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

Re: Residential development with in-fill affordable housing, 16-24 Lord Street & 21-27 Roseville Avenue, Roseville (SSD-78996460)
I am a resident of Dudley Road and have lived in Roseville since 2020.
This is a very misguided project which should not be allowed to proceed.
The Council's preferred scenario has not been adequately explored. My understanding is that this offers a much more sensible approach to development in an old and character filled suburb.
There has been minimal information provided by Hyecorp. I am unaware of any flyers, or information of any kind provided to my residence or its occupants by the company. I have not been invited to any meetings to discuss the plans.
The project will act to significantly detract from the character of the suburb with its multiple heritage and hundred year old buildings. A 9 storey building is to be plunked down next to 1 and 2 storey buildings, with obvious issues regarding privacy, sunlight, local traffic and potentially noise.
I understand that there are more than 50 heritage listed buildings in close proximity to the proposed development, and there is a large school which already creates significant congestion.
I note with absolute dismay that more than 90 trees are to be destroyed to make way for this development.
The proposed development would greatly affect the ability to leave and enter the suburb, which is already a major problem. In business hours, long waits are needed to leave via the Pacific Highway at Clanville St or onto Boundary Road and this will exacerbate the problem.
I think it very highly improbable that the owners of the corporation would wish for such buildings to be erected directly next to their residences, should they live in houses.
I urge the State Government to reconsider this ill advised venture.

Please see attached file.

Submission Attached Below

I would like to strongly object the proposal by Hyecorp. While the short-medium term goal of increasing the housing stock might be met, the long-term impact by this development, (considering the scale of this development of 4 towers, and up to 9-storeys high) will be severe on a number of fronts (which will, in the not-too-far future, become the problems of the residents, the Kuringai Council and the State Government but NOT the developers).

These are the reasons for my objection:

(1) There will be a significant increase in traffic in the area AND availability for parking spaces. Many roads are already congested, especially during peak periods and at key intersections, so I do not know how such a big development with 750 residents will be allowed, with hundreds of cars adding to the existing traffic volume (and many on one-way streets). Street parking will also be very difficult to find, and many of those who are currently driving from suburbs further away in order to be able to catch the train at Roseville station will be discouraged to do so once this apartment is built, and might instead drive, causing a flow-on effect and a larger traffic problem outside of the north shore. Which is connected to my next point below.

(2) I understand the State Government hopes that most people will catch the public transport, especially train, as they commute, and not relying on their cars and thus minimising the problem mentioned above. But in reality, it will be different. We all have seen the unreliability of Sydney train and it does not give the public any confidence that the existing infrastructures and transportation system will be able to cope with big apartments such as this, though in theory it makes sense. It is very irresponsible and short-sighted to just build as many housing as possible, and worry about the impact later on. Again, developers do not have to worry about these negative effects of over-development because when all is done and dusted, their own objective has been achieved. I am not saying that developers are bad, but they have different priorities and agendas. But the rest of us, including the State Government will need to face the consequences that the developers do not need to face.

(3) This development will also have an environmental impact, from the removal of about 7-8 dozens trees (and causing habitat loss for the birds and insects who live in these trees). We know the NSW Government is serious in looking after the environment (including trees) which is clear from it's proposal in raising fines to individuals and corporations for vandalising and cutting down trees, and thus it should be taken into account that close to 100 trees will be cut down for this massive project. Another concern about this development is that it is subjecting some areas to flooding (please refer to page 30 of Hyecorp EIS). This development will also totally change and destroy the streetscape of this area, as well as some of the heritage and historical character of the area.

(4) While I believe every Australian supports (should support) increasing the number of dwellings and also more affordable housings in general, I don't believe this cause for the 'greater good' means it has to be done at the expense of the residents who live in the areas with single-dwellings areas like in this case. I don't think it has to be either one OR the other. If this project, which is built among 1-2 storey homes, are allowed to be built as is, then it will cause the total loss of the privacy of the residents in surrounding areas and the complete blocking of sunlight to surrounding houses from early afternoon onwards. Do the families who live in these houses now no longer have any right for privacy or sunlight anymore and can be 'sacrificed' for the majority and the concerns of a few are to be dismissed as unimportant?

(4) Again, just to clarify, I am not against the building of more dwellings in the north shore (though I do have my doubts on how 'affordable' these housings will be, when only a fraction of the total units will be allocated to those who qualify). I am objecting to this project because I have no confidence with the process through which this SSDA (and others) is being put through, totally bypassing the Kuringai Council, which has done the right thing by taking the time and effort to do research, inviting community input and providing different scenarios. I am of the understanding that the State government has expressed the willingness to listen to Kuringai Council and that as long as it comes up with the 20,000 + more dwellings, that it will be happy to trust the due diligence that the Council has conducted and trusting the Council to know what's best for this area while also relieving some of the pressure the NSW government is facing in solving the housing crisis. It would have been a win-win for the State government, for the community and for those who need more housing. I truly believe the developers should not be the primary stakeholders in this situation simply because I believe there is a conflict of interest when developers are allowed to bypass the local council because I don't believe they have the best interest of the community at heart. I am not insinuating that all developers are bad, but they certainly have their own interests that they have to prioritise. In view of what I just said, I object to this project because I believe Hyecorp (and other developers) should not work outside the recommendation and guidance from the Council. This SSDA should not be decided until the Council's proposal has been confirmed.

In conclusion, I strongly object to this proposal for the reasons mentioned above and it is my sincere hope that the relevant authority will be impartial in considering both sides of the argument.

Regards
Concerned resident

I strongly object to this application lodged under TOD planning controls. This application should not be progressed until Council's Preferred Scenario is resolved. TOD planning controls were introduced without public consultation & will be set aside when Council's Preferred Scenario is adopted. I support Council's Preferred Scenario as it better recognises the unique character of Roseville. I have lived in this suburb for over 27 years & have enjoyed raising my family in this environment. I appreciate that more housing needs to be provided but it should be done in a way that preserves the nature of our suburb. Increased density also requires additional infrastructure. The apartments built in my street have insufficient parking for their residents & visitors. The street is now congested by street parking. Additional train services are needed & all local schools are at capacity.
I did not receive any literature regarding Hyecorp project - I heard about it at my local hairdresser. The Hyecorp project is adjacent to Martin Lane - a small street that is already clogged with traffic. A development of this size will have a significant impact on local traffic. It is unfair on property owners adjacent to a development of this size - they have bought a property with no high rise & now are having it imposed upon them. Such drastic changes to planning laws are unfair, especially when there was no consultation with the community.

RE: FORMAL OBJECTION to Residential development with in-fill affordable housing, 16-24 Lord Street & 21-27 Roseville Avenue Roseville NSW 2069 (SSD-78996460)

Helen Dainton 86 Roseville Avenue Roseville NSW 2069
Denial of Procedural Fairness
I live 600m meters from this proposed site, on the corner of Roseville Avenue & Archbold Road. I have lived in Roseville for over 30 years, Roseville has been a very community minded and friendly, leafy and quiet suburb
I have a very strong objection to the proposed development of a nine story 259 unit apartment residential with in-fill affordable housing known as the Hyecorp’s Roseville Building. This development represents a severe overreach that contravenes established planning controls, total disrespect of heritage protections and existing residents, it also fails to align with the values and expectations of the local community.
The excessive height and bulk is entirely inconsistent with the fine grained character of Roseville, particularly on the eastern side of the railway, and would dominate the streetscape to an unacceptable degree
The proposed development
Fails to observe the existing TOD planning controls, this proposal is NOT in the public interest.
The TOD Planning controls were introduced without public consideration and are to be set aside when the councils preferred Scenario is adopted. The Council recognizes the unique character of Eastside Roseville having regards to the existing built form in the area of the proposed development. The councils preferred scenario mostly retains the existing zoning in Eastside Roseville, except in the Hill St Precinct and the upper part of Victoria Street.
The demolition of 9 houses that contribute to our heritage conservation areas.
The development will result in visual isolation and over shadowing of remaining sites.
The development makes no serious attempt to integrate or defer to the existing streetscape, and in doing so, risks eroding the historic identity of the area.
The buildings scale, bulk and bland “box-like” design ignores the area’s topography, established residential character and heritage fabric.
There will be significant overshadowing, overlooking, and loss of privacy to surrounding dwellings. Refer to the Architectural plans – pages 23,24 31 & 32
The overdevelopment of the site will cause substantial visual clutter, lack of sunlight in the public domain, and degradation of pedestrian amenities.
Environmental destruction with the loss of 91 mature tree canopy. The application proposes the removal of 91 mature trees, many of which form part of the Ku-Ring-Gai tree canopy. This is itself would contravene the aims of the Ku-Ring-Gai Urban Forest Policy and Biodiversity Strategy 2030.

Infrastructure and Traffic Overload
The proposed 259 apartments development will place unsustainable pressure on local infrastructure, which is already heaving due the with the development of Boundary Road & Victoria Street, where the units were built at 3 levels, has increased the traffic in and out of Hill Street to a standstill situation.
Traffic congestion at the already critical Pacific Highway / Clanville Road intersection will worsen.
Local Roads and street parking are insufficient to accommodate the resulting increase of vehicle movements as we already accommodate the commuters from the Northern Beaches.
The impact of the additional traffic generated will also interfere with the Martin Lane “rat Run”, local streets that are currently, essentially one way due to rail commuter parking, Roseville Ladies College
Existing stormwater, sewerage and transport infrastructure – not upgraded to accommodate such density. Existing services will be severely strained, contrary to planning principles that require development to match service capacity.
Construction Impacts including parking, narrow streets with trucks, cranes bad road surfaces, Construction time and hours of day working on construction.
Misuse of State Significant Development Pathway
There is no legitimate basis for this proposal to be classified as demonstrating “affordable housing” It does not demonstrate any extraordinary public benefit or use for affordable housing. The use of The SSD pathway in this case appears to be a deliberate tactic to circumvent local controls, which MUST NOT be rewarded.
Community Engagement
I noticed a flyer in the middle of my driveway on the 18th March @ 6.00pm which I straight away contacted my neighbour asking if she knew anything about it, which she declined, she then forwarded the information to our other neighbours at our end of the street.
By receiving the pamphlet on the 18th of March was deceptive and not guaranteed that we would receive it as it was not in my letterbox.
If I had known about the community drop-in session at Lindfield Seniors Centre/Community hall between 4.00-6.30pm on Wednesday 12th March, I would not have been able to attend due to work commitments.
I was NOT aware of any Hyecorp community survey
Conclusion
This application fails every relevant planning test.
It is not compliant with applicable height limits and planning controls.
It inflicts severe and permanent damage to Roseville’s village atmosphere and character.
It undermines public confidence in fair and transparent planning processes. It disregards the environmental, amenity and infrastructure needs of the community
Yours sincerely

Helen Dainton

RE: FORMAL OBJECTION to Residential development with in-fill affordable housing, 16-24 Lord Street & 21-27 Roseville Avenue Roseville NSW 2069 (SSD-78996460)

Mark Dainton 86 Roseville Avenue Roseville NSW 2069
Denial of Procedural Fairness
I live 600m meters from this proposed site, on the corner of Roseville Avenue & Archbold Road. I have lived in Roseville for over 63 years, Roseville has been a very community minded and friendly, leafy and quiet suburb
I have a very strong objection to the proposed development of a nine story 259 unit apartment residential with in-fill affordable housing known as the Hyecorp’s Roseville Building. This development represents a severe overreach that contravenes established planning controls, total disrespect of heritage protections and existing residents, it also fails to align with the values and expectations of the local community.
The excessive height and bulk is entirely inconsistent with the fine grained character of Roseville, particularly on the eastern side of the railway, and would dominate the streetscape to an unacceptable degree
The proposed development
Fails to observe the existing TOD planning controls, this proposal is NOT in the public interest.
The TOD Planning controls were introduced without public consideration and are to be set aside when the councils preferred Scenario is adopted. The Council recognizes the unique character of Eastside Roseville having regards to the existing built form in the area of the proposed development. The councils preferred scenario mostly retains the existing zoning in Eastside Roseville, except in the Hill St Precinct and the upper part of Victoria Street.
The demolition of 9 houses that contribute to our heritage conservation areas.
Environmental destruction with the loss of 91 mature tree canopy. The application proposes the removal of 91 mature trees, many of which form part of the Ku-Ring-Gai tree canopy. This is itself would contravene the aims of the Ku-Ring-Gai Urban Forest Policy and Biodiversity Strategy 2030.

Infrastructure and Traffic Overload
The proposed 259 apartments development will place unsustainable pressure on local infrastructure, which is already heaving due the with the development of Boundary Road & Victoria Street, where the units were built at 3 levels, has increased the traffic in and out of Hill Street to a standstill situation.
Traffic congestion at the already critical Pacific Highway / Clanville Road intersection will worsen.
Local Roads and street parking are insufficient to accommodate the resulting increase of vehicle movements as we already accommodate the commuters from the Northern Beaches.
The impact of the additional traffic generated will also interfere with the Martin Lane “rat Run”, local streets that are currently, essentially one way due to rail commuter parking, Roseville Ladies College
Existing stormwater, sewerage and transport infrastructure – not upgraded to accommodate such density. Existing services will be severely strained, contrary to planning principles that require development to match service capacity.
There is no legitimate basis for this proposal to be classified as demonstrating “affordable housing” It does not demonstrate any extraordinary public benefit or use for affordable housing. The use of The SSD pathway in this case appears to be a deliberate tactic to circumvent local controls, which MUST NOT be rewarded.
Community Engagement
I noticed a flyer in the middle of my driveway on the 18th March @ 6.00pm which I straight away contacted my neighbour asking if she knew anything about it, which she declined, she then forwarded the information to our other neighbours at our end of the street.
By receiving the pamphlet on the 18th of March was deceptive and not guaranteed that we would receive it as it was not in my letterbox.
If I had known about the community drop-in session at Lindfield Seniors Centre/Community hall between 4.00-6.30pm on Wednesday 12th March, I would not have been able to attend due to work commitments.
I was NOT aware of any Hyecorp community survey
Conclusion
This application fails every relevant planning test.
It is not compliant with applicable height limits and planning controls.
It inflicts severe and permanent damage to Roseville’s village atmosphere and character.
It undermines public confidence in fair and transparent planning processes. It disregards the environmental, amenity and infrastructure needs of the community
Yours sincerely

Mark Dainton

I am a resident of Roseville and I object to the proposal. The reasons for my objection are as follows:
1. There is significant destruction of a large amount of dwellings that are confirmed in Council's LEP to be retained for reasons of conservation of character within the Roseville suburb. All these buildings are considered to be contributory, and I consider that the proposal has in no way demonstrated compliance with the obligations for adequately considering the destruction of the character of the area.
2. I am of the view that the proposal has not adequately addressed the Heritage Conservation area requirements. There is an overwhelmingly significant impact on adjacent streetscape and particularly the adjacent buildings (to the east, being the Scout Hall, and to the west).
3. The setbacks to the proposal from all boundaries do not allow for sufficient interpretation of the heritage items. There are 54 Heritage Listed buildings in the close surrounding streets.
4. The building does not complement at all the character of the Conservation area.
5. The proposal does not at all adequately appreciate or confirm how traffic generation can be possibly managed, both during construction but more importantly once the building is completed and occupied. it is clear that currently strangleholds occur in peak times in the attempt to gain access out of Roseville, either by Boundary Street, and principally Pacific Highway. The proposal does not demonstrate that the adverse impact on increased traffic generation complies with the guidelines for suitable development. Setbacks for such a development must be far far greater in order to provide any credible example of addressing the fundamental principles of visual impacts of the development in the Conservation area. The departures KDCP controls for a 10m setback on multiple allotment sizes are obvious and alarmingly exceeded, resulting in a significant adverse impact on bulk and scale.
6. In relation to community engagement, I have no recollection of receiving a flyer in my letter box, and if I had known about it, I would have had availability to attend the session at Lindfield Seniors Centre on 12 March.
7. Council has engaged with the NSW Government for a preferred scenario to the TOD program. It is clear that Council has accepted the need for increasing housing supply and is developing a credible and superior policy to achieve those goals. These submissions to the NSW Government need to be fully considered with this SSD application, and not be ignored.
thank you for the opportunity in making this submission
Brian Maguire
28 May 2025

Dear Jasmine

Please find attached as a pdf my Submission dated 28 May 2025. We are an adjoining neighbour served with a Notice of Exhibition on 1 May 2025 and are significantly impacted by the proposal.

In summary and based on the submission, I make the following comments and requests:

• Summary: We do not endorse or support inappropriate development when that development seeks to circumvent or as DPHI has used the word “undermine” an alternative planning scheme which has been telegraphed to the community at least since May last year. That includes not complying with the legal requirements for adequate community consultation. Based on the attached submissions, I would submit that the Application must be rejected by the DPHI or alternatively withdrawn by the Applicant and relodged when the mediation process has been completed. There are practical and public interest reasons for that to occur and which I comment on in the submission.

• Future Character comments: The EIS materials clearly show that, as at the date of the application, the only SSD application east of Roseville Station that has been lodged is Hyecorp, a first and possibly only mover in east Roseville if its application progresses. This is entirely relevant consideration regarding “character”.

• Inflexible application of the Practice Note: The Applicant has not been flexible it is application as recommended by the DPHI practice note at page 13. Given the impact of the development on the amenity of the site and adjoining land, taking into account the building’s height, scale and bulk, I submit this is a public interest consideration to be balanced between those impacts and the policy intent of the in-fill affordable housing mechanism to deliver more affordable housing;

• Inadequate consultation: Given the inadequate lack of consultation, I respectfully request that the DPHI bring my specific expressed concerns to the attention of the Department’s officer who is assessing the community engagement materials in the EIS for consideration and let me know the outcome;

• Sydney Metro Tunnel impacts: Given the impacts of the Sydney Metro tunnel identified in the EIS materials I request DPHI consider this aspect from a future character perspective and also reach out to Sydney Metro for their views given the history of the acquisition and depth of these Metro stratums underneath east Roseville and the current and future planning for the Sydney Metro;

• Tree canopy and Biodiversity: I request the biodiversity and tree matters I have raised be put to the attention of Council. I would also request Council to make enquiries regarding the contents of the East Coast Ecology report that supported the BDAR so it may be further considered;

• Heritage: Given heritage concerns, I would appreciate DPHI and Council thoroughly assessing the HIS prepared by Urbis (ie. the Urbis in-house Heritage Consultant);

• Visual Impact: I request that the DPHI require the VIA to address the deficiencies identified as well as any other discrepancies that are clear from other photos taken from the “public roads” which are do not appear to be a true representation of the visual impacts including from further up Trafalgar Avenue.

• Aged stormwater and services infrastructure: I request DPHI to contact Council to comment on this position particularly in the context of the broader services infrastructure which is aged in our area such as roads, drainage, power (where we get outages) and water pressure being able to withstand a 250 apartment block at the bottom of a hill that is known to flood.

• Project timeline to deliver under Housing Accord: In addition to the planning uncertainty we are experiencing, the constraints I have referred to and possible construction constraints detailed in the EIS, I ask that the DPHI consider whether this project would be achievable over the medium term to deliver the 48 “affordable” apartments by 2029 consistent with the National Housing Accord.

Further details regarding these matters are contained in the pdf submitted in the attachments.

Thank you for your assistance.
Regards
Nick Afaras

I refer to the above application and record my strong objection to this proposal.

The proposal:
1. ignores planning by the Ku-ring-Gai Council which, following community consultation, does not allow this height of building in this location
2. Is significantly excessive for the local area resulting in excessive loading on the immediate streets which are already operating at maximum capacity
3. Is of poor design with minimal setbacks, lack of building modulation and a box-like design clearly designed to provide maximum profit to the developer
4. Is completely inconsistent with the heritage buildings located with the adjacent area, which have actively been preserved by residents and council
5. Will result in devastating tree loss and impact on wildlife

In summary, it is objectionable that a poorly designed block of units has been proposed, which is completely unsuited to the Roseville heritage streetscape, tree canopy and fauna, and imposes more problems on an already difficult transport situation in Roseville Ave, Lord Ave and Martins Lane (spilling into surrounding backstreets) and which will detract from the liveability for all Roseville residents.

I write to formally oppose the proposed development of a large apartment building by Hyecorp on Lord Street. This proposal represents a deeply inappropriate use of this site and will result in a disproportionate, unjustified, and irreversible impact on our local community and the homeowners who have invested in this neighbourhood for its low-density character and livability.

1. Privatised Profit, Socialised Harm
At the heart of this issue is the reality that Hyecorp is pursuing maximum profits through the highest possible residential density, while externalising the costs entirely onto the surrounding community. This is a classic case of privatised profits and socialised losses. The supposed “community benefit” used to justify this proposal is not only superficial but offensive to the residents who will bear the real and lasting burden.

The developer stands to gain financially from a high-density build, while existing homeowners will face the consequences: decreased property values, lost privacy, overshadowing, increased traffic, infrastructure strain, and the destruction of the neighbourhood’s established character.

2. Destruction of Community Character
This development fundamentally undermines the existing character of the neighbourhood. The proposed site is bordered on all four sides by low-density, detached single-family homes. It is entirely inappropriate to insert a large apartment building into such a setting, particularly when the scale and massing of the development are so drastically out of step with surrounding properties.

Homeowners in this area have made significant long-term investments in their homes and the community precisely because of its quiet, low-density, and neighbourly atmosphere. The imposition of an oversized, high-density structure not only erodes the aesthetic and social fabric of the street but disrespects the trust residents placed in local planning processes to preserve the nature of this area.

3. Destruction of Property Value and Amenity
This development forces existing residents to effectively subsidise the private profits of Hyecorp by degrading the very amenities that give our homes value ie solar access, privacy, quiet enjoyment, and the consistent, human-scale built form of the street.

The proposed building will directly overlook adjacent properties, resulting in severe privacy breaches for neighbours on all four sides. The loss of solar access from such a tall structure will reduce liveability and increase energy costs, particularly during winter months. These are not minor inconveniences, they are major losses of amenity that impact daily life and the value of our homes.

4. Lack of Appropriate Transition and Planning Integrity
Good urban planning requires careful transition between building forms and particularly between high-density and low-density areas. This site is surrounded entirely by single dwellings and lacks any natural or built buffer to absorb or transition the impact of a multi-storey development. Placing such a high-density structure in this location is reckless, unprincipled, and in violation of fundamental planning guidelines which call for sensitive integration of new developments.

To permit this would be to effectively destroy the planning integrity of the area and signal to developers that any site, no matter how inappropriate, is fair game for maximum-yield development, so long as a generic “public benefit” can be cited.

5. No Genuine Community Benefit
Hyecorp has claimed “public benefit” as a rationale for aggressive projects. But in this case, any so-called community benefit is highly questionable. More housing does not automatically equate to community benefit, especially when it is built in a way that destroys existing amenity, increases congestion, burdens infrastructure, and degrades neighbourhood identity.

If Hyecorp were serious about providing genuine public benefit, it would be pursuing sensitive, context-appropriate development in collaboration with the community NOT forcing density into the heart of a low-rise residential block and expecting surrounding homeowners to bear the consequences.

6. Unsustainable Precedent
Allowing a development of this scale to proceed in such an unsuitable location sets a dangerous precedent for future planning decisions. It signals that the character, amenity, and investment of existing residents are secondary to developer profits. It discourages community trust in planning processes and paves the way for further inappropriate intensification of quiet, established residential areas.

This is not the type of precedent that serves the long-term interests of the community, nor does it reflect responsible or equitable urban development.

Conclusion
This development is not a compromise between housing needs and community well-being. It is an outright imposition of private interests on a community that will suffer as a result. The site is fundamentally unsuitable for the scale of development proposed, and no amount of landscaping, facade treatment, or mitigation will resolve the core issues of overreach, loss, and inappropriate scale.

I urge the NSW Major Projects authorities to reject this development application and to uphold the principles of good planning: those that protect existing communities, support sustainable growth, and ensure that development occurs in the right place, at the right scale, and with the right balance of interests in mind.

To Whom it May Concern,

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

I live in Roseville (diagonally opposite the proposed site of construction). I strongly object to the State Significant Development (SSD) submitted by Hyecorp for a 9-storey development. It is NOT in the public interest and should not be further progressed or determined until Council’s Preferred Scenario is resolved.

My concerns are as follows:

1. Traffic and parking

56% of Roseville residents travel to work by car (Hyecorp data) and the average household in Roseville is 2.9 people (Census, 2021). With Hyecorp’s 259 units, this equates to 751 residents. Census data tells us the following.

HOUSEHOLDS / CARS APPLIED TO 259 UNITS
6.2% households with 0 cars 16 units (0 cars)
40.7% households with 1 car 105 units (total 105 cars)
37% households with 2 cars 96 units (total 192 cars)
15.4% households with 3+ cars 40 units (120+ cars)

Therefore, the total car ownership with Hyecorp development will be around 417 cars. Assuming these belong to working adults, and 56% of workers commute via car, 253 residents of Hyecorp will drive along Lord St and Roseville Ave in peak hour (very close to Roseville College so is already busy at peak hour). The Transport Impact Assessment has estimated 43 cars in the morning and 32 in the evening, which does not align with the data. Martin Lane is already a rat-run that only allows one car in one direction at any time. Many local streets are small and act as one-way roads.

Onsite parking is also accommodating 309 spots. Assuming the 417 cars (as above), this will result in 108 cars in street parking (already crowded due to nearby station and due to commuters parking as the last stop before Chatswood, to take public transport into the city).

2. Heritage, wildlife and community

The Hyecorp proposal would be the only one in the area and would be surrounded by 54 heritage listed properties. The suburb has unique, historic character and identity; high community expectations exist for conservation. No attempt has been made to uphold heritage streetscape. I enjoy living in this neighbourhood because of the nature, space and quiet that I can come home to after working in the city. Removing 91 trees would be a tremendous negative impact.

3. Infrastructure

There is not enough infrastructure to support the volumes of people projected. There are few shops, schools, parks and they would not support 751 additional residents.

4. Height and visual impact

The visual impact would be significantly negative. The development would be the only one in the surrounding area – 30m tall surrounded by 1-2 storey houses. It would entirely block the north-facing windows of all houses


As a prospective first-home buyer, I would like to aspire to living in a suburban area. It is aspirational that in the future there are suburbs like Roseville that remain, with family houses. I strongly oppose the proposed development.

See attached

Potential development of East Roseville and destruction of heritage housing going back over 100 years.
We moved to 17 Bancroft Ave some 40 years ago and have really enjoyed the house and location so close to the station. There were initially 4 of us living here which now varies from 2 to 7.
We are totally against this destruction of our area.
1) The height of the proposed buildings will destroy the heritage of the area and will totally over shadowed any surviving heritage buildings.
2) Character of the area will be destroyed and so the heritage.
3) Traffic and parking bad as it is will be made near unbearable. The morning and evening rat run along Martin Lane and Glencroft that has been made worse by the recent closure of being able to turn right from Bancroft Ave into Hill street may well be made into a major traffic blockage.
4) Impact of the building process on adjacent street traffic will be really major.
5) Loss of trees will effect the whole area.
6) The effect on traffic and parking which is bad now will near close off the rat run via Martin Lane and Glencroft.
7) Roseville College entry and exit will be made far more difficult.
8) Totally against the Hyecorp apllication to build 10 storey on 9 blocks.

To Whom It May Concern,
I object to the project. Please see my letter of objection attached.

With kind regards,
Mary Chiew

Attached please find my objection to Hyecorp's proposal SSD-78996460 for Roseville.

At a rational level, the amount and nature of communication regarding this project has been minimal and stealthy in relation to an outcome that on multiple criteria has revealed itself as potentially devastating for the neighbourhood and its residents.

At a very personal level, we finished preparing our house for sale at the end of 2023 which, as luck would have it, coincided with the announcement of TOD. We had built a retirement home in the Snowy Mountains, purchased a bolthole in the inner west and, after 38 years, we were ready to leave our family home. But then TOD was gazetted; then came my husband’s diagnosis of brain cancer. We sold the bolthole; my husband died and now, the way forward is even more unclear.

Selling prices are down because of the uncertainty; buyers are nowhere to be seen because of the potential unattractive overdevelopment. The filth of the construction process and the thought of enormous trucks squeezing through our narrow residential streets is anathema, along with the likelihood that it will be some 5-7 years before completion. Unfavourable decisions may well be made for me by others; choices denied; viable options lessened at the very time in life I must bravely move forward alone as a new widow. This doesn’t sound like my Sydney and Australia.

Remember ... we can only destroy history once.

I object on the bases.
Height will ruin the heritage and appearance of the surrounding streets
The heritage obligations of all residents is being over Roden
The parking will be extremely challenging
The streets are already clogged with cars on Clanville and Hill streets

Gus Dainton
86 Roseville Avenue
Roseville NSW 2069
RE: Denial of Procedural Fairness – Objection to Proposed Hyecorp Development in Roseville
To Whom It May Concern,
I am writing to formally object to the proposed nine-storey, 259-unit apartment development with in-fill affordable housing, known as the Hyecorp Roseville Building. I reside approximately 600 metres from the proposed site, at the corner of Roseville Avenue and Archbold Road. I have lived in Roseville for over 22 years, and during that time I have seen how this suburb has grown while maintaining its peaceful, leafy, and community-oriented character. This development threatens to significantly disrupt that balance.
Denial of Procedural Fairness
This proposed development represents a significant overreach, disregarding established planning controls, heritage protections, and the expectations of existing residents. It is completely misaligned with the values of our local community. The excessive height and bulk of the development are incompatible with the fine-grained character of Roseville, particularly on the eastern side of the railway line, and would overwhelm the streetscape to an unacceptable degree.
The proposal does not observe the existing Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) planning controls. Furthermore, these controls were introduced without proper public consultation and are expected to be set aside once the Council’s preferred scenario is adopted. The Council has acknowledged the unique character of East Roseville, and under the preferred scenario, the existing zoning will largely be retained—except in specific precincts like Hill Street and the upper part of Victoria Street. This proposal completely ignores that intention.
Additionally, the demolition of nine houses that contribute to our heritage conservation areas is an unacceptable loss. The development would isolate remaining sites visually and result in overshadowing. There is no serious attempt to integrate with the existing streetscape. The building’s box-like form fails to respond to the area's topography, established residential fabric, and heritage significance. The impact on privacy, light, and amenity for neighbouring homes is substantial, as shown in the architectural plans (pages 23, 24, 31, and 32). The result would be overdevelopment, visual clutter, and a significant reduction in sunlight and pedestrian amenity.
The environmental impact is equally alarming. The removal of 91 mature trees—many of which are part of the Ku-ring-gai tree canopy—would be in direct contradiction of the Ku-ring-gai Urban Forest Policy and Biodiversity Strategy 2030. This destruction of established greenery is not just an environmental concern, but a loss to the entire community.
Infrastructure and Traffic Overload
The introduction of 259 new apartments would place enormous and unsustainable pressure on our already stretched infrastructure. Even the three-storey developments on Boundary Road and Victoria Street have dramatically increased traffic congestion, particularly affecting Hill Street, which now often comes to a standstill. The Pacific Highway and Clanville Road intersection, already a major bottleneck, would become even more congested.
Local roads and street parking are already overburdened, especially due to rail commuter traffic and the impact of Roseville Ladies College. Martin Lane is effectively one-way during peak hours. The additional vehicle movements generated by this development would overwhelm our streets, with serious implications for safety and amenity.
Furthermore, existing stormwater, sewerage, and transport infrastructure have not been upgraded to support this level of density. These services are already at capacity, and increasing demand without corresponding investment is contrary to sound planning principles. Construction impacts, including truck and crane access, poor road surfaces, and narrow street widths, would create long-term disruption for residents. The anticipated construction timeframe and working hours would only compound this problem.
Misuse of State Significant Development Pathway
There appears to be no legitimate justification for this proposal to qualify under the State Significant Development (SSD) pathway. It does not provide a compelling case for delivering meaningful affordable housing, nor does it offer extraordinary public benefit. The use of the SSD designation in this instance seems to be a calculated attempt to bypass local planning controls. Allowing this tactic to succeed would undermine community trust and set a dangerous precedent for future developments.
Community Engagement
I became aware of this proposal only when I found a flyer in the middle of my driveway at approximately 6:00 p.m. on 18 March. It was not placed in my letterbox and could easily have been missed. I immediately contacted a neighbour, who was unaware of the development and subsequently passed the information on to others on our street.
Had I known about the community drop-in session held at the Lindfield Seniors Centre between 4:00–6:30 p.m. on Wednesday 12 March, I would not have been able to attend due to work commitments. Additionally, I was not informed of any Hyecorp-led community survey. The lack of clear, direct, and inclusive engagement with affected residents is highly concerning and further erodes trust in the consultation process.
Conclusion
This application fails to meet the standards of responsible planning and community engagement. It is non-compliant with applicable height limits and established planning controls. It poses a serious threat to Roseville’s village character, heritage, and environmental sustainability. It will overload infrastructure, diminish residential amenity, and undermine confidence in transparent planning processes. I urge decision-makers to reject this application and protect the integrity of our community.
Yours sincerely,
Gus Dainton
86 Roseville Avenue
Roseville NSW 2069

I object to the proposed development because the EIS is based on the current TOD area and not the amended TOD area that Ku-ring-gai Council has been preparing in parallel. If the development proceeds and the State Government adopts council's amended TOD area, this development will be isolated from the rest of the TOD area. Under this scenario, the development would be completely inconsistent with adjacent land use and would be a poor planning outcome when considered against the NSW Government's own planning policies.
With regard to the EIS documentation, it is fundamentally flawed as it has not considered the cumulative impacts of the other infill residential developments currently going through the planning process. This is ultimately a failing of the NSW Government as it is unreasonable to expect each developer to assess the cumulative impacts of the TOD rezoning. It is a waste of each developers' time and money having to each produce EISs assessing what are similar impacts for developments in the same area. Similarly, it is a waste of my time having to read the low-quality studies that have been produced and to find the obvious faults with them when none of this is likely to change the outcome. Regardless, I note the following:
- Traffic - Martin Lane is described as a laneway that 'primarily provides access to some residential properties' and the assessment doesn't show any inbound or outbound journeys via Martin Lane. This is a total mischaracterisation of this road (for example, it's on a bus route) and indicates no knowledge of local traffic flows between Roseville and Lindfield. It is hard to provide meaningful comment on something that is so far removed from reality. Similarly, the suggestion that 259 apartments would only generate up to 6 or 7 service vehicles per day is a clear attempt to misrepresent the likely impact. The assessment of construction vehicles has also not considered local load limits e.g. Hill St. And the peak hour traffic volumes predicted don't match the number of peak approach and departure traffic volumes shown in Figs 14 and 15. There are numerous other problems with this report, I don't feel I should have to point them all out. It is hard to see how this assessment meets the requirements of the SEARs or how the Department can make a determination on false information.
- Social - This assessment seems to think that Asquith Boys and Girls High Schools each going coeducational will somehow reduce demand at Killara High School. If looking at a map doesn't solve this misconception, then experiencing the unreliability of the North Shore Rail Line, or peak hour traffic on the North Shore should. Again, it is hard to comment on something that is so flawed. Tellingly, the authors describe their own survey's findings as 'not considered valid or reliable' (page 25) presumably because the results don't suit their pre-determined conclusion, and yet they publish the results and make no attempt to carry out a survey that is valid and reliable. What is the point in the survey and the report and how am I supposed to comment on such nonsense?
- Visual - You don't need a report to tell you that 9 storeys in an area of single and two storey dwellings will be highly visible. The fact that the authors are going hundreds of metres from the development to do their viewpoints and can still see the development is very telling, especially as in some viewpoints they have stood so that trees or buildings block their view. The impact on the people living next to and opposite the development will be horrendous, hopefully the people determining this development will take a moment to put themselves in those people's shoes.
There is probably not much point going on further, the above should adequately lay bare the shoddy assessment that has been produced and on which we are supposed to comment and the NSW Government make a determination. No doubt the government has already determined that this will go ahead and any changes to address the submissions will just be cosmetic.
Hopefully the government decides to keep the current TOD boundary and also include heritage properties so that all the current residents can get out of here. If you only include one item from this submission in your report please make it the preceding sentence.

Dear Sir/Madam - please find attached objection letter to SSD-78996460