As a resident of Roseville, at this same address for 11 years, I feel as though I am in a good position to give feedback on this submission. My four children have attended and one currently attends a local school.
My husband and I chose to buy a heritage listed house and have spent much time and money restoring and enhancing this home and its gardens, as we love the area and respect the significance of the architecture.
I totally appreciate that we are very fortunate to live in such a beautiful suburb, conveniently located close to the railway line. I realise that Sydney needs more affordable housing in close proximity to public transport.
However, Roseville as it currently stands, cannot accomodate more cars and traffic. It is very difficult to drive in and out of Roseville in peak traffic times, as there are only a few local streets where we are able to turn onto a main road and these get highly congested with cars.
Roseville Avenue and Lord Street are already full of parked cars during the weekdays, as is particularly Martin Lane, where this development has been proposed. There was once an instance when my son was on the bus, on his way to Roseville Public School, headed down Martin Lane, when the bus driver asked him to exit the bus, to push the rear vision mirrors of the parked cars inwards, so the bus could fit down the street... he was seven years of age at that time!
The proposed Hyecorp development will increase the number of cars in these streets, which are already well past capacity.
The height of the proposed development is absolutely not in keeping with the area and will look ridiculously out of place.
The preferred scenario put forward by Kuringai Council will allow for more residents to enjoy living in this area of Sydney, whilst much better respecting the local environment.
The Hyecorp development is in are area which, if the preferred scenario is accepted, will remain as a 1-2 storey housing area.
There are many other parcels of land, closer to the Pacific Highway, which will much better accomodate such a development, and these should be explored.

Subject: Objection to SSD-78996460 – Proposed Development at 16–24 Lord Street & 21–27 Roseville Avenue, Roseville NSW 2069

To Whom It May Concern,

I am writing to formally object to the State Significant Development (SSD-78996460) application for the proposed residential development at 16–24 Lord Street and 21–27 Roseville Avenue, Roseville. While the intention to provide affordable housing is commendable, I believe the scale and nature of this development are incompatible with the character and heritage of the Roseville area.

1. Incompatibility with Local Heritage and Character

The proposed development's scale and design are inconsistent with the established low-density, heritage-rich character of Roseville. The area is known for its significant twentieth-century architecture and conservation efforts, which are at risk of being overshadowed by such large-scale developments. The introduction of a 10-storey building in this context could irreversibly alter the area's aesthetic and historical integrity.

In addition to this, as strict development rules imposed by Ku-ring-gai Council on residents living in both Heritage and Heritage Conservation Zones with the intention of protecting and conserving the heritage of the Roseville local area have been in place, many residents have spent significant amounts of hard earned money to comply. This development completely undermines these Council rules and the efforts and financial impacts these have caused the local families as they have worked together to come to a common balance to both improve their homes and retain the architectural heritage character of their community.

2. Overdevelopment and Infrastructure Strain

The proposal involves the consolidation of nine existing properties to create a high-density development. This level of intensification is concerning, as it will place unnecessary pressure on local infrastructure, including roads, public transport, and community services, which are already operating at capacity. The potential for increased traffic congestion and strain on public amenities warrants a thorough assessment. Given the proximity to local schools, this also poses a huge safety risk for families and their children with the increase in traffic and vehicles that would be using the local streets putting pressure on parking and access to local streets.

3. Environmental and Ecological Concerns

Roseville's natural environment, including local flora and fauna, contributes significantly to the area's appeal. A development of this magnitude could lead to the loss of green spaces and negatively impact local biodiversity. It is essential that any new development considers the ecological footprint and implements measures to mitigate environmental degradation.

4. Community Consultation and Engagement

There is a need for more comprehensive community consultation regarding this development. Residents and local stakeholders should have a meaningful opportunity to engage with the planning process and express their concerns. Transparent communication and consideration of community feedback are crucial in ensuring developments align with the values and needs of the local population.

Conclusion

While the provision of affordable housing is important, it should not come at the expense of the community's heritage, environmental integrity, and quality of life. I urge the Department of Planning and Environment to reconsider the proposed development in its current form and explore alternative solutions that balance housing needs with the preservation of Roseville's unique character.

Thank you for considering my submission.

Sincerely,

Mrs Naomi Reiter
14 McLeod Ave Roseville, NSW 2069
Ph: 0404 866 460

Please see documents (in Word and PDF) attached

I support this proposal. This application will increase housing density in Sydney, which is the most efficient way to solve the housing crisis.

We live across the road from the proposed development. The proposed project seems to be directly at odds with the broader TOD programme changes which have been proposed by Ku-Ring-Gai council, wherein the majority of the housing target has been redirected to other suburbs, mainly
Gordon. Accordingly, if the proposed project is approved in isolation, it will significantly affect the local area in and around Lord and Roseville streets, where there is presently not even low density development, let alone a project of this scale/magnitude which will take years and disrupt the local area in every way.

We strongly feel that this should not be a unilateral decision by the state and consultation with KRG council should be sought so the intent of the TOD programme is aligned with this development, which clearly it is presently not given the local council’s proposal.

If indeed the state believes that this development is aligned with the objectives of the TOD and the local area more broadly, then in this case a fast track to development for the immediate neighboring properties should be afforded so there is consistent application of the rules in the area.

In summary all we are asking for is consistency. If the intention for the area is for it to be high density residential, then the whole area should be as such (not what is being proposed by KRG and being reviewed by state) or if not, then the proposed development should be rejected.

I would be happy to discuss the matter further in person or by phone.

I enthusiastically support this development for the following reasons:
There is a housing crisis in Sydney, and projects like this are needed to address the issue;
There is a shortage of affordable housing for critical workers within Ku-ring-gai, and projects like this are needed to address the issue;
The project is well located, being a three-minute walk to Roseville station. Sydney needs more well-located homes near to transport hubs like this to alleviate the strain on the road network;
The façade has been well designed, is aesthetically attractive, and will contribute positively to the character and value of the surrounding area;
The retention of significant trees on site together with the addition of new trees, will result in a tree canopy of 40% of the site, which is larger than the sites’ current tree canopy (32%). This should be applauded, and should become the benchmark that other projects seek to emulate;
There are no heritage items impacted by this project. According to the Heritage Impact Statement, the existing properties to be demolished have minimal heritage value as they have been substantially altered in appearance over many years;
Projects like this will have a positive impact on the viability of redeveloping the Hill Street retail precinct, which is in need of redevelopment as it is currently lacking in amenity and not fit for purpose;
The developer of the project has a strong track record and reputation on the north shore, and should be supported by government, council and the community in delivering projects of this quality.

If this project goes ahead, it will stick out, overlooking and overshadowing all around it. It does not fit in the council's proposed alternative of development which will meet the housing needs without affecting this part of Roseville.

I strongly object this large project due to below reasons.
1. The DA's material implies broad council support with minor suggestions, which can be quite misleading. The Ku-ring-gai council was actively seeking community feedback about 5 different planning scenarios yet finalized. Also, the preferred scenario council displayed on 31 Mar 2025 indicates no flat building allowed on this site. Therefore, I am questioning how the feedback is sought and the validity of this report. Not sure how to validate other components, but this critical component is not convening at all.
2. The proposed FSR 3.2 with 9 stores building, 250 unit is a huge project in this area. That is too much for this conservation area with many heritage items surrounded. This would raise all overshadowing, reducing solar access, traffic and parking issue, environment negative impact etc. They are the reasons why community don't opt this in council's feedback.
3. The stakeholder's engagement is not that representative, only some parties are involved. Whereas the council preferred scenario has adopted a comprehensive approach to get residents' feedback. The engagement level of this project is below the standard though it should be as it does have a much bigger impact for this suburb.
4. Approving this DA would set a negative precedent not only for these two streets but for the broader Roseville and Ku-ring-gai Conservation precincts, undermining the careful, community-driven approach to locally responsive planning.

Overall, this is one very problematic proposal. I respectfully request the State Government speak with Ku-ring-gai council, reject this project eventually.

Last but not least, can you please change the status of this SSD to 'exhibition' as it has started already?

Thank you.