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

Please see attached "Objection to Application SSD 78996460" and supporting documents.

Roseville, 2069

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

I have been a resident of Roseville for over 15 years. My property is not directly affected by the NSW TOD or the Council Preferred scenario for development to achieve the increase in residential housing required by the State government, however my property falls within an 800-metre radius of Roseville train station.

I am in support of the Council’s Preferred Scenario which mostly retains the existing zoning in East side Roseville, except in the Hill Street precinct and upper part of Victoria Street. I was involved with the resident engagement for the preferred scenario and provided ample feedback on traffic limitations and other impacts.

I have only recently found out about the planned Hyecorp development on Roseville Ave. I understand it has been lodged under the TOD planning controls. Given the Council’s extensive resident consultation to choose their preferred scenario, I was most surprised to hear of the 9 storey development by word-of-mouth vs via public consultation. I never received any letterbox information about this development and was unaware of any public consultation that may have taken place.

My concern lies with the overall size of the development (4 buildings up to 9-storey each) and how it relates to the surrounding 1-2 storey houses. My understanding is that under the Council’s preferred scenario, the surrounding houses will remain 1-2 storey. There are also development constraints at surrounding sites due to the Metro tunnel reserves. So, whilst images available suggest that surrounding houses will be multi-storey, this will likely not be the case. The new development will be an isolated island of 4 towers surrounded by 1-2 storey houses.

Another related concern involves the inevitable traffic impact of 259 additional apartments. East side Roseville has already experienced a significant increase in commuter traffic as a result of the Metro. This has led to increased pressure on street parking but more significantly the exits to the Pacific Highway, Boundary Street and Archbold Ave are already experiencing significant delays, not to mention the number of car accidents that already happen at these traffic points.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide my input.
Sincerely.

I wish to make four points in my submission.

The first point is about planning coherence. The Kuring gai Council has taken a responsible approach and gone to immense and genuine efforts to respond to the State Government’s policy objectives of increasing housing density in the suburbs of Roseville, Lindfield, Killara and Gordon. The Council’s response has included a survey of all Roseville residents and residents of other nearby suburbs to develop the Council’s preferred scenario. The scenario is rational, meets State Government objectives, maintains the principal heritage elements of Roseville, maintains tree canopy, and confines multi-storey development acceptably to relatively small areas near the station. The present application which is lodged under TOD planning controls is completely inconsistent with the Council’s preferred scenario. If it is approved, it will introduce a haphazard and incoherent planning structure in Roseville which is not in the public interest.

The second point is about democracy. Council’s preferred scenario was strongly supported by Roseville residents. I voted for it. So did many others. It is not just Council’s preferred scenario; it is the preferred scenario of the local community gathered through the actions of our democratically elected representatives on Council. Why would any planning system that claims to act in the public interest not listen closely to and adopt a community preferred scenario which has been reached through open consultation by a local democratic body, and which meets every requirement of government policy for the delivery of extra housing for the area? What is the point of the State Government asking Kuring Gai Council to consult the community if the Government doesn’t then listen to the community when it provides a solution consistent with Government policy? To now approve this application, which took advantage TOD planning controls (imposed without community consultation) before broader and real community consultation got underway, would be unfair to residents, make a mockery of the whole consultation process with Council and ignore the results of a democratic process.

The third point is about the environment. Council’s preferred scenario does the best that can reasonably be done to preserve the tree canopy and heritage elements of Roseville to preserve its built environment and its overall amenity for residents and the broader community. The character of suburbs like Roseville matters not just for residents but for visitors and for everyone who values a green environment. A towering development up to 8 and 9 stories in the middle of Roseville would graft an urban monument into a garden suburb – hardly a source of pride for any city as wonderful as Sydney.

The last point is about Hyecorp’s lack of consultation. I live in Clanville Road, Roseville. I never received a copy of Hyecorp’s flyer. I was completely unaware of Hyecorp’s application until it was drawn to my attention recently. Hyecorp’s consultation efforts have lacked reach and ambition, in stark contrast to the Council's thorough and open process of public consultation. I would have taken more active steps earlier to oppose this development had I been aware of it, including by communicating my firm opposition to Hyecorp’s application through all available means. Any claim by Hyecorp that the community supports this project should be approached with the gravest suspicion.

Formal Objection – SSD-78996460 (16-24 Lord Street & 21-27 Roseville Avenue, Roseville)

I am writing to formally express my strong OPPOSITION to the State Significant Development Application SSD-78996460, submitted by Hyecorp Property Group, which seeks approval for a 9-storey, 259-unit residential complex at 16–24 Lord Street and 21–27 Roseville Avenue, Roseville. This proposal is highly inappropriate in its current form, bypasses key planning processes, and risks creating lasting negative impacts on the local area.
1. Procedural Concerns - The timing of this application is deeply problematic. It precedes the finalisation of ongoing discussions between Ku-ring-gai Council and the NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure (DPHI) around a more considered and community-informed Transport Oriented Development (TOD) strategy for the region. Council’s preferred approach—developed with local input—aims for sustainable, infrastructure-aligned growth that preserves the character and liveability of Roseville. Advancing this proposal now pre-empts that process and disregards the values and priorities already articulated by local residents.
Submitting this application ahead of the TOD framework's conclusion undermines confidence in public planning processes. It effectively excludes the community from meaningful participation and sidelines Council’s role as a representative body.
2. Inadequate and Misleading Community Engagement - Hyecorp’s claim of fulfilling the SEARs requirement on community engagement (Item 4) and the SSDA’s Social Impact Assessment (SIA) Guidelines is highly questionable. Despite stating that a flyer was distributed to 1300 households to advertise a community drop-in session on 12 March 2025, my household—and many others in the area—did not receive this notification. Consequently, we were unaware of the event and unable to participate in providing feedback.
Furthermore, due to the lack of notification, we were also not informed about the accompanying online community survey on the developer’s website. Had our household been appropriately notified, we would have participated in both the session and the survey.
The data reported by Hyecorp clearly reflects the ineffectiveness of their engagement efforts: only five people attended the community session, and a mere 34 survey responses were collected. Notably, at least two of those attendees were not independent community members but were affiliated with the project as either a property owner within the development site or a professional consultant. This hardly represents a genuine or diverse sample of community opinion.
3. Local Infrastructure and Traffic Impacts - A development of this scale will dramatically strain existing infrastructure and worsen traffic congestion in Roseville:
• Access routes to Archbold Road from Tryon Road and Bancroft Avenue are already beyond capacity, particularly during peak school hours near Roseville College and Roseville Public School.
• The intersection of Pacific Highway and Clanville Road—currently the only exit from Eastside Roseville onto the highway—is a recognised traffic blackspot, with long delays and a concerning accident history, including a recent fatality.
• The alternative route via Hill Street and Boundary Street is similarly problematic. A lack of a right turn onto Boundary Street and heavy school-related traffic further diminishes its feasibility as a major outlet.
Hyecorp’s Traffic Impact Assessment fails to address these genuine concerns. It leans on outdated data, including a 2012 bicycle infrastructure plan that was never implemented, and 2016 Census figures that do not accurately reflect current travel patterns.
Using updated figures from the 2021 Census and Hyecorp’s own estimates, it is reasonable to expect that peak-hour vehicle activity could involve up to 233 car movements. Furthermore, while Hyecorp proposes 309 residential parking spaces, data indicates the likely demand will exceed 417 vehicles—leaving an estimated 108 cars to compete for already scarce on-street parking near the station. The resulting impact on the local community would be highly disruptive.
In conclusion, this proposed development disregards proper planning timelines, fails to deliver on its obligations for community consultation, and threatens to overload traffic and infrastructure systems that are already under pressure.
For these reasons, I respectfully urge the Department of Planning to reject SSD-78996460 and instead prioritise a collaborative, consultative planning approach, as embodied in Ku-ring-gai Council’s Preferred Scenario.
Sincerely,

I strongly object to SSD-78996460. Please see attached submission.

________________________________________
RE: Formal Objection to the Proposed Residential Development with In-Fill Affordable Housing at 16–24 Lord Street & 21–27 Roseville Avenue, Roseville NSW 2069 (SSD-78996460)
From: Olivia Dainton, 86 Roseville Avenue, Roseville NSW 2069
________________________________________
Denial of Procedural Fairness
As a long-term resident of Roseville, having lived in this community for over 26 years, I am writing to express my strong objection to the proposed development by Hyecorp for a nine-storey, 259-unit residential complex incorporating in-fill affordable housing at the above address.
I reside approximately 600 metres from the proposed site, at the corner of Roseville Avenue and Archbold Road. Roseville has always been a quiet, leafy suburb defined by its heritage character and strong sense of community. This development proposal represents a drastic and inappropriate overreach that undermines the established planning controls, disrespects heritage protections, and disregards the expectations and values of the community.
________________________________________
Scale and Incompatibility with Local Character
The proposed height and bulk of the development are fundamentally inconsistent with the fine-grained residential character of Roseville, particularly on the eastern side of the railway. The building would dominate the streetscape and permanently alter the visual landscape in an unacceptable manner.
The proposal:
• Disregards existing Transport Oriented Development (TOD) planning controls. This development is not in the public interest and is at odds with Council’s preferred planning scenario, which recognises the unique character of East Roseville and seeks to maintain existing zoning except in very limited precincts.
• Proposes the demolition of nine existing homes, many of which contribute to the area’s heritage conservation value.
• Fails to integrate with the existing streetscape, eroding Roseville’s historic identity.
• Presents an imposing, box-like design, ignoring the local topography, established residential context, and heritage character.
• Will cause significant overshadowing, overlooking, and a loss of privacy for surrounding dwellings (as clearly evidenced in the architectural plans, pages 23, 24, 31 & 32).
• Will result in visual clutter, reduce sunlight in public spaces, and degrade pedestrian amenity.
________________________________________
Environmental Destruction
One of the most alarming aspects of this proposal is the planned removal of 91 mature trees, many of which are integral to the Ku-Ring-Gai canopy. This is in direct contradiction to the objectives of the Ku-Ring-Gai Urban Forest Policy and Biodiversity Strategy 2030. Such a loss represents a serious and irreversible environmental degradation.
________________________________________
Infrastructure and Traffic Overload
This scale of development would place unbearable strain on local infrastructure, which is already under pressure from nearby developments on Boundary Road and Victoria Street. Unlike those three-storey developments, this nine-storey complex would severely exacerbate existing issues, including:
• Traffic congestion at critical intersections, especially Pacific Highway / Clanville Road.
• Inadequate local roads and on-street parking, already stressed by commuter traffic from the Northern Beaches and Roseville Ladies College.
• Increased traffic through Martin Lane and other local “rat runs”, compromising safety and accessibility.
• Existing stormwater, sewerage, and public transport systems are insufficient and have not been upgraded to support such high-density development.
________________________________________
Construction Disruptions
The likely impact of construction cannot be overstated—large trucks, cranes, and prolonged works on narrow roads will create severe disruptions, deteriorate already worn road surfaces, and compromise the safety and comfort of residents over a lengthy construction period.
________________________________________
Misuse of the State Significant Development (SSD) Pathway
There appears to be no valid justification for classifying this proposal under the State Significant Development pathway. The project does not provide substantial public benefit nor a meaningful provision of affordable housing. The use of the SSD mechanism in this instance appears to be a strategic attempt to bypass local planning controls, which should not be permitted.
________________________________________
Lack of Genuine Community Engagement
Community consultation has been inadequate and misleading. I only became aware of the proposed development through a flyer found on my driveway on the evening of 18 March. It was not delivered to my letterbox, nor was any official communication received. Upon contacting my neighbour, she too was unaware of the development and had to share the news with other neighbours.
Furthermore, the community drop-in session on 12 March at Lindfield Seniors Centre was poorly advertised and scheduled during typical working hours, effectively excluding many working residents from participating. I also received no notification of any community survey conducted by Hyecorp.
________________________________________
Conclusion
This application fails on every relevant planning, environmental, and community standard:
• It does not comply with height restrictions or existing planning controls.
• It inflicts permanent damage to the unique character and village atmosphere of Roseville.
• It undermines public trust in transparent and equitable planning processes.
• It ignores the infrastructure, environmental, and amenity needs of the current and future community.
For these reasons, I strongly urge the responsible authorities to reject this application in its entirety. The future of Roseville must be guided by thoughtful, inclusive, and sustainable planning—not by opportunistic developments that prioritise profit over community.
Yours sincerely,
Olivia Dainton
86 Roseville Avenue
Roseville NSW 2069

Please see attached.

This attachment supersedes my original submission - I have removed personal details from the name of the file attached.

Please see my submission attached.

Please find attached objection letter to SSD-78996460

Please see my attached objection

Dear Jasmine
I live in a residence which received a notice of exhibition and object to the project which significantly impacts our home which is across the road.
I attach in pdf a letter outlining my submissions and objection.
Regards
James Afaras

Please refer attached our objection to this proposal.
thanks
Nick & Lucy James

I live very close to the proposed development. I am in the “primary locality” as per Social Impact doc fig 3 the area that may experience the most direct impacts.
I have serious concerns about Hyecorp’s application:
• There are so many omissions, inaccuracies and unfounded statements that it can’t be relied upon as a true assessment of the impacts. It is little more than an advertising brochure
• the community engagement described bears no resemblance to my experience of their activities
• the proximity to the underground metro tunnel needs examining very closely to avoid the potentially catastrophic risk of getting it wrong
• a ‘state significant’ application should meet a very high standard of rigorous assessment. Near enough is not good enough
Community engagement
I did not see the activity that Hyecorp reported in its Engagement Outcomes Report. I didn’t get a brochure about a community information session on 12 March. I don’t know anyone who got such a brochure. I don’t know anyone who attended the session.
They held the session in a different suburb/venue from where it was apparently advertised. The Report repeats twice that it was held in East Lindfield, 2.5km away from the advertised location.
The online survey didn’t close on 24 March. It was still available on 13 April.
I received a brochure on 20 March with no reference to an information session. It directed me to a ‘project survey’. I did the online survey. I asked that Hyecorp delay the project because it would undermine Ku-ring-gai’s Council’s ‘preferred scenario’ for the area. At the end of the survey, I gave my email details to be kept up to date on the project. Hyecorp has never contacted me. The brochure says 'members of the community will be invited to make a submission' once their application is lodged. I have not become aware of any such ‘invitation’. Later in April all reference to this project had disappeared. I was shocked to hear through local word of mouth that Hyecorp had lodged a detailed SSD application.
It is very concerning that a major project like this could get to this stage in a secretive way with barely any engagement with local residents. Even now, there is no physical sign erected at the site to make residents aware that such a major application is on exhibition.
It is concerning that the EOR has been submitted with doubt as to many of its claims.
Unfortunately, Hyecorp has not followed its own recommendation in its Social Impact Report about continued community consultation early and during all stages being “crucial” to forming a rapport with residents to ensure a smooth transition.
Impact of metro tunnel on future development in Roseville
Hyecorp’s analysis of the impact on the surrounding area assumes that other large developments may be built in the future eg Architectural Design statement diagram (p21) “Potential development under Housing SEPP within the TOD area”.However, this ignores the fact that the metro tunnel underneath will prevent any future development of many houses in Roseville Ave and Lord St because of the shallower depth of the tunnel there.
This means that much of Hyecorp’s analysis about how the suburb will develop in future is flawed.
In relation to the impact of the metro tunnel on Hyecorp’s current proposal, their ‘Metro Reserve Plan’ shows that the ‘first reserve’ of the metro tunnel is partly in the site area, and close to the proposed deep excavation. Rigorous examination is needed to decide if this excavation is advisable, given the increasing heavy rains, climate change and earth movements. The recent sinkholes in Rockdale near the M6 tunnel excavation should be a warning, and raises questions as to whether the Roseville site is a suitable site or if this is in the public interest. Thousands of people hurtling underground in the metro every 4 minutes under Roseville Ave would not want excavation within metres of the tunnel if there is any risk of adverse impact on the tunnel.
Communal open space
There is a lack of clarity about the status of the building entrance path setback area in the Roseville Avenue façade. It is included in the calculation to satisfy the required % of communal open space. Yet, the Architectural Statement says it will be for ‘residents and neighbours alike’, adding to the series of pocket parks in the area. It seems to be open to the public and unfenced. It will get high foot traffic - post delivery, couriers, food deliveries etc. This area is not included in the Landscape Plan as ‘communal open space’, and it doesn’t fit the requirements for ‘communal open space’ in that Plan ie “Present as a private area for use by residents only; Be in addition to any public thoroughfares;”
Can Hyecorp satisfy the required % of ‘communal open space’ if this area at the entry to Roseville Ave actually does not qualify as communal open space. If it does qualify, then the Landscape plan is deficient and should reassess this area, and how it will be a safe place for residents’ children and dogs to play if it is open to street traffic and the public.
Bus services
Hyecorp’s documents make a repeated claim about bus services that gives a false impression ie bus services are “available on the Pacific Hwy providing services to Chatswood and Sydney CBDs and the wider Kur-ring gai locality.” To my knowledge, the only bus service to the Sydney CBD is the limited ‘Night Rider’ N90 service that only operates in the early hours of the morning when trains are not running.
Proximity to transport is a focus of Hyecorp’s application. This should have been accurate.
Parks
The access to parks is clearly a very important factor to assess in this application. However, Hyecorp creates a false impression in its description of the nearby parks and their true useability for residents, especially children. Also, there’s no consistency in the documents about which parks it is relying on to support its case. For example the Social Impact Statement, p15, names 6 parks as being in Roseville. Only one is walkable from the site. I have never heard of 3 of them and they’re not listed on Council’s Roseville parks list, another one is in Chatswood and the other is 15 min brisk walking. At p17 it neglects to say that Little Digger is across the busy 4-lane Archbold Rd with no nearby safe crossing point and has no facilities.
School capacity
Hyecorp’s analysis of the projected population and school capacity should be an important factor. However, its analysis about Killara High is seriously flawed and shouldn’t be relied on.
The Social Impact Statement says Killara High will have future capacity. This is based on a completely misconceived impact of 2 new high schools to be in Asquith (p 3, 16 and 31).Asquith is 15 km away from Killara, and those changes will not affect Killara High. See Dept of Education website’s list re Asquith changes.
Visual impact
Hyecorp downplays the significant visual impact and sad loss of amenity for all community members. The beautiful view from the upper landing of the railway bridge will be diminished. Currently, everyone can see the extensive view over the district. The photomontage (p 15/16 VIS) makes it easy to imagine the adverse impact but Hyecorp deems it ‘acceptable’. and the Social Impact Statement (p22) says existing views to local bushland are not obstructed by the proposed development. It is hard to see how they justify this statement.
Hyecorp say they’ve applied the Connecting with Country Framework. How does a stark large building in the landscape fit the principle of “View Country” ie Maintain views across Gamaragal Country to emphasise landscape connections….Hyecorp’s answer to this is “Increased building heights allow for new opportunities to view Gamaragal Country from the site”. This seems a distortion of what is intended. Surely ‘View Country’ principle isn’t intended to benefit a few living in penthouses, at the expense of the rest of the community.
High Quality
The documents promise everything will be ‘high quality’. There is no definition or benchmark for this. Is the estimated cost of development $148m sufficient to produce everything of ‘high quality’? Can Hyecorp’s claims be delivered, especially with increasing construction costs.
Noise
There is no analysis of potential noise impact of having 700+ new residents in the common open areas, with many children. What will be the capacity of the kids club near the Roseville Ave entrance? Will it need regulation for safety of potentially large groups of children? The common open areas could potentially have the equivalent number of a whole class of school kids playing at the same time.
There’s no planning for the potential number of dogs. Dog ownership is common– sometimes 40% of households. Out of 259 new dwellings, this could mean 100 dogs living in the project site. But the Landscape plan doesn’t mention if materials and fencing has been designed with dogs in mind. There is no analysis of the noise impact of a large number of dogs in the common open areas.
Council’s preferred scenario
KRG Council has produced an alternative scenario to the Government’s TOD controls, with community consultation. Hyecorp would be well aware of this. Under that scenario, the project area would be saved from development because it is a Heritage Conservation Area.
If no other future development is permitted in this area (either because of the metro tunnel or the preservation of the Heritage Conservation Area) then Hyecorp’s enormous building will be an anomaly in the landscape. How can this outcome be reconciled with a meaningful application of Connecting with Country framework.
Conclusion
Hyecorp’s documents have many instances where they downplayed issues and made unfounded assertions. As a result, I do not have any confidence that Hyecorp’s ‘assessments about the bulk, scale and impact of the project are reliable. Significant independent investigation of these important issues is needed.

Please kindly see attached.

I support the effort of the Government to increase housing supply close to rail stations. I think the current proposal is not equitable to those in the area because increases zoning allowances fronting Martin Lane and Hill Street and leaves some ten or twelve allotments with no increase in zoning allowances. Some of these allotments are encumbered with the Metro Line conditions. There is confusion of what construction is possible above or adjacent to the Metro tunnels. The Metro lines conditions would appear to work against what was proposed by the TODD papers. The area between Hill St, Martin Lane,Roseville Av.,and Lord St need to be treated as one if the suburban environment is to be good.

I strongly object to this development proposal. The proposal for such high density in Roseville east side will cause significant impact to local heritage conservation areas and heritage items. There are many family homes nearby will be badly impacted by this development. This will cause a serial of problems like parking issues, traffic congestion, sunlight and overshadowing to adjacent houses. 

This development is inconsistent with the preferred scenario of the Ku-ring-gai council.
It’s inappropriate and it’s going to be a huge damage to the surrounding heritage conservation areas.

I conditionally support the Hyecorp development at 16-24 Lord Street and 21-27 Roseville Avenue provided the State Government’s TOD remains in place and is not superseded by Kuringai Council's alternative plan. I support the concept of Transport Oriented Development to help alleviate Sydney's traffic problems and provide more housing density near transport hubs. Support for the TOD from residents within the 400-metres in Roseville was evidenced by the large number of households that banded together and went to market with real estate agents or signed with developers.

Please refer to the attachment setting out reasons for the objection.

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

My name is Eden Cleaver and I live at 5 Roseville Avenue, Roseville, in a small apartment complex just up the road from the proposed Hyecorp development site.

I strongly oppose this proposed development for multiple reasons, which I will proceed to outline below. I have lived in Roseville for almost 4 years and love living in this area for it's quiet leafy green streets and heritage charm. I particularly love how all the streets in the neighbourhood are lined with old-growth trees which provide homes to a multitude of wildlife. I love that Roseville has maintained it's quiet charm despite being situated so close to the bustling metropolis of Chatswood and the more recently burgeoning town centre of Lindfield. Roseville truly feels one of the last remaining gems on the north shore. It is for this reason that I feel it is extremely important to preserve this beautiful suburb from high rise developments such as the proposed residential development for 16-24 Lord Street and 21-27 Roseville Avenue.

Aesthetic Considerations
To allow this development to proceed would be a tragedy, not only for the suburb of Roseville but for the entire north shore area. The proposed Hyecorp development lacks the heritage charm that is synonymous with the area and would visually overshaddow the surrounding streets with an aesthetically unconsidered and inappropriately placed design. To put it bluntly - the Hyecorp development simply does not belong in the area.

Traffic Conjestion
Aesthetic considerations aside, another major concern is the traffic congestion that this proposed development would bring. There is no garage parking in the apartment I live in so finding a street park on or around Roseville Avenue is very challenging on a good day. Often I have to park many streets away and move my car later at night once the street has cleared from commuter cars. The development of the metro line has only added to the parking challenge and I am extremely concerned that if the proposed Hyecorp development were to proceed then it would be near impossible for me to be able to park my car anywhere remotely near to where I live. In addition, construction of the proposed development would no doubt cause even more parking and traffic congestion on the surrounding streets with trade workers adding to the influx.

One particular point of traffic congestion I foresee is Martin Lane, which is basically a one-way street currently. The traffic banks up either side of Martin Lane during peak hour making it very difficult to access.

Impact on Wildlife
The estimated loss of 91 trees if the Hyecorp development were to proceed would be a devastating loss to the area and, in particular, to the local wildlife. I go for a walks most evenings after work and love to see the abundance of wildlife on and around Roseville ave and Lord street. The removal of this significant number of trees would be a high impact and, in addition, could diminish the air quality. In a world that is becoming more and more built-up we need these pockets of green that Roseville provides. These areas are safe havens for wildlife and must be protected and valued.

No Information received from Hyecorp
Additionally, I never received a flyer from Hyecorp in my letterbox about the proposed development. I also later found out only through the save our neighbourhood group that there was a community drop-in session at Lindfield Seniors Centre/Community Hall between 4:00-6:30pm on Wed 12 March 2025. I never would have been able to attend this session because I work full time in the city. It's unreasonable to hold this session during those hours, I often don't get home from work untill after 6:30pm.

I also wasn't aware of the dedicated project pages on the Hyecorp website prior to 25 March 2025 or after that, I was not aware of the community survey on the Hyecorp website and I was never provided any information from Hyecorp representatives. I feel like the neighbourhood was kept completely in the dark about this proposed development. The first I even heard about it was from the save our neighbourhood flyer in my letterbox.

This development application should not be further progressed until Council’s Preferred Scenario is resolved. I support the council’s Preferred Scenario and how this recognises the unique character of Eastside Roseville and takes into account the wildlife and heritage charm of the area.

I strongly object to the proposed Hyecorp development.