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

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

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. The developers then rush the build with inexperienced labour whihc leads to long term problems and safety issues. 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 have lived near to the proposed development in Roseville for 25 years and have educated my three (now adult) children in the local school.
I love the area and community and feel proud and privileged to live here.
I am not against development occurring in my suburb or surrounding suburbs but believe it should be achieved on or around the railway rather than destroying the nearby residential houses.
I object to the application by Hycorp for the following reasons;
The TOD planning controls promote applications like the current one which are not in the public interest.
The TOD planning controls were instigated without public consultation and the current application is likely to be denied once Council's preferred response to TOD becomes law.
Why should the current application be allowed, sneaking in between the TOD and council preferred planning controls
Specific impacts on the suburb if approved as follows;
It is extremely difficult to leave the suburb by car in the mornings. The application bringing more people who will be driving their car will increase this problem
The increase in population will put more pressure on local schools which I understand are already at capacity.
The destruction of beautiful homes replaced by 6-9 storey home units totally out of local character with the local area should be sufficient reason to stop the application.
The overshadowing and impact on privacy of residents close to the development.
The total lack of consultation and explanation by the developer providing no ability for the local community to voice concern until the application was lodged.
The impact on parking already under pressure.
If the development was on the highway at Roseville or at the shops in Hill street near the station rather than in the local suburban streets the occupants of the development would have immediate access to the pacific highway for their car without putting more pressure on local roads and or more likely to use the excellent rail service.

Re: Residential development with in-fill affordable housing, 16-24 Lord Street & 21-27 Roseville Avenue, Roseville (SSD-78996460)
Dear Sir/Madam
Please find reasons for my objection to this development in the attached document.
Yours faithfully
Philip

I live 200 m from the proposed development.

The proposed development is in the middle of a residential area of side streets , there are no major through streets.

To exit the suburb by car from this development would involve having to drive through a number of small back streets , to get onto Boundary Road via Hill Steet. This allows left turn only and gets extremely congested. With queues back to Roseville shops at some times of the day.

Or the Pacific Highway via Clanville Road. This likewise, gets very congested , this junction joining the Highway is really quite dangerous with people rushing to get through, running red lights.

This development would make these traffic issues significantly worse.

The proposed development would add over 200 cars to this small area that does not have the road infrastructure to support this extra volume The proposal takes no account of that - rail is irrelevant to what would be significantly increased road traffic problem.

The proposal makes no allowance for increased pupils at Rosehill public school which is already oversubscribed.

At 9 stories it would be completely out of keeping with the of the street and the local area.

This proposal is poorly thought through to the wider issues and I strongly oppose it.

I strongly object to this project.
Please see my detailed objections in the attached document.
Thank you.

I write to lodge my objection to Residential development 16-24 Lord Street & 21-27 Roseville Avenue, Roseville (SSD-78996460). This proposal represents a severe overreach that disrespects the heritage of the area and does not align with the values and expectations of the local community.

This application is premature, submitted ahead of ongoing negotiations between Ku-ring-gai Council and the NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure (DPHI). The Council’s Preferred Scenario, developed in response to the NSW Government’s Transport Oriented Development (TOD), supports carefully managed growth that respects local infrastructure limits, heritage values, and community expectations. By lodging this SSD application before the TOD framework is finalised, the proposal bypasses transparent planning processes and excludes the community from meaningful engagement. This approach undermines procedural fairness and disregards the role of local governance in shaping Roseville’s future.

Concerns Regarding Community Consultation

I would also like to express concerns about the community engagement process for this proposal:
• I did not receive any flyer or notification in my letterbox regarding the community drop-in session held on 12 March.
• Even if I had known, the session was scheduled from 4:00 to 6:30 pm on a Wednesday — a time that is inaccessible to many working residents.
• I was not aware of the dedicated project pages or community survey on the Hyecorp website until after 25 March.

This lack of accessible and timely communication raises serious questions about the transparency and inclusiveness of the consultation process.

Specific Objections to the Development

1. Building Height

The proposal includes buildings of up to nine storeys, which is drastically out of scale with the surrounding two-storey residential dwellings. Such a dramatic increase in height will result in significant overshadowing and loss of privacy for neighbouring homes. It will appear visually intrusive and incompatible with the established streetscape.

2. Bulk and Scale

The development comprises four large buildings, each up to nine storeys high. This is significantly larger than any other building in the area and will overwhelm the existing residential fabric, resulting in the same issues as height: visual dominance, overshadowing, and incompatibility with the neighbourhood character.

3. Design and Character

The proposed building design is inconsistent with the existing architectural character of East Roseville and does not reflect the design principles outlined in the Council’s preferred scenario. It disregards established building regulations and planning controls that aim to preserve the area’s unique identity.

4. Traffic Impact

Roseville already experiences high levels of traffic congestion, particularly during peak hours. Many commuters use local roads as thoroughfares to avoid main arterials. The proposed development will exacerbate this problem. Martin Lane, the location of the proposed development, is a narrow road already prone to congestion and is ill-equipped to accommodate the increased traffic volume that would result.

5. Parking Pressure

Parking in and around Roseville is already a major concern. Commuters regularly park up to a kilometre away from the station due to lack of availability. The introduction of hundreds of new residences will further strain an already overburdened parking situation.

6. Heritage Significance

The proposed development is located between three heritage conservation areas and within close proximity to many heritage-listed properties. The scale and design of the proposed buildings are entirely inconsistent with the heritage character of the neighbourhood. Additionally, the development would require the demolition of nine homes within a heritage conservation area, an action that is entirely at odds with the goals of heritage preservation.


Conclusion

This proposed development is inappropriate for Roseville on multiple fronts — in terms of scale, design, heritage impact, and community disruption. The area’s character, infrastructure, and road network are simply not suited to high-density developments of this nature. The application has been pushed through with minimal regard for proper community consultation, seemingly timed to take advantage of the DPHI ‘s current TOD legislation before any changes can be implemented. This has left many residents feeling ignored and excluded from the planning process.

The current TOD framework does not reflect the specific character or planning context of Roseville, and I urge the NSW Department of Planning to refuse SSD-78996460 under such a broad and unsuitable policy. The proposal should not be determined until Council’s preferred scenario has been finalised and given proper consideration.

I respectfully ask that this application be rejected, or at the very least deferred until local planning controls are resolved.

Thank you for the opportunity to make this submission

Please refer to the attached submission for details of my objection and rationale.

Dear Sir/Madam
This is to object to SSD-78996460 in Roseville.
I just don’t think massive apartment complexes belong in this part of our suburb because it feels completely out of place. I’m a young person, and when I move into an apartment, I’d do it somewhere where there is more action and better amenities for young people (shops, cafes, gyms, nightlife etc); none of which is offered by this development. People are also fine to walk 10-15 mins to the train station; it doesn't have to be 5 mins which seems to be the only reason for putting it here.
This part of Roseville is known for its heritage homes, quiet streets, and green surroundings. Once you knock down beautiful old houses and cut down 90 trees, you cannot go back. And the thing is, once one of these big developments gets approved, more will follow, it sets a precedent. It changes the whole vibe of the area, and honestly, it will ruin a very special part of Roseville being obliterated by 9-storey buildings and constant construction.
I thought Kuringai Council was working on a more suitable plan to build the required amount of apartments? Maybe they are slow, but this SSD proposal just seems like a complete stitch up.
There’s a right place for density, and this just isn’t it.
Cheers
Tim

Dear Sir or Madam,
I am writing to formally object to the proposed development at 16–24 Lord Street & 21–27 Roseville Avenue, Roseville.
Attached is a document that expands on the following grounds for my objection:
1. Inconsistency with Council’s strategic planning
2. Incompatibility with surrounding character
3. Lack of community engagement
4. Cynical use of affordable housing provisions
5. Inadequate infrastructure to support increased density
6. Concerns regarding proximity to metro
7. Heritage and community identity
8. Development is unnecessary to meet housing targets
9. State Government SSD’s should not overrule Council planning
For these reasons, I respectfully urge the Council to reject the proposed development in its current form. I trust that the Council will continue to uphold the planning principles that protect the character, heritage, and liveability of Roseville.
Yours sincerely,
Marshall Brentnall
45 Roseville Avenue
ROSEVILLE NSW 2069

I’m pro creating more housing in kur-ring-Gai.

I don’t think Council did enough, in a timely fashion and so they were lucky that state government gave them a second chance and the new alternative preferred TOD is a far improved option for most people involved.


Hyecorp development is starkly in contrast to the preferred scenario. It will be a huge monolith, not even next to the Roseville shops and will decimate the heart of Roseville’s character housing when there are now going to be so many other development sites that can offer hyecorp and the state government the development they need. I believe this monolith will forever be seen as an embarrassing mistake of urban planning.
Hyecorp did not notify or engage us in this development….we did not receive any of the information they claim that was published/sent to us . I believe the right thing to do is to encourage hyecorp to develop according to the new preferred scenario of the TOD….. ie do not let them demolish this beautiful historic block.

Please refer to the attached document for details on my objection to the application.

Dear Sir/ Madam,

I OBJECT to the proposed SSD at 16-24 Lord Street & 21-27 Roseville Avenue, Roseville (SSD-78996460).

I am the owner of a heritage listed house in Oliver Road Roseville, and as such am one street away from the proposed development. I will look onto it from my kitchen, family room and back verandah.

I object to the proposal for many reasons but my key objections are outlined below:

1. This application should be put on hold until an agreement is reached between Ku-Ring-Gai council and the NSW state government regarding the future zoning of the area.
- This application has assumed that the sites around the development site will also be developed. However, under the current preferred scenario of the council, the surrounding sites will remain zoned at R2. This means that this 9 storey development will be surrounded by 1-2 storey houses and will be totally out of keeping with the rest of the area.
- In addition, sites adjoining the development are restricted in terms of the development that can be placed on them due to being above the Sydney Metro tunnel rail corridor (Epping-to-Chatswood Rail Line) first and second reserve. Another reason that this development will not be consistent with the surrounding area.

2. There has been insufficient community consultation as part of the development planning.
- Despite living only one street away from the development with the back of my house looking onto the site, my household has never received the community flyer that the EIS said was distributed to “1,355 residences and businesses surrounding the site”.
- This meant that I did not have an opportunity to attend the community drop-in session at Lindfield Seniors Centre/Community Hall on the 11th March 2025. Had i known about this session beforehand I would have attended. Given only 5 people attended this session it seems this experience was not an isolated one.

3. The height and overall size of the proposed development are excessive.
- The proposed development is comprised of 259 apartments across 4 buildings, each being 9-storeys high with a height of up to 31.1m. This will be the tallest structure on the east side of Roseville by far, with the surrounding sites all containing 1 or 2 storey houses.
- The maximum height allowable under TOD even after allowing for the maximum 30% affordable housing uplift due to the temporary affordable housing included is 28.6m. The application has requested a variation to allow a height of 30.2m to 31.1m across the four buildings. The EIS states that the extra height allows for additional affordable housing. However, it is important to highlight that most of the affordable housing (15% of the 17%) is only for 15 years and hence temporary in nature. These will do nothing to support the affordability of housing in the long term and are not sufficient justification to allow this variation. This additional height just exacerbates the issues in relation to the height of the proposed development relative to surrounding structures and increases the pressure on the already strained local infrastructure.

4. It will put additional pressure on the already limited parking and traffic congestion on the surrounding streets.
- During the week all of the surrounding streets are already parked out with commuters parking here to go to Roseville station. This has only got worse since the metro in Chatswood opened.
- For the 259 apartments, including 3 and 4 bedroom apartments designed for families, there are only 309 resident parking spots. This is only 1.2 parking spots per residence. This is not sufficient and will result in many residents needing to park their cars permanently on the streets. This in turn will restrict the availability of parking for other commuters and residents that currently rely on this parking.
- Martin Lane, one of the roads that this development is on, is already an area of significant traffic congestion. This lane is effectively one way during the week due to commuter parking on the street. This causes cars to back up at both ends of the road, creating congestion on Roseville Avenue and Lord Street. This is also dangerous as many children, including my children, use this route to walk to either Roseville Public School or Roseville College and need to cross the road here.
- There are limited access routes out of this area of Roseville. The main routes of Boundary Road off Hill Street and the Pacific Highway at Clanville Road are complete bottle-necks at peak times. This development will put additional pressure on these routes and cause more traffic chaos on a daily basis.

My application strongly objects to the SSD-78996460 Hyecorp submission as it would fundamentally change the living environment that was invested into by the community. It inflicts severe and permanent damage to Roseville’s heritage and character.
The process has undermined public confidence in fair and transparent planning processes and disregards the environmental, amenity, and infrastructure needs of the community.

To: NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure

I strongly object to this development proposal. This project will destroy my health and my peaceful retirement home.
I am a retired lady living in my home on Lord Street since 2014 right next to the Hyecorp’s proposed apartments. I live here with my husband and son. This is our family home and our retirement dream.

Hyecorp did not involve me properly in community consultation. I was left out and did not get proper information about this big project that will have a significant negative impact on my life. They should have talked to all residents who will be affected, especially people like me who live directly across the street.

I only learned about this project when it was too late to influence the design. I only got a flyer about it on 16th March and nothing else. I was later told that there was a drop-in session held on 12th March. I can’t attend if I only receive the flyer after the day!
Also they must be buying houses across street and planning for long time. Why they did not send me letter to inform me this is happening and update me on their design? If they send letter a few month ahead, or make real effort to contact me I will be able to have a say at least.

Also English is my second language. All the communication is in English including some very very long documents. I really struggle to understand them and I have to rely on my son and my husband to know what they are saying, and my husband and son are not experts in this field. Again this shows Hyecorp not making any effort to accommodate different language speakers and I am very left out in this entire thing.

This is not fair community engagement. Residents who will suffer most should be consulted first and given chance to have our voices heard.

I understand that Ku-ring-gai Council is working on better planning rules for our area. Council wants to make an alternation to the TOD scheme to allow higher building heights near Roseville Station while keeping most of Lord Street’s zoning at R2 as it currently is. I know that the State and Local government are still negotiating about this, however Hyecorp is trying to cheat the system by putting this application in as significant state development despite it is a local development to bypass Council’s plan.

Hyecorp is rushing their application before planning is finalised between the Council and the State Goverment. This is not fair. They are trying to cheat the system and get approval for buildings that are too big before the proper rules are made.
This application should NOT go ahead until Council's preferred planning is finished and assessed properly. Otherwise this is like cheating - they get what they want before fair rules are made. This is not in public interest.

They will block sunlight especially for houses on Lord Street on the south of the development site like mine.

I love warm sunlight in my home and garden. The proposal shows they will block sunlight to north-facing windows of my home from 2pm every day. My backyard will lose sunlight from 3pm. This is not fair to Australian way of life.
I hate cold and damp conditions. Without sunlight, my home will become cold and unhealthy. My garden plants will die without proper sunlight.

And there will be no privacy in my home and near by homes.

Nine stories high building means people in apartments can look down into my private backyard and inside my house windows. Many balconies and windows will overlook my private spaces. What they showed in the Environmental Impact Statement is about privacy is wrong. They lie about how much impact there will be showing only five levels on the diagram, but what they want to build is much taller.

I can’t imagine how scary it is to look up in my yard and see a 30+ meter tall concrete giant wall with people and eyes looking into my home. I chose this quiet street for peaceful retirement. Now strangers will watch me in my own home and garden. This is not acceptable invasion of my privacy.

Also my health will suffer a lot. Not only that I have multiple chronic medical conditions, I have severe dust allergies. When there is dust, I must take anti-allergy medicine and I feel very sick. This development will create terrible dust problem for me:
• They will demolish multiple houses right across the street from my home
• They will dig 15 meters deep hole for 2 years construction
• They will remove a lot of trees which will make pollution problem worse
• Construction noise and dust Monday-Friday and even Saturdays

I cannot escape this dust. My home is my safe place but construction will make it dangerous for my health. I am retired person with limited money - I cannot move somewhere else for 2 years.

I also fear for my family's financial security...

My husband and I put our life savings into this house in 2014. We chose heritage area for quiet character and good investment for our son's future. Now this development will destroy what we paid for:
• Heritage character will be gone with 9-story towers
• Property value will decrease because sunlight and privacy destroyed
• Our son's inheritance will be much less valuable
• We cannot get compensation for our losses

The developer gets maximum profit by destroying what we invested in. This is not fair.

Furthermore, this development will also bring in a lot more traffic and cars. All of the cars from this development must use Lord Street because this is only access. Our quiet residential street will become busy road with:
• Sudden surge of residents making traffic every day
• Heavy construction trucks for 2 years
• Danger for people of age like me or those who are elder walking in the community
• Damage to our roads

This development will also destroy the character on street view of this neighbourhood. I moved here for peaceful retirement in heritage area with tree-lined streets. This development will:
• Remove 89 beautiful trees that make our area special
• Change quiet residential character forever
• Create noise, dust, and crowding
• Make our neighborhood unhealthy place to live

Please Reject This Application!

I am retired person with health problems who needs peaceful, pollution-free environment. This development will make my life very difficult and threaten my family's financial security.

The developer profits while residents like me suffer all the bad impacts. This is not fair to families who invested in this neighborhood.

Please protect residents' health and quality of life. Please reject this inappropriate development!

Yours Sincerely,
Concerned Resident
Lord Street, Roseville NSW 2069

Please see attached Word document

SUMMARY

I submit this formal objection as a resident directly impacted by Hyecorp's proposed 9-storey development. I have thoroughly reviewed the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) from Hyecorp and I sincerely believe this project should not go ahead.
This development represents systematic policy exploitation, inappropriate site selection, and unconscionable wealth transfer from established residents to corporate developers.
Furthermore, as a resident living in one of the properties directly to the south of the proposed development, I am deeply concerned about the health concerns, threat to our financial wellbeing, loss of sunlight and privacy that my family will foreseeably suffer.

1. ABUSE OF STATE SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT PATHWAY

Strategic System Gaming: Hyecorp has deliberately structured this project to trigger SSD thresholds, circumventing Ku-ring-gai Council oversight where community voices carry genuine weight. This is enables the developer to bypass local democratic processes.
Misuse of SSD Intent: The SSD system was designed for genuinely state-significant infrastructure projects, not local residential developments that primarily benefit private corporate interests. This application represents a fundamental misuse of the pathway to override local planning expertise and community consultation processes. State Significant Development should bring amenity to nearby residents, instead of causing harm to benefit developers!
Reduced Democratic Participation: By selecting the SSD pathway, Hyecorp has minimized meaningful community engagement compared to standard Council DA processes. This strategic choice prioritizes developer convenience over genuine community consultation and local planning knowledge. In fact my parents and I were only informed of this project happening when we found a flyer in our mailbox on 16th March. We never had the chance to influence the proposal and design of the building.

2. EXPLOITATION OF TRANSITIONAL TOD POLICY

Policy Timing Manipulation: Hyecorp rushed this application immediately after TOD introduction in May 2024, exploiting the transitional window before policy refinements could be implemented. This represents systematic abuse of policy transition periods to lock in maximum density before more appropriate height limits are established.
Planning Inequity: Council's preferred TOD update would limit this area to R2 zoning with 9.5m height limits. Hyecorp seeks approval for 31.1m buildings in an area planned for 9.5m maximum height. As a resident, I face permanent restriction to 9.5m development rights while suffering impacts from 30+ meter towers - this is fundamentally unjust.
Policy Arbitrage for Profit: The developer has engaged in policy arbitrage, capturing transitional benefits that will be unavailable to residents once refined TOD controls are implemented. This creates a two-tier system where corporate developers extract maximum value while residents bear permanent costs with no reciprocal opportunities.

3. PRIVACY INVASION AND AMENITY DESTRUCTION

The EIS by Hyecorp significantly understates its drastic impact on neighbouring houses including my family’s home which is located directly to the south of the planned development site. This raises serious concerns for privacy, access to sunlight and visual impact!
Systematic Privacy Violation: The EIS shamefully understates privacy impacts by showing only Level 5 illustrations while the development extends to 9 storeys (6.1.2.2). Higher level apartments will have complete views into our backyard and private spaces - an unacceptable invasion of privacy that fundamentally alters our residential amenity.
Inhumane Solar Access Blockage: Hyecorp's own EIS (Section 6.1.2.1) confirms their buildings will completely block north-facing windows of homes on Lord Street from 2pm, extending into backyards from 3pm. This represents an inhumane violation of residents' rights to natural light and conflicts with Australian outdoor lifestyle values.
Visual Impact Severity: The EIS rates visual impact (6.1.3.2) as "Moderate-Severe" with 71% loss of sky view from affected properties. This massive 30+ meter wall will replace human-scale streetscape, fundamentally changing the living environment my parents invested in for their retirement. Even this 71% number is questionable. This is strategically taken from the corner of the development site from 17th Lord Street. There will be multiple houses directly to the four sides of the site and they can lose 90% of sky view or more!!

4. ENVIRONMENTAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE IMPACTS

Massive Environmental Destruction: The removal of 89 trees destroys the leafy streetscape character that defines our neighbourhood. This represents not just aesthetic loss but practical environmental impacts including:
• Air quality reduction (critical for residents with allergies)
• Urban heat island effects from lost canopy
• Changed drainage patterns and flood risk from extensive excavation
• Microclimate changes affecting neighbouring properties
Infrastructure Overload: The addition of 700+ residents through a single access point on Lord Street creates:
• Surge in Traffic through a quiet residential street as the only access
• The proposed garage access is directly in front of my home, this is a significant safety risk for members of my home
• Strain on utility systems not designed for such density increases
• Emergency services access complications
• Public infrastructure costs imposed by private development profits

5. PROTECTING MY PARENTS' WELLBEING

• Retirement Dreams Destroyed: My parents invested their life savings in our home specifically for the peaceful retirement environment, heritage character, and residential amenity. They are both approaching/in retirement and chose this location for its quiet, low-density character. The proposed development destroys everything they worked for and invested in.
• Health Impacts on Vulnerable Residents: My mother's severe dust allergies make the construction period a medical emergency. My father, transitioning to retirement from a high-stress career, requires the peaceful environment for health recovery. The cumulative impacts of construction noise, dust, and ongoing high-density living fundamentally compromise their wellbeing.
• No Reciprocal Benefits: While bearing all negative impacts, my parents receive no compensation or reciprocal development opportunities. They face permanent restriction to 9.5m height limits under Council's preferred TOD update while suffering impacts from 30+ meter towers.

6. WEALTH TRANSFER INJUSTICE AND INAPPROPRIATE SITE SELECTION

Corporation Greed: Hyecorp extracts maximum profit by destroying exactly what residents paid premium prices to secure - heritage character, solar access, privacy, and quiet residential amenity. My parents' retirement planning and family financial security is being sacrificed for corporate profit maximization.
Inappropriate Location Choice: The developer could easily meet affordable housing targets on sites directly adjacent to Roseville Station (300+ meters closer than this site). Hill Street/Pacific Highway corridor offers appropriate high-density sites with existing commercial zoning. Instead, Hyecorp chose this location because it's surrounded by single-family homes on all four sides, maximizing resident impact while minimizing land acquisition costs. In fact the Council’s preferred scenario exactly encourages high density residential complex near the station and protection of the residential homes included heritage houses.
Affordable Housing Smokescreen: According to the EIS of Hyecorp, only 48 of the apartments are affordable housing, with most reverting to market rate after 15 years. Only 8 apartments (2% of the apartments proposed) remain permanently affordable - hardly justifying the destruction of amenity for 200+ neighbouring homes. This is corporate welfare disguised as social policy.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This development represents systematic abuse of planning processes to maximize corporate profits while devastating established residential communities. Hyecorp has exploited transitional policies, manipulated approval pathways, and selected inappropriate sites to extract maximum value while imposing maximum harm on neighbouring families.
I urge the Department to:
1. REFUSE this application due to inappropriate use of SSD pathway for local residential development
2. Defer consideration until refined TOD controls are implemented with proper community consultation, and assess Hyecorp’s proposal against the new plans agreed by both the State Government and the Council
3. Require genuine community benefit rather than nominal affordable housing that primarily serves developer profit maximization
4. Protect established residents from unconscionable wealth transfer to corporate developers
5. Demand appropriate site selection near transport infrastructure rather than maximum-impact residential locations
This is not genuine strategic planning but corporate greed enabled by policy exploitation. The community costs are permanent while developer benefits are maximized through the destruction of residential amenity that families invested their life savings to secure.
As a young member of the community committed to my parents' wellbeing and our community's character, I implore you to reject this inappropriate development and protect established residential neighbourhoods from predatory overdevelopment.

Yours Sincerely,

Concerned resident on
Lord Street, Roseville NSW 2069

From: Resident on Lord Street, Roseville NSW 2069

To the NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure,

I am writing to strongly oppose the proposed Hyecorp development (SSD-78996460) as a resident of Lord Street, to the south of Hyecorp’s proposed development, who will be directly and severely impacted by this inappropriate overdevelopment.

MY SITUATION AND INVESTMENT AT STAKE
I have purchased my dream home on Lord Street in 2014, located directly to the south of Hyecorp’s planned development site, having invested nearly all my life savings in this property as my retirement home. After decades of high-stress work, I am retiring within the next year and chose this location specifically for its peaceful residential atmosphere, heritage setting, and quiet amenity that I paid premium prices to secure.
My wife and I, along with our son, have made this house our family sanctuary. We invested our life's work into this property based on the heritage conservation area's established character, expecting reasonable protection of the residential amenity we paid for.

FINANCIAL DEVASTATION AND WEALTH TRANSFER INJUSTICE
Hyecorp is extracting maximum profit by destroying exactly what I invested in - the heritage character, solar access, privacy, and quiet residential environment that drove my property's value. This represents an unconscionable wealth transfer where my family's financial security, built over decades of hard work, is being sacrificed to fund corporate profit maximization.
The developer's parasitic business model profits from destroying what existing residents valued and paid for, while we receive no compensation for the forced sacrifice of our property investment. My retirement planning and family wealth accumulation is being devastated so Hyecorp can maximize apartment yields in an area that Council's preferred TOD update would limit to 9.5m height - yet they're building 31.1m towers.

POLICY EXPLOITATION AND GAMING THE SYSTEM
Hyecorp rushed this application after TOD introduction in May 2024, gaming the transitional window before policy refinements. They're building 31.1m towers in an area Council's preferred update would limit to 9.5m maximum with R2 zoning. This represents systematic abuse of policy transition periods, rewarding corporate profit over genuine strategic planning.
Hyecorp as manoeuvred to trigger SSD pathway, circumventing local democracy where community voices carry more weight at Ku-ring-gai Council level. They should wait until the State Government and the Council agrees on how to proceed with the TOD and then go through normal processes to seek approval. They are exploiting the use of SSD to bypass the council’s preferred scenario.
At a home owner on Lord Street, I am at risk of having a large apartment building developed too close to my home, reducing amenities of my home. Yet I will not be able to enjoy similar value because all of the surrounding area will be locked to R2 zoning.

LACK OF COMMUNICATION AND KEEPING US IN THE DARK
The first time my wife and I ever heard about the Hyecorp proposed development is when we found a flyer in our mailbox on 16th March. Only a few weeks later we learnt that they have already submitted the proposal.
I’ve learnt later that the land acquisition and planning has started mid to late 2024. However, Before this point, Hyecorp has made no effort to contact my household via any form before 16th March. This reflects that Hyecorp has failed to engage the impacted residents in its planning process and the voice of the community is inadequately taken into consideration.

HEALTH IMPACTS ON MY WIFE
My wife suffers from severe dust allergies and chronic medical conditions requiring a stable, peaceful environment. The proposed 24-month construction period, with dust generation from demolishing 9 homes plus 15-meter excavation, represents a medical emergency for her health. Construction hours of Monday-Friday 7am-8pm and Saturday 8am-1pm mean 60+ hours per week of health-threatening dust exposure for two years.
As her husband, I am deeply concerned about protecting her wellbeing during what should be our peaceful retirement years. The construction will make our home uninhabitable for someone with her medical conditions.

DESTRUCTION OF RETIREMENT DREAMS
After a stressful career, I planned to spend my retirement tending to my garden, reading, and enjoying quiet activities like chess in peaceful surroundings. The surge in density in a large residential complex this close to my home will significantly undermine the quality of my retirement life.
My sleep is already disrupted by noise, light, and vibration issues. The combination of 24-month construction and long-term high-density impacts will make peaceful rest impossible in my own home.

SUNLIGHT AND PRIVACY DESTRUCTION
The EIS admits these 30+ meter buildings will cast additional shadows on my property which is across the street, including 27.5m² of morning shadow on my front garden during winter solstice. Year-round reduced sunlight will affect my planned garden development, solar access, and create cooler, damper conditions harmful to my wife's health conditions.
Nine storeys of apartments with multiple balconies and windows will directly overlook my home, destroying the privacy we invested in. The EIS understates this invasion, showing only partial building heights while the full 9-level development grants complete views into our private spaces.

INFRASTRUCTURE AND TRAFFIC CRISIS
All traffics from the proposed new development will use Lord Street as the only access point, creating daily congestion on our quiet residential street. Construction vehicles navigating around metro infrastructure for two years will compromise emergency services access and create safety hazards.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING SMOKESCREEN
Only 8 apartments that Hyecorp claims to be affordable apartments remain permanently affordable after 15 years - hardly justifying the destruction of amenity for 200+ neighbouring homes.
This is corporate welfare disguised as social policy, using "affordable housing" rhetoric to justify profit-maximizing overdevelopment while the vast majority of apartments will still sell at an expensive price. This is not helping the housing problem.

CONCLUSION
This development represents everything wrong with prioritizing corporate profits over established communities. My life savings, my wife's health, and my retirement dreams are being sacrificed so Hyecorp can extract maximum value from inappropriately dense development.
I have worked hard my entire career to afford a peaceful retirement home in a heritage area. It is unconscionable that a corporation can destroy my family's financial security and wellbeing for their profit maximization, particularly when genuine affordable housing can be achieved on appropriate sites closer to transport infrastructure.
I urge you to reject this application and protect established residents who invested in good faith in Roseville's residential character.

Yours sincerely,
Resident of Lord Street, Roseville NSW 2069

I strongly object the proposal by Hyecorp to build apartment at 16-24 Lord Street & 21-27 Roseville Avenue.
I have outlined my reasoning in the attachment. Thank you!

Please take this as an OBJECTION to the proposed Hyecorp development at the above address.
1. The development is inconsistent with the TOD alternative scenario proposed by Ku-ring-gai Council

Ku-ring-gai Council (KRGC) has been working diligently and extensively engaging the community to propose alternatives to the TOD that will meet the housing demands imposed by the State Government but also preserve the heritage, environment and tree canopy that is unique to the North Shore of Sydney. The Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure (DPHI) should ensure that this development be rejected or held in abeyance until the KRGC’s preferred TOD scenarios become effective.

2. I did not receive an invitation to the community consultation

The Engagement Outcomes Report (Appendix K) claims that the community were consulted via distribution of a flyer to 1355 local residents. I live 1 block away from the proposed development and did not receive this flyer. I only heard about this development from a neighbourt.

3. The development is inconsistent with the Heritage Conservation Area

The development is in the Clanville Conservation Area. It involves the destruction of a number of properties, that whilst not individually heritage listed, they contribute significantly to the character of the heritage conservation area.

I completely reject the statement by Urbis in the Heritage Impact Statement (HIS) that the subject properties have been ‘highly modified’. The examples of the modifications referred to in the HIS include pools, cabanas and rear additions. These are at the rear of these properties and have no impact on the overall streetscape. These properties continue to contribute to the streetscape of East Roseville, that is characterized by streets of Federation housing with significant tree canopy.

For the Heritage Impact Statement to argue that the development is ‘not visually dominant’ is absolute nonsense. The proposed bulk and scale of the buildings (31m high) will visually dominate and significantly detract from the conservation area and other conservation areas in the vicinity including the Bancroft and the Grove Conservation Areas. Noting that there are a significant number of individually listed heritage items in this area. It will adversely affect views from a number of heritage items regardless of the simplicity of the design.
According to the TOD SEP, any development in a heritage conservation area is to be considered by the relevant local council, who are ‘well placed to assess applications that might involve the removal of a non-contributory building to the heritage value of that area’. All of the houses that would be demolished contribute to the heritage value of the entire area.

4. The development involves significant destruction of tree canopy.

Whilst a couple of large trees on the blocks will be retained, the development involves the removal of at least 42 trees in total from the site (that they have noted on the plans).

5. Site set-backs inconsistent with Development Control Plan

The site setbacks are inconsistent with Part 7A.3(1) of the KRCG Development Control Plan, which requires a minimimum of 9m from the side boundary and 10 metre set backs from the roads.

6. Significant overshadowing of adjacent properties and properties across the road on Lord Street

The properties directly adjacent to the development on each of Lord Street and Roseville Avenue will suffer significant shadowing from 9am- midday and the properties across the road on Lord Street, will suffer significant afternoon shadowing in winter.

7. Traffic congestion around Roseville / Roseville College/ Clanville Road intersection/ Hill Street to Boundary intersection
Traffic congestion into and out of Roseville is already diabolical in morning and afternoon peaks. This represents a significant risk to the community, particularly the residents of the aged care facility on Trafalgar Avenue who often require emergency vehicle access.

See attachment