Skip to main content

State Significant Development

Response to Submissions

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

Ku-ring-gai

Current Status: Response to Submissions

Interact with the stages for their names

  1. SEARs
  2. Prepare EIS
  3. Exhibition
  4. Collate Submissions
  5. Response to Submissions
  6. Assessment
  7. Recommendation
  8. Determination

Residential flat building development with in-fill affordable housing

Attachments & Resources

Notice of Exhibition (1)

Request for SEARs (3)

SEARs (2)

EIS (38)

Exhibition (1)

Response to Submissions (1)

Agency Advice (8)

Submissions

Filters
Showing 41 - 60 of 400 submissions
Name Withheld
Object
ROSEVILLE , New South Wales
Message
Thank you for providing the opportunity to make a submission regarding the proposed residential development on Lord Street and Roseville Avenue. I would like to express my concerns about the potential impacts of this project on the Roseville area, particularly in terms of infrastructure, community liveability, and affordable housing.
I have lived in various parts of Sydney, including Roseville, and have observed firsthand the challenges posed by inadequate infrastructure. My primary concern is that the ongoing development in this area could exacerbate these issues, leaving the community vulnerable to further strains. For example, in areas that I have lived, where current garbage collection services are insufficient, there is an increase in vermin and rats. This could become more problematic here as the area becomes more densely populated.

Parking and Traffic Issues
Another pressing issue is parking. As the population in Roseville grows, the lack of available parking spaces is already a significant problem. I, for one, often find myself parking five minutes away from my home. This is not an acceptable situation, and the problem will only worsen if the proposed development moves forward without addressing the parking needs of residents. It is essential that the development plans include adequate parking facilities to accommodate the increased number of households.

Affordable Housing and Homeownership Incentives
In terms of affordable housing, I believe the current Hyecorp plan lacks long-term solutions for homeownership. The development seems focused on rental apartments, but renting long-term without a pathway to ownership is not attractive for those looking to settle in the community. If the goal is to create a stable, thriving community, more emphasis should be placed on offering incentives for homeownership.
For instance, affordable apartments should be available for purchase at a price that is within reach of young first-time buyers. Currently, my budget for an affordable apartment is under $600,000, but realistically, to make such a purchase viable for younger buyers, the price should be under $500,000. This would make homeownership more achievable for those who are trying to establish themselves in the area. A significant proportion of any new apartments built must be reserved for young first-time buyers to prevent the exacerbation of the housing crisis that has resulted from a speculative housing bubble. Hyecorp’s proposal does not align with this vision. It’s goal is to maximise profits at the expense of the community and its future.

Targeted Housing for Health and Education Professionals
Additionally, I believe that the apartments should be earmarked for key workers, particularly health and education professionals who will live and work in the local community. These individuals are essential to the functioning of the area and often find it difficult to secure affordable housing close to their places of employment. The vast majority of teachers do not live in the suburbs where they work and are forced to commute. If the plan is to increase the population, we will need additional school staff and, in all likelihood, additional schools. Given the severe teacher shortage, it is imperative that we can incentivise them to work in our community. This is one of the many concerns of young people like myself who have put off having children because of the housing crisis. By providing housing specifically for these professionals, the development can ensure that they remain in the area long-term, which would benefit local services and improve the overall quality of life in Roseville.

Infrastructure and Community Amenities
Finally, it is crucial that any new development is paired with improvements in local infrastructure. Without corresponding upgrades, such as better garbage collection, public transport options, and road systems, the increased population could put additional pressure on the already strained services.
Furthermore, there should be a focus on providing community amenities that will enhance the liveability of the area for families, such as playgrounds and recreational spaces. These spaces are essential for children and contribute to the overall well-being of the community. These spaces should be part of the existing budget and not something the community will have to fund in the future while Hyecorp walks away with a massive profit. It is essential that any new residential developments account for these social and recreational needs, ensuring that Roseville remains a vibrant, sustainable community for all its residents.

Conclusion
In conclusion, while I support the idea of developing affordable housing in the Roseville area, it is important that these developments are carefully planned and executed with a focus on long-term sustainability. This means addressing the issues of infrastructure, parking, and affordable homeownership, while also ensuring that key workers have access to housing that allows them to live close to where they work. I urge the NSW Planning Department to consider these concerns about the development to ensure Roseville remains a liveable and thriving community for years to come. It is not in the public interest for this application to be further progressed or determined until Council’s Preferred Scenario is resolved.
Leanne Mills
Object
ROSEVILLE , New South Wales
Message
This proposed development is excessively large and will dominate the area and ruin the look of the suburb it concerns me that if this huge development is approved the rest of the street towards the station will end up the same and the roads school
And local community can not handle this large intake in such a small area. The streets are already backed up with commuters coming into the area to park for the train and metro.
The costs of the east side land purchases are huge and I do not believe this is in good faith affordable housing. West side of the highway land values are less with the same proximity to train station hence more affordable.
Please consider once demolished these beautiful old well preserved and lived homes will be gone forever.
Low rise apartments are more in keeping with the heritage conservation of the area and will
Appropriately grow the suburb.
Name Withheld
Object
ROSEVILLE , New South Wales
Message
Please refer the to attachment for my objection
Attachments
Name Withheld
Object
ROSEVILLE , New South Wales
Message
Please find attached a letter of objection.
Attachments
Name Withheld
Object
ROSEVILLE , New South Wales
Message
I strongly believe this proposal is excessive for this area of Roseville. Both Lord St and Roseville Ave are already completely jammed with congestion in the morning as commuters look for free parking, this will be significantly worse under this proposal. The proposal also changed the entire look and feel of the streets - I would support a building of 3 levels but 7 or 8 levels is completely excessive. The supporting infrastructure also does not support this - not all trains stop at Roseville station which adds congestion and the local shops are inadequate. Please reconsider this proposal
Name Withheld
Object
ROSEVILLE , New South Wales
Message
I moved to Roseville 13 years ago to prepare for retirement. I moved here because of the unique character of the area "Bowral" in Sydney environment.
1. I AM NOT AGAINST DEVELOPMENT.
I am not against development in the area and certainly not against low-cost housing development. Both are essential.
I just object to the manner in which Hyecorp have gone about this project. There has been no consultation or consideration with the residents. The HyeCorp proposal is NOT addressing low-cost housing. It will most likely just provide housing to foreign (Asian Chinese) nonresidents. I am NOT being racist here. Just take a look at the signage on the railway overpass connecting Clanville to Pacific Highway. Multiple advertising promoting foreign buyers into the area. How is this fixing Sydney's housing crisis ? Its only adding to it. Development must consider the unique character of the area. Take a look at other Sydney suburbs that development has occurred and the unique (and sought after) character has been maintained. For example: Paddington, Glebe and Balmain. 3 examples of wonderful, unique suburbs whose character has been maintained. Compare this to the absolute EYESORE of Blues Point Tower at McMahons Point. This would have to be one of the ugliest developments in Sydney. The HyeCorp proposal will become the Roseville "Blues Point Tower".
Accordingly, I wish to express my support for the Kuring gai Councils preferred scenario.
Tom Cameron
Object
ROSEVILLE , New South Wales
Message
See attached
Attachments
Brett Cameron
Object
ROSEVILLE , New South Wales
Message
Please see attached submission objecting to the project
Attachments
Mark Heaney
Object
Roseville , New South Wales
Message
Please see attachment - Suspend until after Council's Preferred Scenario outcome is known.
Attachments
Name Withheld
Object
ROSEVILLE , New South Wales
Message
Re: Residential development with in-fill affordable housing, 16-24 Lord Street & 21-27 Roseville Avenue, Roseville (SSD-78996460)”.

I am objecting to this development.

This development should not proceed until Ku-ring-gai Council’s preferred scenario is determined, as it goes against that scenario. It makes sense to wait till then and any development could proceed along Hill Street as in the preferred scenario. There seems to be an unnecessary rush by the developers.

The first I heard of this development was late March when my family received a Hyecorp flyer in our letterbox. I point out this was after the 12th March when apparently there was a community session in Lindfield. I also understand there has been a web site with a survey, none of which I was made aware of. Hyecorp has made no direct consultation with my household in any form (apart from the late delivered flyer). This is shameful given I live in the same street as the development.

I point out there will be an impact on the already congested traffic in East Roseville. There are no plans to alleviate this with the extra vehicles in the area that will be generated as a result of this development. There are already issues at the Clanville/Hill St/Pacific Highway intersection and Hill St/Boundary St intersection. In addition, Martin Lane is a bottleneck and this is alongside the proposed development. Also, the nearby Roseville College turns the area into a stand still at school drop off and pick up times.

This development is in a heritage conservation area, apparently of no concern to the TOD program. I moved to this area with that in mind, assuming no unsightly developments would occur. Conversely, those residents with heritage listed houses seem to be recognised by the TOD program, meaning they can not sell and will be overlooked by any developments. There seems to be no logic in the aforementioned decisions.

Given the existing streetscape of Roseville Avenue and Lord Streets are comprised of heritage and period style houses that reflect Roseville’s history, this development will undermine the character and disrupt the aesthetics of the area. Any development of this magnitude will create overshadowing issues affecting natural light for surrounding homes. It will also result in a lack of privacy for nearby residents. In summary, this development would be a blot on the landscape of Roseville.
Name Withheld
Object
ROSEVILLE , New South Wales
Message
I have lived in Roseville with my family for 13 years. It has a wonderful, calm community environment, ideal for young families. I feel this proposal is excessive given its sheet size and scale, which will not only change the look and feel of the suburb but also add significant burden on parking and other amenities which are already stretched. I belive re-developing the Hill street retail shops to include residential above is a much better alternative. Thank you for your consideration
Sue Byrne
Object
ROSEVILLE , New South Wales
Message
I have attached my submission as a word document
Attachments
Jemma Upson
Object
ROSEVILLE , New South Wales
Message
This project is not in keeping with a heritage conservation area. Roseville Ave and Lord Street consist of 2 storey houses and we are restricted with what we can do with said houses so that the neighbourhood remains heritage. We had a DA declined to replace our terracotta roof with heritage approved slate tiles and we were not allowed to put a skylight in an upstairs bathroom because it could be seen from the street - it is a complete double standard that rate paying residents who live and breathe in the neighbourhood are not allowed to do such minor heritage-consistent changes to their front houses and yet a developer is allowed to build a 8-9 storey monstrosity not at all in keeping with the streetscape. Houses along Roseville Ave and Lord St sell for over $8M so I highly doubt that any apartment in this application will be "affordable housing" as the developers suggest. The roads around Roseville Ave/Lord St are narrow, often resulting in a single lane of manoeuvrability so would not be able to cope with the extra 350 cars the proposal has, nor the construction trucks and vehicles that a build of this size requires. Developments of this magnitude should be restricted to along the main highways and along the streets adjacent to the train tracks, not plopped in the middle of 2 storey residential houses.
Name Withheld
Object
ROSEVILLE , New South Wales
Message
I object to this project for the following reasons:

1) Streetscape impact - This proposed development is totally inconsistent with the surrounding streetscape and nearby homes will be dwarfed by this 10 storey development. Majority of houses are single level detached homes.

2) Road infrastructure - In addition the local infrastructure will not be able to cope with the 267 additional units and 315 cars from this development. Martin Lane is the ONLY thoroughfare between Roseville Avenue and Lord Street and is already extremely busy without the additional 315 cars exiting this development. Note also that Martin Lane is a very narrow side street.

3) Location - Note that I am actually supportive of apartment development in Roseville however this is completely the wrong location. This development should be located closer to Roseville station, i.e. around the Hill Street area.

4) Precedent setting - Approving this development, besides the detrimental road infrastructure issues and negative impact on surrounding streetscapes, will create a precedent for similar 10 storey apartment developments with the logical scenario then being Roseville Avenue and Lord Street becoming completely filled with apartment complexes from the station down towards Roseville Presbyterian Church.

5) Child safety - This proposed development is within 200 metres of Roseville College school. Large numbers of school children walk the surrounding streets (e.g. Glencroft Avenue, Lord Street, Martin Lane, Roseville Avenue) before, during and after school unaccompanied. This school caters for children from the age of 5 upto 18 and having the additional congestion on the roads will contribute to an unsafe environment for children who live in the local area. Roseville College also does sport in nearby ovals and travels on foot to and from walking on the mentioned roads above.

Please do consider these points.

Thank you.
Shu-Lin Shih
Support
ROSEVILLE , New South Wales
Message
Stop to built 8-9 apartments in Roseville Ave/Lord st near Martin Lane in the midst of our Heritage Conservation Areas.
Name Withheld
Object
ROSEVILLE , New South Wales
Message
To whom it may concern,
I’m writing as a 25-year-old lifelong resident of East Roseville to strongly object to the proposed development at 16–24 Lord Street and 21–27 Roseville Avenue (SSD-78996460).
This part of Roseville was never designed to cope with high-density development, and the impacts of this project will directly affect my quality of life and that of many other locals, especially young people who still live at home or are trying to stay in the area.

1. Street Parking is Already Out of Control
Since the Chatswood Metro opened, Roseville has become an overflow commuter parking zone. Every weekday, our street and all surrounding streets are lined with parked cars from people walking to Roseville Station. This development will add 259 apartments, but it doesn’t include enough parking. Overflow from this complex will only make the existing parking situation worse for everyone. The EIS acknowledges that increased traffic volumes and parking demand are expected, yet still downplays the impact on residents who rely on on-street parking daily.

2. Local Roads Are Already Congested
Lord Street, Roseville and Bancroft Avenues are local streets not built for the amount of through traffic they now carry. During school times and the morning rush, it’s a complete mess. The EIS talks about "manageable" traffic increases, but that’s from a theoretical point of view and anyone who actually lives here knows the roads are already at capacity. Martin Lane, which runs alongside the site, is used as a shortcut from Lindfield to avoid the Pacific Highway and is effectively a 1-way street now with emergency vehicles unable to pass. Adding construction vehicles, residents, and visitors to that mix will create serious bottlenecks, delays, and frustration.

3. Roseville Station Can't Handle More Commuters
Trains at Roseville are already overcrowded. Only one in every three trains even stops at the station, and when they do, they’re often packed, especially in peak hour when people wish to travel to Chatswood for the metro or to schools up the train line. I’ve seen it firsthand for years. I have lodged many complaints with TfNSW, and have seen no change. The EIS claims this is a "transport-oriented development" but the transport isn’t capable of taking on hundreds of new daily commuters. It’s just not realistic to keep adding people to the train system without any improvements to service frequency or capacity.

This development doesn’t reflect what Roseville is, and it doesn’t fit what it can support. I’m not against more housing, but it needs to be done in a way that’s actually sustainable for the area. This proposal is just too much, too fast, in a location that can’t handle it.

I urge the Department not to approve this project in its current form.
James Johnstone
Object
ROSEVILLE , New South Wales
Message
Please see my comments in the attached letter.
Attachments
Irena Tai
Object
ROSEVILLE , New South Wales
Message
Please see the attached word document with my objection to the proposed project.
Attachments
Philomena Brandt
Object
ROSEVILLE , New South Wales
Message
Objection - Wait for council's preferred scenario to be completed.
Attachments
Name Withheld
Object
ROSEVILLE , New South Wales
Message
Refer to attached file Objection to SSD_78996460
Attachments

Pagination

Project Details

Application Number
SSD-78996460
Assessment Type
State Significant Development
Development Type
In-fill Affordable Housing
Local Government Areas
Ku-ring-gai

Contact Planner

Name
Jasmine Tranquille