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

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

A submission objecting to the development SSD-78996460
We have lived in Roseville since 2005. The attractions of living in Roseville are many, including the beautiful heritage surrounds, an opportunity to enjoy a low-rise, non-strata style of family living plus ready access to transport and schools.
We are writing to express our strong objection to the prospect of the State government allowing commercial developer Hyecorp to ‘vandalize’ Roseville with their proposed 30+metre high, nine-storey apartment development.
Whilst we understand the current State government is committed to creating ‘in-fill’ housing across Sydney for a rising population, especially along existing rail transport corridors, approving Hyecorp’s development, as currently proposed, set amongst 100+ year old, heritage-rich federation homes appears ill-considered. A COPY OF OUR SUBMISSION IS ATTACHED. Thank you for considering our views. Regards, P&A Beaumont

I object to the project because:

Given that Kuringai council is coming up with an alternative to TOD, all SSD's should be put on hold until the council's alternative is finalised.

If this project is allowed through, and council's alternative is also allowed through, it will have an adverse unfair outcome where this project will be 9 storeys high, while its neighbours across the road of this project (on Lord Street and Roseville Avenue) are 1 to 2 storey houses overshadowed by this project's 9 storey buildings.

This creates a whole host of issues for the surrounding neighbours (e.g. airflow, light, devaluation of houses).

A more appropriate height for the project would be 3 storeys.

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

I am the owner of a house in Bancroft Ave, Roseville.
I am writing to formally object to the Hyecorp development application lodged for 16-24 Lord Street & 21-27 Roseville Avenue, Roseville (SSD-78996460)”.

It is my strong belief, and I wish to clearly state, that this application, lodged under the TOD scheme, should NOT, in the public interest, be further progressed or determined until Ku-ring-gai Council’s Preferred Scenario is formally resolved. The imposition of the TOD planning regime in Eastside Roseville was introduced without adequate public consultation and is to be set aside if the Council’s Preferred Scenario is adopted, which I strongly advocate for.

Community Engagement
I wish to provide a clear statement regarding the extent to which Hyecorp has engaged with me regarding this project.
I have not received Hyecorp’s community flyer, or any information from Hyecorp in regard to this project as at the time of writing.
Regarding the community drop-in session at Lindfield Seniors Centre/Community Hall on Wednesday 12 March 2025, between 4:00-6:30 pm, I would have had availability to attend , had I been made aware of it in a timely manner.
I was not aware of the dedicated project pages on the Hyecorp website prior to 25 March 2025,
I was not aware of the community survey on the Hyecorp website .
Hyecorp and/or its representatives did not otherwise provide information to me or seek feedback about the project.
I found out about the proposed development through a neighbour/local community group on April 8 following a flyer in my mailbox from a concerned local community group. This demonstrates a severe lack of effective community engagement on the part of the developer.

Reasons for Objection
I am a resident of Eastside Roseville, and I chose to live in this area because of its unique character, featuring predominantly low-density residential homes, abundant green spaces, and a quiet, family-friendly atmosphere. The existing built form contributes significantly to the quality of life and the heritage appeal of the neighbourhood..
The application of the TOD scheme in Eastside Roseville is entirely inappropriate. While acknowledging its intent, the TOD framework, as currently applied, fails to recognise and respect the unique character of our neighbourhood. Eastside Roseville is distinctly different from areas typically targeted for high-density development due to its existing built form, heritage considerations, and the predominantly residential nature of the community.

I strongly express my support for Ku-ring-gai Council’s Preferred Scenario. This scenario accurately and thoughtfully recognises the unique character of Eastside Roseville, having due regard to the existing built form in the area of the proposed development. The Council’s Preferred Scenario largely retains the existing zoning in Eastside Roseville, except in the Hill St precinct and upper part of Victoria St, which is a sensible approach that respects the established amenity and liveability of our community.

My specific objections to the proposed Hyecorp project are detailed below:

HEIGHT OF THE DEVELOPMENT:
The proposed height of the development, up to 9-storeys, is fundamentally inconsistent with the existing and future built form of Eastside Roseville. Our neighbourhood is characterised by 1-2 storey houses, and the imposition of a 9-storey structure will have a devastating impact on:
• Overshadowing: Significant overshadowing of adjoining properties, reducing solar access to homes and private open spaces.
• Privacy: A severe loss of privacy for surrounding residences due to direct overlooking from numerous apartments.
• Streetscape: The imposing height will completely dominate the streetscape, eroding the established low-rise residential character and creating an unappealing, high-density environment.
• Character: It will irreversibly alter the cherished low-density, leafy character of Eastside Roseville.

OVERALL SIZE AND ISOLATED NATURE OF THE DEVELOPMENT: The overall size of the proposed development, comprising four buildings up to 9-storeys each, is completely out of scale with the existing built form in the neighbourhood of 1-2 storey houses. Furthermore, it is entirely incompatible with the future built form, which under Council’s Preferred Scenario, would largely retain 1-2 storey houses. This development will effectively create an isolated island of four towers surrounded by single-family homes, exacerbated by the significant development constraints at surrounding sites due to the Metro tunnel reserves. This creates a jarring and incongruous development that will negatively impact the amenity of the entire area.

HERITAGE IMPACT: The proposed development poses a significant threat to the heritage of our area. The site is situated in the middle of three established heritage conservation areas, with 54 heritage-listed houses nearby. The planned demolition of nine houses, which contribute significantly to these heritage conservation areas, represents an unacceptable loss of irreplaceable historical and architectural value. This development disregards the hard-won heritage protections in place and will irrevocably damage the unique character and history of Eastside Roseville.

VISUAL IMPACT: The visual impact of the proposed development will be immense and detrimental, particularly from adjoining properties and the public domain. The architectural plans (pages 23, 24, 31, 32) and the Visual Impact Assessment (pages 15 and following) clearly demonstrate the overwhelming scale and bulk of the buildings. These towers will be highly visible from all directions (north, south, east, and west), creating an oppressive sense of enclosure for neighbouring homes and significantly detracting from the aesthetic appeal of the streetscapes.

TRAFFIC IMPACT: The additional traffic that will be generated by the proposed development, particularly during peak periods, is a major concern. Roseville’s local road network is already under significant pressure, and this proposal will exacerbate existing issues, including:
• Martin Lane Rat-Run: Increased traffic through Martin Lane will intensify its use as an already problematic rat-run, impacting residential amenity and safety.
• Congestion at Key Intersections: Further congestion will occur at key intersections out of Roseville, leading to longer delays and increased frustration for residents.
• Local Street Capacity: Many local streets are already essentially one-way due to parking and narrowness, and they simply cannot accommodate the projected increase in vehicle movements.
• Roseville College Drop-off and Pick-up: The area around Roseville College experiences significant traffic during school drop-off and pick-up times. This development will critically worsen these existing bottlenecks, posing safety risks and causing severe disruption.
PARKING IMPACT: The impact on parking will be substantial. Even with proposed on-site parking, the sheer volume of new residents and visitors will inevitably spill onto already constrained local streets, leading to increased competition for parking
spaces and amenity impacts for existing residents.

INFRASTRUCTURE IMPACT: The existing infrastructure, including drainage, stormwater run-off, water pressure, sewerage, power, and roads, is not designed to accommodate a development of this scale. The increased demand will likely lead to:
• Drainage and Stormwater: Increased stormwater run-off and pressure on the existing drainage system, potentially leading to localised flooding.
• Utilities: Strain on water pressure, sewerage, and power supplies, which may result in service disruptions or require costly upgrades that are not factored into the development.
• Roads: Accelerated degradation of local road surfaces due to increased heavy vehicle movements during construction and ongoing traffic.

TREE REMOVAL: The proposal to remove 91 trees to accommodate the development is unacceptable. These trees contribute significantly to the local canopy, biodiversity, and the leafy character of Eastside Roseville. Their loss will have a detrimental environmental impact and further degrade the amenity of the area.

CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS: The anticipated construction period of at least two years (assuming no delays), with work scheduled Mon-Fri 7 AM – 8 PM and Saturday 8 AM – 1 PM, will impose significant burdens on the local community. These impacts include:
• Parking: Further exacerbation of local parking issues due to construction worker vehicles.
• Narrow Streets: The use of narrow local streets by large trucks and cranes will create severe traffic disruptions, safety hazards, and wear and tear on road surfaces.
• Noise and Dust: Significant noise and dust pollution will impact the residential amenity of surrounding homes for an extended period.

In conclusion, the Hyecorp project, as proposed under the TOD scheme, is fundamentally incompatible with the existing and desired future character of Eastside Roseville. It represents an overdevelopment that will severely diminish the amenity, heritage, and liveability of our community. I urge the NSW Government to halt the progression of this application until Ku-ring-gai Council’s Preferred Scenario is resolved, which offers a more appropriate and publicly supported vision for our neighbourhood.
Thank you for considering my submission.

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.

Submission Against Proposed Roseville Development
This submission has been prepared by a long-term resident of Roseville having
purchased the property in Roseville Ave in 1984 and continuously lived here for
over 40 years.
The following issues are causing concern.
1. Building form and Design
a. Height Issue – Buildings will over-shadow many of the nearby
properties and dominate that skyline as a block of 4.
b. Setback of buildings is currently set at 10m in Ku ring gai – this
building has only 6m setbacks. This further emphasises the size of
the proposed development and increases the blockage of sunlight
in the neighbourhood.
c. This development appears to be the only proposed buildings this
area, again will dominate the skyline.
d. It appears that a number of trees will be removed as the
Development proceeds, Ku ring gai Council last year were
requesting residents to plant additional trees as the canopy for
Roseville was down to 35%.
2. Transport
a. 267 additional dwellings and 344 car-spaces including visitors’
spaces, means significant additional car movements. While some
of these units will have occupants that may take public transport
there will be a significant number who will use cars to commute to
their workplaces and for shopping/leisure activities.
b. Noting that there is a mix of 4-bed,3-bed, 2-bed and 1-bed units it
is reasonable to assume that at least 100 cars per day will enter
and leave and return in the morning peaks. A number quoted in
the Development of around 40 is fanciful and is based on a study
done in 2016, well before the metro became operational.
c. Our observation of our neighbours’ car usage sees at least one
vehicle moves from most houses each day and often a second car
is used.
d. This will be in addition to the many commuter cars parked in all
the streets but in particular Roseville Ave & Lord St. Currently
commuters park both sides of Roseville Ave from Hill St down to
Gerald Ave – approx. 600 metres from the station. Buses
sometimes have to backup to allow passage of other vehicles.
e. Heavy traffic occurs each morning in Hill St with cars queuing
north bound to exit the local area via Clanville Rd to the Pacific
Hwy, being no other easy exit out of the area. There is also
queuing south bound as cars are dropping school children at
Roseville College via Bancroft Ave or Victoria St, blocking Hill St
exit onto Boundary Rd. Other vehicles drop children at Roseville
station. Generally exiting southbound out of this area at peak
hour is heavily restrictive.
3. Heritage Issues
a. Much of the Local Area includes Heritage buildings, and also
Heritage Conservation Areas. It is reasonable to assume that this
development will greatly diminish the sense of community that
this suburb has been known for. The development will
undoubtedly reduce the general community ambience and
destroy much of the sense of community & Heritage that this area
has protected to date. Many of the residents being long term
occupants.

Subject: Formal Objection to Hyecorp Development Application SSD-78996460 at 16-24 Lord Street & 21-27 Roseville Avenue, Roseville

I'm writing to you today, as a concerned resident, to formally object to the Hyecorp development application for 16-24 Lord Street & 21-27 Roseville Avenue, Roseville (SSD-78996460). Frankly, this proposal simply isn't right for our community. First and foremost, this application, which falls under the Transport Oriented Development (TOD) scheme, absolutely should not move forward until Ku-ring-gai Council’s Preferred Scenario is officially settled. The TOD rules for Eastside Roseville were brought in without proper consultation with us, the people who live here, and they're supposed to be put aside if the Council’s Preferred Scenario is adopted – something I wholeheartedly support. It’s a matter of public interest, plain and simple.
________________________________________
A Disappointing Lack of Engagement
I must say, I’m quite disappointed by how little Hyecorp has engaged with our community on this project. It feels like we’ve been left in the dark. I never received any flyer or direct information from Hyecorp about this. If I had, I certainly would have made it to their community drop-in session at Lindfield Seniors Centre/Community Hall on Wednesday, March 12, 2025 – I was available! It wasn't until March 25, 2025, that I even knew about the dedicated project pages on their website, let alone the community survey. It’s clear to me that Hyecorp wasn't actively trying to inform or get feedback from residents like me. The only reason I found out about this whole thing was through a neighbour and a local community group’s flyer on April 8. This is a big miss when it comes to genuinely reaching out to the community.

________________________________________
Why This Project Simply Doesn't Fit Our Community
I chose to live in Eastside Roseville for very specific reasons: its lovely low-density homes, the abundance of green spaces, and that wonderful calm, family-friendly feeling. The way our streets and buildings are now is so important to our quality of life and the heritage charm of the neighbourhood. While I understand the general idea of TODs, this particular framework completely ignores and, frankly, disrespects the unique identity of Eastside Roseville. Our area is distinctly different from places that are suitable for high-density development, especially with our existing buildings, significant heritage considerations, and its primarily residential nature. This is why I strongly support Ku-ring-gai Council’s Preferred Scenario. That plan thoughtfully acknowledges Eastside Roseville's unique character, respecting the current built form around this proposed development site. The Council’s Preferred Scenario largely keeps the existing zoning in Eastside Roseville, with sensible exceptions only for the Hill St precinct and the upper part of Victoria St. This approach respects our community's established amenity and liveability, and it just makes sense.

________________________________________
My Specific Concerns About the Hyecorp Project
Let me get down to the nitty-gritty of why this proposed Hyecorp project is so concerning. Firstly, our existing infrastructure – the drainage, stormwater run-off, water pressure, sewerage, and power – simply isn’t designed to handle a development of this size. The increased demand will surely lead to problems like more stormwater run-off and increased pressure on our current drainage system, which could very well lead to flooding. It will also put undue strain on our water pressure, sewerage, and power supplies, which could mean frustrating service disruptions for all of us, and get ready for more potholes and damage to our roads due to the increased heavy vehicle traffic, both during and after construction.

Secondly, and perhaps my biggest worry, this development would fundamentally change the very essence of Eastside Roseville. Nine storeys? It’s just outrageous and completely clashes with Eastside Roseville's existing and future built environment. Our area is defined by low-rise housing, and a towering structure like this will have a profoundly negative effect, causing a loss of sunlight for nearby properties and invading our privacy with direct views from countless apartments. This immense height will completely dominate our streets, destroying the established low-rise residential feel and creating an unappealing, high-density environment. It will be an eyesore, permanently altering the cherished low-density, leafy character that defines Eastside Roseville; we chose to live here for that character! Four buildings, each up to nine storeys, are completely out of scale with our neighbourhood's typical one-to-two-storey homes. It's also entirely incompatible with the Council’s Preferred Scenario, which aims to preserve our low-rise residential fabric. This project would create an isolated island of towers surrounded by single-family homes, made even worse by the Metro tunnel reserves limiting other nearby development. This jarring contrast will severely harm the amenity of the entire area. The visual impact will be immense and highly detrimental, especially from neighbouring properties and public spaces. The architectural plans (pages 23, 24, 31, 32) and the Visual Impact Assessment (pages 15 onwards) clearly show the overwhelming bulk and scale. These towers will be highly visible from all directions, creating an oppressive sense of enclosure for nearby homes and significantly detracting from the beauty of our streetscapes.

This development also poses a grave threat to our area's heritage. The site is right in the middle of three established heritage conservation areas, with 54 heritage-listed houses nearby. The planned demolition of nine homes that contribute to these heritage conservation areas represents an intolerable destruction of invaluable historical and architectural assets. This proposal completely ignores existing heritage protections and will permanently damage Eastside Roseville's unique history and character. Lastly, the plan to remove 91 trees for this development is simply unacceptable. These trees contribute significantly to our local tree canopy, biodiversity, and Eastside Roseville's leafy character. Their loss will have a damaging environmental impact and further degrade the amenity of our area.

Finally, the impact on traffic and parking will be substantial, affecting our daily lives. The additional traffic from this development, particularly during peak hours, is a major worry. Roseville’s local road network is already under significant pressure, and this proposal will severely worsen existing problems, including increased traffic through Martin Lane, heightening its use as an already problematic shortcut, negatively impacting residential amenity and safety. We'll see even more gridlock at key intersections leading out of Roseville, causing longer delays and frustration for all of us. Many local streets are effectively one-way due to parking and narrowness; they simply cannot handle the projected increase in vehicles. The area around Roseville College already faces significant traffic during school times, and this development will critically exacerbate these bottlenecks, creating safety risks and severe disruption. Even with proposed on-site parking, the sheer number of new residents and visitors will inevitably force cars onto already crowded local streets, leading to intense competition for parking spaces and a noticeable decline in amenity for current residents. Where are we all going to park?
________________________________________
In Summary
In summary, the Hyecorp project, as it's been put forward under the TOD scheme, is fundamentally incompatible with Eastside Roseville's current character and how we envision our future. It represents an overdevelopment that will severely diminish our community's amenity, heritage, and overall liveability. I strongly urge the NSW Government to halt this application until Ku-ring-gai Council’s Preferred Scenario is resolved, as that offers a far more appropriate and publicly supported vision for our neighbourhood.
Thank you for taking the time to consider my submission. I truly hope you’ll listen to the concerns of the residents.

9 level apartments are way too high and once this is built, it will encourage other apartments to start popping up with same height. Before government allows apartments to start popping up, government needs to improve the infrastructures such as road, school. Otherwise this is creating the epic fail and disadvantage to existing residents like what has been created in Chatswood.

The scale of the project is completely inconsistent with the surrounding historic, low rise residential development, much of which is of heritage value.
The project is also contrary to the intentions of the preferred Ku-ring-gai Council Preferred Scenario and any decision on the site should not be made until the Council's Preferred Scenario is confirmed.

I am adding an attachment

Re: Residential Development with in-fill affordable housing, 16-24 Lord Street & 21-27
Roseville Avenue, Roseville (SSD-78996460)
Dear Sir/Madam,
I am a concerned resident of Roseville Ave Roseville. I wish to formally lodge my opposition to the approved development of a 10-storey, 250 apartments complex on the property currently occupied by 9 single-family homes. While I acknowledge the state government’s approval of the project, I strongly believe that the development, as planned, will have several negative consequences for the local community, the environment, and the surrounding infrastructure.
We would like to bring the following key issues to your attention:
1. Traffic Congestion and Parking Issues
One of the primary concerns we have is the significant increase in traffic that the development will bring to an area that is already struggling with traffic congestion. The suburb currently has no designated community parking spaces, and street parking is already extremely limited. It is a daily challenge for residents to find available parking, and at times, vehicles are left blocking my driveways causing inconvenience and safety hazards. With the addition of over 250 new residents to the area, the demand for parking and the capacity of local roads will be overwhelmed during the construction as well as long-term once those new residents move in. The entry points to major roads such as Boundary Road and Pacific Highway are already under pressure, and I fear the additional traffic will cause gridlock, particularly during peak hours. This increased congestion will affect the quality of life for local residents and pose significant safety risks, especially for pedestrians,
children, and the elderly.
2. Loss of Privacy for Nearby Homes
I moved to Roseville a few years ago, and the reason I chose Roseville is that it is less crowded compared to Chatswood. And I enjoy having privacy in my home and backyard. However, the proximity of the new development to existing homes will result in a direct loss of privacy for us living just a few meters away. The height of the proposed 10-storey building, at approximately 31 meters height will mean that residents in those apartments will have a clear line of sight into our homes and backyards. This will completely disrupt the sense of privacy that we currently enjoy, and I believe it is an unacceptable intrusion into our living space. The current zoning regulations set out 9.5 meters; it is clear that HYECORP proposed development does not comply with the regulations. HYECORP should ensure that new buildings do not unduly affect the privacy of neighboring homes, but this project, as proposed, clearly fails to meet that standard.
3. Overcrowding and Strain on Local Infrastructure
The proposed development will increase the population of the area by over 250 people, from 21 residents on the site to 250 residents. This dramatic increase will place an immense strain on the local infrastructure, including roads, public transport, and essential services. The area’s current infrastructure is not equipped to handle such a large influx of people. Already, services such as waste collection, emergency services, and public transport are stretched, and this development will only exacerbate these issues. I also have concerns about the environmental impact of such a large-scale development in an area that is predominantly conservation-listed residential homes. This will drastically alter the character of the neighborhood, contributing to the loss of green space, increased pollution, and further degradation of the local environment. The development is not in line with the principles of sustainable urban planning, and we believe it is not in the best interests of the community.
Also, it is concerning that many residents, including myself, were unaware of the plans until after the state government’s approval was granted, and the neighbour knocked on my door and told me the development had been approved.
In Conclusion, given the substantial negative impact the development will have on local traffic, privacy, and infrastructure. I strongly urge the state government to reconsider its approval of this project. I respectfully support that the State government is providing more homes for the housing crisis. Meanwhile, I wish the state government would ensure that the needs and rights of existing residents are adequately protected.
Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. I look forward to your response.
king regards

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

My name is Robyn Haynes. I live at 3 Belgium Ave, Roseville, NSW, approximately 250 metres from the proposed development.

I am writing in OBJECTION to Hyecorp’s proposed development in Lord St and Roseville Avenue.

30 years ago, my husband and I chose to live in Roseville. It wasn’t a cheap solution or a quick fix. But we wanted our family to grow up in an area that offered:
o Biodiversity and a National Park.
o Heritage and cultural history.
o Space and Privacy
o A community and an opportunity to walk to the train station along tree-lined streets.
o We PAID for these amenities. We’ve paid our rates; we’ve renovated our home with respect for the area’s heritage. Like all the residents of Roseville, we’ve worked hard to live where we live.

Firstly, this proposed development is NOT in the public interest and should not be progressed or determined until Ku-ring-gai Council’s preferred scenario is resolved. This preferred scenario recognises and preserves the heritage and character of Eastside Roseville. The Council’s Preferred Scenario mostly retains the existing zoning in Eastside Roseville, except in the Hill St precinct and the upper part of Victoria Street.

This proposed development by Hyecorp was introduced without public consultation and is riddled with falsehoods and flaws due to a rushed application. When Ku-ring-gai’s preferred scenario is adopted by the NSW Government, an application like this will be dismissed as it sits squarely in the middle of a heritage conservation area. Who gave developers the right to manipulate and coerce such radical and devastating changes to our landscape? Who voted for them to run state planning?
· whether you were aware of the community survey on the Hyecorp website, and if you did complete the survey, whether your responses were reflected in pages 8-13 of the Engagement Outcomes Report or pages 24-25 of the Social Impact Assessment.
· whether Hyecorp and/or its representatives otherwise provided information to you and/or sought feedback about the project;
· if you did not receive the flyer or were aware of the project pages on the Hyecorp website, how you found out about the proposed development and when.
Issues you may wish to consider:


COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: I never received HYECORP’s community flyer (supposedly sent out the first week of March 2025) notifying me that such a development had been proposed. I was definitely not made aware of the information evening held on 12 March. There was no community engagement, discussion, information evening or transparency around the proposal. This proposed development will affect me directly. Every day I drive down Roseville Ave, Lord Street and Martin Lane. Not only will the years and years building work affect my ability to drive around and exit Roseville, but the longer term impact will also be enormous. Eastside Roseville has narrow streets and is full on a day to day basis with parked cars. This proposed development will make that impossible.

THE HERITAGE CONSERVATION AREA on which this proposed 9-storey apartment block will be built will be a stand-alone albatross on the landscape. It will be surrounded by single and two-storey houses. Furthermore, due to the metro and Chatswood to Macquarie Park rail link, further development along Roseville Avenue and Lord Street will be impossible. This building will be a ONE OFF STAND, stand-alone 4 tower eyesore in amongst heritage homes and tree-lined streets. NO SSD’S STATEWIDE UNDER PROPOSAL WILL DEMOLISH SO MANY 100-YEAR-OLD HOUSES. Under the council’s preferred scenario, heritage will be mostly maintained while the required dwelling numbers will be reached, but they will be built in a more appropriate area that retains the heritage and community feel of Eastside Roseville.

The site is in the middle of three heritage conservation areas, with 54 heritage-listed houses nearby;

A Heritage Conservation Area is for the conservation of heritage. Once heritage is gone, it cannot be restored. Most 100-plus-year-old houses lie within 4-800 metres of the stations. There are better options.

POSITION: Under the Council’s preferred scenario, development will be in more appropriate areas of Roseville. Along the Pacific highway corridor, there are many sights in need of development. The Roseville Ave/ Lord Street development intends to bulldoze heritage and history. It will bulldoze houses that are more than 100 years old and destroy trees that have stood in the area for more than 50 years.

We will be able to see the top three storeys of the proposed development from our bedroom window and we live 250 metres from the proposed site. Today, we see trees and the rooftops of one and two-storey houses. This is in keeping with the landscape and tradition of the area.

INFRASTRUCTURE: Roseville has NO MAINSTREAM supermarket. Nothing is within walking distance of Hyecorp’s proposed development. Roseville does not have a supermarket or parking infrastructure. This means that people will need cars to get to do their basic shopping in Chatswood, Lindfield and Gordon. They will need to exit Roseville regularly for their daily needs. Eastside Roseville has ONE exit onto the Pacific Highway (via Clanville Road). Even today (without more high-rise), it can take up to half an hour in the mornings to get through the traffic lights and onto Pacific Highway.

TRAIN NETWORK: Today, not every train stops at Roseville. In peak hour, you can be waiting half an hour for a train from the city, which will stop at Roseville. In the mornings, when a train does stop, if you can squeeze yourself into a carriage, you’ll often hear the conductor welcoming everyone with ‘Good morning, my little sardines!’ It is unbearable and unhealthy. If we have more apartments, this will only get worse.

I call on the NSW Government to reconsider this proposed development based on its inconsistencies with the landscape and heritage of the area. There are better options under Ku-ring-gai’s Council’s preferred scenario that provide sufficient dwellings and satisfy the affordable housing commitment made by the government. I urge the government to reject this proposed development.

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

My name is Margaret (Meg) Haynes. I live at 3 Belgium Ave, Roseville, NSW, approximately 250 metres from the proposed development.

I am writing in OBJECTION to Hyecorp’s proposed development in Lord St and Roseville Avenue.

I have lived in Roseville all my life and would love to continue living in Roseville becasue of its:
o Biodiversity and a National Park.
o Heritage and cultural history.
o Space and Privacy
o A community and an opportunity to walk to the train station along tree-lined streets.

Firstly, this proposed development is NOT in the public interest and should not be progressed or determined until Ku-ring-gai Council’s preferred scenario is resolved. This preferred scenario recognises and preserves the heritage and character of Eastside Roseville. The Council’s Preferred Scenario mostly retains the existing zoning in Eastside Roseville, except in the Hill St precinct and the upper part of Victoria Street.

This proposed development by Hyecorp was introduced without public consultation and is riddled with falsehoods and flaws due to a rushed application. When Ku-ring-gai’s preferred scenario is adopted by the NSW Government, an application like this will be dismissed as it sits squarely in the middle of a heritage conservation area. Who gave developers the right to manipulate and coerce such radical and devastating changes to our landscape? Who voted for them to run state planning?

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: I never received HYECORP’s community flyer (supposedly sent out the first week of March 2025) notifying me that such a development had been proposed. I was definitely not made aware of the information evening held on 12 March. Had i known about the evening I woudl most definiteyl have attended. There was no community engagement, discussion, notification of an information evening or transparency around the proposal. This proposed development will affect me directly. I drive down Roseville Ave, Lord Street and Martin Lane often. I catch the train to the city every day. It is crowded nad unpleasant already. With this proposed developemnt the crowding at the station adn on the trains will be unbearable. Not only will the years and years building work affect my ability to drive around and exit Roseville, but the longer term impact will also be enormous. Eastside Roseville has narrow streets and is full on a day to day basis with parked cars. This proposed development will make that impossible.

THE HERITAGE CONSERVATION AREA on which this proposed 9-storey apartment block will be built will be a stand-alone albatross on the landscape. It will be surrounded by single and two-storey houses. Furthermore, due to the metro and Chatswood to Macquarie Park rail link, further development along Roseville Avenue and Lord Street will be impossible. This building will be a ONE OFF STAND, stand-alone 4 tower eyesore in amongst heritage homes and tree-lined streets. NO SSD’S STATEWIDE UNDER PROPOSAL WILL DEMOLISH SO MANY 100-YEAR-OLD HOUSES. This will destroy the landscape and feel of the area forever. Under the council’s preferred scenario, heritage will be mostly maintained while the required dwelling numbers will be reached, but they will be built in a more appropriate area that retains the heritage and community feel of Eastside Roseville.

The development site is in the middle of three heritage conservation areas, with 54 heritage-listed houses nearby; 91 trees will be cutdown to make way for this developement. Roseville has many native animals living in the trees, where will they go now?

A Heritage Conservation Area is for the conservation of heritage. Once heritage is gone, it cannot be restored. Most 100-plus-year-old houses lie within 4-800 metres of the stations. There are better options.

POSITION: Under the Council’s preferred scenario, development will be in more appropriate areas of Roseville. Along the Pacific highway corridor, there are many sights in need of development. The Roseville Ave/ Lord Street development intends to bulldoze heritage and history. It will bulldoze houses that are more than 100 years old and destroy trees that have stood in the area for more than 50 years.

From my bedroom window, more than 250 metres away I will be able to see the top three storeys of the proposed development. Today, we see trees and the rooftops of one and two-storey houses. I can see as far as Chatswood, but wiht this proposal the skyline of Roseville will be destroyed. This is NOT in keeping with the landscape and tradition of the area.

INFRASTRUCTURE: Roseville has NO MAINSTREAM supermarket. There is nothing within walking distance of Hyecorp’s proposed development. Roseville DOES NOT have a supermarket or parking infrastructure. This means that people will need cars to get to do their basic shopping in Chatswood, Lindfield and Gordon. They will need to exit Roseville regularly for their daily needs. Eastside Roseville has ONE exit onto the Pacific Highway (via Clanville Road). Even today (without more high-rise), it can take up to half an hour in the mornings to get through the traffic lights and onto Pacific Highway. Streets around Martin Lane are gridlocked at school drop-off and pick-up time. Parking as become impossible due to the new metro llink that has recently opened. Rsoeville is a rat run for those who wish to catch the metro from Chatswood.

TRAIN NETWORK: Today, not every train stops at Roseville. In peak hour, you can be waiting half an hour for a train from the city, which will stop at Roseville. In the mornings, when a train does stop, if you can squeeze yourself into a carriage, you’ll often hear the conductor welcoming everyone with ‘Good morning, my little sardines!’ It is unbearable and unhealthy. If we have more apartments, this will only get worse.

I call on the NSW Government to reconsider this proposed development based on its inconsistencies with the landscape and heritage of the area, the enormous pressure it will make on lacking infrastructure and already tight traffic congestion, not to mention the 'blot' on the landscape of such an apratment block. There are better options under Ku-ring-gai’s Council’s preferred scenario that provide sufficient dwellings and satisfy the affordable housing commitment made by the government. I urge the government to reject this proposed development.

Please see attached document detailing my submission of objection to the development.

I object to the following development for the following reasons.

Community Consultation
The Hyecorp submission is inaccurate and lacks detail that can’t be substantiated. The community consultation claims submitted by Hyecorp are simply incorrect and were non – existent.
Hyecorp removed the proposed development from its website prior to its submission, and subsequently removed it from Facebook. The majority of impacted residents and surrounding streets did not receive the information flyer.

Heritage
The homes in question as a collective represent Sydney’s finest. They are part of our rich history and should be preserved without question. The notion of demolishing these homes is quite simply appalling and Sydney at large will be an international embarrassment. Many of these homes have only recently been renovated, some have appeared in national homemaker magazines highlighting the unique history, design and period status. How can Sydney want to knock down these beautiful historic homes in quite possibly the two most historic streets in the Lower North Shore of Sydney? Sydney is losing its spirit and charm and clearly has no interest in preserving its history. The visual impact of this development dropped into the middle of a stunning HCA setting is simply wrong. The Proposal involves the demolition of 9 Federation houses which collectively contribute to the historic and aesthetic significance of the Clanville HCA through their subdivision pattern, era of construction, retained Federation form and features, and garden setting. Heritage Impact Statement is fundamentally flawed because it does not consider the conservation area as a whole.

Height Concerns
A 10 – story building will dominate and overshadow surrounding properties and disrupt the architectural feel within the HCA leading to a range of issues such as privacy. The proposed design is modern and out of sync with the classic streetscape…in short it does not represent the future look of Roseville. • Hyecorp is seeking to take the height to at least 31m – maximum height should be 28.6m (taking into account the 30% uplift) • The setbacks are non-compliant – Council requires frontages of 10m and 9m on the side. Hyecorp is 6m on all sides.


Infrastructure

Parking
Currently Roseville Ave and Lord St are consistently congested with traffic and offers no parking availability during the week. Access to the Pacific Highway is extremely limited. Martin Lane is consistently blocked. In shorts it's a log jam of traffic!

Schools

There have been no new major schools built in over 30 years in the Kuringai area. Where will all the kids go to school? Chatswood High, Roseville Public, Killara High are all at full capacity.


Sewerage/Water
The local sewerage and water system cannot cope with current population numbers. No provision has been made to firstly fix the current system let alone add more stress to it.

Environmental Degradation
The destruction of stunning native trees is disturbing and should not be tolerated. The street character and history will be destroyed.

Underground Metro Line

The Metro line corridor is dangerously close to sections of this development; the risk of a major catastrophic event is simply too high for the people of NSW.

This proposed development lacks benefits for existing residents and destroys Roseville’s heritage and environmental attributes. It does not represent the future look of the neighborhood as no other developments can take place up to Hill Street from Roseville Ave and Lord St (a government requirement for new developments) as the Metro line is under many of the houses including part of this development. It was clearly communicated by the Premier and the Housing Minister that all new developments must represent the future look of the suburb! How can the Hyecorp proposed development do this when no other developments can take place due to the Metro line underneath this area?

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

I strongly object to the proposed development. My house is approximately 50m away from the development and i will be severely impacted.

The first point i would like to make is that despite this development overlooking my yard, i have received no communication whatsoever from the developer or anyone associated with the development. No email, no letters, no flyers, no phone calls, nobody knocking on my door. Absolutely nothing. The first i heard of this development was a few weeks ago.

This application lodged under the TOD scheme is not in the public interest. The height of the development is extreme and will impact not only my home, but the hundreds of homes in the area. It will stand out like a sore thumb. Further, this block of apartments will ruin the area - which is one of the last preserved areas of heritage type homes in the area. What a terrible legacy.

At a practical level, the traffic will increase substantially. Already, roads are clogged, and there are on 2 traffic lights in Roseville. Whist it may be convenient for the developers to suggest people will catch the train, we know from common experience that people have cars - often 2. So practically this will add multiple hundred cars to the area so simply won't work.

I am also concerned by the environment impacts - the hundred of so trees cut down, the potential impact on the metro tunnel (which is close by)

If anything, this development needs to be deferred so the community can be properly engaged and Council's alternate plan can be adopted by the State.

Please reject this application.

Kind regards

I would like to object to this project going ahead. I drive past this area at least twice a day and it is already a traffic nightmare. The location of this large development is a poor choice. Putting something of this size in the middle of a suburban street next to a very narrow laneway that can not cope with the traffic at its current level is narrow-minded and opportunistic. A project of this scale would be suited closer to the shops and station, possibly incorporating the poor excuse of a council car park in Lord st. If apartments are to be built in this location a lower height limit is necessary. The construction works associated with this project will be dangerous for local children who walk these streets everyday to and from school and to community spaces near by.

I am writing to formally object to the above-mentioned State Significant Development application.

Primary Objections...
1. Premature Application Under TOD Controls
This application should NOT be progressed or determined until Ku-ring-gai Council's Preferred Scenario is resolved. The TOD planning controls were introduced without adequate public consultation and are set to be modified when Council's Preferred Scenario is adopted. Council's Preferred Scenario recognises the unique character of Eastside Roseville and largely retains existing zoning, except for specific precincts like Hill Street and upper Victoria Street. I support Council's balanced approach over the blanket TOD application.

2. Inadequate Community Consultation
Hyecorp's community engagement has been severely deficient:
I did not receive any community flyer from Hyecorp in my letterbox at any time
I was completely unaware of the community drop-in session held on 12 March 2025 at Lindfield Seniors Centre (4:00-6:30pm) and would have attended if I had known about it
I was unaware of the dedicated project pages on the Hyecorp website or the community survey until well after the consultation period
I only learned about this proposed development through community networks, not through any official developer communication
The consultation process failed to reach affected residents and provide fair opportunity for community input

3. Scale and Character Incompatibility
The proposed four buildings up to 9-storeys are completely inappropriate for Eastside Roseville:
Height Impact: Nine storeys will cause severe overshadowing, privacy loss, and reduced solar access to surrounding 1-2 storey homes
Bulk and Scale: The development will dominate the area like an isolated island of towers surrounded by low-density housing
Future Context: Under Council's Preferred Scenario, surrounding areas will remain 1-2 storeys, making this development even more incongruous

4. Heritage Destruction
The proposal will cause irreversible heritage damage:
Located between three heritage conservation areas
54 heritage-listed houses in the vicinity
Demolition of 9 contributing houses within heritage conservation areas
Visual impact completely inconsistent with heritage streetscapes

5. Traffic and Infrastructure Impacts
Current infrastructure cannot support this scale of development:
Traffic: Martin Lane rat-run already overburdened; additional traffic will worsen congestion at key Roseville intersections
Parking: Existing parking shortages will be severely exacerbated
Infrastructure: Concerns about drainage, stormwater, water pressure, sewerage capacity
School Traffic: Impact on Roseville College drop-off/pick-up operations

6. Environmental Impact
91 trees proposed for removal
Loss of established leafy character that defines Roseville
Stormwater and drainage implications for surrounding properties

7. Construction Disruption
Two-year construction period (minimum) will cause:
Severe disruption on narrow local streets
Parking displacement for residents
Noise pollution Monday-Friday 7AM-8PM, Saturday 8AM-1PM
Safety hazards from heavy vehicle movements

The architectural plans (pages 23, 24, 31, 32) clearly demonstrate the overwhelming visual impact from all directions. The development will fundamentally alter the streetscape and neighbourhood character in a manner completely inconsistent with the established and planned future built form.

This development represents inappropriate overdevelopment that will irreversibly damage Roseville's heritage character, overwhelm local infrastructure, and set a dangerous precedent for similar inappropriate developments. The application appears designed to exploit current TOD controls before more appropriate local planning can be implemented.

The proposal fails to demonstrate adequate community consultation, heritage consideration, or infrastructure capacity assessment. It should be rejected outright, or at minimum deferred until Council's Preferred Scenario is finalised and proper community consultation completed.

I respectfully request that this application be refused in the public interest.

Residential development with in-fill affordable housing, 16-24 Lord Street & 21-27 Roseville Avenue, Roseville (SSD-78996460)
This application lodged under the TOD planning controls, should NOT in the public interest, be further progressed or determined until Council’s Preferred Scenario is resolved. The TOD planning controls were introduced without public consultation and are to be set aside when the Council's Preferred Scenario is adopted.
I support for the Council’s Preferred Scenario and how this recognises the unique character of Eastside Roseville having regard to the existing built form in the area of the proposed development. The Council’s Preferred Scenario mostly retains the existing zoning in Eastside Roseville, except in the Hill St precinct and upper part of Victoria St.
I did not received any Hyecorp’s community flyer in the first week of March 2025 and have never received any information from them.
I object to the amount of parking supplied in the Hyecorp plan, which is insufficient and that will add to the congested jstreet area where the units may be planned for.

I strongly object to the proposed State Significant Development (SSD-78996460) as it is not in the public interest, inappropriate for the Roseville location and conflicts with the Council and Community Preferred Alternative to the Transport Oriented Development (TOD).
I urge the rejection of this proposal in favour of Ku-ring-gai Council’s Preferred Alternative Scenario, which meets affordable housing requirements while minimizing adverse impacts on the local community.
Please view and consider the entirety of my comments in the attached document below.

Please see attachment.