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

Dear Mr Ng,
I have been a resident of this area for 11 years and am writing to formally object to State Significant Development Application SSD-78996460 for the proposed residential development at 16–24 Lord Street and 21–27 Roseville Avenue, Roseville. While I acknowledge the need for additional housing supply and affordable housing in Sydney, I believe this particular development is fundamentally inappropriate for this location. My objection is based on the following grounds:

1. Conflict with the Agreed TOD Alternative Scheme
In November 2025, the NSW Government and Ku-ring-gai Council finalised an alternative Transport Oriented Development scheme following extensive negotiation and community consultation. This agreed scheme:
• Focuses high-density development (6–24 storeys) in Gordon and Lindfield centres
• Provides for more moderate uplift at Roseville and Killara, with buildings up to 8 storeys
• Protects high-value heritage conservation areas
• Delivers over 24,700 homes — exceeding the original TOD target
The subject site at Lord Street/Roseville Avenue falls within an area where the agreed scheme contemplates significantly lower density than this proposal. This 267-dwelling, 8–10 storey development directly contradicts the planning outcome negotiated between the State and Council.
While I understand that SSDs lodged with valid SEARs before the new scheme was gazetted may be assessed under the original TOD controls, I submit that the Department should give significant weight to the fact that:
1. The agreed scheme represents the considered position of both the NSW Government and Ku-ring-gai Council on appropriate development in this location
2. Approving developments that conflict with the agreed scheme undermines the integrity of the negotiated outcome
3. The community participated in extensive consultation on the expectation that the agreed controls would apply
Approving this SSD would set an inequitable precedent where one developer benefits from outdated controls while all future development must comply with the agreed framework.

2. Incompatibility with Heritage Conservation Area
The proposed development site is located within or immediately adjacent to the Lord Street/Bancroft Avenue Heritage Conservation Area (C36) and near the Clanville Conservation Area (C32) and The Grove Conservation Area (C35). This area contains significant Federation and Californian Bungalow architecture from the early twentieth century.
The proposed 8–10 storey building is grossly incompatible with:
Scale and grain: The area consists predominantly of 1–2 storey detached dwellings in landscaped garden settings. A building of this height and bulk cannot be sympathetically integrated.
Heritage guidelines: The NSW Government's own Design Guide for Heritage states that new infill buildings in heritage areas should "generally be no higher than neighbouring heritage buildings."
Contributory items: There are concerns that some existing dwellings on the subject site may themselves be contributory heritage items.
The agreed TOD alternative scheme specifically sought to protect heritage conservation areas — approving this development would undermine that key objective.

3. Excessive Height and Bulk
At 8–10 storeys, the proposed development would tower over the surrounding single and two-storey homes. This will result in:
• Severe overshadowing of neighbouring properties, reducing solar access and amenity
• Loss of privacy for adjacent residents due to direct overlooking from elevated apartments
• Visual intrusion that fundamentally alters the streetscape character
• An incongruous high-rise island surrounded by low-density heritage housing
4. Traffic and Parking
The local road network in East Roseville is already severely congested. Lord Street, Roseville Avenue, and Martin Lane experience significant traffic during peak hours and school drop-off/pick-up times.
• Martin Lane is extremely narrow and regularly reduced to single-lane traffic due to commuter parking
• Vehicles queue extensively on Hill Street and Clanville Road at peak times
• Lord Street and Roseville Avenue are already fully parked during weekdays
• Adding 315 car parking spaces for 267 dwellings will exacerbate congestion to an unsustainable level

5. Infrastructure Strain
The existing infrastructure serving this low-density area is not designed for a sudden eightfold increase in population density. Concerns include stormwater drainage capacity, sewerage systems, water supply and pressure, electrical infrastructure, and local school capacity (Roseville Public School is already at capacity).

6. Environmental and Tree Canopy Loss
Roseville is valued for its leafy, tree-lined streets and established gardens. The development will remove mature trees and established gardens across nine residential lots, reduce permeable surfaces, and displace native fauna habitat. The proposed replacement trees will take years to mature and may not survive

7. Inadequate Community Consultation
I understand that many residents in the immediate vicinity report they did not receive the community flyer from Hyecorp that was purportedly distributed. Residents on Lord Street itself were not notified and only learned of the proposal through neighbours.

Accordingly, I respectfully request that the Department refuse this application.
The agreed TOD alternative scheme represents the appropriate balance between housing delivery and heritage protection for Roseville. This development conflicts with that agreed outcome and should not proceed.

I submit that if the application is to be considered further, substantial reductions in height, bulk, and density would be essential, consistent with the "moderate uplift" contemplated for Roseville under the agreed scheme.

Thank you for considering this submission.

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

I live approximately 250 metres from the proposed development.

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

Firstly, the new proposal has taken none of the below concerns into account. In the revised TOD, Ku-ring-gai Council have more than filled the government-required number of new dwellings WITHOUT THIS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I live approximately 250 metres from the proposed development.

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

Firstly, the new proposal has taken none of the below concerns into account. In the revised TOD, Ku-ring-gai Council have more than filled the government-required number of new dwellings WITHOUT THIS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I live approximately 250 metres from the proposed development.

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

Firstly, the new proposal has taken none of the below concerns into account. In the revised TOD, Ku-ring-gai Council have more than filled the government-required number of new dwellings WITHOUT THIS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I live approximately 250 metres from the proposed development.

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

Firstly, the new proposal has taken none of the below concerns into account. In the revised TOD, Ku-ring-gai Council have more than filled the government-required number of new dwellings WITHOUT THIS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regarding the Residential development with in-fill affordable housing, 16-24 Lord Street & 21-27 Roseville Avenue, Roseville (SSD-78996460) I am opposed to this development. We purchased our house on Lord St within the last year because we love the street, suburb, neighbourhood feel and stunning leafy outlook. We enjoy many different types of wildlife every day in our own backyard. We love the tree canopy and the home it affords so many native animals. The reason we moved was because our old house was near a major apartment development and no forethought had been given to traffic and school / other infrastructure impact (not to mention environmental). I do not believe that this proposed development is in the best public interest, and I don't think it should be further progressed. It seems to me that the TOD planning controls were introduced without public consultation and I much prefer the proposals under Council's Preferred Scenario, particularly because it maintains the unique character of this beautiful part of Roseville. Further I do not recall ever receiving original flyer in the mail. I find such things particularly interesting and would remember receiving it. I only found out about this proposed development from a neighbour and was not aware of any of the information on Hyecorp's site. I vehemently oppose the demolition of the houses required for this project and don't feel that proper consideration could possibly have been given for the traffic and schooling impact as a result of both construction and after finalisation. We are required to make a right-hand turn off Lord onto Archbold every morning to get our children to their bus. This is a nearly impossible task as it is and I cannot imagine what would happen if we added this many apartments to the street. Martin Lane is already a rat run and this will make things exponentially worse. I further worry about the impact to the scout hall, tree canopy, parking, and the SIGNIFICANT number of trees that would be removed. We as individuals are not allowed to remove trees (even when they cause danger and/significant burden), so why can huge developers? There are alternate solutions that have a much softer impact. Lastly, Hyecorp’s response to original objections is ludicrous and does not offer any meaningful changes to address local residents’ legitimate concerns. Most importantly, none of the changes address the inappropriateness of a building of this scale and bulk in this location. I urge you strongly not to approve this development.

Regarding : Residential development with in-fill affordable housing. 16-24 Lord Street &21-27 Roseville Avenue , Roseville 2069

Dear Sir/ Madam,

I am writing to object to the above mentioned SSD at Roseville NSW 2069.
These are the reasons for my objection.

1. 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.

2. The re- exhibition has made minimal changes. The Applicant has added more affordable units in the proposed SSD. But. The statistics on housing/unit prices in Roseville are beyond the government's definition of ‘affordable'.

3. The applicant has continued to ignore community concerns since it’s last exhibition. We have not been invited to speak with them or listen to their proposal. The proposal does not conform to the government's low-to-mid-rise housing objective for the area (as per the revised and accepted TOD program)
4. The proposal does not conform to the government's low-to-mid-rise housing objective for the area (as per the revised and accepted TOD program).

5. 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.’

For these reasons, I object to the proposed Development at 16- 24 Lord Street, and 21- 27 Roseville Avenue.






I







Regarding : Residential development with in-fill affordable housing. 16-24 Lord Street &21-27 Roseville Avenue , Roseville 2069

Dear Sir/ Madam,

I am writing to object to the above mentioned SSD at Roseville NSW 2069.
These are the reasons for my objection.

1. 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.

2. The re- exhibition has made minimal changes. The Applicant has added more affordable units in the proposed SSD. But. The statistics on housing/unit prices in Roseville are beyond the government's definition of ‘affordable'.

3. The applicant has continued to ignore community concerns since it’s last exhibition. We have not been invited to speak with them or listen to their proposal. The proposal does not conform to the government's low-to-mid-rise housing objective for the area (as per the revised and accepted TOD program)
4. The proposal does not conform to the government's low-to-mid-rise housing objective for the area (as per the revised and accepted TOD program).

5. 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.’

For these reasons, I object to the proposed Development at 16- 24 Lord Street, and 21- 27 Roseville Avenue.

Dear Sir,

Proposed Development by Hyecorp
16-24 Lord Street & 21-27 Roseville Avenue, Roseville.

This submission sets out my strong opposition to the proposed development by Hyecorp of a 9-storey apartment building in a heritage conservation area. If approved the development will irrevocably change the heritage nature of the suburb to the detriment of current residents and future generations.

Conflicts With the Council’s Preferred Development Scenario

When preparing their application Hyecorp were aware of the alternative planning options being considered by Council and the community feedback to these options however they failed to take these into consideration when preparing their application. I believe that the Department need to assess the application based upon the TOD guidelines but taking into consideration the intent of the Council’s preferred scenario.

To approve a 9-storey development within the heritage conservation area would be entirely inconsistent with the Councils Preferred Scenario and the wishes of a significant majority of residents.

The application is not compliant with the original TOD in a number of key areas and as such should be rejected.

Overwhelming opposition to the proposal

The overwhelming majority of submissions are residents objecting to the proposal. These people live, work and raise their families in the area and their views should be given serious consideration when the application and its impact on the local area is being assessed. The small number of parties making submissions in support of the application appear to be either from people not resident in the area or from people associated with the development and who will benefit financially if the application is approved. Any person or group submitting should be required to declare if they have a financial interest in the outcome of the application.

Failure to Engage with the Community

We reiterate the points raised in our previous submission as a result of the applicant failing to address the concerns in their response to submissions. The minor changes included in the updated submission in no way address our concerns or those of other residents.

Of particular concern is the failure of the developer to comply with the legal requirement to engage with the community to seek their input and to base their development application in light of community feedback.

The applicant’s claim that they “letter box dropped” 1,300 homes in the area of the development is demonstrably incorrect as evidenced by the large number of residents who received no notification and of those that did receive a ‘flyer” it was received too late for them to attend the community drop-in session.

I have personally canvassed residents in Victoria Street and Wandella Avenue and none of the people spoken with had received the developer’s “flyer”

Only 5 people attended the drop in event which should have been an indication to the applicant that their community engagement was not working. Of the 5 attendees a number were owners of sites being sold to the developer and therefore conflicted.

Hyecorp were fully aware of the contentious nature of their application due to the ongoing and very public actions being undertaken by the Council to prevent developments such as theirs in the heritage conservation are. The Councils effective community engagement when preparing their alternative development scenarios clearly demonstrates the public opposition to development such as this in the heritage conservation areas to the east of the railway.

As a minimum Hyecorp should have taken further pro-active steps to effectively engage with the community and fulfill their statutory obligations when preparing a valid EIS.

Hyecorp have made no attempt to engage with community groups when preparing their updated application.

Lack of Infrastructure

In addition to these fundamental issues, I am also very aware of the negative impact this development would have on local infrastructure, in particular the local road network, street parking, school capacity and water/sewer infrastructure. I don’t believe that any of these issues have been adequately addressed by the applicant. On the contrary I believe that the EIS has been prepared with the intended aim of highlighting the positives and disregarding or misleadingly downplaying the negatives.

Affordability

The “affordable” units within the development will not be “affordable” to essential service workers, first home buyers etc as a consequence of the high market value of the units by virtue of the location.

Conclusion

The applicant has failed to lodge a compliant EIS due to their lack of engagement with the community and consequential lack of community input into the project design.

The application should be assessed taking into consideration the Council’s Preferred Scenario as supported by the majority of Ku ring gai residents. On this basis the application should be rejected and developer activity directed to areas identified in the Preferred Scenario for increased density.

To whom it may concern,

I am a lifelong resident of Ku-ring-gai and I am writing to object to the proposed Hyecorp development at 16–24 Lord Street and 21–27 Roseville Avenue, Roseville.

This proposal would permanently alter one of Roseville’s most established residential pockets and, in my view, does so in a way that is neither necessary nor justified. The combination of heritage loss, environmental damage, traffic impacts, and excessive scale makes this an inappropriate development for this location.

A central issue is that Ku-ring-gai Council’s Preferred Housing Scenario has now been finalised and formally approved by the State Government. This scenario provides a State-endorsed framework for accommodating housing growth while protecting local character, heritage significance, infrastructure capacity and environmental values. It deliberately directs higher-density development to appropriate locations, including along the Pacific Highway corridor, on the western side of Roseville, and in suburbs such as Gordon and Lindfield which are already being built up.

Despite this, the Hyecorp proposal (which was rushed through by the Developer as soon as the State Government TOD was announced) introduces large-scale, high-rise development into Lord Street and Roseville Avenue—quiet, low-density residential streets characterised by heritage homes and mature trees. This is exactly the type of location the approved Preferred Housing Scenario seeks to protect. Approving a development that directly contradicts a State-approved strategic framework would undermine planning consistency. It also sets a very damaging precedent for future decision making.

The proposal involves the demolition of nine existing homes that contribute to the heritage and character of the area. The site is located within and adjacent to multiple heritage conservation areas and is surrounded by a significant number of heritage-listed and character-significant properties. Once these homes are removed, that part of Roseville’s history is lost forever and cannot be replaced.

Environmental impacts are also substantial. The proposal requires the removal of almost a hundred trees, including mature canopy trees that provide shade, reduce urban heat, assist with stormwater management, and support local wildlife. These trees are a defining feature of Roseville’s leafy character, and their loss will permanently diminish the environmental quality of the area.
The scale of the proposed buildings is another major concern. Four buildings of up to nine storeys (approximately 31.1 metres) are completely out of character with surrounding development, which is overwhelmingly one or two storeys. These buildings will dominate the streetscape, result in unacceptable visual bulk, and fundamentally change the look and feel of the neighbourhood.
Amenity impacts on neighbouring properties are significant. The Developer’s Environmental Impact Statement confirms that homes on the southern side of Lord Street will lose precious winter sunlight from early afternoon. In addition, the height of the buildings will lead to extensive overlooking, resulting in a serious loss of privacy for existing residents.

Traffic and parking pressures will also worsen. Congestion around Roseville Station is already severe, particularly during peak commuter and school drop-off and pick-up periods. Streets such as Lord Street, Roseville Avenue, Clanville Road and Hill Street are narrow and operate at or beyond capacity. They were never meant to carry the load of the large population from huge developments such as this Hyecorp development. The proposal includes 344 car parking spaces and will introduce hundreds of additional residents into an area with limited road access, exacerbating congestion and safety risks.

Construction impacts should also be considered. This is not a short-term project but a large-scale development likely to take several years at a minimum – these kinds of developments have the potential to continue on for many years. Extended construction hours, heavy vehicle movements, noise, dust and vibration will cause prolonged disruption to a quiet residential area, affecting families, elderly residents and people working from home.

There is no need to over develop so many beautiful old suburbs in Sydney. Heritage, character, canopy, privacy, traffic control and space are all important for liveability. I would request the government ensure that further development is sensibly located and planned, reasonable with respect to local amenity and character, and incorporates input from local Councils who understand the particular needs of the area. If we develop without council input to ensure appropriate planning controls, and without taking into account residents' concerns, so many areas in Sydney will no longer be “liveable”, character-filled, heritage-rich or even appealing as a location to reside.

I feel it must be rather difficult to justify the many negative impacts on the heritage rich suburb of Roseville given the limited public benefit on housing affordability this development will deliver. Only 2% of dwellings are proposed as affordable housing over the long term, with a further 15% affordable for a limited 15-year period. The remainder of the development is clearly targeted at the luxury market and therefore it does not meaningfully address long-term housing affordability.

Given the existence of a State-approved Preferred Housing Scenario and the cumulative impacts outlined above, I do not believe this development should be approved.

I respectfully request that this proposal be refused.

Kind Regards,
Jackie Nevill
Lifelong resident of Ku-ring-gai with close family ties in Roseville

To whom it may concern,

I live in West Pymble and I am writing to object to the proposed Hyecorp development in Lord Street and Roseville Avenue, Roseville. My family has strong ties to this area — my grandparents live there — so I know these streets well and understand how they function day to day.

The following outlines my concerns.

Scale and Character issues:
One of the first things that stands out to me is how extreme the scale of this proposal is compared to its surroundings. Four buildings up to nine storeys high will sit among homes that are mostly one or two storeys. That kind of height and bulk is not a gradual change; it will completely dominate the streetscape and permanently alter the character of the area.

Traffic/Congestion:
Another immediate concern is traffic. Congestion around Roseville Station is already intense, particularly during school drop-off and pick-up times. This isn’t theoretical — it’s something I’ve witnessed repeatedly myself and heard discussed often by people who live nearby. Adding hundreds of new residents and 344 car parking spaces will inevitably push traffic into surrounding residential streets, effectively turning them into overflow carparks during peak periods.

Environmental cost, overshadowing and privacy issues:
The environmental cost of this proposal also feels disproportionate. The removal of 91 trees, many of them mature canopy trees, will reduce shade, increase heat and erode the leafy identity that Roseville is known for. These are trees that have taken decades to grow and cannot simply be replaced.

There are also impacts that are less visible at first glance but no less significant. Overshadowing of neighbouring homes and loss of privacy from buildings of this height will affect how existing residents are able to use and enjoy their properties.

Issues previously raised have been largely ignored:
All of these concerns above were raised by hundreds of residents during the first exhibition period, yet the changes made by the developer since that time are minimal and largely cosmetic. None of the amendments materially reduce the scale of the development or its impacts on surrounding residents. The revisions appear to be tokenistic and a box-ticking exercise, rather than a genuine response to community feedback. There has been no meaningful engagement with the community, nor any substantive attempt to address the fundamental problems created by the proposal.

This process raises serious concerns about accountability, as it suggests that developers can technically comply (or appear to comply) with exhibition requirements without genuinely responding to objections or addressing the impacts on established neighbourhoods.

Preferred Housing Scenario:
It is only after considering these on-the-ground impacts that the broader planning issue becomes unavoidable. Since the original exhibition of this proposal, Ku-ring-gai Council has finalised its Preferred Housing Scenario, and this scenario has now been formally approved by the State Government. That framework sets out where housing growth should be focused while protecting local character, heritage, infrastructure capacity and environmental values.

The approved scenario clearly directs higher-density development to areas such as the Pacific Highway corridor and the western side of Roseville — locations with existing scale, transport links and capacity. Lord Street and Roseville Avenue are not identified as suitable for this level of development. Approving a high-rise project here would directly contradict a State-approved planning framework and weaken confidence in consistent decision-making.

Does not improve housing crisis:
When the very significant negative impacts on the suburb are taken into account, I don't believe the development can be justified given the limited public benefit it offers. Only 2% of dwellings are proposed as affordable housing long term, with most apartments clearly targeted at the luxury market. Therefore, this development does not even align with the stated objectives of the TOD program.

For all of these reasons — the excessive scale, traffic and environmental impacts, amenity loss, and inconsistency with a State-approved strategic framework — I urge the State Government to refuse this proposal and to respect Ku-ring-gai Council’s Preferred Housing Scenario.
Sincerely,
Long-term Ku-ring-gai Resident
\West Pymble, NSW

OPPOSING SUBMISSION FOR SSD 78996460
16 LORD ST ROSEVILLE ETC

I did not make a submission on the EIS because I was overseas.

I reside at 27A Lord Street, Roseville.

I remain opposed to the amended proposal.

I agree with and adopt the submission by the council and Sydney Water accepting that a few of those submissions have been addressed.

I acknowledge the project meets some of the desires for increased housing but the proposal , while within planning rules , is completely out of character with the now gazetted Roseville planning scheme and the fact an existing SEARS was granted should not prevent a refusal of the application or a major scaling down.

I comment on a number of statements in the report.

The 1.1 m reduction if height is not sufficient to meet maximum building height and the developer acknowledges there will be parts still above the maximum height.

The project will still impact the built environment. The minor variations do not change that fact.

There will also be negative social impacts. EG street parking, traffic movement, increased population in a small area, noise from apartments, privacy.

There will still be negative economic impacts especially on the value of surrounding properties which now cannot participate in high or medium rise developments. This is a strong anti factor not usually occurring in standard high rise developments as the council has zoned the surrounding properties as residential only.

There does not appear to be an assessment of solar impact or overshadowing for properties on the southern side of Lord Street. The architect plans show complete overshadowing of houses in Lord Street at winter solstice. This is wrong and unfair

The number of car park spaces should not be reduced. The surrounding streets are completely parked out now.

The applicant has not adequately addressed the impact on properties on the south side of Lord Street , eg setbacks, overshadowing. Partial shading is acknowledged. This should not be permitted. Not all properties have backyards which are presently shaded. Height reduction is required.

It is stated there will be no impact on HCA. How can this be correct? The project involves demolition of buildings in the HCA.

It is farcical to suggest street level trees and colours on the facade could have any impact on the views in to surrounding houses from the site or to the site. This is established by the Urbaine assessment that the impact on Lord Street is moderate to severe. This confirms the excessive scale of the project.

The sheer bulk and size of the proposal is totally out of character with the HCA. Nine stories is far too high.

Accordingly the project is not in the public interest.




D B Armati
27.1.26
0411631938
[email protected]

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

My name is Suzanna Boyd, living at 11 Lord Street Roseville which is across the road from the proposed development.

I am supportive of a well planned increase in density in Roseville and Kuringai. Kuringai council and NSW government have reached agreement on how to deliver the required density while maintaining key features of the Roseville community and protecting the heritage conservation areas.

I have read Hyecorp's revised submission in detail and it is completely at odds with what has been agreed with NSW government. If this development were to go ahead it would create an island site that will never sit well with the surrounding dwellings. This is the opposite of density done well, as espoused by NSW Premier Chris Minns.

Hyecorp has provided a response to the 100s of objections received in the first round. It does very little to address any of the issues as outlined below. None of the changes will make a meaningful difference to the impact on the community and the lived experience.

I continue to object to the proposed development.
- This proposal would not be allowed under the revised rezoning agreed between the NSW government and Kuringai Council. The developer would be exploiting a small window which would totally destroy the fabric of the zoning that has been agreed.
- Hyecorp says they undertook a community consultation. This never happened despite Hyecorp's response.
- Given the Metro beneath the east side of Roseville station, the blocks to the west of the proposed development will not be able to support basements and multiple stories. Between the metro and heritage listed houses, other than the site Hyecorp has managed to secure, there won't be any other feasible multi story development. An island site will be created which will be against the principles of sound planning or 'density done well’ as annunciated by Premier Chris Minns.
- heritage listed houses - there are significant numbers of heritage listed houses in the surrounding area. The proposed development will significantly impact the heritage listed houses.
- Martin Lane is already dysfunctional with only one lane of traffic available during week days due to parked cars. Adding ~250 apartments will materially increase the number of parked cars and traffic which will create gridlock in the neighbourhood.
- The Hyecorp EIS states the development fits in with the heritage environment of the neighbourhood. This is ludicrous. The proposal has sought to maximise FSR and height on boundaries. This destroys the heritage ascetic as well as sunlight due to the bulk and height.
- Under the agreed zoning there are now plenty of opportunities near Roseville station for Hyecorp to pursue that would be consistent with the community's future

Dear Sir or Madam,

Re: Submission in Response to Hyecorp residential development, 16-24 Lord Street & 21-27 Roseville Avenue, Roseville

I would like to lodge a submission in response to the proponent’s Response to Submissions (RTS) document. Having reviewed the RTS in detail, I remain firmly opposed to the proposed development, as the amended scheme fails to meaningfully address the serious concerns raised by Ku-ring-gai Council, independent experts, and the local community.

Despite the substantial volume of the RTS and its appendices, the document offers little in the way of genuine or material change. The proposal remains fundamentally inconsistent with established planning controls, local character, and sound strategic planning principles endorsed by Council and agreed with the NSW Government in late 2025.
While the RTS summarises the objections received, it does not adequately respond to them. In particular, concerns relating to excessive height, bulk and scale, heritage impacts, and incompatibility with surrounding development have not been resolved.

The limited changes proposed by the applicant are minor and do not alter the development’s overall impact, including:

- A reduction of the podium of the smallest tower by a single storey, and a height reduction of only 1.1 metres to the remaining towers, leaving the maximum height at 30.1 metres. This continues to exceed the applicable TOD height limit of 28.6 metres.
- A marginal reduction in the number of dwellings from 259 to 252.
- A reduction in gross floor area of approximately 144 square metres, representing less than a 0.5% decrease in overall bulk.

Given the scale of the proposal, these changes are inconsequential and will have no meaningful effect on the development’s visual dominance or impact on the surrounding area.
The bulk and massing of the proposal remain wholly inappropriate for the site and its context. These issues were central to community submissions and Council’s concerns, yet they remain effectively unaddressed.

References in the RTS to altered colour palettes, additional seating, or internal design changes do not mitigate the fundamental planning issue: the development is substantially out of scale with its surroundings and fails to respond appropriately to local character.

Claims that Council-standard setbacks have been adopted are not substantiated by the revised plans.
Of particular concern is the RTS’s dismissal of the findings of independent heritage and town planning experts engaged by the East Roseville Action Group. These expert assessments identified significant and credible impacts on heritage values and local character. The RTS provides no convincing or evidence-based justification for disregarding this advice.

The proposed development continues to pose an unacceptable risk to the heritage significance and established built form of the area.
The RTS also fails to adequately address broader strategic planning considerations, including:

- The lack of meaningful consultation with the local community
- Inadequate collaboration with Ku-ring-gai Council
- Impacts on tree canopy, biodiversity, and the local environment
- The absence of demonstrated capacity for supporting infrastructure
- The inappropriate extension of high-density development beyond a genuinely transit-oriented catchment

While higher density development may be appropriate in targeted locations, particularly within close proximity (approximately 150 metres) of a railway station, this proposal exceeds what can reasonably be justified on that basis. A blanket approach to density, including large-scale towers and dual occupancy outcomes, is not supported by the planning context of this site.
In summary, the RTS does not resolve the substantive planning issues raised in earlier submissions. The proposal remains an overdevelopment of the site, inconsistent with planning controls, local character, heritage values, and infrastructure capacity.

Accordingly, I respectfully request that the consent authority give significant consideration to the unresolved concerns and refuse the application in its current form.

Thank you for the opportunity to make this further submission.

Yours faithfully,

Ann Louise Cameron

Dear The Hon. Paul Scully, Minister for Planning,

Objection to residential development with in-fill affordable housing, 16-24 Lord Street & 21-27 Roseville Avenue, Roseville (SSD-78996460)

I oppose the proposed development for the following reasons:

Transport Oriented Development

The Transport Oriented Development (TOD) Program is described by the NSW Government as a “land use planning approach that encourages sustainable and mixed-use development around transport and aims to create vibrant and walkable communities.” Except that this proposed development is not designed to leverage existing transport. It creates a new transport problem by proposing to build more than 300 new car spots (in a space currently occupied by 9 houses only, on land which adjoins a lane which is too narrow for two cars to pass). Any TOD development should not be allowed any car parking to be developed on site and dwellings in such a development should not be eligible for on street parking in the suburb. If the argument is that this development can bypass the normal planning and approval requirements on the basis that it leverages existing transport, it should do just that and not be permitted to create unmanageable congestion in narrow, historic surrounding streets unable to accommodate existing traffic flows at peak times, let alone increased traffic of the proposed magnitude. Existing traffic flows (particularly in roads adjoining Roseville College) are extremely problematic in peak times. Hill Street regularly becomes gridlocked from Boundary Street back past Bancroft Avenue to the shops. Cars do increasingly dangerous moves to cross Boundary Street at that intersection to get to the right hand turn on to Archer Street as there are no traffic lights enabling traffic flow to enter from Roseville safely onto Boundary Street. My understanding is that Boundary Street is one of the most dangerous streets in Sydney for accidents. Hyecorp is seeking to add a huge additional strain on the already inadequate traffic arrangements with no proposed changes being contemplated to support that huge increase. The reality is that within walking distance of the proposed development there is no supermarket, limited restaurants and cafes, limited childcare spots and limited healthcare services. Wonderful as Roseville is, the existing infrastructure does not support or enable a walkable community – this development will solely encourage further gridlock and further frustrated residents who live in a suburb which has many train services bypass it.

Other infrastructure challenges

Relying on this initiative to propose this development shows how the NSW Government fails to plan, and therefore plans to fail, by proceeding without any consultation with local residents or understanding of the current infrastructure challenges the area currently experiences. As an example of a non-transport infrastructure challenge: water pressure is abysmally low. The water tower located in Chatswood that services Roseville is located on land that is largely flat (i.e. the typography of the land does not facilitate adequate water pressure). We cannot run
more than one tap in our household at the same time. How is servicing a monstrous building going to affect water pressure in the suburb? Has the NSW Government prioritised expenditure for upgrading the water supply? Living in Roseville has many wonderful environmental and historical benefits, but Roseville has inadequate services in almost every respect – reflecting the history of the suburb.

Community engagement

The Gyde Social Impact Assessment provides that “Impacts related to sense of place related to heritage and the conservation zone” are to be addressed through “Continued engagement with surrounding residents”. We live in a Heritage Conservation Area in Roseville and received no contact at all from Hyecorp – no flyers in the letterbox, no engagement in any shape or form. We first heard about this on a local Facebook group on 22 April 2025. We have, however, subsequently received communication from our local Council and neighbours. This is why Hyecorp as a developer has no appreciation for the values that underpin community life in Roseville and is a clear indication that Hyecorp has no interest in any community feedback. It is hard to join a community drop-in session if you have not heard about the proposed development, let alone the session. Hyecorp wants to demolish Roseville’s heritage and destroy the uniqueness of Roseville to line its own pockets. If Hyecorp was interested in building affordable housing, they could have offered affordable housing in their existing development in Roseville. Their existing development is a luxury offering. This is solely about money.

If the NSW Government approves this application, this gives a clear message that the NSW Government is prepared to prioritise business with developers over the overwhelming feedback from its constituents (bypassing well established and democratic processes).

Affordable housing

I wanted to outline that my opposition to this development does not suggest that I deny that housing in Sydney is a huge issue. It’s a struggle for my family, and if we were starting out right now, we would have purchased even later. There needs to be a whole range of government policies to address this issue. Expecting developers to solve this issue is delusional (particularly where the developer has no real interest (or prior experience) in delivering quality affordable housing). Tax breaks for investment properties need to be eliminated (or at least reduced), high taxes for unoccupied properties levied and programs should be introduced to facilitate anyone with a spare room being able to rent that room out in a way that encourages participation and reduces risk for both home-owners and renters. Immigration needs to be better managed (including by prioritising migration of skilled construction workers, rather than university graduates). Bank lending requirements should be carefully reconsidered. Young people need to be supported and not burdened with overwhelming housing costs (and ultimately debt, for the small number that can afford to purchase). This problem needs a range of measures to be introduced – an inappropriately sized building in the wrong place with a small number of affordable apartments is not the solution to this problem. The NSW Government needs to approach this problem in an innovative and open-minded way: it needs to consult with a range of constituents and stakeholders and assess where the greatest housing needs exist. The property obsession that is pervasive in Sydney is to the detriment of the cultural development and social cohesion of Sydneysiders. Opposition to an inappropriate development is not a “not-in-my-backyard” response. It is a plea for the NSW Government to show leadership in planning, consultation and in developing a future Sydney that is diverse, affordable, genuinely liveable and connected. Ticking a box to bypass these normal considerations to “rubber stamp” new residences based solely on increasing supply of housing stock is the antithesis to thoughtful development.

Heritage impact

If the NSW Government allows this development, it sends an overwhelming message that heritage does not matter. But the opposite is true: history is important. There are relatively few areas of Sydney with cohesive areas of architectural and heritage significance. The NSW Government should protect these areas for future generations. This is not a question of a handful of houses (or even the destruction of the suburb as it currently exists). It is an acknowledgment and respect for the history of the city and its inhabitants. It is engaging respectfully with residents to determine the value that should be attributed to these areas. However, this is not a history that belongs to solely local residents. It is something that is observable and discernible by visitors to the suburb. It is the joy of walking through this garden suburb and observing the architectural integrity that has been carefully managed by Ku-ring-gai Council since the establishment of the Heritage Conservation Areas in Roseville. Putting a huge multi-storey development in the middle of this unique area that towers over and shadows all surrounding housing is the equivalent to an act of vandalism resulting in an irretrievable loss of history and heritage.

I urge you to refuse consent to this development.

This is a supplementary submission and maintains my objection.
This supplementary submission should be grouped with SE-104701457
*As indicated in my previous submission SE-104701457, the proponent largely relies on "this proposal provides more housing" and does not satisfactorily address all other requirements.
*However, even on the issue of need, the proposal is not "needed" because the adopted alternative plan provides for more housing than what the government has identified is required. That is to say, the need is addressed by another comprehensive framework. Whatever might have been the need before, has fallen away.
*My previous submission indicated that the proponent in its RTS admitted that it did not consider the alternative scheme in its EIS. The reference for that is at RTS, 4.1, page 39 where Hyecorp made in plain its view (and basis for preparation) was "At the time of lodgement of the EIS (16 April 2025), Ku-ring-gai Council’s Alternative Planning Scenario was not a relevant environmental planning instrument or a “proposed instrument” under section 4.15(1)(a)(ii) of the EP&A Act. It was endorsed by Council on 5 June 2025 and submitted to DPHI on 10 June 2025, both dates after lodgement. Accordingly, it was not required to be considered in the EIS to assess future character and its omission at that stage was consistent with statutory requirements. As the Housing SEPP Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) provisions applied in Roseville, the initial future character assessment was therefore based on the TOD provisions that applied at the time of lodgement." Accordingly, the proponent having admitted they didn't consider it before, what is it that they have truly done to now to consider it? The answer is nil or so small as to be nil. As indicated in my submission, minimal changes to, at most, technically comply (on their submission) with setbacks they are applicable DOES NOT evidence taking into account the adopted alternative desired future character. In any event, the setbacks they say they need to comply with do not reflect the setbacks required.
*I observe that at Chatswood at peakhour the metro is crowded and it is not possible for those transferring at Chatswood (because they need to go to an ultimate metro destination) to safely join. This is a productivity waste which will be compounded by approval of a development that is surplus to needs given the other comprehensive framework. Infrastructure modelling needs to be re-visited.
*My submissions raised issues with how the proponent did and continues to represent in a diagram desired future character. To those concerns, i add the representation of the development on the church lots at Hill/Bancroft and Lord near hill and at Lord near Martin lane is not realistic.

1. The height of these buildings at 30.1 meters is completely out of proportion and out of context with EVERY building surrounding it. They will be approximately 21 meters taller than anything around them. Blocking out light and shadowing everything around them.
2. Insufficient underground and onsite parking for the number of units built.
3. Lack of street parking for excess cars associated with residents of the new buildings.
4. Lack of amenities for the increased number of occupants from this development.

Hyecorp has made very minor changes to their original plans in response to the legitimate concerns from the Council and local residents, particularly the destruction of heritage buildings and trees and the requirement to fit in with the local character of the area. The proposed development is far too big in scale and height to fit in with the heritage environment in this locality. The height is above the maximum allowed in the TOD. The development will cause significant traffic increases, especially in the adjacent Martin Lane which already has traffic flow problems. This development is inappropriate in its scale and bulk for the proposed site.

I am writing to lodge a submission regarding the proposed development at 16–24 Lord Street, Roseville and 21–27 Roseville Avenue, Roseville. After reviewing the proposal, I wish to raise the following concerns

Scale and Built Form

The overall scale and bulk of the proposed development are significantly larger than what is typical for the surrounding area and do not sit comfortably within the established residential context. Among the various Transport Oriented Development (TOD) locations, this proposal is the most out of character and would permanently alter the character of Sydney.

The existing homes on this site represent some of Sydney’s finest and most historically significant residences. Their demolition would be a tragic loss to our shared heritage and to what makes Sydney unique and distinctive. The revised Hyecorp submission fails to meaningfully address community concerns and does not provide a genuine or balanced response to the housing crisis.

Suburb Character

Roseville is defined by low-density development, landscaped setbacks, and a strong garden suburb identity. The proposal does not respond to or reinforce this character. Instead, it would dominate the streetscape, appearing entirely out of place and disconnected from its surroundings.

Site Density

The intensity of development across the combined sites raises serious concerns that dwelling yield has been prioritised over appropriate site planning, scale, and sensitivity to the local context.

Landscaping and Tree Canopy

The loss of mature trees and the reduction of deep soil zones will significantly diminish the leafy character of the area and negatively impact local environmental values.

Traffic Generation

The proposed development will substantially increase vehicle movements, placing further pressure on Lord Street, Roseville Avenue, and surrounding streets. The area already experiences severe parking congestion, largely due to commuters accessing Roseville Station. This has resulted in significant parking stress, and the proposed development would further entrench traffic congestion and gridlock.

Notably, only 10% of the proposed dwellings are intended to be car-free, meaning approximately 90% of residents are likely to own vehicles, exacerbating existing issues.


Amenity Impacts

The proposal raises concerns regarding impacts on neighbouring properties, including loss of privacy, overshadowing, and reduced access to sunlight. The minimal reductions in height do little to mitigate these impacts.

Infrastructure and Services

There is insufficient evidence that existing local infrastructure and services can accommodate the increased population generated by this proposal. To date, the community has not seen any meaningful commitment from Hyecorp to improving infrastructure or services to support development of this scale.

Planning Consistency

It remains unclear whether the proposal satisfies the objectives of the relevant Local Environmental Plan and Development Control Plan, particularly in relation to character, amenity, and sustainable growth.

In summary I believe the proposed development will represent good financial fortunes for the developer and will tear up and destroy one of Sydney's most special and historic communities. It will be a dark day for Sydney should this development be approved, all that incredible history and culture destroyed immediately. Sydney must be better than that!

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). I am responding to the Notice of exhibition of Response to Submissions by Hyecorp Property Group.

My name is Carolyn Meagher and I live at 59 Lord Street Roseville, approximately 340m from this development. I have lived in Roseville with my family of 6 for 20 years, we enjoy living in this area for it’s green environment and tree canopy, the emphasis on heritage the Council has, and the green space this area has allowed my family to grow up in.

The response from Hyecorp, whilst being hundreds of pages long with over 1800 appendices, does nothing to meaningfully address the issues raised by me, other local residents, and Kuringgai Council. According to the note by Aditi Coomar from Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure to renotify me of the response to submissions by Hyecorp, the key changes include:

• reduction in building height by 1.1 metres;
• reduction in total apartment numbers from 259 to 252;
• increase in affordable housing apartments from 48 to 55;
• amendments to façade design and reconfiguration of floor plans;
• increase in building setbacks; and
• removal of retaining wall on the eastern boundary.

These changes made by Hyecorp in response to submissions are inconsequential, and do little to address many of the issues raised with the development such as the height and bulk when compared to its neighbours, the impact of traffic on surrounding streets, and the impact on the heritage of the area.

A Preferred Scenario to the NSW Government’s Transport Orientated Development was designed, with much community input, by Kuringgai Council. This Preferred Scenario is providing more homes than was originally planned, whilst minimising environmental and heritage impacts, and this Preferred Scenario was accepted by NSW Government late in 2025. Under the accepted Preferred Scenario this development by Hyecorp in Lord Street and Roseville Avenue would not be allowed to proceed, as the area will not be rezoned. Therefore, if this development is allowed to proceed it will be the only one of its kind in this and surrounding blocks. This large scale, multi storey development will be an offensive, contentious encroachment to the families and lives of people living next door and near to this development. The adjoining properties will be most affected, not only in terms of lifestyle but also their property values will drop considerably, and this would be a very unfair outcome for everyone affected. Who would want to live next door to an 8-9 storey apartment block with no recourse. I am incredibly disillusioned at the thought that the NSW Government might “save” this development, whilst ignoring Kuringgai Council’s efforts and residents’ objections.

I support Kuringgai Council’s Preferred Scenario, as they have done this with much public consultation, unlike the TOD plans which were introduced without consultation. The Preferred Scenario while achieving the outcomes of the NSW Government TOD plans also takes into consideration the preservation of heritage conservation areas, environmentally sensitive areas, minimises tree canopy impact, and manages building height transitions.

Height - this massive 31m development of 4 apartment buildings and 9 storeys, is totally out of proportion to its surroundings. It is next to a heritage Scout Hall and will dominate the Hall as well as its neighbours. Some of the visuals the Developer has included are very misleading as they show a panoramic view of the buildings as seen from across the road, the dimensions are not correct, you would have to be standing much further back to see the whole building. The height of the development will also adversely effect the privacy of adjoining homes, and the light and sun access to surrounding area. There is absolutely no transition of heights to adjoining buildings, you go from 9 storeys to single storey next door.

Traffic - the impact of traffic on the surrounding streets is not properly addressed in the EIS, which indicates net increase of 43 vehicle trips during the weekday AM peak and 32 vehicle trips during the PM peak hour - even with the 7 reduced apartments (252) and 344 car spaces this is highly implausible. The access from Roseville onto the major roads is already congested in the peak hours, there needs to be better access before large apartment blocks are built, and more long term parking for commuters. There is only one car access into this Development on Lord Street which will create another high traffic area and less on-street parking. This Development runs along Martin Lane, which is a small lane that only one car can pass when there is parked cars on both sides of the lane. Martin Lane is a “rat run” in this suburb and it constantly creates traffic jams where cars are backed up waiting to pass. Martin Lane is also a bus route, sometimes the bus has to back up out of the lane when there is not enough room for it to pass. If an apartment with 344 car spaces sits right next to Martin Lane, one can only imagine the negative impact. The Roseville College school in Bancroft Ave (one street away from Lord St) has many cars at drop of and pick up times, already impacting the surrounding streets.

Impact on Heritage - this Development will severely impact a high quality heritage neighbourhood. Kuringgai Council and its residents have always considered heritage a very important aspect of planning. Hyecorp’s assertions that the dwellings at the site do not feature a high degree of aesthetic significance are misleading. The Council’s Preferred Scenario protects Heritage Conservation Areas and this development does not fit into this Scenario.

Infrastructure - NSW Government’s TOD plans do nothing to help with the already congested roads, schools, open spaces, problems with water and sewerage pipes. This Hyecorp Development will just increase these problems, the Council has tried to at least mitigate these issues with its Preferred Scenario.

Environment - 91 trees are proposed to be removed to accommodate this Development, again the Council has tried to mitigate impacts to tree canopy. Also this Development does not put anything back into the community, no greens space, nothing for the public.

Housing - this Development has 55 “affordable housing” dwellings out of 252 apartments and has been able to increase its size accordingly. This is such a phony exercise as they will be “affordable” for 15 years and affordable only because they will be rented at a % lower than the average rent for Roseville - hardly affordable. Also these apartments are described as luxury residential developments, and as we can determine from previous examples will cost upwards of $1.5 million - again hardly affordable. I am angry that we residents are sold the idea of affordable housing and more housing stock when these apartments won’t be purchased by first home buyers and most probably purchased by overseas buyers/investors. As a local resident, I am also worried about the value of my property, and I don’t buy Hyecorp’s claim that this development will help with the value of surrounding properties.

Trying to get my head around the Hyecorp reponse is difficult and I feel Hyecorp have ignored many of the issues I have regarding heritage, traffic, town planning and local character. This Development will not enhance its surrounds, I don’t believe the affordable housing will be genuine, and its neighbours will be greatly negatively affected.

This Development should not be allowed to continue because the Council’s Preferred Scenario has fulfilled the NSW Government’s TOD objectives and this Development is not in line with Kuringgai Council’s vision.

This application lodged under the TOD scheme is not in the public interest for NSW residents or for generations to come. East-side Roseville is primarily made up of 1-2 storey, mostly heritage homes. This proposed development is not along the train line corridor, it is in the middle of these homes. These heritage homes and those around it should be protected for the future. Once gone, they’re gone forever.
Ku-ring-gai Council has put forward its sensible Preferred Scenario which will allow the same amount of housing in more logical locations, taking into account topography and established development. There are places west of the railway line in Roseville where this development would blend in and cause very few issues. This proposed development does not concur with that Scenario and, in fact, is in total opposition to it.
Although the government’s intention of providing more homes for young people is admirable, due to the current land value of the premium east side real estate required for this development, the apartments in this proposed development will not be affordable for most people, except for very few classified as “affordable housing”. Around this area there is much “parking of money” in real estate by wealthy, often overseas, investors, who are never seen. It seems to be that this development is aimed at them.
The location of the proposed development will cause shadowing as well as massive overcrowding on local roads. It is proposed to be right beside a heritage Scout Hall and the narrow Martin Lane and very near to Roseville College. With the huge increase in traffic and blockages which will result, there is no way any of the students will in future be able to safely cross local roads, no matter from which direction they approach.
On this eastern side of Roseville railway line, we effectively have 1 lane of traffic feeding at lights from Clanville Road to the Pacific Highway. This bridge is very narrow across the rail line and is hugely queued back every morning in peak hour. It particularly cannot cope with more traffic needed to build/service this development and nor can the other local, narrow roads in this area.
This proposed very bulky, large development is in the wrong location. No-one is in denial that some development must take place in Roseville, but not at the cost of our heritage, local roads and infrastructure. Other parts of Roseville are well-suited to development of this sort, but this location is certainly not.