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

The proposal is totally contrary to the revised TOD submission being made by Kuringgai Council. It is totally out of character with the surrounding houses/streets.

Objection attached

To Whom It May Concern,
I write to lodge my strong objection to State Significant Development (SSD) Application SSD-78996460, submitted by Hyecorp for a ten storey apartment development at 16-24 Lord Street & 21-27 Roseville Avenue, Roseville. This proposal represents a severe overreach that contravenes established planning controls, disrespects heritage protections, and fails to align with the values and expectations of the local community.

1. Denial of Procedural Fairness
This application pre-empts ongoing negotiations between Ku-ring-gai Council and the NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure (DPHI) regarding a more suitable Transport Oriented Development (TOD) framework for Roseville. The Council’s “Preferred Scenario”, endorsed in response to the NSW Government’s Low and Mid-Rise Housing Reforms, proposes measured growth that aligns with local infrastructure capacity, heritage conservation, and community expectations.

The lodging of this SSD application—prior to the finalisation of the TOD framework—undermines democratic planning processes and denies residents the opportunity for genuine input. It represents a failure of procedural fairness and an unacceptable sidelining of local governance.

2. Non-Compliance with Planning Controls and Excessive Height
The development proposes a ten storey structure flagrantly breaching the existing Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan. The scale of this development vastly exceeds what might be reasonably allowed.

This 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.

3. Irreparable Heritage Impacts
The subject site is located adjacent to the Roseville Heritage Conservation Area (HCA) and is within immediate visual proximity of several such properties within this conservation area.

The proposed development:

Fails to observe requirements that new development must respect established scale, roof forms, setbacks, and architectural detailing.

Will result in visual isolation and overshadowing of adjacent houses in the conservation area.

Makes no serious attempt to integrate or defer to the prevailing heritage streetscape, and in doing so, risks eroding the historic identity of the area.

4. Failure of Good Urban Design Principles
The proposed building is ignores the community and aesthetic of Roseville, violating core town planning principles, including those outlined in the NSW Urban Design Guide (2015) and Better Placed: An Integrated Design Policy. Specifically:

Contextual Incompatibility: The building’s scale, bulk and design ignores the area’s topography, established residential character, and heritage fabric.

Amenity Impacts: There will be significant overshadowing, overlooking, and loss of privacy to surrounding dwellings, with non-compliant setbacks and poor interface transitions. Local infrastructure (roads and adjacent access to main arterial roads) will be further constrained and likely to cause safety concerns due to the nature of the apartment building and parking provisions.

Public Domain Impact: The overdevelopment of the site will cause substantial visual clutter, lack of sunlight in the public domain, and degradation of pedestrian amenity.

5. Environmental Destruction and Loss of Tree Canopy
The application proposes the removal of o trees, many of which form part of the Ku-ring-gai tree canopy, a recognised ecological and visual asset. This would:

Contravene the aims of the Ku-ring-gai Urban Forest Policy and Biodiversity Strategy 2030.

Destroy habitat for protected and locally significant fauna.

6. Infrastructure and Traffic Overload
The proposed 267-apartment development will place unsustainable pressure on local infrastructure:

Traffic congestion at the already critical Pacific Highway/Clanville Road intersection and Hill Street / Boundary St will worsen and likely cause safety concern for pedestrians.

Local roads and street parking are insufficient to accommodate the resulting increase in vehicle movements.

Existing stormwater, sewerage, and transport infrastructure—not upgraded to accommodate such density—will be severely strained, contrary to planning principles that require development to match service capacity.

7. Misuse of State Significant Development Pathway
The proposal does not demonstrate any extraordinary public benefit or strategic merit that would warrant bypassing Council oversight and community engagement mechanisms. The use of the SSD pathway in this case appears to be a deliberate tactic to circumvent local controls, which must not be rewarded.

Conclusion
This application fails every relevant planning test:
It is non-compliant with applicable height limits and planning controls.
It inflicts severe and permanent damage to Roseville’s heritage and character.
It undermines public confidence in fair and transparent planning processes.
It disregards the environmental, amenity, and infrastructure needs of the community.

For these reasons, I urge the NSW Department of Planning to refuse SSD-78996460 in full, and to support Ku-ring-gai Council’s evidence-based, consultative planning approach for Roseville’s future.

Objection attached.

It is not in the public interest to progress the TOD scheme until Council's preferred scenario is resolved.
I have not received the Hyecorp community flyer but have heard of it only through word of mouth.
I was not part of the engagement process and do not know anyone was.
Due to the lack of community engagement there has been no serious or significant consideration given to the resulting deleterious effect on local traffic flows.The traffic impact statement is flawed and lacks sufficient detail of the cumulative effect on traffic in the region.
The development will interfere with a local water course and there will be significant impact on water flows and drainage in the region.These have not been addressed adequately in the local environmental impact statement. (EIS)
The development does not fit into the vibe of the community
There are serious process concerns in the the way the EIS was prepared as there was no independence between the person who created and signed off the EIS.
Overall the development application has been prepared quickly and rushed in order to meet deadlines for it's submission and inadequate consideration has been given to it's long term implications.

As a local resident of Roseville I wish to register my objection. Kuringai council have (with NSW government's agreement) been working on an alternative TOD scenario. This Hyecorp proposal is being rushed through before that Council scenario has been submitted. Local residents were not informed by Hyecorp in time to attend public consultation meetings. This all adds to the feeling that it is a rushed proposal. If it goes ahead, it will NOT comply with the new scenario. It is an overlarge building which will overshadow remaining single residences and cause loss of privacy. Substantial tree canopy will be lost. It will impact greatly on traffic flow in narrow adjoining streets, particularly in morning and evening peak hours when thousands of cars from suburbs further north pass through Roseville local streets.
A criteria of TOD is a local supermarket - there is none in Roseville now, and one does not seem to be planned for. The local schools Roseville Public and Chatswood High School are already at full capacity. Planning has to be in place for educating extra children living in the suburb.
On reading the EIS there seem to be substantial flaws. Traffic flow has not been honestly reported on. Local flooding is mentioned. How is that going to be addressed?
We residents are NOT against providing more housing in the Kuringai municipality. It is being planned for in the proposed scenario to be submitted. Developments like this one should not be accepted in the meantime.

Objection attached

Please see attachment

I live in Roseville Ave, closer to the Station.
I object to this application being progressed under the old TOD Planning criteria, when the NSW Government has agreed to allow Kuringgai Council to come up with an alternate planning scenario that achieves the same number of new dwellings. The current preferred scenario ( currently under consideration by KRG Council), maintains the zoning for this area as HCA and R2. This is completely different to the proposed Hyecorp development.
The height and overall size of the development is totally out of character compared to the existing built form of 1-2 storey houses, and totally out of character with the surrounding heritage conservation area, which has many heritage listed houses. The proposed 9 story buildings will dwarf the surrounding homes.
The local infrastructure, particularly the roads will be overwhelmed with this huge no of new dwellings and cars. There is already significant congestion during peak hour at key intersections from the east side of Roseville onto the Pacific Highway or Boundary Road and parking is very difficult. Roseville College drop off and pick up is already a tangle, as streets are narrow.
It is not logical to allow this development application to proceed, while at the same time allowing KRG Council to come up with an alternate plan.
We were not aware of the project pages or community survey on the Hyecorp website.

Please see my comments in the attached.

Please see attached file.
Many thanks.

To Whom It May Concern

Re: SSD-78996460 – Proposed Residential Development at 16–24 Lord Street & 21–27 Roseville Avenue, Roseville

My name is Joanne Hitchcock, and I have lived in Roseville with my family since 1999.
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed SSD referenced above.

1. Overdevelopment and Height Incompatibility

The proposed construction of four nine-storey apartment buildings—totalling 259 units—is completely at odds with the established low-rise character of Roseville. Our neighbourhood consists almost entirely of single and two-storey homes, and this scale of development would dominate the surrounding landscape, causing visual disruption, privacy intrusion, and excessive overshadowing of nearby properties.
This project does not reflect the built form or the residential nature of the area and would significantly alter the peaceful and suburban atmosphere that residents have long valued.

2. Planning Concerns and Council’s Preferred Pathway

I fully appreciate that Sydney must find ways to accommodate a growing population and that housing supply is a pressing issue. However, this must be done thoughtfully and in coordination with local planning strategies.
Ku-ring-gai Council has already developed a preferred scenario for future housing which not only meets but exceeds the NSW Government’s targets. This plan was shaped through meaningful consultation with the community and is more in keeping with the heritage, infrastructure, and identity of our local area.
It is difficult to understand why a project like this—one that is clearly inconsistent with the council’s broader planning approach—should proceed when a more sensible and sustainable solution is being finalised.

3. Lack of Community Engagement

It is particularly troubling that residents in the immediate area, myself included, have received no direct communication from the developer. There has been no letterboxing, no public consultation sessions, no community surveys, and no attempt at meaningful engagement. A development of this scale should not be allowed to progress without proper consultation with those who will be most affected.

4. Traffic and Infrastructure Pressure

Our local roads are already experiencing high levels of congestion, particularly during school drop-off and pick-up times, and commuter hours. With the introduction of the Metro, parking and traffic have worsened as more people drive to the station from surrounding suburbs.
The proposed development would bring hundreds of new residents and more than 300 additional vehicles to an area already at capacity. This would worsen bottlenecks and compromise road safety, particularly around schools, shops, and intersections near Lord Street.

5. Tree Removal and Environmental Impact

I was deeply disturbed to learn that this proposal includes the removal of 91 trees—many of which are mature and contribute to the leafy, green streetscape that defines Roseville. These trees are not just part of the visual character of the area; they also play a role in biodiversity, air quality, and the well-being of local residents. Their removal would be a significant and irreversible loss.
________________________________________
In conclusion, this development does not respect the scale, context, or values of the Roseville community. It bypasses the more considered and consultative work being done by the Ku-ring-gai Council and would have lasting negative impacts on our environment, infrastructure, and way of life.
I respectfully ask that this proposal be rejected in favour of smarter, community-backed planning solutions.

Yours sincerely,

Joanne Hitchcock
Roseville Resident

To Whom It May Concern

Re: Objection to SSD-78996460 – Proposed Development at 16–24 Lord Street & 21–27 Roseville Avenue, Roseville

My name is Justin Hitchcock. I’m 27 years old and have lived in Roseville for most of my life.
I’m writing to formally object to the proposed residential development listed above.

Out of Character within the Area

The proposal for four nine-storey apartment buildings is completely out of step with the look and feel of Roseville. This is a quiet, residential area made up almost entirely of single and double-storey homes. I’ve grown up in this neighbourhood, and I know firsthand how important the low-rise, community-focused environment is to the people who live here.
A development of this scale would totally dominate the streetscape and tower over surrounding homes. It would not only affect privacy and sunlight for nearby properties, but also fundamentally change the character of the suburb.

Proper Planning Should Come First

While I understand the need to build more housing in Sydney, it should be done with a long-term view, not by forcing oversized developments into areas that aren’t designed for them.
Ku-ring-gai Council has already put forward a detailed plan that exceeds the state housing targets while still respecting local heritage and infrastructure limits. That plan was created through a proper process, with community involvement. Ignoring it in favour of fast-tracking a massive project like this just doesn’t make sense.

Lack of Community Input

It’s also concerning that so many locals—including my family—have heard nothing directly from Hycorp about this project. There’s been no communication, no consultation, and no effort to involve the people who live here. A development of this size should not be allowed to move ahead without genuine community feedback.

Traffic and Overload on Local Roads

Traffic and parking are already major problems in Roseville, especially during peak hours and around the train station. The new Metro has added pressure to local streets as more people park nearby and walk to the station.
Adding over 300 car spaces through this development is only going to make the situation worse. Not everyone will take the train—many people will still drive to work or elsewhere—and the result will be more congestion and safety concerns for existing residents.

Destruction of Trees:

Finally, the planned removal of 91 established trees is devastating. The green, tree-lined streets are part of what makes Roseville such a great place to live. Bulldozing mature trees for a high-density complex is a huge environmental loss, and completely at odds with the community’s values.
________________________________________
This development proposal is far too large, out of place, and rushed. It goes against the principles of smart, community-focused planning and would have long-term negative impacts on the area I’ve grown up in and still care deeply about.
I respectfully ask that this project be rejected in favour of better alternatives—like the council’s proposed plan—that strike a real balance between growth and preservation.

Sincerely,

Justin Hitchcock
Roseville Resident

To Whom It May Concern
Re: State Significant Development SSD-78996460 – 16–24 Lord Street & 21–27 Roseville Avenue, Roseville

My name is Paul Hitchcock, and I have been a resident of Roseville for over 20 years. I am writing to lodge a formal objection to the above-mentioned State Significant Development (SSD) proposal by Hycorp.

1. Inappropriate Height and Density
The proposed development—comprising 259 apartments across four nine-storey buildings—is entirely out of character with the Roseville area, which is predominantly made up of single and double-storey dwellings. Located just 200 metres from my home, the scale and bulk of this proposal are grossly inconsistent with the established neighbourhood.

Not only would this height result in significant overshadowing of nearby homes, but it would also severely compromise the privacy of existing residents, with apartment windows overlooking private backyards. This level of intrusion is unacceptable and unnecessary.

2. Undermining of Council’s Strategic Plan
I acknowledge the urgent need for increased housing in Sydney and am not opposed to well-considered development. However, the current proposal is not in line with thoughtful urban planning.

Ku-ring-gai Council has developed a carefully balanced housing strategy which, once endorsed by the State Government, will meet—and indeed exceed—the housing targets for this area. That plan was developed through extensive community consultation and reflects local character, infrastructure capacity, and heritage considerations.

Allowing an ad hoc, oversized development such as this to proceed in parallel with the council’s more sustainable approach undermines good planning practice. Once the council’s scenario is adopted, this SSD should no longer be considered viable.

3. Lack of Community Engagement
Hycorp has failed to conduct any meaningful consultation with local residents. Neither I nor my neighbours have received any information, flyers, invitations to community meetings, or surveys regarding this development. This lack of transparency is deeply concerning and suggests an attempt to avoid public scrutiny and bypass local planning controls.

4. Traffic and Parking Concerns
Roseville is already under significant traffic pressure, particularly during peak school and commuting hours. The addition of over 300 parking spaces will bring an influx of vehicles, with many residents unlikely to rely solely on public transport. The resulting congestion on Lord Street and surrounding roads will further degrade the quality of life in our community and place undue strain on existing infrastructure.

5. Destruction of Established Trees
The planned removal of 91 mature trees is devastating. These trees have taken decades to grow and provide critical environmental, aesthetic, and community value. Their destruction for the sake of high-density development is not justifiable—especially when alternative, lower-impact housing options exist within the council’s preferred scenario.

In summary, this development proposal is poorly suited to the character of Roseville and disregards the well-considered planning framework being put forward by Ku-ring-gai Council. I urge the NSW Government to reject this SSD and support a more integrated and community-backed approach to housing growth.

Thank you for considering my submission.

Paul Hitchcock
Roseville Resident

Please refer to the detailed submission attached as a word document.

In short summary,

This development is fundamentally incompatible with the unique heritage, environmental values, and community character of East Roseville. It undermines local planning principles, fails to respect heritage protections, and risks overwhelming local infrastructure.

I strongly urge the Department to reject SSD-78996460 in its current form and await the finalisation of Council’s preferred TOD framework.

Submission relates to: Residential development with in-fill affordable housing, 16-24 Lord Street & 21-27 Roseville Avenue, Roseville (SSD-78996460)
My residence is 400m from the planned development and I object to the development
The development application, 16-24 Lord Street & 21-27 Roseville Avenue, Roseville (SSD-78996460) lodged under the NSW Governments TOD scheme should not in the public interest be further progressed or determined until Council’s Preferred Scenario is resolved. The TOD planning regime was introduced without consultation and is to be set aside if the Council’s Preferred Scenario is adopted.
Further my household DID NOT receive ANY communication, notification or community flyer from developer HYECORP in the first week of March 2025 and before 12 March or at any other time.
I moved to Roseville in 2009, to raise my family in an area with good amenities, transportation, schools and with significant natural and built heritage. As with all of Sydney the suburb has become busier. Many of the roads and key access and exit points are struggling to cope with the growing numbers of vehicles. On most mornings it can take 20-30min to exit onto the Pacific Highway, Boundary Street or Archbold Road. The addition of the proposed development at a well known "rat run" and choke-point (Martin Lane) will be a major issue for residents and also those accessing schools and local business from outside of the suburb.
I have significant concerns regarding the scale of the development in its planned location, at over 9 levels it will be completely out of character and will dominate a low-lying residential area, overshadowing heritage and community buildings. I often drive and park at Roseville Station and have concerns about the number of parking places available for residents, there are insufficient places at present, the development will make the situation worse.
Clanville Road access to key artery Archbold Road was recently restricted, turning right onto Archbold Road is now only possible at Bancroft Avenue. This route is often very congested. The planned development both during construction and when complete will severely restrict my ability to enter and exit the suburb.
I support Kuring-Gai Councils preferred TOD Scenario vs the NSW State Government's original TOD, it delivers much needed density and affordable housing without compromising the built and natural environment. The KMC preferred scenario maintains critical planning principles which factor in vehicular access and protection of the natural environment.
The developer Hyecorp has made NO attempt to engage or consult with me or my household regarding the development, I was not aware and no ability to attend the community drop-in session at Lindfield Seniors Centre/Community Hall between 4:00-6:30pm on Wed 12 March 2025. Had I known I would have shared my views directly with Hyecorp, to influence their proposal.
I was not aware of project pages on the Hyecorp website prior to 25 March 2025 or after that, the development proposal was only brought to my attention when it was described in a Sydney Morning Herald article in April.
I was not aware of any community survey on the Hyecorp website, Hyecorp has not provided information or sought feedback about the project to me or my household.
It is concerning that a major development impacting an entire community and avoiding planning consideration / conventions has progressed to this stage without any genuine residential consultation or scrutiny.

The Project:
- is too large and modern for the location, will look out of place in a heritage area and take away from the quiet nature of the neighbourhood;
- will impact the overall amenity of the heart of the suburb by significantly increasing the number of cars in the street, people who will need the local schools, public transport, infrastructure, utilities etc without any compensating factors to address these problems;
- the streets are already narrow and busy at peak times and an extra 300 cars at those times will create traffic gridlock and pollution;
- the public transport is already full and an extra 300 people will make it cramped and unsafe on the platforms and bus stops by the roadside; and
- the local council has been negotiating with the state government about an variation to the TOD scheme which will increase housing density, retaining the current amenity for current and new residents while protecting the natural and the heritage
characteristics of the area. To push this through now undermines confidence in the NSW government planning systems.
We all know we need to increase housing density, but this should be done in a way that creates great places for everyone to live. This development will not achieve this. We have a pathway forward and the approval of this development, despite the negotiated variations to the TOD lacks strategic justification.

While I understand the importance of increasing housing options and supporting urban growth, I am concerned that this development may have several adverse impacts, including:


Traffic Congestion: The increase in residents could lead to significant traffic congestion in the area, particularly around the train station, affecting daily commutes and overall safety.



Strain on Infrastructure: The existing infrastructure, including roads, public transport, and community services, may be insufficient to support such a large influx of residents, potentially compromising the quality of life for current residents.



Environmental Impact: The construction and increased density could negatively impact local green spaces and contribute to environmental degradation.



Community Character: The development may alter the character of Roseville, diminishing the neighborhood’s current appeal and sense of community.



I urge the planning authorities to carefully consider these concerns and ensure that any new developments are sustainable, well-planned, and respectful of the existing community.

I am writing to lodge my objection to the proposed residential development with in-fill affordable housing at 16–24 Lord Street and 21–27 Roseville Avenue, Roseville (SSD-78996460).

I immigrated to Australia in 2013 and have always lived in Sydney’s North Shore, including Lindfield, Pymble, and Roseville. In 2024, I moved with my family to Roseville to settle into what I consider one of the most beautiful and peaceful parts of Sydney. What drew us here was the neighbourhood’s leafy streets, vibrant gardens filled with vegetables and flowers, the calm atmosphere, and the heritage character that is unique to this area. We feel very fortunate to live in a place where community, history, and nature are so well preserved.

However, even in the short time we’ve lived here, I have already experienced worsening traffic, rising development pressure, and the increasing strain on local infrastructure. These concerns are why I feel compelled to make this submission. I have carefully reviewed the information available about this proposal, and I am deeply concerned about its scale, impact, and the way it has been introduced into our neighbourhood without meaningful consultation.

1. Application Should Not Proceed Before Council’s Preferred Scenario is Finalised
This proposal is being assessed under the Transport Oriented Development (TOD) program, which was introduced without public consultation. At the same time, Ku-ring-gai Council has been actively developing a community-led planning strategy through its Preferred Scenario, which recognises the unique characteristics of East Roseville and aims to preserve its low-density heritage and garden suburb identity.

This application should not be progressed or determined until Council’s Preferred Scenario is finalised. The local planning process should guide our neighbourhood’s future—not externally imposed schemes that do not reflect the community’s values or physical realities on the ground.

2. Inadequate Community Engagement
I did not receive any communication from Hyecorp prior to the advertised community drop-in session on 12 March 2025. I only learned about the development from neighbours well after this date, and as such had no opportunity to attend the session or engage meaningfully during early consultation.

I was also unaware of Hyecorp’s website or online survey until late March. Like many other residents, I feel excluded from the consultation process and believe this lack of engagement fails to meet reasonable standards of transparency and inclusivity.

3. Excessive Height and Out-of-Character Design
This development proposes four buildings of up to nine storeys, which is entirely out of step with the existing built form of East Roseville. The surrounding homes are mostly one to two storeys in height, with front gardens, trees, and low-density design. A sudden introduction of high-rise buildings would visually dominate the area, reduce natural light for neighbouring homes, and undermine the suburb’s character and liveability.

The scale of this development is not a gentle evolution—it is a sharp, disruptive transformation of a neighbourhood that has been carefully protected and nurtured by generations of residents.

4. Heritage Loss
The proposal involves the demolition of nine houses that contribute to the area’s heritage value. The site is surrounded by three heritage conservation areas and over 50 heritage-listed homes, and the introduction of four modern towers in this sensitive context would cause irreversible harm to the visual and cultural fabric of the community.

The value of Roseville is not just in individual buildings but in the way the neighbourhood as a whole has been shaped by history. This development disregards that entirely.

5. Traffic and Congestion
Even in the short time I have lived in Roseville, I have noticed growing traffic congestion—especially during school drop-off and pick-up times near Roseville College. The Martin Lane rat-run, narrow local streets, and already stressed intersections will become more dangerous and less functional if hundreds of new residents are introduced without adequate traffic solutions.

This development will generate significant additional vehicle movements, and no amount of on-site parking will prevent spillover impacts on surrounding streets.

6. Infrastructure Pressure
Our local infrastructure is not built for high-density development. Drainage, stormwater systems, water pressure, sewerage, and road surfaces are already under stress. The development does not clearly address how these issues will be resolved, and there is a real risk that existing residents will bear the cost of infrastructure failures or degradation.

7. Environmental and Tree Loss
The proposed removal of 91 trees is alarming. One of the most treasured parts of Roseville is its green canopy and birdlife, which make walking the streets a daily joy. The removal of this many mature trees will dramatically alter the microclimate, reduce biodiversity, and impact residents' wellbeing.

This environmental cost cannot be easily mitigated or replaced.

8. Construction Impact
With construction expected to last at least two years, residents will face noise, dust, road closures, and a decline in quality of life. The narrowness of local streets and lack of buffer zones make this site particularly unsuitable for major construction works of this scale.

9. Inappropriate Application of the TOD Program
While the TOD initiative was designed to encourage higher-density housing near transit nodes, it was never intended to override local context and community-driven planning. Applying the TOD rules to this small, historically significant and infrastructure-constrained neighbourhood is illogical and unjustified.

The proposal ignores real-world constraints such as the nearby Metro tunnel reserve, which isolates the site and limits access, and the physical inability of local streets and utilities to support high-density development.

Conclusion
As a new resident who has chosen Roseville for its beauty, safety, and sense of community, I feel deep concern about this proposal and the precedent it would set. I respectfully urge the planning authorities to defer or reject this application until the Council’s Preferred Scenario is adopted.

Future development in Roseville should be done thoughtfully, with community involvement, and in a way that respects the heritage, environment, and infrastructure capacity of the area. This proposal does none of those things.

Sincerely,

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

I would like to express my objection to the proposed Hyecorp development on Lord St and Roseville Avenue.

Firstly, this application should not progress until there is an agreement between the Kuring-gai Council and the State Government regarding the Council’s Preferred Scenario.

Our house is 800m from Roseville Station. We have lived here for over 13 years. The proposed development referred to above is halfway between our house and Roseville Station. We moved to Roseville in 2011 for the quiet family neighbourhood, access to the trainline and high-quality schools in the area. The character of the mainly federation houses, along with their gardens in the area made the area very attractive to us. Low traffic and safe roads were also an important consideration, in our decision to move here.

Some of the reasons I object to this development are:

Excessive Height and Size

- This development will not be consistent with the surrounding area and will be the tallest structure on the east side of Roseville. It will have shadowing impact for many surrounding residents.

The Impact to Traffic

- Martin Lane is already a difficult pinch point to negotiate and will only get worse. It is effectively only adequate for single traffic flow and even now can become congested. It is an inappropriate road for heavy goods vehicles.
- Public buses struggle to use this lane and often need to reverse to manage their way through
- The Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA) lacks adequate details. The heavy vehicles required for just the construction will exceed the current 3 tonne Gross Vehicle Mass (GVM) restrictions
- The Hyecorp development includes a loading and waste collection dock for vehicles up to 8m long, with an estimated use by 6-7 vehicles/day, with trade vehicles additional to this
- The Hyecorp development has plans for 344 car spaces, plus motorcycles and bicycles with only a single driveway for access on Lord Street – and yet there is no documentation of any increased traffic flow in Martin Lane, which it will.
- Lord St, Roseville Ave and Martin Lane are part of a major connection through Roseville from the Pacific Highway, Boundary Road and Archibald St. The area has no traffic lights or roundabouts and is already prone to congestion
- This area is also part of a well-established cycle route that will be impacted and less safe – I can see no plans for cycle lane access
- These streets are used by pedestrians, including many school children to access local schools

Not a Real Contribution to Affordable Housing

- I don’t agree that this development will achieve any goal of permanent affordable housing
o Only 18.5% are marked for affordable housing and most will revert to market value after 15 years
o The market value apartments will not be part of a solution t the housing crisis

In Summary

I support our Council’s proposed Preferred Scenario to develop our area, rather than the cookie cutter plan under the State’s TOD. The Council’s proposed Preferred Scenario recognises the unique character of the area and its significant heritage value. It’s plans are more considerate and thought out because they are designed specifically for our area, rather than the State’s ‘one-size-fits-all’ plan. This development is not consistent with the council’s proposed preferred scenario for the TOD.

I did NOT receive Hyecorp’s community flyer in March and have only become aware of it recently (May), through a local community group. I feel the community has not been consulted adequately and there is a lack of care for the existing character of the area and it’s people.