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

The proposal should not be supported for reasons:

1. It undermines the whole planning system which its supposedly based upon strategic planning. Further it undermines community support for the planning system. It is analogous to "Blues Point Tower" with no relation to surrounding development. It will encourage chaotic planning which will waste the time of Dept Planning, Council and residents.

2. It is inconsistent with the TOD compromise scheme adopted by Ku-ring-gai Council. If the proposal is supported it is the same as throwing the TOD compromise is the bin as numerous other one off developments will be proposed. Investment in housing needs a clear regulatory environment which the revised TOD will provide.

3. The proposal itself is fake as the "In-fill affordable housing" component is very small. It is designed around selling expensive apartments to empty nesters. Most people are supportive of the provision of affordable housing but to suggest this is aa proposal for affordable housing is fundamentally misleading. Dept Planning support for such a fake proposal will undermine community support for "In-fill affordable housing".

4. This single proposal will overwhelm the whole Roseville Heritage Conservation Area which the TOD compromise seeks to maintain.

5. The cumulative impacts of this proposal and the TOD scheme in areas such as traffic and the environment have not been considered.

6. The proposal SEARS were based upon the earlier TOD scheme and is inconsistent with the TOD compromise scheme. The proponent should be required to re-submit.

N/A

My family and I (5 adults) strongly object to this project on several fronts:

1. NOT IN PUBLIC INTEREST:

Ku-ring-gai Council has been negotiating in good faith on behalf of residents with the NSW Government on a "Preferred Scenario" as an alternative to the original TOD scheme. This application should not be considered or progressed until those negotiations are concluded and a final position is reached. This application is inconsistent with Councils “Preferred Scenario”.

I support the Council's "Preferred Scenario" as it broadly retains the character and zoning of east side Roseville whilst promoting develop in areas which are more suitable on the western side of the Pacific Highway. For example, State Significant Developments 77825469,77829461 and 81943462 are all ideally positioned on the western side of the Pacific Highway, and I am fully supportive of them.

The development located at 16-24 Lord Street & 21-27 Roseville Avenue, Roseville must not proceed whilst the "Preferred Scenario" is negotiated AND must not proceed if the “Preferred Scenario” is ultimately accepted by the NSW Government. Furthermore, the development should not proceed at all for the reasons following.

2. NO COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:

My household has never received any information from Hyecorp on this development (and I live close to the proposed site) - nor have any of my neighbours. We have never received a flyer, and we were unaware that there was a community drop-in session on 12 March. We have now learnt that the drop-in session wasn’t in Roseville and was held during office hours in Lindfield so no one from our household could’ve attended anyway. Clearly no one from the community was aware of the drop-in session on 12 May because according to the Engagement Outcomes Report only 5 people from the community attended which is unrepresentative of the suburb. This is not acceptable for a large-scale State Significant Development.

To suggest that the community has been consulted is WRONG – we have not!

3. HEIGHT:

The develop is too high (9 storey's) and will dwarf adjoining properties which are 1-2 storey houses. The architectural plans clearly illustrate the harshness of this intersection.

Furthermore, this development will be orphaned and permanently jar with its surrounds due the construction constraints posed by the proximity of the Sydney Metro tunnel. More reason develops of this nature should be on the western side of the Pacific highway – which is in line with the Council’s “Preferred Scenario”.

4. IMPACT ON HERITAGE

The Heritage Impact Statement prepared by Urbis completely downplays the fact that the proposed development site is surround by seven Heritage listed properties. Some are right next to the site whilst others are directly across from it. All the relevant heritage items are listed on the State Planning spatial map which is included in the Urbis report (Figure 2) but only refers to the Scout Hall in Martin Lane – which itself will be enormously impacted.

Figures 132 and 135 in the Urbis report clearly show the impact this development will have on heritage properties when overlayed with the Figure 2 heritage map


5. TRAFFIC CONGESTION:

East side Roseville already experiences significant traffic congestion from Monday to Friday due to; (1) Commuter parking, (2) 558 and 8001 bus routes and school drop off at Roseville station and Roseville College. Adding a further 259 apartments and 700+ people will make the situation chaotic.

The attached photos were taken on Monday 19 May 2025 at 10.24am and Tuesday 20 May 2025 at 9.11am and clearly illustrate the congestion that presently exists in Roseville Ave, Martin Lane and Lord Street.

Both the Social Impact Assessment and Engagement Outcomes Report by Gyde ignore the significant negative impact additional traffic from this development will cause. It will simply make an already congested suburban area, worse.

I strongly object to the proposal “Residential development with in-fill affordable housing, 16-24 Lord Street & 21-27 Roseville Avenue, Roseville” on the following:

1. Destruction of Historic Buildings and the compromise of the Clanville Conservation Area

The Historical Conservation Area has been designated to protect not just single heritage items, but an area recognised of great architectural importance to Sydney. The proposal seeks to eradicate the fundamental purpose of the HCA by recommending the demolition of all 9 dwellings and landscapes within a protected area. No retention of any historic fabric is proposed.
I disagree with the conclusions stated within the Heritage Impact Statement that argue alterations to properties justify their demolition. All buildings are subject to change and adaptation over time. The buildings within the HCA, whilst not individually listed, still form a consistent architectural language to their context in terms of scale, external form, materials/finishes, detailing and original period of construction. (All 9 items are over 100 years old built between 1900 – 1918). These principles are what the HCA seeks to achieve within its guidelines.

Alternatively, the proposal seeks to remove the entirety of the urban fabric, rendering the HCA irrelevant. The Historical Impact Statement has been written in a bias manner to justify the developers intent, dictated by commercial imperatives and being inconsistent with the goals of the HCA.

Fundamentally, the proposal does not retain or enhance the character of the Clanville Conservation Area, nor does it ensure any environmental heritage will be conserved. The approval of such demolition, within a protected area, will set an adverse precedent for all HCAs across NSW. On this basis, and for the future protection of heritage across our state, the proposal should be refused.

2. Inconsistency with Ku-ring-gai Council’s Preferred Scenario

Ku Ring Gai council has worked on proposing alternative schemes to the Governments TOD proposal. These alternatives seeks to protect the remaining HCAs and concentrate development to areas deemed of less significance. The proposal is therefore inconsistent with Ku-ring-gai Council’s Preferred Scenario which provides new housing without sacrificing significant heritage fabric that is currently protected. Uplift should not be allowed in HCAs before proper master planning is finalised. Furthermore, the proposal will sit out of context to the remaining area if approved.

Personally I am not a resident of Roseville, but frequent the area often. I recognise the HCAs significance to the story of Sydney with its abundance of rich architectural fabric and landscapes. I too am a young individual grabbling within the housing market of Sydney, but in no way wish to see protected areas be lost to the greed of developers. HCAs have been carefully considered and protected for many decades, and should continue to be so.

I therefore strongly object to this proposal.

Dear Sir/Madam,
I write to lodge my strong objection to the proposed Hyecorp development in Eastside Roseville, submitted under the Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) planning controls.
1. Proposal must be paused pending adoption of Council’s Preferred Scenario
This application should not, in the public interest, be progressed or determined until Ku-ring-gai Council’s Preferred Scenario is formally adopted. The TOD controls under which the application has been lodged were introduced without proper public consultation and are widely expected to be set aside once the Preferred Scenario is in place.
The timing and nature of this proposal appear to be opportunistic and seeking to exploit temporary, transitional planning controls before a more appropriate, community-informed framework can be enacted. To allow it to proceed now would be to undermine the integrity of the local planning process and to disregard the clear direction being taken by Council.
Council’s Preferred Scenario, developed through extensive consultation, respects the unique character of Eastside Roseville. It preserves the existing low-density zoning in most of the suburb, apart from targeted changes in the Hill Street precinct and upper Victoria Street. In contrast, this application proposes a radical departure from both the built form and planning vision of the area. It is not aligned with the public interest, and it is not aligned with the future of Roseville.
2. Hyecorp’s Community Engagement Has Been Inadequate
Hyecorp’s claimed community engagement has been deeply inadequate and disingenuous. I only became aware of the development through concerned neighbours and not through any proactive or inclusive effort by the developer. This approach clearly fails any reasonable test of community consultation or transparency.
3. Overdevelopment and incompatibility with the area
The proposed development of four towers up to 9 storeys high is completely incompatible with the surrounding low-density neighbourhood. It would create an isolated pocket of high-rise buildings in an otherwise intact 1–2 storey residential environment.
This overdevelopment is starkly at odds not only with existing built form but also with the future planning direction set out in the Council’s Preferred Scenario, which retains the area’s low-rise character. It would impose excessive bulk, dominate the skyline, and irreversibly alter the streetscape.
4. Unmanageable traffic congestion and local access impacts
The traffic impacts of this development would be severe, unmanageable, and directly harmful to the liveability of Roseville. The area is already experiencing significant congestion, particularly during peak periods, with key intersections, such as Boundary Street, Pacific Highway, and Archer Street, gridlocked every morning and afternoon.
This development would dramatically worsen the situation by injecting hundreds of new residents and vehicles into a precinct that simply cannot absorb them. The proposal fails to acknowledge or mitigate:
• The use of Martin Lane as a rat-run, already dangerous and overburdened.
• The impact on local streets that are effectively one-way due to narrow widths and on-street parking.
• Severe congestion around Roseville College, particularly during school drop-off and pick-up times.
• The broader cumulative strain on all access points into and out of Roseville.
What is proposed is not a minor addition of traffic, it is the imposition of urban-scale density on a suburban street grid, without corresponding investment in road infrastructure. It is irresponsible to allow such a transformation without a comprehensive, transparent, and independently reviewed traffic impact assessment.
5. Heritage loss and cultural erosion
The development site lies within and between three designated heritage conservation areas and is surrounded by over 50 heritage-listed properties. The proposal includes the demolition of nine houses, many of which contribute to the character and historical continuity of the neighbourhood.
This would represent a devastating loss of heritage in one of Sydney’s most architecturally cohesive and culturally significant suburbs. It is difficult to see how such a proposal could be approved without disregarding long-standing community efforts to conserve the area’s identity.
6. Visual, environmental and amenity impacts
The architectural plans clearly show the overwhelming visual impact of the proposed buildings. Viewed from every direction, the towers would dominate neighbouring properties, destroying outlooks and eroding residential privacy. Overshadowing, loss of solar access, and the removal of 91 mature trees would significantly diminish local amenity and biodiversity.
The removal of this many trees in an area known for its canopy cover and garden character is unjustifiable. The urban heat impact alone should be reason enough for concern, let alone the broader environmental degradation it would cause.
7. Infrastructure constraints and construction disruption
The area is already under pressure from limited infrastructure, including drainage, stormwater systems, water pressure, sewerage, power supply, and road conditions. This development would add unsustainable strain on all fronts.
Furthermore, a two-year construction period, involving heavy trucks, cranes, noise, and blocked access on narrow residential streets, would result in constant disruption. Residents would face early morning construction noise (from 7 AM on weekdays), loss of on-street parking, and damage to road surfaces, all in a neighbourhood never designed to accommodate large-scale development sites.
Conclusion
This proposal is an example of poor planning, inadequate consultation, and disregard for community values. It is not in the public interest. It undermines Council’s well-considered and consultative planning framework and poses long-term harm to the heritage, infrastructure, streetscape, and liveability of Eastside Roseville.
I urge the Department to defer consideration of this application until Council’s Preferred Scenario is adopted, and to reject this development in its current form on the grounds of overdevelopment, traffic and infrastructure impacts, environmental degradation, and lack of proper community engagement.

See attached PDF

Please see attachment for details of my objection to this application.

I am writing to formally object to the proposed development by Hypecorp at 16-24 Lord Street and 21-27 Roseville Avenue, Roseville.
While affordable housing is an important social objective, this project represents corporate greed disguised as social policy, and it is entirely inappropriate for a premium, established residential location such as Roseville.
The planned development threatens the unique character and heritage of our suburb. The existing heritage houses and well-established gardens contribute significantly to the charm, history, and community identity of Roseville. These elements not only enhance the aesthetic appeal of the area but also reflect the cultural and architectural history that has been carefully preserved over many years.Their removal will result in a permanent loss of this valued character, replacing it with a structure that is inconsistent with the existing streetscape and community feel. This loss will diminish the distinctiveness of Roseville and could negatively impact the quality of life for current residents who value the suburb's heritage and greenery.
This development is a clear example of developers extracting maximum value for themselves with no genuine care for the existing community. Families who bought and moved to Roseville for its leafy streets, quiet atmosphere, and unique heritage are now left powerless in the face of overwhelming change. The irreversible loss threatens the very character that drew residents here in the first place.
The introduction of this development will cause significant traffic congestion in an already heavily congested area. The local road infrastructure is not designed to accommodate such an increase in vehicles, leading to safety concerns and daily inconvenience for existing residents. Moreover, there is no viable escape or alternative route for residents who do not wish to be impacted by the development, effectively trapping the community in a deteriorating traffic environment.

There are numerous other locations far better suited for this type of development—areas where the social benefits can be realised without causing such a detrimental impact on established communities.
While the development may provide a temporary increase in housing availability, the permanent negative consequences on the community’s fabric, environment, and heritage far outweigh these short-term gains.

I urge the planning authorities to reconsider this proposal and to protect the interests of the Roseville community by preserving its heritage and character, prioritising developments that align with local infrastructure capabilities and community values.

Please see attachment

Please see attached document.

I wish to formally object to the proposed development by Hypecorp at 16-24 Lord Street and 21-27 Roseville Avenue, Roseville.

This development is inappropriate for the character and context of this area, which is known for its historic and heritage homes, many of which will be lost if this proposal proceeds. There are clearly much better locations for such a high-density development—including sites directly adjacent to Roseville Station—where affordable housing targets can be met without sacrificing the unique character and heritage of established residential streets.

The properties on Lord Street and Roseville Avenue represent some of the most valuable real estate in the area, prized not only for their heritage but also for their community and environmental qualities. This proposal will have a massive adverse effect on those residents who choose not to sell to Hypecorp, yet there is no suggestion of any form of compensation or subsidy to offset the inevitable loss in their property values.

The developer’s business model prioritises maximising profits through maximum density, but in doing so, it destroys what existing residents have invested in and deeply value—the character, privacy, and tranquility of their homes and streets. The scale and design of the project will cause significant visual impact at street level, disrupting the aesthetic and livability of the neighbourhood.

Additionally, the local utilities and infrastructure are not designed to support an influx of 728 new residents, which will place undue strain on water, sewage, traffic, and other essential services.

It is clear that Hypecorp has chosen this site not because it is suitable but because it allows them to maximize profits at the expense of the surrounding community, imposing maximum harm on neighbours on all four sides.

I strongly urge the planning authorities to reject this proposal. It is quite clearly individual and corporate greed in the guise of social good.

OBJECTION

Re: Objection to Hyecorp Proposal – Residential Development with In-Fill Affordable Housing
16–24 Lord Street & 21–27 Roseville Avenue, Roseville (SSD-78996460)
To Whom It May Concern,
I, Eva R Jambrich of 27 Oliver Road, Roseville, wish to formally lodge my strong objection to the proposed development by Hyecorp, which seeks to construct four nine-storey apartment buildings (approximately 30 metres in height) at 21–27 Roseville Avenue and 16–24 Lord Street, Roseville.
Community Impact
This proposal is fundamentally incompatible with the existing character and community spirit of Roseville. The area is predominantly made up of single- and two-storey dwellings with private gardens, fostering informal yet meaningful social interactions among neighbours — from chats over fences to children playing safely outdoors.
Having previously lived in both Melbourne and Canberra, I have experienced firsthand how vibrant, inclusive communities are formed. When my husband and I relocated to Sydney, we chose Roseville specifically for its sense of community, peaceful environment, and heritage character — all of which would be severely undermined by a high-rise development of this scale in a low-density residential area.
High-density developments tend to isolate residents, limiting social interaction to brief exchanges in lifts and corridors. This erodes the community fabric that defines Roseville.
Visual and Heritage Impact
Our home, located approximately 150 metres from the proposed site, would be significantly affected by the visual bulk of the proposed buildings. Their scale would dominate the skyline, casting shadows over surrounding properties — many of which are heritage-listed — and disrupting the visual harmony that makes Roseville unique.
Put simply, these buildings would "stick out like a sore thumb." Their disproportionate height and bulk are out of character with the surrounding homes and would compromise the suburb's historic and architectural identity — key elements of its enduring appeal.
Traffic and Access Concerns
Roseville’s eastern precinct already suffers from limited access, with Clanville Road and the Pacific Highway forming a bottleneck. Hill Street, the only other viable exit, does not allow right turns onto Boundary Street — further compounding the issue.
The addition of 259 apartments will drastically increase traffic, especially along Trafalgar Avenue and Clanville Road, which run directly past our home. This will heighten congestion, exacerbate parking shortages, and raise the risk of road accidents.
Nearby institutions such as:
• Kopwa Aged Care (12–16 Trafalgar Road),
• Roseville Ladies College,
• Roseville College (27 Bancroft Avenue),
already strain parking and traffic flow, especially during school hours. The proposed development will further burden these already stretched conditions.
Safety Concerns: Martin Lane
Martin Lane, a narrow one-way thoroughfare heavily used by commuters parking near the railway station, is already a safety concern. Its limited width forces cars to yield to one another to pass.
The proposed development would increase vehicular use of this lane, posing a significant safety hazard, particularly in emergencies. The lack of provisions for emergency vehicle access is deeply troubling and, in our view, irresponsible.
Noise and Community Wellbeing
The anticipated increase in residents and vehicle movement will inevitably result in higher noise levels. Long-term residents accustomed to the suburb’s tranquil atmosphere will experience a dramatic and unwelcome change in their day-to-day quality of life.
Increased noise, combined with loss of natural light and privacy, can contribute to stress, a sense of displacement, and reduced mental wellbeing — concerns that should not be overlooked.
Overshadowing of Neighbouring Properties
The height and scale of the proposed buildings will significantly impact the sunlight and ambient light received by neighbouring homes. This is not merely an aesthetic concern; it directly affects residents’ physical and mental health, their enjoyment of their homes, and their sense of place.
Lack of Community Consultation
One of the most disappointing aspects of this proposal is the complete lack of community consultation. We only became aware of the development through emails from concerned neighbours — not from the developer or planning authorities.
Such an approach is contrary to the values of transparency and community engagement that should underpin developments of this magnitude. When a project will impact people’s homes, livelihoods, and wellbeing, there must be a meaningful effort to involve them in the process. Unfortunately, this has not happened.
Conclusion
We acknowledge the urgent need for more affordable housing across Sydney and support responsible, community-sensitive solutions. However, this must not come at the expense of established communities, their heritage, or their livability.
The current proposal by Hyecorp is inappropriate in scale, location, and design for Roseville. It was submitted without adequate community consultation and fails to account for local traffic, heritage, and safety concerns.
We therefore urge the State Government and relevant planning authorities to reject this proposal and instead support Ku-ring-gai Council’s preferred alternative, which represents a more balanced, context-appropriate response to housing needs.
Thank you for the opportunity to express our concerns. We trust that the wellbeing of current residents, the preservation of heritage, and the integrity of our community will be given the serious consideration they deserve.
Sincerely,
Eva R. Jambrich
27 Oliver Road

Please read my written submission (attached) which sets out the reasons why this development is entirely inappropriate and should be rejected.

OBJECTION

Re: Objection to Hyecorp Proposal – Residential Development with In-Fill Affordable Housing
16–24 Lord Street & 21–27 Roseville Avenue, Roseville (SSD-78996460)
To Whom It May Concern,
I, Thomas B. Jambrich of 27 Oliver Road, Roseville, wish to formally lodge my strong objection to the proposed development by Hyecorp, which seeks to construct four nine-storey apartment buildings (approximately 30 metres in height) at 21–27 Roseville Avenue and 16–24 Lord Street, Roseville.

Community Impact

This proposal is fundamentally incompatible with the existing character and community spirit of Roseville. The area is predominantly made up of single- and two-storey dwellings with private gardens, fostering informal yet meaningful social interactions among neighbours — from chats over fences to children playing safely outdoors.
Having previously lived in both Melbourne and Canberra, I have experienced firsthand how vibrant, inclusive communities are formed. When my wife and I relocated to Sydney, we chose Roseville specifically for its sense of community, peaceful environment, and heritage character — all of which would be severely undermined by a high-rise development of this scale in a low-density residential area.
High-density developments tend to isolate residents, limiting social interaction to brief exchanges in lifts and corridors. This erodes the community fabric that defines Roseville.
Visual and Heritage Impact
Our home, located approximately 150 metres from the proposed site, would be significantly affected by the visual bulk of the proposed buildings. Their scale would dominate the skyline, casting shadows over surrounding properties — many of which are heritage-listed — and disrupting the visual harmony that makes Roseville unique.
Put simply, these buildings would "stick out like a sore thumb." Their disproportionate height and bulk are out of character with the surrounding homes and would compromise the suburb's historic and architectural identity — key elements of its enduring appeal.

Traffic and Access Concerns

Roseville’s eastern precinct already suffers from limited access, with Clanville Road and the Pacific Highway forming a bottleneck. Hill Street, the only other viable exit, does not allow right turns onto Boundary Street — further compounding the issue.
The addition of 259 apartments will drastically increase traffic, especially along Trafalgar Avenue and Clanville Road, which run directly past our home. This will heighten congestion, exacerbate parking shortages, and raise the risk of road accidents.
Nearby institutions such as:
• Kopwa Aged Care (12–16 Trafalgar Road),
• Roseville Ladies College,
• Roseville College (27 Bancroft Avenue),
already strain parking and traffic flow, especially during school hours. The proposed development will further burden these already stretched conditions.

Safety Concerns: Martin Lane

Martin Lane, a narrow one-way thoroughfare heavily used by commuters parking near the railway station, is already a safety concern. Its limited width forces cars to yield to one another to pass.
The proposed development would increase vehicular use of this lane, posing a significant safety hazard, particularly in emergencies. The lack of provisions for emergency vehicle access is deeply troubling and, in our view, irresponsible.

Noise and Community Wellbeing

The anticipated increase in residents and vehicle movement will inevitably result in higher noise levels. Long-term residents accustomed to the suburb’s tranquil atmosphere will experience a dramatic and unwelcome change in their day-to-day quality of life.
Increased noise, combined with loss of natural light and privacy, can contribute to stress, a sense of displacement, and reduced mental wellbeing — concerns that should not be overlooked.

Overshadowing of Neighbouring Properties

The height and scale of the proposed buildings will significantly impact the sunlight and ambient light received by neighbouring homes. This is not merely an aesthetic concern; it directly affects residents’ physical and mental health, their enjoyment of their homes, and their sense of place.

Lack of Community Consultation

One of the most disappointing aspects of this proposal is the complete lack of community consultation. We only became aware of the development through emails from concerned neighbours — not from the developer or planning authorities.
Such an approach is contrary to the values of transparency and community engagement that should underpin developments of this magnitude. When a project will impact people’s homes, livelihoods, and wellbeing, there must be a meaningful effort to involve them in the process. Unfortunately, this has not happened.

Conclusion

We acknowledge the urgent need for more affordable housing across Sydney and support responsible, community-sensitive solutions. However, this must not come at the expense of established communities, their heritage, or their livability.
The current proposal by Hyecorp is inappropriate in scale, location, and design for Roseville. It was submitted without adequate community consultation and fails to account for local traffic, heritage, and safety concerns.
We therefore urge the State Government and relevant planning authorities to reject this proposal and instead support Ku-ring-gai Council’s preferred alternative, which represents a more balanced, context-appropriate response to housing needs.
Thank you for the opportunity to express our concerns. We trust that the wellbeing of current residents, the preservation of heritage, and the integrity of our community will be given the serious consideration they deserve.
Sincerely,
Thomas B. Jambrich
27 Oliver Road

This application lodged under the TOD scheme and should NOT in the public interest, be further progressed or determined until Council’s Preferred Scenario is resolved.

LACK OF NOTIFICATION
I have only been recently made aware of the development and did not receive Hyecorp’s community flyer in the first week of March 2025 and before 12 March

ROSEVILLE AND DEVELOPMENTS WHICH MAKE SENSE
I moved into Roseville in 2007 and was attracted to the area by the large leafy, low level blocks, limited traffic congestion and serene outlook. I’ve seen a number of 3 level apartment blocks erected along major corridors in the suburb and while increasing the density I feel that while walking and driving past them, they have maintained the feel of the suburb and have not unduely impacted the skyline, light and movement around the suburb. I would support further development along the train line corridor including high rise apartment developments around the commercial shops similar to what has occurred in Lindfield.

WHY IS HYECORP DEVELOPMENT NOT SUITABLE
It is inconsistent however to have a 9 storey apartment block in the middle of a 1-2 storey residential area in Roseville. I appreciate that a detailed study was undertaken by Hyecorp and assessed as low except for immediate areas, however Roseville is a relatively small suburb and this apartment block will be a constant eye sore for its local residents.
This is especially so as Martin Lane is a key alternate connection between Roseville and Lindfield. The martin lane corridor will become a major “choke point” cause by the location of this development. This will be even worse during the expected 2 year construction phase, with limitations on parking and movement of heavy vehicles leading to major traffic congestion.
In addition, the removal of 91 trees may adversely impact the temperature of the road and surrounding area creating an urban heat island during summer. The loss of foliage may also reduce the visual appeal of the area.
In summary this development should not proceed in the proposed location.

I DO NOT support the project for the reasons outlined in the attached submission

As a resident of Lindfield I object Development SSD-84877206 for a number of reasons
1. Private development of flats does not meet the definition of 'State Significant Development' and therefore cannot legally be summited under a SSD or SEPP
2. Neither the NSW Government nor Ku Ring Gai council have made meaningful investigations or conclusions regarding impacts on traffic, parking, amenity to existing surrounding residents, solar access, infrastructure impacts or public transportation of this development or all other TOD/SEPP/Alternative Ku Ring Gai medium density rezoning
3. There is a clear conflict of duty with Ku Ring Gai councillors in their proposed medium density rezoning that needs to be investigated by ICAC before the damage is done
4. There is prima facie oversupply of units in Roseville already, so development of more units, rather than a more considered approach to sustainable and liveable medium density housing, such as townhouses and dual occupancy, must be undertaken and legislated
5. The NSW Government is at risk of destroying the very essence of liveability in Sydney, in addition to houses that are over a century old, by rushing through ill considered and deeply unappealing housing
6. This plan is non-compliant with the revised Ku Ring Gai TOD alternative, resulting in the worst of all worlds where planning can be approved under TOD, SSD or Ku Ring Gai alternative plans

I am writing to express my strong objection to the proposed Hyecorp development application under the TOD scheme in Eastside Roseville.
I think the application should not proceed until Council’s Preferred Scenario is resolved.

I believe this project is totally out of character for the area in which it is proposed. 1.It is in a Heritage Conservation Area recognised by Ku -ring- gai Council. This area has been studied by at least 4 independent Heritage experts. I do not believe the government wishes to undermine these HCAs.This proposed development ( up to nine storeys ) would adjoin one and two storey houses and totally erode this intact conservation area as 9 contributory houses would have to be demolished.
2.I understand that this application has been lodged under the TOD scheme, the ridiculous planning instrument that drew circles around railway stations throughout Sydney with no thought of the impact it would have on neighbourhoods. Ku-ring-gai Council has prepared its own Preferred Scenerio to be approved by the government so I believe this development cannot be assessed until this is finalised.
3. I understand that we need more housing in Sydney including Roseville but believe we can plan better. The earliest of our buildings are along the railway line hence our HCAs but there are other parts of Roseville that have good transport links that would be improved by some development.
4. I only initially heard about this proposed development from a Roseville resident who lives near the site. I could not believe the size and scale of the planned buildings ! I would have liked to have attended the Community drop in session held by the developer Hyecorp to learn more about this proposal but knew nothing about it. What a pity ! I have received no information from Hyecorp !
5.Roseville is an old suburb with old infrastructure, water, sewerage etc. This proposed development adjoins Martins Lane, a narrow road that is used as a rat run to the city by people from the north.I cannot imagine what effect this development will have on the traffic trying to exit Roseville.

I am writing to object to the development SSD-78996460 - 16-24 Lord Street & 21-27 Roseville Avenue, Roseville. I have lived in Roseville for the last 9 years and I live 200m from the proposed development.

The main reasons behind my objection are:
1) Eastside Roseville roads are already at saturation point as there are limited exit points to main roads
2) There is no sizeable commuter parking in Roseville and no obvious place to build one. Roseville streets are already fully parked out during the day due to commuter traffic
3) There are no maintstream supermarkets in Roseville – which mean people need cars to do their grocery shopping
4) There has been no community engagement on this project despite the developer claiming there has been
5) There is no consideration that this development is the middle of a heritage area and a 9 story building is completely out of character with the buildings in the surrounding streets

Refer to attached Word document for additional detail.