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

See Attachment 1

I reside on Lord Street within 300m of the proposed development.
I understand the requirement for development of residential units in the area.
However such development should have due consideration to impact on local residents.
The proposed development will significantly increase traffic on the local roads which are already very busy with transit traffic from neighbouring suburbs commuting to the City and Chatswood.
In addition the proposed height of the development will have a significant visual impact on local residents and shadow the adjacent properties.
I would be supportive of a development of 4-5 storeys maximum, consistent with the recent project in Bancroft as I understand is proposed in the Council preferred scenario.

I object to this project as it is way out of character with the streetscape. The site is in the middle of 3 heritage conservation areas with many beautiful Federation houses nearby. It will be 9 stories high and tower over other dwellings and cause significant lack of sunlight. The surrounding streets, especially Martin Lane, are too narrow for the amount of traffic that will come from so many people residing in this development . The construction time of 2 years would cause massive traffic disruption in itself. This development will involve the destruction of a number of beautiful Federation cottages and many trees and negatively impact the visual beauty of the streets.
I think this development should not be approved or progressed under the TOD Scheme until Kuringai Council has determined its Preferred Scenario for residential development with the State government which would allow for higher rise residential development closer to Roseville train station but keep this area for 1-2 story houses.
I received a Hyecorp flyer but do not think that it was before 12 March. I would have attended the community drop in session on Wednesday 12 March if I had known about it. I note that information about this drop in session was not on the flyer I received from Hyecorp. I was not aware of the community survey on the Hyecorp website and no Hyecorp representatives have provided information to me or sought feedback from me about the project.

Please refer to the attached objection.

This application was lodged under the TOD scheme and shouldn't be progressed until the situation with the Councils preferred scheme is definitively sorted out.
My household never received a community flyer from Hyecorp .
The traffic situation in my area is already a problem and adding so many cars to the road is not viable. We don't have the infrastructure.
Sydney is a new city relative to the world so we should preserve what history we do have. The removal of beautiful historic homes with magnificent established gardens is an abomination. Future generations will be horrified that we let his happen. We should maintain the small amount of beauty we have in this city.
I believe we need affordable living as I have 4 children but firstly this development price range would be out of their reach and that the sites for development should be better considered it shouldn't be carte blanche. There are many other sites in our local area that have dwellings that have no merit and should be considered for demolition.

I wish to make a submission to object to the Residential development with in-fill affordable housing, 16-24 Lord Street and 21-27 Roseville Avenue Roseville 2069 (SSD-78996460).

My name is Carolyn Meagher and I live at 59 Lord Street Roseville, approximately 340m from this development. I have lived in Roseville with my family of 6 for 20 years, we enjoy living in this area for it’s green environment and tree canopy, the emphasis on heritage the Council has, and the green space this area has allowed my family to grow up in.

I am disappointed that the NSW Government has continued with its “one size fits all” TOD implementation while allowing the Kuringgai Council to come up with its Preferred Scenario. The Council has had to follow a process - design a more suitable plan, consult with the public, ask for submissions, all which takes time, however the NSW Government has not taken this into consideration and allowed SSDs to be submitted. This has left the Council and especially residents in an uncertain and distressful situation. The Developer has not mentioned at all the Council’s Preferred Scenario as a feasible alternative. The Hyecorp development if left to go ahead does not, in any way, fit into Kuringgai Council’s Preferred Scenario which at this moment is very close to completion and submission to NSW Government. As a resident I feel wronged by NSW Government who allowed the Council to come up with a plan which better suits its environment and objectives, while the Government continues with its TOD plans regardless. This SSD should not be allowed to progress or be determined until Council’s Preferred Scenario is resolved. If the Hyecorp development goes ahead it will be the only multi storey building on the block and in the East Roseville area. With it’s 9 storeys at 31.1m height will greatly overshadow surrounding properties, and is grossly mismatched and doesn’t belong to its surroundings.

I support Kuringgai Council’s Preferred Scenario, as they have done this with much public consultation, unlike the TOD plans which were introduced without consultation. The Preferred Scenario while achieving the outcomes of the NSW Government TOD plans also takes into consideration the preservation of heritage conservation areas, environmentally sensitive areas, minimises tree canopy impact, and manages building height transitions.

Hyecorp states that it has done community engagement and has considered issues raised. I received a flyer from Hyecorp around 20 March, I responded to flyer by means of a QR code in the flyer. I was not in support of the proposal. Apparently there was a meeting for local residents held on 12 March, however I was not advised of this meeting by the Developer. I definitely would have attended if I had known. The flyer was the first I had heard of this development and I was shocked by its size, and how massive it is compared to its surroundings, especially the Scout Hall on corner of Roseville Ave and Martin Lane. The Gyde survey says 34 surveys were completed, I don’t see how 34 replies from an estimated 1,300 flyers distributed can be used as a fair assessment of engagement for any project, nor does it show reasonable effort in engaging with nearby residents.

Height - this massive 31m development of 4 apartment buildings and 9 storeys, is totally out of proportion to its surroundings. It is next to a heritage Scout Hall and will dominate the Hall as well as its neighbours. Some of the visuals the Developer has included are very misleading as they show a panoramic view of the buildings as seen from across the road, the dimensions are not correct, you would have to be standing much further back to see the whole building. The height of the development will also adversely effect the privacy of adjoining homes, and the light and sun access to surrounding area. There is absolutely no transition of heights to adjoining buildings, you go from 9 storeys to single storey next door.

Traffic - the impact of traffic on the surrounding streets is not properly addressed in the EIS, which indicates net increase of 43 vehicle trips during the weekday AM peak and 32 vehicle trips during the PM peak hour - with 259 apartments and 344 car spaces this is highly implausible. The access from Roseville onto the major roads is already congested in the peak hours, there needs to be better access before large apartment blocks are built, and more long term parking for commuters. There is only one car access into this Development on Lord Street which will create another high traffic area and less on-street parking. This Development runs along Martin Lane, which is a small lane that only one car can pass when there is parked cars on both sides of the lane. Martin Lane is a “rat run” in this suburb and it constantly creates traffic jams where cars are backed up waiting to pass. Martin Lane is also a bus route, sometimes the bus has to back up out of the lane when there is not enough room for it to pass. If an apartment with 344 car spaces sits right next to Martin Lane, one can only imagine the negative impact. The Roseville College school in Bancroft Ave (one street away from Lord St) has many cars at drop of and pick up times, already impacting the surrounding streets.

Impact on Heritage - this Development will severely impact a high quality heritage neighbourhood. Kuringgai Council and its residents have always considered heritage a very important aspect of planning. Hyecorp’s assertions that the dwellings at the site do not feature a high degree of aesthetic significance are misleading. The Council’s Preferred Scenario protects Heritage Conservation Areas and this development does not fit into this Scenario.

Infrastructure - NSW Government’s TOD plans do nothing to help with the already congested roads, schools, open spaces, problems with water and sewerage pipes. This Hyecorp Development will just increase these problems, the Council has tried to at least mitigate these issues with its Preferred Scenario.

Environment - 91 trees are proposed to be removed to accommodate this Development, again the Council has tried to mitigate impacts to tree canopy. Also this Development does not put anything back into the community, no greens space, nothing for the public.

Housing - this Development has 48 “affordable housing” dwellings out of 259 apartments and has been able to increase its size accordingly. This is such a phony exercise as they will be “affordable” for 15 years and affordable only because they will be rented at a % lower than the average rent for Roseville - hardly affordable. Also these apartments are described as luxury residential developments, and as we can determine from previous examples will cost upwards of $1.5 million - again hardly affordable. I am angry that we residents are sold the idea of affordable housing and more housing stock when these apartments won’t be purchased by first home buyers and most probably purchased by overseas buyers/investors. As a local resident, I am also worried about the value of my property, and I don’t buy Hyecorp’s claim that this development will help with the value of surrounding properties.

Reading through the 169 pages of the Hyecorp submission is difficult for an average person. However, I find the Hyecorp EIS very biased towards the Development with many vague, agreeable statements, and it is misleading to the real impacts such a large development will have on the surrounding area, especially when compared to Kuringgai Council’s Preferred Scenario. This Development should not be allowed to continue until the NSW Government and Kuringgai Council determine what plan best suits this area.

Please see my attached concerns in Word document

As a resident of Roseville for the last 12 years, and having attended a local school, I do not believe the Hyecorp Development is in keeping with the local environment. The proposed development will look out of place amongst the 1-2 level housing of the area and will create havoc with traffic and car parking in the area.
Martin Lane is already so busy with parked cars and is the only way many residents leave or enter their homes. The construction period of this proposed development will cause traffic chaos and the number of additional residences created in such a small pocket of land, will look out of place and further add to the parking problems in the area.
I strongly believe that this development should not be approved.

Roseville is a unique and highly valued suburb, known for its authentic character, beautifully preserved historic homes, and tree-lined streets. It is a place where history and community identity are clearly visible in the architecture, streetscapes, and local culture. The proposal to build a 10-storey apartment block in this neighbourhood threatens the very qualities that make the area special and should be met with strong community opposition.

The scale and nature of the proposed development are fundamentally out of character with Roseville . The suburb’s charm lies in its low-rise homes, consistent streetscapes, and heritage features—many of which date back several decades or even a century. A 10-storey building would disrupt the visual harmony of the area, overshadow neighbouring homes, and diminish the cohesive architectural style that residents and visitors alike appreciate.

Beyond aesthetics, there are serious concerns about how such a high-density development would impact the liveability of the suburb. Increased population density brings traffic congestion, parking shortages, pressure on local infrastructure, and changes to the suburb’s quiet, residential feel. These impacts are particularly concerning in an area not originally designed to accommodate large-scale developments.

Preserving the heritage and identity of Roseville should be a planning priority. The suburb is not just a collection of old homes—it is a living archive of the city’s architectural and cultural past.

There is also a concern about setting a precedent. Approving one 10-storey building opens the door to future developments of similar or larger scale. Over time, the neighbourhood could be transformed from a historically rich residential area into a generic, high-density zone. This kind of change would permanently alter the suburb's atmosphere and sense of place.

Residents choose to live in Roseville for its peaceful environment, clean surroundings, and strong community feel. These values must be protected through thoughtful and respectful planning decisions. While growth is important, it should occur in ways that are in keeping with the scale, heritage, and social fabric of the area.

In conclusion, we strongly oppose the development of a 10-storey apartment block in Roseville . The proposed building does not align with the suburb’s historic character, threatens the quality of life for existing residents, and sets a dangerous precedent for future developments. We urge decision-makers to prioritize preservation, community input, and sustainable, context-sensitive growth that respects the suburb's unique and irreplaceable identity.

I HAVE LIVED AT NO 26 LORD STREET SINCE 1962 AND IT WAS SUCH A PEACEFUL PLACE THEN.. LATER ON KURING-GAI COUNCIL LISTED US AS HAVING TO BE HERITAGE LISTED WHICH WAS A VERY GOOD IDEA BUT THEN RECENTLY THINGS CHANGED AGAIN AND NOW HYECORP WANTS TO PURCHASE PROPERTIES, DEMOLISH THEM AND BUILD 9 STOREY APARTMENTS. PEOPLE DONT WANT TO MOVE BUT IF SOMEONE DECIDES TO SELL AND HYECORP BUILDS A 9 STOREY UNIT BESIDE THEM OF COURSE THE NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOURS WILL SELL AND BUY INTO A MORE PEACEFUL ENVIRONMENT. HAVING LOOKED AFTER THEIR PROPERTY TO KEEP IT IN ITS HERITAGE CONDITION FOR MANY YEARS..THERE WILL NO LONGER BE ANY HERITAGE HOMES.
I OBJECT TO THIS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND ASK THAT MAJOR PROJECTS CONSIDER DISMISSING THE APPLICATION.

See Attachment

INTRODUCTION
I am NOT a NIMBY and I object to any suggestion that I am one.
My wife and I have owned and lived at our present house at Roseville for nearly 44 years. We chose to live at Roseville because we like the area as it is with, largely but by no means entirely, single dwellings with gardens and significant mature tree cover.
I acknowledge the need for more residences including, in particular, affordable housing. I acknowledge that Ku-ring-gai should provide a share of this new housing and I have absolutely no objection to some housing of greater density than exists at present, provided it is appropriate and appropriately located .
OBJECTION
However, I object to this proposed development (the Development) including for the following reasons
A. LOCATION - General. The TOD referred to the need for more housing near transport and within close proximity to a supermarket type facility. While the Development is close to a Railway Station, there is no supermarket at Roseville, only small local shops.
B. LOCATION - HCA The Development is within a Heritage Conservation Area and will require the demolition of 9 existing long established residences. It will adjoin and be quite out of character with remaining properties on its Western side in the same block and part of the same HCA. There would be a problem in development of many of the remaining properties in that same block bounded by Roseville Avenue, Hill Street, Lord Street and Martin Lane by virtue of the underground railway line.
C. DOMINATION and OVERSHADOWING - The Development would be offensively dominating in the area, quite out of character, and would overshadow properties, anyway, to its West.
D. INFRASTRUCTURE - It is shortsighted to approve such a development without first dealing with the infrastructure, including possible future railway expansion, road system, schools, medical facilities and drainage.
E. TRAFFIC & PARKING - The area is already heavily parked on local roads including Lord street, Roseville Avenue and in particular Martin Lane. Martin Lane is very narrow and frequently difficult to negotiate. Many vehicles from suburbs to the North, park for the day in order to catch the train to Chatswood or beyond and from there catch the Metro.
With 259 new apartments containing a total of 614 bedrooms generating an estimated 728 additional people living in the area, there will be very many additional vehicles at times seeking to exit to the Pacific Highway from Clanville Road and from Hill Street to Boundary Street. At both these points there are already long queues of traffic at many times of the day.
F. SCHOOLS - It must be expected that there will be school aged children living in the Development. The Development will be within the catchment areas for Chatswood High School and Roseville Public School. These schools are already overcrowded. So is Killara High School to the North. While there might be some limited capacity at the Lindfield Learning Hub, parents should not be required to send their children to that school against their wishes, it having an alternative learning process.
G. MEDICAL FACILITIES - The hospitals in the area are overcrowded. Apparently it is intended to provide an area of vacant land adjacent to RNSH for accommodation when it should be retained for expansion of the hospital.

****************************************

To: NSW Planning
Re: Development Application 16-24 Lord St & 21-27 Roseville Ave Roseville
Date: 25 May 2025

I take this opportunity to lodge my objection to Development Application: 16-24 Lord St & 21-27 Roseville Ave Roseville

I am a resident of Roseville and have been so for the last 10 years. I live outside 400 metres of Roseville Station, while within walking distance.
My reasons for the objection.
In my view it is not in the public interest that this application be progressed or determined until Council’s (Ku-ring-gai) Preferred Scenario is resolved and submitted to the State Government.
It is key to ensure that there has been proper consultation with all parties as we all combine to meet Sydney’s need for additional housing.
In this regard, I understand that the Local Government is endeavouring to meet the State Government’s requirement for total additional (including affordable) accommodation.
I note that I have not received any notification or communication from the Developer, while Council has kept the community informed as to how it is progressing with the process of community consultation and the requirements of the State Government.
Sincerely

To Whom It May Concern,

As a concerned resident of the Roseville community, I am writing to formally object to the proposed development involving the construction of 8 to 10-storey apartment buildings comprising over 200 units, in an area currently housing fewer than 50 residents. This development raises a number of critical concerns that must not be ignored:

Severe Traffic Congestion
The proposed development will place an unbearable burden on the already narrow and heavily used streets of Lord Street, Roseville Avenue, and Martin Lane. The influx of hundreds of new residents and vehicles will exacerbate congestion and pose serious risks to traffic safety and local mobility.

Environmental Degradation
The project would result in significant destruction of green cover and vegetation. Additionally, the dramatic increase in vehicle numbers will contribute to heightened levels of air pollution, negatively affecting the health and quality of life of existing residents.

Irreversible Cultural and Heritage Impact
This neighbourhood is a designated Heritage Conservation Area, home to numerous heritage-listed buildings and a unique streetscape that reflects the area's rich historical character. The construction of high-rise, high-density apartments is entirely out of character with the local heritage and would cause irreversible cultural and aesthetic damage.

Lack of Contribution to Housing Affordability
Given the high property values in this suburb, the apartments are expected to be sold at a premium—well above Sydney’s median apartment price. This fails to contribute meaningfully to housing affordability and runs counter to the government’s stated goals under the TOD policy.

Construction-Related Safety and Noise Hazards
The construction process will inevitably generate prolonged noise pollution, dust, and safety hazards, putting nearby residents—particularly children attending the nearby schools—at considerable risk and distress.

For these reasons, I strongly urge the relevant authorities to reject this proposal and to uphold the integrity, safety, and character of the Roseville community.

Sincerely,

Cathy Xu

I write to register my firm opposition to the Council’s proposed preferred scenario for housing development and zoning amendments, as discussed during the public forum on May 21, 2025. While I recognise the broader imperative to increase housing supply in response to state targets, I find the current proposal to be neither equitable in its distribution nor sustainable in its long-term impact on Kuringai’s urban character, environmental integrity, and cultural heritage.

1. Inconsistent and Arbitrary Zoning Logic
The proposed rezoning strategy exhibits a clear pattern of mid-block transitions and fence-line zoning boundaries that undermine both planning coherence and lived amenity. Properties such as those on Francis Street and Treats Road are subjected to abrupt adjacency with high-density R4 zones, despite being heritage-listed or embedded in established low-density streetscapes. The absence of natural or infrastructural buffers—such as roads or green corridors—renders such transitions jarring and illogical. This ad hoc spatial logic not only diminishes residents’ sense of place but violates basic urban design principles of graduated density and visual continuity.

2. Erosion of Cultural and Environmental Heritage
The plan’s treatment of heritage items is deeply concerning. Isolated heritage-listed properties are stranded within high-density envelopes, deprived of contextual integrity, and thus of their meaning. If heritage protection is to be more than a performative label, it must involve preserving both the physical fabric and the social, spatial, and historical context of these sites. As speakers such as Natalie Boyd aptly argued, heritage that loses its surrounding narrative ceases to function as heritage.

Moreover, the proposed developments threaten ecologically sensitive zones—particularly in Lindfield, where critical tree canopies and owl habitats face degradation. To permit extensive upzoning in these areas is to preside over the irreversible loss of biodiversity and suburban landscape identity.

3. Procedural Fairness and Planning Transparency
It is deeply troubling that substantial amendments to supporting documents (such as the retrospective insertion of “total support” metrics in the Tavern report) have occurred post-publication. This undermines community trust in the process and suggests a skewed consultation framework favouring developer interests. Further, the public exhibition processes for several SSDs have been described as exhausting and inaccessible, failing to meet the standards of procedural equity that should govern major urban transformations.

4. Infrastructure Lag and Civic Unsustainability
Multiple residents expressed justified anxiety regarding the inadequacy of existing traffic and transport infrastructure. The intersections at McLaren Parade, Shirley Road, and the Pacific Highway already suffer from unmanageable congestion, which will only intensify with increased density. Council’s proposal fails to pair residential expansion with proportional infrastructure investment—particularly in commuter car parking, pedestrian safety, and arterial flow. Development without infrastructure is not progress; it is civic negligence.

5. Ethical and Psychological Costs of Forced Acquisition
The use of compulsory acquisition for properties such as those on Park Avenue—without guaranteed timelines or full compensation mechanisms—amounts to institutional overreach. The psychological toll on families forced to vacate homes held for generations cannot be calculated merely in square metres or floor-space ratios. Council must uphold the principle that no community should bear a disproportionate burden for the accommodation of metropolitan growth.

⸻

Conclusion:
This proposal, as it currently stands, threatens to destabilize the social fabric, architectural continuity, and ecological equilibrium of Kuringai. It is neither morally defensible nor urbanistically sound to pursue a scenario that privileges numerical housing targets over the lived experience of residents, the integrity of heritage, and the sustainability of our suburban ecology.

I urge the Council to:
• Implement a moratorium on developments that involve abrupt zoning transitions.
• Conduct a thorough, consultative reassessment of isolated heritage items with homeowners.
• Rebalance density allocations across suburbs to reduce the burden on Lindfield and Roseville.
• Reject all SSDs that violate the planning principles of transitional equity, ecological protection, and community scale.
• Ensure procedural integrity by releasing all data changes and community feedback metrics transparently.

This moment demands not compliance, but courage—a refusal to trade long-term community wellbeing for short-term housing quotas.

Yours sincerely,
Justin Gao
24 Clanville Rd
0484 636 908

I am writing in response to the Development application by HyeCorp under State Significant Development Applications SSD-78996460 to provide my feedback.
I am not opposed to the development of the Roseville area, and support the NSW State Government’s objective to increase housing supply generally as well as in Ku Ring Gai, however in my opinion, the application lodged by HyeCorp under the TOD scheme is not in the public interest.
The key issues are:
• The size and nature of the Development
• The impact on the character of the area
• Major infrastructure and access concerns within the immediate area
• Concerns with key aspects of the Development application understating a range of impacts it will have on the local area
• The Development is wholly inconsistent with the alternative development process by Ku Ring Gai Council, which would apply if agreed to by the State Government, and risks a hotchpotch outcome rather than a structured and considered approach to Development in the area
• The rush to have the Development approved under the current TOD
• Lack of consultation by the Developer
My detailed reasons for this are set out in the attached document

I am writing to object to the proposed development happening on Roseville Ave and Lord St, Roseville.
This project is causing lots of stress for many people.
As a mother with young children, I am extremely worried about the construction and traffic issues and severe traffic congestion this development will cause. Between the rush hours of school drop off and pickups. There is a large amount of traffic between Roseville Ave coming along Martin Lane (which is single file at the moment) into Lord St heading towards Roseville Collage. I cannot imagine children crossing the road while all this is happening plus construction trucks and work equipment.
Where will these people park once the construction is finished. Lord St is full all day with people parking to catch the train. Most of the time people parking across my driveway. Many times, I have called the police.
We also need to consider the beautiful federation houses in this area. I cannot believe that the homes will just be taken down.

As a heritage house owner , I am deeply concerned about the severe and irreversible impacts this large-scale project will have on the character, safety, and livability of our quiet residential neighbourhood.

1. Incompatible with Local Character

Roseville , is a peaceful, low-density residential area defined by family homes and green spaces. A high-density development of 259 units is entirely out of scale with the existing environment and will drastically alter the area’s character. This proposal is inconsistent with the established planning controls and community expectations for this part of Roseville.

2. Strain on Infrastructure and Public Services

This development would place unacceptable pressure on local infrastructure, including schools, roads, public transport, and essential utilities. There has been no clear indication of how existing services will be upgraded to accommodate such a sharp increase in population density.

3. Loss of Amenity and Privacy

The height and density of the proposed buildings will overlook and overshadow surrounding homes. This will lead to a loss of privacy, reduced sunlight, and negatively impact the quiet enjoyment of our properties.

4. Environmental Impact

A development of this scale will have considerable environmental consequences, including the potential loss of mature trees, reduction in green space, and increased stormwater runoff. These changes are incompatible with Ku-ring-gai’s reputation as a “leafy” and environmentally conscious area.

I am writing as a concerned resident of Roseville east to formally oppose the proposed “Preferred Scenario” currently under consideration by Council, and the associated Hyecorp development plans. I believe that the proposed changes under the Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) framework will have significant, irreversible negative impacts on the character, amenity, infrastructure, and livability of our local area.

1. Loss of Local Character

The proposed increases in building height and residential density are entirely out of step with the low-rise, garden suburb character of Roseville East. Our community is defined by its heritage homes, tree-lined streets, and open spaces. Permitting high-density developments in this area will fundamentally alter its identity and undermine the values that long-term residents have worked hard to protect.

2. Inadequate Infrastructure and Services

There has been no clear commitment to upgrading local infrastructure to support the scale of development proposed. Our roads are already congested during peak hours, and public transport is often at capacity. Local schools and healthcare services are under pressure, and there is limited evidence that adequate planning has been done to accommodate increased demand. Without substantial and timely investment, these changes will degrade the quality of life for all residents.

3. Environmental Concerns

Increased density inevitably leads to the loss of green space, tree canopy, and biodiversity. These elements are not just aesthetic but vital for managing heat, improving air quality, and maintaining the ecological health of our suburb. The “Preferred Scenario” does not adequately account for the environmental consequences of such rapid intensification.

4. Lack of Meaningful Community Consultation

While Council and the NSW Government have outlined a process, many residents feel the consultation has been rushed or insufficiently inclusive. Key details of the Preferred Scenario remain unclear to the public, and major changes are being proposed without adequate transparency or opportunity for genuine community input.

5. Concerns About Hyecorp Development

Hyecorp’s proposed development appears to be driving the planning changes, rather than responding to strategic planning needs. This raises serious questions about whose interests are being served. Approving planning amendments to accommodate a single developer undermines public trust in the planning process and creates a dangerous precedent.

⸻

Conclusion

I respectfully urge the Council and the NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure to reject the current “Preferred Scenario” and instead pursue a planning approach that genuinely reflects community values, environmental sustainability, and long-term livability. I support thoughtful, evidence-based growth, but not at the expense of community character and wellbeing.

Thank you for considering my submission.

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 want to object to the proposed Hyercorp development on Lord St & Roseville Avenue, Roseville. I am a resident in Roseville and I have lived here for 5 years. I object to the proposal for many reasons but my key objections are:
1. Traffic impact
The Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA) provided is inadequate and lacks key details. The surrounding streets (Roseville Ave, Lord Street, Hill Street) all have existing three tonne Gross Vehicle Mass (GVM) restrictions – the purpose of these is to manage traffic flow and maintain structural integrity of the roads. This is because there are already a traffic flow and road integrity concerns with the current infrastructure in the area. The Heavy vehicles required for construction alone will significantly impact both traffic and road integrity. The Hypercorp development has a loading and waste collection dock that can accommodate vehicles up to 8 metres long, and they estimate that once complete there will be 6-7 service vehicles per day (including heavy trucks) and that trade vehicles are additional to this.
The TIA does not comment on the fact that Martin Lane is essentially a single traffic flow street, that is an already congested passage and prone to queues at peak hour onto either end at Roseville Ave or Lord Streets. Additionally, Martin Lane is an inappropriate road for heavy goods vehicles and is likely not wide enough to accommodate such vehicles.
Access to the development is via single driveway on Lord Street. The TIA does not document and increased traffic on Martin Lane in both their approach and departure analysis. This is inaccurate because:
• It puts all additional traffic, both north and southbound heading to the highway to Hill Street (which simply does not happen as this is a right hand turn to Hill Street for those heading northbound).
• This traffic would take Martin Lane and weave to Oliver or Clanville to miss the shops and Hill Street. It does not accommodate for traffic accessing Lindfield (Harris Farm, IGA, Shops) who would take Trafalgar)
The resultant increase on Lord Street traffic will be significant and there are no traffic lights at Lord Street (or Roseville Ave, or Bancroft) to facilitate a timely and safe right hand turn onto Archbold Road which will place further congestion on local streets and Hill Street.
There is NO comment on the impacts on local schools, in particular Roseville College and Roseville Public School. There is high pedestrian traffic to these schools who all use Martin Lane (as there are no pedestrian lights between Woodlands and Addison Rd on Archbold) so Pedestrians use the local streets including Roseville Ave, Martin Lane and Lord Street to access the schools.
There is NO comment on cycle lane access on Lord Street or other local Roseville Streets (and the cycle plan referred to is from 2012)

2. Excessive height and size
At a height of nine storeys this will be the tallest structure on the east side of Roseville. It is not consistent with the development for the rest of the residential island that it will be built on (which is contradictory to the impression in the Hypercorp proposal). This height also will impact shadowing and solar access for many surrounding residents. The size of the development is also not consistent with the council’s proposed preferred scenario for the TOD.
3. Environmental impact
91 Trees are proposed to be removed. This will severely impact on the habitats of native species such as kookaburras, cockatoos and many others.