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

I fully understand the need for trying to solve our housing crisis, but I disagree with this specific solution, which in my view, is made in haste. Our local council is soon going to finalise the council's "preferred scenario" to the changes in the area, which may impact the location of building developments such as these. The council has gone through the proper consultation process with the community; we are just awaiting the final decision. Once this "preferred scenario" has been finalised, I have no objection to the due process of development occurring based on the agreed outcomes of the residents of our community. My request would be for no approval to occur prior to council's release of the preferred scenario.

In addition to this, at NO time did I receive any information/consultation from Hyecorp about the proposed development. They have not engaged me (at least) in any consultation about their development. I only heard about it from a fellow resident and I have now reviewed the plans online.

There are numerous other detrimental issues that a development like this will create in this area, all of which have already been discussed and are almost due to be finalised in council's "preferred scenario".

We need some common sense here.

The block planned to be developed is on the mail road to Roseville rail station and Roseville College. It has extreme busy traffic during the peak time. The local road network is not equipped to handle 259 apartments at all. This development risks causing traffic bottlenecks, reducing safety for pedestrians and cyclists, especially risk for all kids walking to station/school.
The development may lead to the loss of green space and local biodiversity.
As a local residents who living in Roseville more than 10 years, we feel that we have not been adequately consulted about this project. A development of this scale should require comprehensive community engagement.

I object to the proposal for the reasons set out in the attached document

I refer to the above application and record my strong objection to this proposal.

The proposal:
1. ignores planning by the Kuring-Gai Council which, following community consultatio,n does not allow this height of building in this location
2. Is significantly excessive for the local area resulting in excessive loading on the immediate streets which are already operating at maximum capacity
3. Is of poor design with minimal setbacks, lack of building modulation and a box like design clearly designed to provide maximum profit to the developer
4. Is completely inconsistent with the heritage buildings located with the adjacent area, which have actively been preserved by residents and council
5. Will result in devastating tree loss and impact on wildlife

In summary, it is objectionable that a poorly designed block of units has been proposed, which is completely unsuited to the Roseville heritage streetscape, tree canopy and fauna, and imposes more problems on an already difficult transport situation in Roseville Ave, Lord Ave and Martins Lane (spilling into surrounding backstreets) and which will detract from the liveability for all Roseville residents.

Thank you.

My name is Louis Meagher, resident of 59 Lord Street Roseville. My home is 340m from the Hyecorp Development.

I wish to lodge 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).

I have lived in my home in Roseville for over 20 years with my parents and 3 siblings.

I object to this Development as it is not in the public interest. This Development has been lodged during a period when Kuringgai Council is preparing a Preferred Scenario to NSW Government’s Transport Orientated Development (TOD) plans. The Council has done detailing planning and extensive consultations to come up with plans for its council area which better suits its values concerning heritage, environment, local centres and for its residents. The Hyecorp Development I believe has been rushed, has had very little local public consultation and does not acknowledge the Preferred Scenario in any of its assertions.

First I heard of this Development was a flyer in our letterbox around 20 March 2025. There was no mention or invitation to a public meeting, which I later heard from a neighbour was held on 12 March 2025. I had no chance to attend this meeting. In the Hyecorp EIS it mentions that 5 members of the community attended the session, I fail to see how this is a representation of residents that will be affected by the Development. In contrast the Council has had numerous Public Forums, Drop in Sessions, Council Meetings, sent out booklets, advertised on its website and social media, in an attempt to do better for its residents while also achieving the same housing as TOD.

This Development is a massive change for the East side of Roseville, which exsists as a family orientated suburb in a Heritage Conservation Area. There will be many impacts of this 9 storey development with its 259 apartments across 4 buildings. The Hyecorp EIS is very biased positively towards its plans and is misleading in many of its statements, I do hope Hyecorp’s assertions are checked properly and not just taken as true and correct.

Size of Development - this Development will standout massively in a suburb of 1-2 storey residences. Once the Council’s Preferred Scenario is submitted, no further developments of this size will be permitted in this area. So it will be an isolated apartment block surrounded by heritage residences.

Traffic - the traffic implications of a building this size in Roseville is grossly misrepresented in the EIS, as well as the car movements projected. The Development runs along Martin Lane which is effectively a one way road, once cars are parked on each side - it is already a problem during peak hours and especially for trucks and the bus which uses Martin Lane on its route. There is currently serious congestion at exits trying to get out of Roseville in the morning and afternoon peaks, and especially on Saturday’s as everyone is moving about. This Development will just add it to. Parking on Lord St and Roseville Ave is full every day by train commuters, with very little long term parking at Roseville train station, these suburban roads are needed by commuters.

Environment - Kuringgai Council was always worked towards protecting bushland, waterways and the urban environment. This development under the TOD plans are just one dimensional, simply drawing lines on a map, whereas the Council’s Preferred Scenario takes into account the living environment, building height, building transitions, heritage and boundary lines. It will be appropriate to follow the Council’s Preferred Scenario, which would not allow this Development.

I strongly object to the Lord St & Roseville Ave Hyecorp Development application as the impacts of such a large building will have many impacts on the local environment such as the removal of 91 trees, the impact on infrastructure such as stormwater run-off, sewerage, and roads. The Kuringgai Council is providing an alternative plan which will better serve its residents, maintain housing objectives, and preserve its unique character. The Hyecorp Development does not fit into the local character of Roseville. I support the Council’s Preferred Scenario and object to this Hyecorp Development.

I am writing to object to this project on the following grounds:
1. Inadequate community consultation by Hyecorp regarding the development.
I have not received any communications from Hyecorp. I understand from others in the community that a flyer was distributed but I did not receive this, although I live only a few streets away from the proposed development. I am not aware of any other communications from Hyecorp to engage with the community and meaningfully consult. The only reason I am aware of this development is from discussions with the local community in Roseville.
2. This development is inappropriate for the location. In particular, there are the following concerns:-
- This is a heritage area with homes over 100 years old. There are no similar developments in this area and this 9 storey development will overshadow the heritage houses surrounding it and be completely out of context in this area. It also requires demolition of 9 houses that contribute to this heritage conservation area and are irreplaceable.
- Traffic congestion in this area is already substantial with narrow streets, a nearby school (Roseville College) and the streets where the development will take place are key access roads to Roseville Station. The plan does not consider the impact of construction or the additional vehicles once the project is complete on safety on these local roads or access to vital public transport at Roseville Station.
- The project does not consider the impact on infrastructure, including drainage, stormwater run-off, power or roads that are not sufficient to support this large development in an area of 1-2 storey housing
- Environmental impact - I understand that 91 trees are proposed to be removed to accommodate the proposed development. The proposed 'new trees' will take generations to reach the size of the existing trees if they ever do and is a completely superficial environmental response to the development.
Generally, I support the need for additional housing and recognise the dangers of "NIMBY" thinking. However, additional housing must be well planned and take into account the surrounding infrastructure, heritage, transport and construction issues and this hastily conceived project, with inadequate community consultation does not do that. There is a process underway with Ku-Ring-Gai council to address the housing targets and achieve them with true community consultation. Their alternative proposal maintains the heritage value of the area, considers the transport and other infrastructure issues and still achieve the same housing targets. I respectively submit that this development is not in the public interest when that alternative process is underway. I respectively request that this application is not progressed or determined until Ku-Ring-Gai council's preferred scenario is resolved.

Cities are about buildings. Cities require regular renewal and growth to meet demand. But successful cities plan for medium term outcomes that contribute to their environment. Would this development be tolerated in Belgravia in London or in the North End of Boston? The Council may have dropped the ball by historically having not embraced as much growth as the State would have liked. But now it has shown how the State's growth aspirations can be satisfied without inappropriate development. This proposal doesn't fit, either now or into the future. If it were to proceed, it would be a permanent stain on the legacy of this Government and its leadership.

Ian Smith

See attached document

Dear NSW Major Projects.

I am writing to object to the proposed residential development on Lord Street, Roseville.

While I appreciate the urgent need to address the housing supply shortages around Sydney, I do not believe that the proposed development is an appropriate solution, specifically due to its negative impacts on the environment and traffic congestion.

The size of the proposed development would dwarf the surrounding houses and requires the removal of a significant number of trees. Even though the developer has attempted to show their artist's impression of the building as including many green plants, the development would be significantly out of character for the largely historical conservation area of Roseville.

The morning peak periods in the area currently experience traffic congestion around Lord St, Glencroft Ave, Bancroft Ave, Hill Street, Roseville Train Station and Roseville College. This is primarily due to parents dropping school children at the train station, commuters attempting to find long-stay parking in the surrounding streets, school children being dropped at Roseville College, and local residents driving from their homes to work. There are already areas where the traffic cannot flow smoothly due to some roads, such as Glencroft Ave, having cars parked on both sides of the road with only enough room for cars to move in a single direction. This causes cars to queue up around the corners while cars wanting to travel in the opposite direction need to wait for a break in the oncoming traffic. This both increases congestion and impacts the safety of pedestrians who have to walk between cars while attempting to cross roads.

The distance from the proposed development to Roseville Public School would be too far for many young children to walk or too time consuming for their parents to walk the 30-40 minute round trip with their children. This would encourage parents of children at Roseville Public School to drive closer to the school during peak times to drop off or pick up their children, further adding to the congestion in Lord Street, Glencroft Ave, Bancroft Ave and Clermiston Ave.

I strongly believe that the proposed development would make this congestion problem considerably worse and add unnecessary strain on local streets which are already congested during peak times.

The developer has estimated that an additional 43 cars would be added to the traffic during the morning peak time, which would impact the already congested streets, but I believe that this is a significant underestimate. With up to 403 cars parked within the proposed development's carpark, I find it unlikely that only approximately 1 in 10 cars will leave home during the peak morning time to drive to work or drop children at local schools.

Thank you for your consideration of my objection to the proposed residential development on Lord Street, Roseville.

To Whom It May concern, 



I lodge my strong objection to the State Significant Development (Application) SSD-78996460 - Proposed Development at 16-24 Lord Street & 21-27 Roseville Avenue, Roseville based on below my concerns:


Significant Impact to Heritage

I received Hyecorp’s community flyer on 15th March 2025. Considering the proposed buildings with 9 storey 30 meters height, rising up in such a big land among the heritage conservation areas, I became so worried about the huge impact to the surrounding 3 heritage conservation areas and over 50 heritage listed houses nearby the proposed site. These unique heritages not only belong to Roseville local residents, they are also unique to Sydney. They should be passed on to our next generations, not to be ruined by our generation. 




Traffic impact
Currently the Roseville east side streets are already very congested. Martin Lane, one of the boundaries of the proposed development site, for example, is an important path for people driving to Roseville College or Chatswood from other areas like eastside of Gordon, Killara and Lindfield. It’s very narrow but still lots of traffic, plus lots of students and pedestrians walking through everyday, makes it very dangerous. Other very busy and also very dangerous spots are the exit to Pacific HWY via Clanville Ave and the exit to Boundary St via Hill St. Both exits would easily cost 5-8 mins during peak hours to get to main streets from Clanville Ave or Hill St. With the proposed development with more than 250 units, this will cause the local traffic even worse. 



Ku-ring-gai Council’s Preferred Scenario is a much better solution
I strongly support Ku-ring-gai Council’s Preferred Scenario and I think it’s a much better solution to allow local development, but in the mean time to protect our unique characters of our heritage conservation areas and heritage items. 

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


I urge the NSW Department of Planning to refuse SSD-78996460 in full, and to support Ku-ring-gai Council’s Preferred Scenario for the development in the Roseville area.

Subject: Objection to Proposed Development at 16–24 Lord Street & 21–27 Roseville Avenue, Roseville
Dear Sir or Madam,
I am writing to formally object to the proposed development at 16–24 Lord Street and 21–27 Roseville Avenue, Roseville. As a long-term resident, I have serious concerns about the impact this proposal would have on our community. My key objections are outlined below however attached is a long form version which I ask be reviewed:
• Traffic and Safety: The traffic analysis underestimates the impact on Roseville village and surrounding streets, which are already congested—particularly during peak hours. Increased vehicle movements will worsen bottlenecks, compromise pedestrian safety, and degrade the amenity of the area.
• Lack of Community Consultation: There has been insufficient engagement with local residents, despite the significant implications of the development.
• Inconsistent with Council’s Strategic Vision: The proposal does not align with Ku-ring-gai Council’s Preferred Alternative Scenario, which meets housing targets while preserving local character.
• Unnecessary to Meet Housing Targets: The development is not required to meet the State’s housing goals and represents excessive intensification.
• Inadequate Infrastructure: Local roads, schools, and public amenities are already under pressure and cannot support the proposed increase in density.
• Heritage and Character Impact: The development is out of scale and threatens the heritage and architectural identity of Roseville, including nearby conservation areas.
• Local Planning Should Prevail: State-led planning should not override the detailed, community-informed frameworks developed by Ku-ring-gai Council.
For these reasons, I respectfully urge that this development be rejected in its current form.
Kind regards,
Sara Brentnall
45 Roseville Avenue
ROSEVILLE NSW 2069

Would it not be more logical to build apartments at the Roseville shops and train station like in Lindfield?

We have been living in Roseville for over a decade and we are so proud of having the privilege of preserving the post federation history via keeping the housing and community as what they are. A 9-story colossus as proposed in this development will definitely change the way it is, which stands out as a destruction and denigration to our heritage conservation which when we first came here was something we would like to fight against but started to feel and perceive the irreplaceable and indispensible nature and leafy surroundings after years of immersion. We are happy to support the project as long as some proper planning and consideration of contingent resolution as to how and what would be carried out to bridge over to the future for the local community with as little impact as we would be confronting in the course of the construction and deployment. Besides, streets and roads around the community are so narrow that such an injection of large amounts of residents, with the corresponding number of vehicles to double or triple up the traffic on top of the already crazy torments every single busy weekday, between 8am-9am and 3pm-5pm would just clench up the most movements, in or out plus come and go.

I strongly oppose this project where a developer is seeking to impose an oversize, out of character apartment building under the guise of providing extra living space under the provisions of the NSW government's arbitrary TOD plan. Not only will such development markedly alter the character of this desirable single dwelling area, but will downgrade local amenity and result in long term deterioration for all residents. If approved, it has the potential to attract other developers to the area leading to a proliferation of similar projects and degradation of the entire suburb.
My name is Ray Thurloe and I live at 41 Lord Street, together with my wife. Our property is 6 lots distant from the eastern edge of the project site. We have been here for more than 50 years and find this attempt at imposition both unwelcome and undesirable.
Hyecorp has been specious and deceptive in proposing this development. For a start the opportunity to attend an information session was stage managed so the flyer containing the invitation was not received until a week after the event. Since then, nothing from Hyecorp indicating they want to avoid community feedback. The only information that has emerged is via local community letter box flyers pointing out the scale and effect on nearby residents.
To describe this project as "in-fill affordable housing" is ludicrous. There are 48 so called affordable units in a total of 259 , or 18.5%. It is presumed the other 211 would be higher quality, and more highly priced. Forecast number of residents is 728, with 344 car parking spaces. Many of those in the 211 cohort would seek 2 car spaces. The estimates of car movements to and from the property are grossly underestimated. All this plonked in the middle of a pleasant urban neighbourhood of 1 and 2 storey single lot houses.
Such development is antithetical to Ku-ring-gai Council's Preferred Scenario which is still pending, information on which has been well circulated since March 2025, and offers a much more benign outcome while contributing to additional housing in better placed parts of the municipality.
Due, in part, to the recent repeated expansion/s of Roseville College, the increase in and congestion from additional vehicular traffic in this area causes many problems. Exiting the area either at Hill Street, Clanville Road, Wandella Avenue or Bancroft Avenue has become progressively more difficult at any time of day, but particularly at peak times. The use of local streets as rat runs has also contributed to both congestion and safety concerns with speeding vehicles. The potential of another 344 vehicles to this mix is going to make it much worse.
Roseville Railway Station has become popular with commuters who, from early each morning drive into the local area and park all day, and often overnight as well. Plus there is competition from senior students at Roseville College who drive to school and park in nearby streets, including Lord Street and Roseville Avenue. Add in any (2 year?) construction period for this development and street car parking would become much more difficult leading to many more disputes about parking over driveways and other obstructive behaviour by out of area drivers.
Much of the infrastructure in this neighbourhood was installed in the 19th and 20th centuries and was designed for single house density on well drained lots. There is no mention of improvements to water, sewerage, storm drainage, power and gas supply infrastructure expansion, and this could cause problems throughout the local area.
Overshadowing, particularly on adjacent residences to the west is a big problem. It is misleading to assert that at the winter solstice is the only day that direct sunlight is limited to three hours, when with only marginal differences the same applies a month before and a month afterwards.
One of the lovely characteristics of east side Roseville is the extensive and well developed treescape, and associated birdlife and native animals. The removal of about 91 well established trees as part of this project is an adverse corollary if this is allowed to proceed.
An eyesore like this in a heritage protection area, resulting in the (wasteful) demolition of 9 perfectly sound houses is not in the interests of local residents - or anyone else for that matter.
The above points are just some of the many reasons why this project should not be approved. I urge that approval for this development be denied.
Ray Thurloe May 2025

This proposed development in Roseville is totally out of character with the surrounding neighbourhood.
The building of these ugly, enormous residential apartments will completely destroy the heritage architecture and culture of this quiet,beautiful suburb.
It is claimed that the building of 267 residential apartments up to 10 storeys in height will only a have limited impact on the surrounding area!
Is that a joke?
This development will overshadow an enormous part of the East side of the station, including so many heritage houses with their beautiful,well established gardens. In addition,so many established trees will be destroyed in the clearing of this site many habitats of native species including galahs,kookaburras, to name only a few, will be destroyed, never to return.
Other more obvious problems include the enormous affect on traffic conjestion this development will bring, adding to the nearby Roseville College morning and afternoon traffic " choke". Entry to and driving through the area and parking will become impossible.
In addition, the pressure on existing stormwater and sewerage infrastructure must be further strained by this gigantic, inappropriate development.
Finally, please remember governments come and go however this monstrosity will ruin the beautiful Roseville landscape forever.

I object to the development at Lord and Roseville Ave if the Govt is going to adopt Ku-Ring-Gai Council's alternate development plan. However, if Govt is planning to re-instate the original TOD (which included development of heritage items), then I would support the development. In other words, if development on Lord and Roseville was to be allowed, then it should also be allowed in other areas currently not included in KMCs alternate plan - for example Bancroft Ave and Victoria St which run parallel to Lord St and would be somewhat stranded with development all around. It would be outrageous to allow high rise in the middle of a broader area which is not rezoned - either all-in, or all-out

See attached Supporting document

The height of the building won’t fit into the streetscape.
Martin Lane is very narrow and can’t take the amount of traffic even at the moment.
More cars on the streets.
Set around normal housing and gardens in which children play.
Loss of beautiful aged trees and we would loose cooling factor of the trees. The trees are very good for the environment.
Construction would impact on the already crowded streets.
There are not enough exit streets from Roseville where it is hard to get out. Here it is already very congested.

My name is Katrina Mann, and as a resident of a home on Roseville Avenue, Roseville, within eyeline of the proposed development, I am writing to strongly object to the proposed development at 16-24 Lord St & 21-27 Roseville Ave, Roseville.

I object to the project for its disrespect to the community and history of the area, its potential impact on the environment, disruption to living standards, and lack of community engagement by the developers. I understand that the Council’s preferred scenario that has been put to the NSW State Government, which would allow the NSW State Government to achieve its goal while maintaining the character and heritage of Roseville. I strongly urge this development to be halted, at the very least until a resolution is found, lest there be irreversible damage to the local area, and trust between residents and the State Government.

Roseville is a quiet suburb with heritage buildings and a community atmosphere that has been developed over centuries (if not decades). This is something that myself and other residents love about the area, and why we have chosen to live here. The addition of a 9-storey, 259 apartment building would be in direct contradiction to the aspects of Roseville that attracted residents to it. Should the development go ahead, I fear that we would see an exodus of residence as a direct result, and thereby loss of community that would take generations to rebuild, if it ever was. Furthermore, this kind of development is not in keeping with the existing built form of the area, and would be in stark contrast to the neighbouring homes that it would overshadow. While I am in support of creating additional housing in Sydney, doing it at the expense of established and thriving communities is not a viable solution.

To build the development, Hyecorp would need to cut down over 90 trees. This would have a devastating impact on our local environment, including the native kookaburras, galahs, lorikeets, possums, bees and magpies that are thriving in our area at the present. The destruction of their habitat will have irreversible negative impacts on local populations and the enjoyment of the local community. Global warming and climate change is already posing a significant health risk to the population, with heat-related death and disease a major problem for Australia in coming years. As a medical professional, it distresses me to know the impact this development could have and the surface heat the lack of trees and built infrastructure would have to the local area - especially one with an older population that suffer most from these health issues.

As a resident of Roseville Avenue, I already struggle to come and go by car from our street or find a park, due to the nearby arterial roads, and number of commuters parking out the front of our house. Traffic flows are already incredibly tight, especially close to peak hour and school traffic. I have spent many cumulative hours trying to exit onto Pacific Highway, or giving way on Martin Lane. The application claims that there will be minimal increase in the number of vehicles coming and going from Roseville by car; however given they are proposing 344 basement car spaces and their submission states that 56% of residence use cars as their primary commute, therefore it would be an additional 193 cars entering and leaving Roseville on a daily basis; and there is not empirical evidence that this percentage would be different for the residents of the development. This does not even consider the increased traffic during construction. I don’t see how the developers have adequately planned for the additional transport needs its development would bring. Further, Roseville lacks the community infrastructure to support such a large number of new residents, which combined would have a serious negative impact on the living standards of current residents.

Finally, I want to express my disappointment and concern at Hyecorp’s lack of engagement with the local community during this process. As a resident of Roseville Avenue across from Martin Lane, I have received no engagement from Hyecorp besides a flyer for a last minute community meeting, that was scheduled during regular working hours. As a resident who would be greatly impacted by this project both during and after its construction, I am stunned by the lack of communication. If this is a representation of how Hyecorp acts towards the community, then it is clear that profit is their highest goal, and they lack regard for harmony and good-faith discussion. Hyecorp have not engaged faithfully or fully with the Roseville community, which suggests they are aware of the significant flaws in their plans and the destruction their development will cause to a thriving area, but are satisfied sneaking this past residents, without seeking to fairly engage and improve on their proposal to the benefit of all parties.

In summary, I strongly oppose Hyecorp’s proposed development. While I am all for the growth of housing in Sydney, I cannot give my support when it destroys the very community and environment it seeks to add to, at the expense of current and future residents. In its current form, it seems the only party to gain from this proposed development are Hyecorp.

I live within 150 metres of this proposed development and have been a resident of the area for 27 years. I object to this proposal.

This development is not in the public interest, and any proposal should conform with the Ku-ring-gai Councils preferred scenario discussions with the NSW Government. This application lodged under the TOD Planning controls is inappropriate:
• The TOD planning controls were introduced without public consultation and are to be set aside when the Council's Preferred Scenario is adopted
• I support the council’s preferred scenario as it maintains the character of the area
• This is an opportunistic application to use the SSD process under the TOD controls, and is a denial of procedural fairness

I have received no correspondence/flyers from Hyecorp. I was not invited to any community events and was informed of the proposal by neighbours.

In addition, I have concerns regarding:
• Height of the development (up to 9-storeys) and its impact on
• The existing built form in the neighbourhood (1-2 storey houses);
• The future built form in the neighbourhood (remaining 1-2 storey houses under Council’s Preferred Scenario)
• The number of 8 affordable apartments is too low. The 40 or so additional affordable houses are temporary and this amplifies the issues with excessive height
• Significant development constraints at surrounding sites due to the Metro tunnel reserves - this means that the development will require residents to park some of their cars on the streets - thus reducing street parking significantly.
• Roseville railway station is an important communter hub, particularly for residents of the Northern Beaches ( measured by the number of Northern Beaches parking permits on Roseville Ave/Lord Street and Martin Lane - approx 30% of all cars)
• The significant impact on heritage, including the site being in the middle of three heritage conservation areas, with 54 heritage listed houses nearby
• The impact of the additional traffic that will be generated by the proposed development particularly during peak periods including the Martin Lane rat-run; and congestion at key intersections out of Roseville, such as the Clanville Road/Pacific Highway junction and the Hill and Boundary Street junction.