets interconnecting the proposed site, higher traffic number also means unavoidable traffic congestion & higher risk of road damage around the area. Hyecorp's estimate on the vehicles entering & exiting the area during morning (43) & evening (32) in my opinion is very poorly estimated.

3. Quiet Enjoyment - A project this size will take at least 2 years to complete if there is no underlying latent problem. This will greatly create disturbance to the residents living in the area, including but not limited to noise, air pollution and accessibility. Furthermore, the lengthy allowable working hours will cause the many residents in the area undue stress, prior to, during and after the completion of the projects. The impact on people's long term mental health must never be discounted or underestimated.

4. Privacy - With such an imposing structure, the privacy of many residents will suffer greatly. As Roseville is predominantly low-rise & low-density area, those who live from 2nd floor upwards will have unhindered view to the neighbouring residents' backyard or even into their homes.

Development is important and is good, but it has to be planned carefully and thoroughly thought through. Otherwise, the developers will benefit the most by making much money, leaving future problems to the residents who have worked hard all their lives for their homes.

I sincerely hope NSW Government will re-consider this development proposal and reject it.

Thank you.

I support the project and believe the TOD policy will help housing availability and should be enforced

The project involves the construction of a six-level apartment complex that disregards the surrounding natural environment and neglects the heritage value of nearby homes. The development proceeds with minimal consideration for ecological impact, community integration, or architectural harmony.

I have lived in 1 Glencroft Ave Roseville, approximately 50m from the proposed development for 39 years, with family connection to the area since the 1930's. Roseville's attraction has always been its low density, green and treed environment, amenity and convenience.
I first learnt of this proposal from neighbours, before receiving Hyecorp's pamphlet on 19 March. I responded to Hyecorp's survey, noting my disapproval, but have received no response.
My objection is its totally inappropriate height and bulk which can only be ameliorated by surrounding it with similar ugly bulks - indeed Hyecorp adopts this method in its drawing of the proposal instead of describing its impact on the existing environment. The current infrastructure cannot handle such a project's impact. For example -the streets are too narrow for current traffic - traffic often stops in Glencroft Ave while drivers consider whether cars can pass or not and side mirrors are often broken. The sewer and stormwater mains surcharge in periods of heavy rain.
Due to the lack of public consultation on initial TOD proposals any further consideration of this proposal must be deferred until Ku-ring-gai Council's Planning Controls are considered and accepted, or not. If the former, this proposal is diametrically opposed to the proposed Council Planning Controls and must be refused; if the latter, the current amenity of the area will be destroyed by the overpowering bulk of TOD proposals, which at the originally indicated maximum of 6 storeys may have been acceptable with good design, but not if heights are increased to 9 storeys.

I object to the project, please see attached document.
Yours faithfully,
Allan Chiew

Please refer to attached document.