State Significant Development
Response to Submissions
Residential development with in-fill affordable housing, 16-24 Lord Street & 21-27 Roseville Avenue, Roseville
Ku-ring-gai
Current Status: Response to Submissions
Interact with the stages for their names
- SEARs
- Prepare EIS
- Exhibition
- Collate Submissions
- Response to Submissions
- Assessment
- Recommendation
- Determination
Want to stay updated on this project?
Residential flat building development with in-fill affordable housing
Attachments & Resources
Notice of Exhibition (1)
Request for SEARs (3)
SEARs (2)
EIS (38)
Exhibition (1)
Response to Submissions (1)
Agency Advice (8)
Submissions
Showing 141 - 160 of 400 submissions
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
ROSEVILLE
,
New South Wales
Message
Re: Residential development with in-fill affordable housing, 16-24 Lord Street & 21-27 Roseville Avenue, Roseville (SSD-78996460)
Kelburn Road Roseville NSW 2069
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.
TOD planning controls were introduced without public consultation and are to be set aside when the Council's Preferred Scenario is adopted.
I am supportive 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.
We never received Hyecorp’s community flyer in the first week of March 2025 and before 12 March. And to this date never received anything in relation to this development. Furthemore I did not know there was a community drop in session at Lindfield Seniors Centre/Community Hall between 4-630pm on Wed 12 March.
Overall having an up to 9 storey development in that specific area makes zero sense. It will negatively impact the existing neighbourhood which are only 1-2 storey homes, and will not work with the preferred scenario that council is currently identifying.
There is a negative impact on the heritage conservation area, and the infrastructure does not work today - Martin Lane is already overloaded, so the development and sustained success of this development will be problematic. There is already significant congestion with all the schools and limited road options.
There are many other spaces that Hyecorp could look at in the area of Roseville/Lindield/Killara/Gordon, I strongly request a rethink of this location and the NSW Major Projects group understanding the complexities of this site.
Kelburn Road Roseville NSW 2069
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.
TOD planning controls were introduced without public consultation and are to be set aside when the Council's Preferred Scenario is adopted.
I am supportive 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.
We never received Hyecorp’s community flyer in the first week of March 2025 and before 12 March. And to this date never received anything in relation to this development. Furthemore I did not know there was a community drop in session at Lindfield Seniors Centre/Community Hall between 4-630pm on Wed 12 March.
Overall having an up to 9 storey development in that specific area makes zero sense. It will negatively impact the existing neighbourhood which are only 1-2 storey homes, and will not work with the preferred scenario that council is currently identifying.
There is a negative impact on the heritage conservation area, and the infrastructure does not work today - Martin Lane is already overloaded, so the development and sustained success of this development will be problematic. There is already significant congestion with all the schools and limited road options.
There are many other spaces that Hyecorp could look at in the area of Roseville/Lindield/Killara/Gordon, I strongly request a rethink of this location and the NSW Major Projects group understanding the complexities of this site.
Oliver Smith
Object
Oliver Smith
Object
ROSEVILLE
,
New South Wales
Message
- The Hyecorp development is too large for these residential streets
- It will lead to traffic and parking chaos both during development and once built
- The height will overshadow so many of the lovely heritage homes
- I object to the number of established trees that will have to be destroyed to build such a development
- Roseville has maintained such a beautiful architectural character because the council has maintained very high standards. This development should be judged by local council who understand the area not the state government
- It will lead to traffic and parking chaos both during development and once built
- The height will overshadow so many of the lovely heritage homes
- I object to the number of established trees that will have to be destroyed to build such a development
- Roseville has maintained such a beautiful architectural character because the council has maintained very high standards. This development should be judged by local council who understand the area not the state government
Isabella Meagher
Object
Isabella Meagher
Object
ROSEVILLE
,
New South Wales
Message
I wish to make a submission to object to the Residential development with in-fill affordable housing, 16-24 Lord Street and 21-27 Roseville Avenue Roseville 2069 (SSD-78996460).
My name is Isabella Meagher and I live at 59 Lord Street Roseville, approximately 340m from this development. I have grown up and lived in Roseville with my parents and 3 siblings for over 20 years, we moved to this area to have more space for the family. I have loved growing up in this community, with its green open space, ability to get to school easily and playing with my local friends and neighbours.
This Hyecorp Development submitted under the NSW Government TOD plans radically changes the community I live in and destroys the heritage aspects that we love, and that the Kuringgai Council and its residents have always tried to protect. The NSW TOD plans were instigated without any community consultation, and then Kuringgai Council were given permission to come up with a Preferred Scenario which would better suit this area. Under the Preferred Scenario, which has had extensive community consultation, and which is being finalised at Council, this Roseville development would not be allowed. Therefore it makes no sense that this Development is permitted, as it would end up being the only Development of its kind in its proximity. It is not fair if the NSW Government does not consider Kuringgai Council’s Preferred Scenario when assessing this Hyecorp Development. I support the Council’s Preferred Scenario as it suits the heritage values, and environmental objectives of its residents.
My household received a Hyecorp flyer sometime in late March, it came as a surprise and initiated much discussion in my family. We did not receive any invitation to a public meeting. We were shocked to see such a large development intended for the suburb, which will sit next to and overwhelm a Heritage Scout Hall.
The size of this development at 9 storeys is an aberration on the suburb, especially when there will be no other developments of its kind in this East side of Roseville once the Preferred Scenario is adopted. This development is bordered by Lord St, Roseville Ave, and Martin Lane. Martin lane is effectively a one way street when cars are parked on either side of the road, which is often as train commuters use it to park their cars. It is also a very busy lane as it’s a suburb rat-run for cars. The local streets around this Development are already full with commuters’ cars, already busy during peak hours with cars and with drop offs at the train station and nearby Roseville College. There are few exits from Roseville to the existing arterial roads and these too are absolutely congested every weekday and even more so on Saturdays. This Development does nothing to alleviate this problem, just makes the traffic situation worse.
As a local I know the metro tunnels run under the block where this Development is proposed, and I believe the Developer has chosen this area so as to avoid the cost of building over the tunnel. If this Development goes ahead then where is the foresight for any extensions of the tunnel? Also if other developers won’t build next to this Development due to the difficulty or cost, then we have no transition between a 9 storey building and single storey homes, and with that comes overshadowing and lack of privacy.
I am a young person and I wish to own a property some day, however these “luxury residential developments from the ground up on Sydney’s Lower North Shore” are not intended for me. They will be too expensive for the first home buyer, and for the average wage earner in Sydney. The 48 affordable rentals, out of 259 apartments, that they are offering, are also not “affordable”. This Development is not in the public’s interest, it’s all about maximising profit for the Developer, while destroying the established suburban, family-style lifestyle.
The Hyecorp Development in Roseville does not fit in with its surrounds nor does it enhance the suburb. It’s massive construction and impacts on local infrastructure will have negative results. The proposal does not align with Kuringgai Council’s Preferred Scenario to TOD, it will not deliver affordable or sustainable housing and it is opposed by most local residents.
My name is Isabella Meagher and I live at 59 Lord Street Roseville, approximately 340m from this development. I have grown up and lived in Roseville with my parents and 3 siblings for over 20 years, we moved to this area to have more space for the family. I have loved growing up in this community, with its green open space, ability to get to school easily and playing with my local friends and neighbours.
This Hyecorp Development submitted under the NSW Government TOD plans radically changes the community I live in and destroys the heritage aspects that we love, and that the Kuringgai Council and its residents have always tried to protect. The NSW TOD plans were instigated without any community consultation, and then Kuringgai Council were given permission to come up with a Preferred Scenario which would better suit this area. Under the Preferred Scenario, which has had extensive community consultation, and which is being finalised at Council, this Roseville development would not be allowed. Therefore it makes no sense that this Development is permitted, as it would end up being the only Development of its kind in its proximity. It is not fair if the NSW Government does not consider Kuringgai Council’s Preferred Scenario when assessing this Hyecorp Development. I support the Council’s Preferred Scenario as it suits the heritage values, and environmental objectives of its residents.
My household received a Hyecorp flyer sometime in late March, it came as a surprise and initiated much discussion in my family. We did not receive any invitation to a public meeting. We were shocked to see such a large development intended for the suburb, which will sit next to and overwhelm a Heritage Scout Hall.
The size of this development at 9 storeys is an aberration on the suburb, especially when there will be no other developments of its kind in this East side of Roseville once the Preferred Scenario is adopted. This development is bordered by Lord St, Roseville Ave, and Martin Lane. Martin lane is effectively a one way street when cars are parked on either side of the road, which is often as train commuters use it to park their cars. It is also a very busy lane as it’s a suburb rat-run for cars. The local streets around this Development are already full with commuters’ cars, already busy during peak hours with cars and with drop offs at the train station and nearby Roseville College. There are few exits from Roseville to the existing arterial roads and these too are absolutely congested every weekday and even more so on Saturdays. This Development does nothing to alleviate this problem, just makes the traffic situation worse.
As a local I know the metro tunnels run under the block where this Development is proposed, and I believe the Developer has chosen this area so as to avoid the cost of building over the tunnel. If this Development goes ahead then where is the foresight for any extensions of the tunnel? Also if other developers won’t build next to this Development due to the difficulty or cost, then we have no transition between a 9 storey building and single storey homes, and with that comes overshadowing and lack of privacy.
I am a young person and I wish to own a property some day, however these “luxury residential developments from the ground up on Sydney’s Lower North Shore” are not intended for me. They will be too expensive for the first home buyer, and for the average wage earner in Sydney. The 48 affordable rentals, out of 259 apartments, that they are offering, are also not “affordable”. This Development is not in the public’s interest, it’s all about maximising profit for the Developer, while destroying the established suburban, family-style lifestyle.
The Hyecorp Development in Roseville does not fit in with its surrounds nor does it enhance the suburb. It’s massive construction and impacts on local infrastructure will have negative results. The proposal does not align with Kuringgai Council’s Preferred Scenario to TOD, it will not deliver affordable or sustainable housing and it is opposed by most local residents.
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
ROSEVILLE
,
New South Wales
Message
JS
Roseville 2069
Objection to Eastside Roseville Hyecorp Development
RE: Residential development with in-fill affordable housing, 16-24 Lord Street & 21-27 Roseville Avenue, Roseville (SSD-78996460).
I currently live about 1 kilometre away from the site proposed.
My objection to this development is based on the fact that I do not believe it is in the public interest to have such an enormous building in a residential area.
There would be a huge impact on the access points in and out of the area. The parking would be untenable and the roads would be congested. There are already very narrow roads around this area and adding this amount of traffic would create safety issues.
I have not been given any information from Hyecorp on this development and did not receive a flyer or other information despite living in close proximity.
The height of this building is completely out of line with all other buildings in the area and would be an eyesore.
I am also concerned about the demolition of lovely family homes, trees and green areas that would been removed and community spaces that would be affected.
I am aware there is a submission by the council for a preferred scenario for the area which preserves the heritage character and still allows for some new housing. I would support this.
Roseville 2069
Objection to Eastside Roseville Hyecorp Development
RE: Residential development with in-fill affordable housing, 16-24 Lord Street & 21-27 Roseville Avenue, Roseville (SSD-78996460).
I currently live about 1 kilometre away from the site proposed.
My objection to this development is based on the fact that I do not believe it is in the public interest to have such an enormous building in a residential area.
There would be a huge impact on the access points in and out of the area. The parking would be untenable and the roads would be congested. There are already very narrow roads around this area and adding this amount of traffic would create safety issues.
I have not been given any information from Hyecorp on this development and did not receive a flyer or other information despite living in close proximity.
The height of this building is completely out of line with all other buildings in the area and would be an eyesore.
I am also concerned about the demolition of lovely family homes, trees and green areas that would been removed and community spaces that would be affected.
I am aware there is a submission by the council for a preferred scenario for the area which preserves the heritage character and still allows for some new housing. I would support this.
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
ROSEVILLE
,
New South Wales
Message
we object to the project because it will greatly increase the traffic in the area and cause safety problems to the Roseville College and all the girls in the college.
Chris Haynes
Object
Chris Haynes
Object
Roseville
,
New South Wales
Message
“Re: Residential development with in-fill affordable housing, 16-24 Lord Street & 21-27 Roseville Avenue, Roseville (SSD-78996460)”.
I urge the state government to reject this proposed development because there has been NO DUE PROCESS, NO COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT, NO INFORMATION AND NO CONSIDERATION FOR THE AREA. I urge the State Government to consider Ku-ring-gai Council's preferred scenario and they stick to the letter of the law when considering every development proposal in the area. What is the rush? Build considered and safe homes in Roseville.
• My name is Chris Haynes. I live at 3 Belgium Ave, Roseville—approximately 200 metres from the above development proposal.
• This application, lodged under the TOD scheme, is NOT in the public interest, and should NOT be further progressed or determined until the Council’s Preferred Scenario is resolved.
• Hyecorp’s development proposal has been shrouded in secrecy and inconsistencies. Why? Why not follow proper process and engage with the community? What do they have to hide?
• I never received any communication from Hyecorp regarding this proposal – I never received a community flyer and I live within 200 metres of the proposed development. I was never made aware of any communications by Hyecorp. Hyecorp has never engaged with me on any level. I only heard about this proposal through word of mouth.
o I was never made aware of the session at Lindfield Seniors Centre/Community Hall between 4:00-6:30pm on Wed 12 March 2025,
o I was never made aware of the dedicated project pages on the Hyecorp website prior to 25 March 2025 or after that;
o I was never made aware of the community survey on the Hyecorp website.
• Why is the State Government rushing through poorly researched SSD’s? What do they have to hide? There has been NO TRANSPARENCY and PROPER PROCESS AROUND THIS APPLICATION.
• Hyecorp can’t put together a considered, transparent and correctly investigated SSD for the government. Does this mean their buildings will be as poorly built as their application? If they can’t get paperwork right, how can they build a ten-story apartment block without problems?
• This area of Roseville (along with many areas of Sydney) has been preserved for over 100 years for the benefit of Sydney, akin to Surry Hills and the Rocks in Sydney.
• The current TOD is inappropriate for this area and does not recognise the unique qualities of the area.
• The council’s preferred scenario (which provides more affordable housing than the current TOD) will provide the necessary density and preserve this area
• The proposal should be rejected on the following grounds
o Height and built form
The proposal is of such a height and size that is out of place for the area. There will be significant overshadowing of adjoining properties, impacting their access to the sun. It will dominate the street in a way which will destroy the heritage conservation area it is located in, with 1-2 story heritage homes the dominant built form.
I also question its location over both the metro and rail tunnels. Whether this is appropriate and safe during construction. If there needs to be any additions or changes to the metro in the future, this development will hinder that prospect.
I understand there are significant development constraints at surrounding sites because of the metro tunnel. This will mean this proposal will be left on its own, surrounded by 1 and 2 storey houses.
o Traffic and congestion
The area of Eastside Roseville is constrained by parking and traffic already. There are limited entry and exit points. These become significantly congested every day. Hill Street and Clanville road exits already have long lines of cars everyday looking to exit the area. The location of Roseville College makes this especially difficult. These are significant safety issues with extra people proposed
During weekdays, the public uses most of the available parking in the local streets to catch the train and Metro. The Hyecorp development will make the situation significantly worse. People park at Roseville to catch the train and the Metro
o Flora and Fauna
In Eastside Roseville, there are significant populations of ring-tailed and brushtail possums, cockatoos, Magpies, Brush Turkeys, amongst other small marsupials. This site contains more than 90 trees, and the destruction of those trees will no doubt impact the wildlife population.
o Heritage
The site is in the middle of three heritage conservation areas, with 54 heritage-listed houses nearby; the demolition of 9 houses that contribute to these heritage conservation areas. There is no regard of the impact of the development on these very special areas.
I urge the state government to reject this proposed development because there has been NO DUE PROCESS, NO COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT, NO INFORMATION AND NO CONSIDERATION FOR THE AREA. I urge the State Government to consider Ku-ring-gai Council's preferred scenario and they stick to the letter of the law when considering every development proposal in the area. What is the rush? Build considered and safe homes in Roseville.
I urge the state government to reject this proposed development because there has been NO DUE PROCESS, NO COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT, NO INFORMATION AND NO CONSIDERATION FOR THE AREA. I urge the State Government to consider Ku-ring-gai Council's preferred scenario and they stick to the letter of the law when considering every development proposal in the area. What is the rush? Build considered and safe homes in Roseville.
• My name is Chris Haynes. I live at 3 Belgium Ave, Roseville—approximately 200 metres from the above development proposal.
• This application, lodged under the TOD scheme, is NOT in the public interest, and should NOT be further progressed or determined until the Council’s Preferred Scenario is resolved.
• Hyecorp’s development proposal has been shrouded in secrecy and inconsistencies. Why? Why not follow proper process and engage with the community? What do they have to hide?
• I never received any communication from Hyecorp regarding this proposal – I never received a community flyer and I live within 200 metres of the proposed development. I was never made aware of any communications by Hyecorp. Hyecorp has never engaged with me on any level. I only heard about this proposal through word of mouth.
o I was never made aware of the session at Lindfield Seniors Centre/Community Hall between 4:00-6:30pm on Wed 12 March 2025,
o I was never made aware of the dedicated project pages on the Hyecorp website prior to 25 March 2025 or after that;
o I was never made aware of the community survey on the Hyecorp website.
• Why is the State Government rushing through poorly researched SSD’s? What do they have to hide? There has been NO TRANSPARENCY and PROPER PROCESS AROUND THIS APPLICATION.
• Hyecorp can’t put together a considered, transparent and correctly investigated SSD for the government. Does this mean their buildings will be as poorly built as their application? If they can’t get paperwork right, how can they build a ten-story apartment block without problems?
• This area of Roseville (along with many areas of Sydney) has been preserved for over 100 years for the benefit of Sydney, akin to Surry Hills and the Rocks in Sydney.
• The current TOD is inappropriate for this area and does not recognise the unique qualities of the area.
• The council’s preferred scenario (which provides more affordable housing than the current TOD) will provide the necessary density and preserve this area
• The proposal should be rejected on the following grounds
o Height and built form
The proposal is of such a height and size that is out of place for the area. There will be significant overshadowing of adjoining properties, impacting their access to the sun. It will dominate the street in a way which will destroy the heritage conservation area it is located in, with 1-2 story heritage homes the dominant built form.
I also question its location over both the metro and rail tunnels. Whether this is appropriate and safe during construction. If there needs to be any additions or changes to the metro in the future, this development will hinder that prospect.
I understand there are significant development constraints at surrounding sites because of the metro tunnel. This will mean this proposal will be left on its own, surrounded by 1 and 2 storey houses.
o Traffic and congestion
The area of Eastside Roseville is constrained by parking and traffic already. There are limited entry and exit points. These become significantly congested every day. Hill Street and Clanville road exits already have long lines of cars everyday looking to exit the area. The location of Roseville College makes this especially difficult. These are significant safety issues with extra people proposed
During weekdays, the public uses most of the available parking in the local streets to catch the train and Metro. The Hyecorp development will make the situation significantly worse. People park at Roseville to catch the train and the Metro
o Flora and Fauna
In Eastside Roseville, there are significant populations of ring-tailed and brushtail possums, cockatoos, Magpies, Brush Turkeys, amongst other small marsupials. This site contains more than 90 trees, and the destruction of those trees will no doubt impact the wildlife population.
o Heritage
The site is in the middle of three heritage conservation areas, with 54 heritage-listed houses nearby; the demolition of 9 houses that contribute to these heritage conservation areas. There is no regard of the impact of the development on these very special areas.
I urge the state government to reject this proposed development because there has been NO DUE PROCESS, NO COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT, NO INFORMATION AND NO CONSIDERATION FOR THE AREA. I urge the State Government to consider Ku-ring-gai Council's preferred scenario and they stick to the letter of the law when considering every development proposal in the area. What is the rush? Build considered and safe homes in Roseville.
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
ROSEVILLE
,
New South Wales
Message
We strongly object to the proposal. It should be refused.
Our reasons include;
1. the excessive bulk & scale of the proposal is completely out of character & will significantly affect the area. Currently the built form is generally 1-2 storeys (not 9 storeys). The argument for a cl 4.6 variation is not made out.
2. the proposal will have significant, irretrievable & adverse impacts on heritage and the Heritage conservation areas (3 HCAs, 54 heritage listed items nearby & scout hall next door). The 9 houses proposed to be demolished contribute to the HCAs.
3. there will be adverse visual impact from many different view points. This would be an "eye sore" in the immediate & surrounding areas.
4. there would be a detrimental impact on amenity - the height will result in overshadowing & loss of privacy
5. the proposal would result in adverse impacts on traffic & parking. This area, especially Martin Lane, is already congested & at times dangerous, with the use as a local "rat run". Buses use this area. Parking is already well taken up & increasing with the use of the metro.
6. the proposal would result in a very large loss of trees (91 trees to be removed)
7. it is completely inconsistent with & contrary to the Council's preferred scenario & planning for East Roseville & the KLGA. We support the preferred scenario. This proposal would undermine planning for KLGA & the preferred scenario. The preferred scenario is the result of considered planning & community consultation, unlike this proposal. The preferred scenario provides for sites which are more appropriate for increased density & development & also provides for transition. We understand that the preferred scenario meets the Government's dwelling capacity requirements. The preferred scenario should be given weight. The proposal does not properly refer to or reflect the future character of the area or the content of the preferred scenario.
8.there has been inadequate community consultation & engagement on the proposal, which if carried out would/should have informed the form & design of the proposal
9. there are constraints due to the Metro Tunnel which affect the development in the immediate area & may also affect the suitability of this site to
10. the proposal does not meet aims of the Australian Design Guide
11. the proposal is not in the public interest. There is enormous opposition to the proposal given the many impacts that it would have on the the immediate & surrounding area & the planning provided for in the preferred scenario.
Our reasons include;
1. the excessive bulk & scale of the proposal is completely out of character & will significantly affect the area. Currently the built form is generally 1-2 storeys (not 9 storeys). The argument for a cl 4.6 variation is not made out.
2. the proposal will have significant, irretrievable & adverse impacts on heritage and the Heritage conservation areas (3 HCAs, 54 heritage listed items nearby & scout hall next door). The 9 houses proposed to be demolished contribute to the HCAs.
3. there will be adverse visual impact from many different view points. This would be an "eye sore" in the immediate & surrounding areas.
4. there would be a detrimental impact on amenity - the height will result in overshadowing & loss of privacy
5. the proposal would result in adverse impacts on traffic & parking. This area, especially Martin Lane, is already congested & at times dangerous, with the use as a local "rat run". Buses use this area. Parking is already well taken up & increasing with the use of the metro.
6. the proposal would result in a very large loss of trees (91 trees to be removed)
7. it is completely inconsistent with & contrary to the Council's preferred scenario & planning for East Roseville & the KLGA. We support the preferred scenario. This proposal would undermine planning for KLGA & the preferred scenario. The preferred scenario is the result of considered planning & community consultation, unlike this proposal. The preferred scenario provides for sites which are more appropriate for increased density & development & also provides for transition. We understand that the preferred scenario meets the Government's dwelling capacity requirements. The preferred scenario should be given weight. The proposal does not properly refer to or reflect the future character of the area or the content of the preferred scenario.
8.there has been inadequate community consultation & engagement on the proposal, which if carried out would/should have informed the form & design of the proposal
9. there are constraints due to the Metro Tunnel which affect the development in the immediate area & may also affect the suitability of this site to
10. the proposal does not meet aims of the Australian Design Guide
11. the proposal is not in the public interest. There is enormous opposition to the proposal given the many impacts that it would have on the the immediate & surrounding area & the planning provided for in the preferred scenario.
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
ROSEVILLE
,
New South Wales
Message
This development will have a significant impact on the surrounding houses and is totally unsuitable for this part of Roseville. The proposed revised housing proposal from Kuringgai Council has no such developments in this area of Roseville Ave and Lord St. It should not proceed
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
ROSEVILLE
,
New South Wales
Message
Please see attached document for details of my objection.
Thank you
Thank you
Attachments
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
ROSEVILLE
,
New South Wales
Message
Regarding : Residential development with in-fill affordable housing. 16-24 Lord Street &21-27 Roseville Avenue , Roseville 2069
SSD-78996460
Dear Sir/ Madam,
I am writing to object to the above mentioned SSD-78996460 at Roseville NSW 2069.
These are the reasons for my objection.
1.There has been a breach of several procedural processes. They are:
i) This application has been submitted while Ku-ring Gai Council and the NSW Department of Planning, Housing, and Infrastructure (DPHI) are still in the process of reviewing the Preferred Scenario, which is the Council’s response to the Transport Oriented Development (TOD)
ii) As a result, the residents of Roseville have not been given the opportunity for community engagement. In fact, the residents of Roseville were not consulted about TOD. However, Ku-ring- gai Council has involved the community while it prepares the Preferred Scenario.
iii) Hyecorp has not engaged the community adequately. For example in my home, we did Not receive ANY notification about their proposed development as outlined in SSD 78996460. This means we didn’t get any notifications about the community drop in session on 12 March 2025. If it had not been for our neighbours, we would have been oblivious to this proposal. As a result we were unaware of the community survey on the Hyecorp website.
2. a) The SSD has not taken into account the escalation in traffic in Roseville, particularly since the Metro opened. Local residents are finding it difficult to park their cars around Roseville Station because residents as far as the Northern Beaches are parking here to catch the Metro as it’s just one stop from here to Chatswood.
b) Those involved in the SSD have not taken into account how difficult it is for traffic to currently move in an out of Martin Lane, ( which is where one end of the 9 storey development is proposed). Cars park on either side of this narrow lane. Oftentimes, we have observed buses and large vans having to reverse out of the lane to let oncoming traffic through.
c) The SSD has not taken into account the already difficult and dangerous intersections in Roseville under current conditions. For example, there was a fatal accident recently at the junction of Clanville Road and Pacific Highway, where a car crashed into the Kia Showroom. As residents, we have complained about the dangers of this intersection to the Traffic authorities, with no success. We can’t see the situation improving. In fact it will no doubt worsen if another 250 or more vehicles are to be added to Roseville.
3. The site is proposed in the middle of three heritage conservation areas . There are 54 heritage listed houses close by. This along with the loss of 91 trees to make way for this development is going to further erode the historic value of a part of Sydney that has long been believed to the ‘lungs of Sydney.’
4. Parking is already stretched to the limit in Roseville. Students and staff from Roseville College still continue to use up most of the parking on Bancroft Avenue, Glencroft Avenue, and Lord Street. This proposed SSD has not provided adequate parking for its residents, let alone guests. So the residents of this proposed development will spill over onto streets that are already busting at the seams during peak hour.
In conclusion, I would once again like to state that I object to this SSD because it is in breach of the democratic planning processes. Also, I question why this development should even be considered a state significant development when it’s threatening to destroy the unique biodiversity and heritage of a part of Sydney.
I therefore ask the DPHI to refuse this SSD and request the Department to support Ku-ring -gai’s evidence -based and consultative planning as proposed in the Preferred Scenario. This proposal provides suggestions of developments that are viable in Roseville, particularly on Hill Street.
Yours sincerely,
SSD-78996460
Dear Sir/ Madam,
I am writing to object to the above mentioned SSD-78996460 at Roseville NSW 2069.
These are the reasons for my objection.
1.There has been a breach of several procedural processes. They are:
i) This application has been submitted while Ku-ring Gai Council and the NSW Department of Planning, Housing, and Infrastructure (DPHI) are still in the process of reviewing the Preferred Scenario, which is the Council’s response to the Transport Oriented Development (TOD)
ii) As a result, the residents of Roseville have not been given the opportunity for community engagement. In fact, the residents of Roseville were not consulted about TOD. However, Ku-ring- gai Council has involved the community while it prepares the Preferred Scenario.
iii) Hyecorp has not engaged the community adequately. For example in my home, we did Not receive ANY notification about their proposed development as outlined in SSD 78996460. This means we didn’t get any notifications about the community drop in session on 12 March 2025. If it had not been for our neighbours, we would have been oblivious to this proposal. As a result we were unaware of the community survey on the Hyecorp website.
2. a) The SSD has not taken into account the escalation in traffic in Roseville, particularly since the Metro opened. Local residents are finding it difficult to park their cars around Roseville Station because residents as far as the Northern Beaches are parking here to catch the Metro as it’s just one stop from here to Chatswood.
b) Those involved in the SSD have not taken into account how difficult it is for traffic to currently move in an out of Martin Lane, ( which is where one end of the 9 storey development is proposed). Cars park on either side of this narrow lane. Oftentimes, we have observed buses and large vans having to reverse out of the lane to let oncoming traffic through.
c) The SSD has not taken into account the already difficult and dangerous intersections in Roseville under current conditions. For example, there was a fatal accident recently at the junction of Clanville Road and Pacific Highway, where a car crashed into the Kia Showroom. As residents, we have complained about the dangers of this intersection to the Traffic authorities, with no success. We can’t see the situation improving. In fact it will no doubt worsen if another 250 or more vehicles are to be added to Roseville.
3. The site is proposed in the middle of three heritage conservation areas . There are 54 heritage listed houses close by. This along with the loss of 91 trees to make way for this development is going to further erode the historic value of a part of Sydney that has long been believed to the ‘lungs of Sydney.’
4. Parking is already stretched to the limit in Roseville. Students and staff from Roseville College still continue to use up most of the parking on Bancroft Avenue, Glencroft Avenue, and Lord Street. This proposed SSD has not provided adequate parking for its residents, let alone guests. So the residents of this proposed development will spill over onto streets that are already busting at the seams during peak hour.
In conclusion, I would once again like to state that I object to this SSD because it is in breach of the democratic planning processes. Also, I question why this development should even be considered a state significant development when it’s threatening to destroy the unique biodiversity and heritage of a part of Sydney.
I therefore ask the DPHI to refuse this SSD and request the Department to support Ku-ring -gai’s evidence -based and consultative planning as proposed in the Preferred Scenario. This proposal provides suggestions of developments that are viable in Roseville, particularly on Hill Street.
Yours sincerely,
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
ROSEVILLE
,
New South Wales
Message
Under the TOD planning controls are not in the public interest
.I (nor my household received any correspondence regarding this matter at ANY TIME from HYE CORP on this matter
Knowledge was only obtained by word of mouth and community action
As an Economist, a long term resident and in close (300m) proximity to the site MY OBJECTIONS are :
1. Height of development and mass of structure
2. Traffic and parking congestion and pressure on public facilities ie roads, stations, parks and SCHOOLS and access to station and shops
3. Removal of vegetation and trees
4. Loss of residential and heritage character of local and surrounding area.
5 Imposition of 'social engineering policy' rather than 'economic policy'
6. Impact and long term detrimental construction impact
.I (nor my household received any correspondence regarding this matter at ANY TIME from HYE CORP on this matter
Knowledge was only obtained by word of mouth and community action
As an Economist, a long term resident and in close (300m) proximity to the site MY OBJECTIONS are :
1. Height of development and mass of structure
2. Traffic and parking congestion and pressure on public facilities ie roads, stations, parks and SCHOOLS and access to station and shops
3. Removal of vegetation and trees
4. Loss of residential and heritage character of local and surrounding area.
5 Imposition of 'social engineering policy' rather than 'economic policy'
6. Impact and long term detrimental construction impact
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
ROSEVILLE
,
New South Wales
Message
Regarding : Residential development with in-fill affordable housing. 16-24 Lord Street &21-27 Roseville Avenue , Roseville 2069
SSD-78996460
Dear Sir/ Madam,
I am writing to object to the above mentioned SSD-78996460 at Roseville NSW 2069.
These are the reasons for my objection.
1. This SSD should not be progressed any further because the application has been submitted while the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure (DPHI) and Ku-ring-gai are still in discussions about the council’s proposed Preferred Scenario, which takes into consideration of how the Transport Orientated Development can be applied to cater for the unique biodiversity and heritage listed homes in Roseville. In the Preferred Scenario, which was prepared in consultation with residents, the Council has proposed development sites on Hill Street, which would not compromise the streetscape of 54 homes listed as heritage -listed in the vicinity of the proposed SSD.
2. The SSD has chosen these 9 properties because of the constraints at surrounding sites (closer to the station) which cannot be developed because of the Metro tunnel reserves. As a result, Lord Street in particular, will change significantly with an isolated island of potentially another 3 towers, as well as this proposal, with 1-2 storey houses stuck in between.
3. The SSD has not taken a recent traffic report of what current traffic conditions look like in significant intersections in Roseville. Currently, traffic congestion at the junction of Clanville Road and Pacific Highway at peak hours is significant. On the east side, Cars bank up all the way from this junction to The Grove. At Hill street the cars can bank almost up to the pedestrian crossing at Roseville Station. Also, recently there was a fatality at the junction of Clanville Road and Pacific Highway when a car crashed into the Kia showroom.
4. The SSD has not taken into account that Martin Lane is so narrow that when cars are parked on both sides during the week, buses and larger vehicles have to reverse out of Martin Lane to let oncoming traffic through.
5. The SSD has underestimated how difficult parking is on all major streets such as Lord Street, Roseville Avenue, The Grove, Oliver , Bancroft Avenue and Glencroft Avenue. These are streets where commuters, students and staff of Roseville College already use at capacity. Given that the proposed SSD has inadequate parking for its residents, leave alone guests, it’s difficult to imagine where all the extra cars will park.
6. The SSD has not taken into account that local residents cannot find parking at Hill street readily at all times of the day , seven days a week. This has become an issue ever since the Metro opened and residents as far as the Northern Beaches are using Roseville Station to catch the Metro at Chatswood. And during working hours, non-residents of Roseville are also parking on these streets to get to work.
7. There was inadequate community consultation by Hyecorp. None of the residents in our home received a notification about their community drop in session on 12 March 2025. Our neighbours alerted us to the proposed SSD. As a result we knew nothing about the community survey on the Hyecorp website.
I believe this SSD is in breach of the democratic planning process. The SSD has been submitted while the Department and Ku-ring-gai council are in consultative process and have yet to come to an agreement on how TOD should be applied in Roseville.
I therefore ask the DPHI to refuse this SSD and request the Department to support Ku-ring -gai’s evidence -based and consultative planning as proposed in the Preferred Scenario.
Yours sincerely,
SSD-78996460
Dear Sir/ Madam,
I am writing to object to the above mentioned SSD-78996460 at Roseville NSW 2069.
These are the reasons for my objection.
1. This SSD should not be progressed any further because the application has been submitted while the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure (DPHI) and Ku-ring-gai are still in discussions about the council’s proposed Preferred Scenario, which takes into consideration of how the Transport Orientated Development can be applied to cater for the unique biodiversity and heritage listed homes in Roseville. In the Preferred Scenario, which was prepared in consultation with residents, the Council has proposed development sites on Hill Street, which would not compromise the streetscape of 54 homes listed as heritage -listed in the vicinity of the proposed SSD.
2. The SSD has chosen these 9 properties because of the constraints at surrounding sites (closer to the station) which cannot be developed because of the Metro tunnel reserves. As a result, Lord Street in particular, will change significantly with an isolated island of potentially another 3 towers, as well as this proposal, with 1-2 storey houses stuck in between.
3. The SSD has not taken a recent traffic report of what current traffic conditions look like in significant intersections in Roseville. Currently, traffic congestion at the junction of Clanville Road and Pacific Highway at peak hours is significant. On the east side, Cars bank up all the way from this junction to The Grove. At Hill street the cars can bank almost up to the pedestrian crossing at Roseville Station. Also, recently there was a fatality at the junction of Clanville Road and Pacific Highway when a car crashed into the Kia showroom.
4. The SSD has not taken into account that Martin Lane is so narrow that when cars are parked on both sides during the week, buses and larger vehicles have to reverse out of Martin Lane to let oncoming traffic through.
5. The SSD has underestimated how difficult parking is on all major streets such as Lord Street, Roseville Avenue, The Grove, Oliver , Bancroft Avenue and Glencroft Avenue. These are streets where commuters, students and staff of Roseville College already use at capacity. Given that the proposed SSD has inadequate parking for its residents, leave alone guests, it’s difficult to imagine where all the extra cars will park.
6. The SSD has not taken into account that local residents cannot find parking at Hill street readily at all times of the day , seven days a week. This has become an issue ever since the Metro opened and residents as far as the Northern Beaches are using Roseville Station to catch the Metro at Chatswood. And during working hours, non-residents of Roseville are also parking on these streets to get to work.
7. There was inadequate community consultation by Hyecorp. None of the residents in our home received a notification about their community drop in session on 12 March 2025. Our neighbours alerted us to the proposed SSD. As a result we knew nothing about the community survey on the Hyecorp website.
I believe this SSD is in breach of the democratic planning process. The SSD has been submitted while the Department and Ku-ring-gai council are in consultative process and have yet to come to an agreement on how TOD should be applied in Roseville.
I therefore ask the DPHI to refuse this SSD and request the Department to support Ku-ring -gai’s evidence -based and consultative planning as proposed in the Preferred Scenario.
Yours sincerely,
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
Roseville
,
New South Wales
Message
I am supportive of the Councils preferred development planning that is able to consider impact on infrastructure, local heritage and other necessary considerations that impact those now and in long into the future. Development that is in inconsistent with local planning is not a desirable outcome.
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
ROSEVILLE
,
New South Wales
Message
I recently moved to Roseville with my partner and now live on Oliver Road, just a block away from the proposed Hyecorp development. I wish to express my concern that, at no point, have I—or any member of my household—received information from Hyecorp regarding this project. We were not invited to any presentation, nor were we offered the opportunity to participate in a survey. This lack of engagement represents a clear failure in community consultation and undermines the principles of transparency and fair process.
The introduction of the TOD (Transit-Oriented Development) planning controls occurred without meaningful community consultation and appears to be contrary to the Council’s Preferred Scenario, which is yet to be adopted. As a local resident and stakeholder, I deeply value the unique character of East Roseville—its extensive tree canopy, abundant birdlife, and natural environment, which is unlike anything I have experienced in city living before. It is distressing to consider that this precious environment may not be preserved for future generations due to unchecked urban densification.
I note that the Hyecorp proposal involves the construction of 259 dwellings and 309 car spaces, replacing nine existing homes. To meet the target of 5,680 new dwellings under the TOD framework, it is estimated that 180 existing homes could be lost, potentially introducing over 6,000 additional vehicles into the local area. This scale of change—proposed without proper consultation—is deeply concerning and raises serious questions about infrastructure capacity and community wellbeing.
As a refugee, I am particularly sensitive to the importance of inclusive and democratic processes. It is alarming to witness the community being excluded from such a significant decision-making process. In light of this, I strongly believe that this application—lodged under the TOD framework—should not proceed further or be determined until the Council’s Preferred Scenario has been finalised and proper community consultation has taken place.
The introduction of the TOD (Transit-Oriented Development) planning controls occurred without meaningful community consultation and appears to be contrary to the Council’s Preferred Scenario, which is yet to be adopted. As a local resident and stakeholder, I deeply value the unique character of East Roseville—its extensive tree canopy, abundant birdlife, and natural environment, which is unlike anything I have experienced in city living before. It is distressing to consider that this precious environment may not be preserved for future generations due to unchecked urban densification.
I note that the Hyecorp proposal involves the construction of 259 dwellings and 309 car spaces, replacing nine existing homes. To meet the target of 5,680 new dwellings under the TOD framework, it is estimated that 180 existing homes could be lost, potentially introducing over 6,000 additional vehicles into the local area. This scale of change—proposed without proper consultation—is deeply concerning and raises serious questions about infrastructure capacity and community wellbeing.
As a refugee, I am particularly sensitive to the importance of inclusive and democratic processes. It is alarming to witness the community being excluded from such a significant decision-making process. In light of this, I strongly believe that this application—lodged under the TOD framework—should not proceed further or be determined until the Council’s Preferred Scenario has been finalised and proper community consultation has taken place.
Kathleen Scott
Object
Kathleen Scott
Object
ROSEVILLE
,
New South Wales
Message
Please see attached Word document for details of my submission and one relevant photo.
Attachments
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
ROSEVILLE
,
New South Wales
Message
“Re: Residential development with in-fill affordable housing, 16-24 Lord Street & 21-27 Roseville Avenue, Roseville (SSD-78996460)”.
I live within 300 metres of the proposed development.
• I urge the state government to reject this proposed development on the basis that there has been NO DUE PROCESS, NO COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT, NO INFORMATION AND NO CONSIDERATION FOR THE HISTORY OF THE AREA.
• I urge the State Government to consider Ku-ring-gai Council's preferred scenario and asses this proposal with a merit based approach. This SSD has been rushed through. Many points in their proposal are incorrect, invalid and contradict the very idea of procedural fairness. What is the rush in getting this proposal approved? What do Hyecorp and the State Government have to hide?
• I urge the media to ask the questions: Does Paul Scully have ulterior motives for approving this development?
• This is why Sydney has so many issues with ‘new builds’. Because the government rush the applications through with NO PROPER PROCESS. Why do they do this? Why the secrecy?
• Development and affordable housing should be part of the Roseville landscape, but please, build considered and safe homes in Roseville.
• 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 would most definitely 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 and unpleasant already. With this proposed development, the crowding at the station and on the trains will be unbearable. Not only will the years and years of building work affect the community's 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 cut down to make way for this development. Roseville has many native animals living in the trees, where will they go now? There are better options under Ku-ring-gai Council’s preferred scenario.
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 with 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 has become impossible due to the new metro link that has recently opened. Roseville 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 due to its inconsistencies with the landscape and heritage of the area, the significant pressure it will place on the existing infrastructure and already congested traffic, not to mention the 'blot' on the landscape of such an apartment block. I urge the government to reject this proposal based on a lack of due process and a hurried application. The SSD contains numerous inconsistencies and errors and DOES NOT comply with the rules and regulations of the TOD process. There are better options under Ku-ring-gai Council’s PREFERRED SCENARIO that provide sufficient dwellings and more than meet the affordable housing commitment made by the government. I urge the government to reject this proposed development.
I live within 300 metres of the proposed development.
• I urge the state government to reject this proposed development on the basis that there has been NO DUE PROCESS, NO COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT, NO INFORMATION AND NO CONSIDERATION FOR THE HISTORY OF THE AREA.
• I urge the State Government to consider Ku-ring-gai Council's preferred scenario and asses this proposal with a merit based approach. This SSD has been rushed through. Many points in their proposal are incorrect, invalid and contradict the very idea of procedural fairness. What is the rush in getting this proposal approved? What do Hyecorp and the State Government have to hide?
• I urge the media to ask the questions: Does Paul Scully have ulterior motives for approving this development?
• This is why Sydney has so many issues with ‘new builds’. Because the government rush the applications through with NO PROPER PROCESS. Why do they do this? Why the secrecy?
• Development and affordable housing should be part of the Roseville landscape, but please, build considered and safe homes in Roseville.
• 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 would most definitely 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 and unpleasant already. With this proposed development, the crowding at the station and on the trains will be unbearable. Not only will the years and years of building work affect the community's 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 cut down to make way for this development. Roseville has many native animals living in the trees, where will they go now? There are better options under Ku-ring-gai Council’s preferred scenario.
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 with 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 has become impossible due to the new metro link that has recently opened. Roseville 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 due to its inconsistencies with the landscape and heritage of the area, the significant pressure it will place on the existing infrastructure and already congested traffic, not to mention the 'blot' on the landscape of such an apartment block. I urge the government to reject this proposal based on a lack of due process and a hurried application. The SSD contains numerous inconsistencies and errors and DOES NOT comply with the rules and regulations of the TOD process. There are better options under Ku-ring-gai Council’s PREFERRED SCENARIO that provide sufficient dwellings and more than meet the affordable housing commitment made by the government. I urge the government to reject this proposed development.
Attachments
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
ROSEVILLE
,
New South Wales
Message
I live approximately 200m from the proposed project. While I am supportive of the need to increase housing in Sydney, particularly around transport routes, the proposed development is unsympathetic to the area and increased housing could be much better achieved along the ridge line: Hill St or the Pacific Highway . 9 stories ‘plonked’ in the middle of a heritage conservation area seems out of step with a considered sustainable long term plan. Lower story and staggered heights from the ridge line would be preferable to preserve the heritage area. At this stage, infrastructure is just not there to sustain the additional housing. Traffic is a real issue in peak hours and additional vehicles would further delay vehicles leaving the east Roseville area onto the main roads. The loss of trees is also a concern- the area has an established tree canopy and dependent bird and wildlife that will be severely compromised by the loss of green space and trees.
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
ROSEVILLE
,
New South Wales
Message
RE: Residential development with in-fill affordable housing, 16-24 Lord St & 21-27 Roseville Ave, Roseville (SSD-78996460)
1. I have been a resident in Roseville for 13 years, and raised my family here of 4 children. I live at 42 Victoria Street Roseville. We love Roseville as it has a beautiful, largely conserved heritage east side precinct, with local shops, a primary school. That said, the other end of our street was developed into units since we moved in and it has hugely impacted one the natural aspects of our area. Large trees were destroyed/or left to die/federation house destroyed for ugly development no in the character of the neighbourhood. As an ongoing issue it created significant traffic issues that impact the residents on a daily basis impacting Victoria Street, Hill Street, access tp Pacific Highway. Roseville is an old suburb with infrastructure created to accommodate houses on large blocks with off street parking. Many streets are narrow and expanding the population hugely will ensure the infrastructure is overwhelmed. This includes, schools and streets/transport. Large developments are not supported by the current infrastructure of often narrow streets, limited school places, and a train line that the trains often don't stop at Roseville.
2. Lack of community consultation -As a Roseville resident, I did not receive any information from Hycorp regarding their development at any time, in particular prior to 12/3/25. Hence their development proposal has not engaged the local residents for consultation. No information was presented to in paper or links to surveys.
3. The hyecorp application lodged under the TOD planning controls, should NOT, in the public interest, be further progressed until the Kuringai Council's Preferred Scenario is resolved. The TOD planning controls were introduced at the state governments whim without public consultation and need to be set aside until the local council's preferred Scenario is adopted. The Kuringai Council 's preferred scenario mostly retains zoning in Eastside Roseville, except the Hill Street percent and upper part of Victoria Street.
4. If local residents didn't fight to maintain heritage areas of aPaddington, Glebe and The Rocks for example, the history of those areas would have been lost for all generations to follow. Eastside Roseville is in a similar predicament now and needs to be saved before history is lost forever.
5. The proposed development is HUGE, up to 9 storeys impacted streetscape, natural light for neighbours and out of character of the Eastside heritage zone. Why is it that a home owner is unable to build a pitched roof federation style car port in front of my house but a big corporation can build a 9 story monstrosity in the same heritage conservation area????? The traffic through the narrow lanes of Roseville are already at capacity and slow to negotiate twice daily, there is not capacity to accommodate more residents in this areas with old and unchanging infrustucture.
6. Limited access in and out of Roseville. Already difficult to access the Highway from Clanville, takes many lights to get out. Or to access Chatswood in only from Hill street with dangerous access accros many lanes onto Boundary street. Otherwise people try to cross boundary from other stress such as Wandella, and if waiting to turn right there creates much traffic congestion backlog. Already Traffic around school pick up is difficult, Roseville College Parents block Victoria street +/- Bancroft for school drop off and worse pick in the afternoons as the school doesn't have its own off street carline. More residents ands cars will exacerbate this poor situation further.
7. Please consider the law abiding residents of Roseville and their amenity to the local area, lack of infrastructure to cope with huge population increase , lack of consultation by Hycorp and the Councils preferred scenario. Thank you
1. I have been a resident in Roseville for 13 years, and raised my family here of 4 children. I live at 42 Victoria Street Roseville. We love Roseville as it has a beautiful, largely conserved heritage east side precinct, with local shops, a primary school. That said, the other end of our street was developed into units since we moved in and it has hugely impacted one the natural aspects of our area. Large trees were destroyed/or left to die/federation house destroyed for ugly development no in the character of the neighbourhood. As an ongoing issue it created significant traffic issues that impact the residents on a daily basis impacting Victoria Street, Hill Street, access tp Pacific Highway. Roseville is an old suburb with infrastructure created to accommodate houses on large blocks with off street parking. Many streets are narrow and expanding the population hugely will ensure the infrastructure is overwhelmed. This includes, schools and streets/transport. Large developments are not supported by the current infrastructure of often narrow streets, limited school places, and a train line that the trains often don't stop at Roseville.
2. Lack of community consultation -As a Roseville resident, I did not receive any information from Hycorp regarding their development at any time, in particular prior to 12/3/25. Hence their development proposal has not engaged the local residents for consultation. No information was presented to in paper or links to surveys.
3. The hyecorp application lodged under the TOD planning controls, should NOT, in the public interest, be further progressed until the Kuringai Council's Preferred Scenario is resolved. The TOD planning controls were introduced at the state governments whim without public consultation and need to be set aside until the local council's preferred Scenario is adopted. The Kuringai Council 's preferred scenario mostly retains zoning in Eastside Roseville, except the Hill Street percent and upper part of Victoria Street.
4. If local residents didn't fight to maintain heritage areas of aPaddington, Glebe and The Rocks for example, the history of those areas would have been lost for all generations to follow. Eastside Roseville is in a similar predicament now and needs to be saved before history is lost forever.
5. The proposed development is HUGE, up to 9 storeys impacted streetscape, natural light for neighbours and out of character of the Eastside heritage zone. Why is it that a home owner is unable to build a pitched roof federation style car port in front of my house but a big corporation can build a 9 story monstrosity in the same heritage conservation area????? The traffic through the narrow lanes of Roseville are already at capacity and slow to negotiate twice daily, there is not capacity to accommodate more residents in this areas with old and unchanging infrustucture.
6. Limited access in and out of Roseville. Already difficult to access the Highway from Clanville, takes many lights to get out. Or to access Chatswood in only from Hill street with dangerous access accros many lanes onto Boundary street. Otherwise people try to cross boundary from other stress such as Wandella, and if waiting to turn right there creates much traffic congestion backlog. Already Traffic around school pick up is difficult, Roseville College Parents block Victoria street +/- Bancroft for school drop off and worse pick in the afternoons as the school doesn't have its own off street carline. More residents ands cars will exacerbate this poor situation further.
7. Please consider the law abiding residents of Roseville and their amenity to the local area, lack of infrastructure to cope with huge population increase , lack of consultation by Hycorp and the Councils preferred scenario. Thank you
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
FORESTVILLE
,
New South Wales
Message
Refer to the attached letter
Attachments
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
ROSEVILLE
,
New South Wales
Message
“Re: Residential development with in-fill affordable housing, 16-24 Lord Street & 21-27 Roseville Avenue, Roseville (SSD-78996460)”.
I live within 300 metres of the proposed development.
• I urge the state government to reject this proposed development on the basis that there has been NO DUE PROCESS, NO COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT, NO INFORMATION AND NO CONSIDERATION FOR THE HISTORY OF THE AREA.
• I urge the State Government to consider Ku-ring-gai Council's preferred scenario and asses this proposal with a merit based approach. This SSD has been rushed through. Many points in their proposal are incorrect, invalid and contradict the very idea of procedural fairness. What is the rush in getting this proposal approved? What do Hyecorp and the State Government have to hide?
• I urge the media to ask the questions: Does Paul Scully have ulterior motives for approving this development?
• This is why Sydney has so many issues with ‘new builds’. Because the government rush the applications through with NO PROPER PROCESS. Why do they do this? Why the secrecy?
• Development and affordable housing should be part of the Roseville landscape, but please, build considered and safe homes in Roseville.
• 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 would most definitely 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 and unpleasant already. With this proposed development, the crowding at the station and on the trains will be unbearable. Not only will the years and years of building work affect the community's 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 cut down to make way for this development. Roseville has many native animals living in the trees, where will they go now? There are better options under Ku-ring-gai Council’s preferred scenario.
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 with 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 has become impossible due to the new metro link that has recently opened. Roseville 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 due to its inconsistencies with the landscape and heritage of the area, the significant pressure it will place on the existing infrastructure and already congested traffic, not to mention the 'blot' on the landscape of such an apartment block. I urge the government to reject this proposal based on a lack of due process and a hurried application. The SSD contains numerous inconsistencies and errors and DOES NOT comply with the rules and regulations of the TOD process. There are better options under Ku-ring-gai Council’s PREFERRED SCENARIO that provide sufficient dwellings and more than meet the affordable housing commitment made by the government. I urge the government to reject this proposed development.
I live within 300 metres of the proposed development.
• I urge the state government to reject this proposed development on the basis that there has been NO DUE PROCESS, NO COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT, NO INFORMATION AND NO CONSIDERATION FOR THE HISTORY OF THE AREA.
• I urge the State Government to consider Ku-ring-gai Council's preferred scenario and asses this proposal with a merit based approach. This SSD has been rushed through. Many points in their proposal are incorrect, invalid and contradict the very idea of procedural fairness. What is the rush in getting this proposal approved? What do Hyecorp and the State Government have to hide?
• I urge the media to ask the questions: Does Paul Scully have ulterior motives for approving this development?
• This is why Sydney has so many issues with ‘new builds’. Because the government rush the applications through with NO PROPER PROCESS. Why do they do this? Why the secrecy?
• Development and affordable housing should be part of the Roseville landscape, but please, build considered and safe homes in Roseville.
• 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 would most definitely 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 and unpleasant already. With this proposed development, the crowding at the station and on the trains will be unbearable. Not only will the years and years of building work affect the community's 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 cut down to make way for this development. Roseville has many native animals living in the trees, where will they go now? There are better options under Ku-ring-gai Council’s preferred scenario.
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 with 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 has become impossible due to the new metro link that has recently opened. Roseville 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 due to its inconsistencies with the landscape and heritage of the area, the significant pressure it will place on the existing infrastructure and already congested traffic, not to mention the 'blot' on the landscape of such an apartment block. I urge the government to reject this proposal based on a lack of due process and a hurried application. The SSD contains numerous inconsistencies and errors and DOES NOT comply with the rules and regulations of the TOD process. There are better options under Ku-ring-gai Council’s PREFERRED SCENARIO that provide sufficient dwellings and more than meet the affordable housing commitment made by the government. I urge the government to reject this proposed development.
Attachments
Pagination
Project Details
Application Number
SSD-78996460
Assessment Type
State Significant Development
Development Type
In-fill Affordable Housing
Local Government Areas
Ku-ring-gai