I would like to object to this project.
I object to this project due to its scale and bulk in a heritage conservation area in Roseville.
Since this project was last exhibited Kuringai Council has committed to a plan to achieve State requested housing approval targets focussing on the Pacific High corridor. This project is in an area that falls outside the scope of this plan – the goal being to retain the integrity of our 140 year old suburb.
To the planning panel I appeal to you to listen to the feedback across the majority of Sydney suburbs and stop this race to the bottom architecturally and environmentally. The singular focus on chipping away at housing approval targets with reckless lack of regard for quality, heritage, affordability accompanied by a complete absence of actual social partners must stop. The density of this proposed development is purely driven by developer profit margins and land value – our State needs to do a lot better with our valuable land.
In addition:
The building proposed does not comply with height and set back requirements.
This is especially relevant as the proposed development sits on the boundary of the Chatswood to Epping metro line meaning that the single dwellings to the west of the development between the development and Roseville station cannot be developed in this manner. In defence of these residents they should not be abandoned by our community - stranded between a 9 story building robbing them of privacy and light and the inevitable redevelopment of the Roseville village shops above them as noted in Kuringais preferred plan.

I also object to the design and density of the development - designed clearly with only one goal in mind - maximum profits for Hyecorp. From the few floor plans supplied this is a massive block of tiny hot box apartments. I could not find one bathroom with a window or one apartment with cross flow ventilation, no open corridors or balconies or dual aspect properties. We should not be allowing developers to profit from poorly design buildings - 100s of apartments that will have to run air conditioning most of the time to cool or heat, 100s of new bathrooms that don’t have windows that must run lights and extract fans at all times of the day to function. Where is the progressive and future focussed use of our valuable land. In my view this development offers nothing for our built environment

Storm water and flooding. During the last big flood in Roseville - when the Roseville bridge flooded - the homes just below this proposed monster concrete pour flooded. I see that Hyecorp is going to build flood walls to protect its own underground carparks. During the last flood the areas in Roseville where there were tennis courts on concrete slabs suffered the worst flooding as the water could not get away fast enough. I object to this project in support of our Roseville community that will be down the hill in Lord Street and Roseville Avenue as I am concerned that the storm water systems will not cope with half the block above them encased in concrete.

Heritage - if this project is approved there is no point in retaining any heritage listed items in Roseville. I object to leaving residents stranded in their single heritage listed buildings overlooked and overshadowed by multi level developments and with few real estate options to market their property if the heritage listings is not revoked.

Traffic congestion
Roseville is bound on three sides by RTA managed roads and junctions. The Hyecorp application references traffic data from 2016. Since that time there have been many changes to our roads as to how we can exit and re enter our suburb. While we understand that the RTA needs to keep the major arterial roads moving the result for us is less traffic light intervals when we can exit Roseville and therefore we already have major back ups in the suburb on weekdays and also on weekends. I object to the Hyecorp development as it offers no transport related innovation or focus on sustainability – lots of private car parking spaces, a very small number of car share spaces etc or consideration of the high level of existing congestion that is a feature of Roseville streets today. Martin Lane which bounds the eastern side of the block is one of the narrowest streets in Roseville and this is the street via which all cars if this development is approved would enter and leave the property. Martin lane is almost always one way due to all day commuter parking.

To Whom This May Concern:

This application should be discontinued immediately.

I'm a resident of Ku-ring-gai and this project is grossly oversized in its bulk for its surrounding area. The proposal does not respect the approved new TOD. If approved it would be inconsistent with all future development making it an eyesore for generations to come.

The proposed building separation does not comply with the Apartment Design Guide. It fails to include the additional 3m that is required when there is a change in zoning to lower-density residential:
• 19 Roseville Ave - exceedance of 7m for ground-L3; 4m exceedance for L5-L7
• 14 Lord St - exceedance of 3m for ground to L3

At no point have the Roseville community been listened to in this development forming shape. This is solely focussed on profit maximisation at the expense of the current and future residents of Roseville.

I object to this development application for the following reasons:

1. Excessive height and amenity impacts
The proposed development, with a height of up to nine storeys, is excessive and inappropriate for this location. The height will result in significant adverse impacts on surrounding properties, including:
• Overshadowing of neighbouring dwellings and public spaces;
• Loss of privacy due to overlooking;
• Reduced solar access to nearby homes;
• Detrimental impacts on the existing streetscape and overall neighbourhood character.

2. Inappropriate scale and bulk of the development
The overall scale of the proposal, comprising four buildings of up to nine storeys each, is wholly inconsistent with the surrounding built environment. In particular, the development does not appropriately relate to:
• The existing neighbourhood character, which is predominantly made up of one- to two-storey detached houses;
• The future built form anticipated under Council’s Preferred Scenario, which also retains one- to two-storey housing in the surrounding area;
• Significant development constraints on nearby sites caused by the Metro tunnel reserves, meaning similar developments are unlikely to occur in the vicinity.

As a result, the proposal will form an isolated cluster of high-rise buildings surrounded by low-density housing, creating a visually dominant and incompatible outcome.

3. Heritage impacts
The government has publicly committed to protecting high-value heritage areas. However, this development will result in the demolition of nine heritage homes, directly contradicting that commitment. The loss of these heritage properties will irreversibly damage the historical and cultural significance of the area.

4. Incompatibility with local character
The proposed development is fundamentally out of character with the local area. A nine-storey apartment development will be visually intrusive and an eyesore within a suburb characterised by two-storey dwellings. The resulting impacts from overshadowing, increased traffic, and visual bulk will significantly diminish the amenity and character of the neighbourhood.

For these reasons, I strongly object to the approval of this development application.

Please see the attached document outlining my strong objection to the revised proposal.

1.The site and surrounding properties are zoned R2 Low Density Residential and are staying so under the TOD alternative scheme. It is hard understand why there is an agreement that is between the NSW State Govt and Council for the TOD Alternative Scheme, yet it can approve a development of 9 storeys that will always be out of character with the surrounding neighbourhood.
2.I am all in favour of more development and housing available in Sydney but surely that should be hand in hand with town planning. Hyecorp plan shows the area with other buildings with height at the shops and is being deceptive by showing the residential houses all looking 3 plus storeys when that can not happen. I'm sure the NSW State Govt plan was not to have a mini Blues Point tower where surrounded by houses (including a heritage listed building)
3. if the metro tunnel area is protected then there will always be no development in the area so it will always be out of character with the area
4. There were over 400 submissions yet they have been ignored or made minor adjustments that have no material effect to the development. If this is the developers reply, what was the response from the State Govt Department of Planning in light of the submissions? Acknowledgement of concerns and appropriate amendments?

I object to this development application for the following reasons:

1. Failure to meet the intent of affordable housing policies
The proposed development does not satisfy the government’s objectives for affordable housing. Current housing and unit prices in Roseville are significantly higher than the government’s definition of “affordable housing”. As such, the development will not provide genuine affordability benefits to the local community.

2. Traffic congestion and road safety impacts
The development will exacerbate traffic congestion at key intersections leading out of Roseville, particularly during peak hours. It will negatively impact road safety, traffic flow, and daily commuting for residents.

3. Impact on parking
The proposed development will place further strain on already limited on-street parking. This will inconvenience residents and visitors and may lead to unsafe or illegal parking conditions.

4, Loss of heritage and character of the area
The government has publicly committed to protecting high-value heritage areas. However, this development will result in the demolition of nine heritage homes, directly contradicting that commitment. The proposal will irreversibly damage the heritage character and historical significance of the Roseville area.

For these reasons, I strongly object to the approval of this development application.

This proposal is not an appropriate or suitable development in this location. The following are considered significant reasons to refuse this application:

1. The proposal does not adhere to the setbacks to boundaries of the Ku Ring Gai LEP;

2. The proposal has not satisfactorily addressed bulk and scale as required by the Ku Ring Gai LEP;

3. The proposal does not satisfactorily address the relevant Conservation and Heritage characteristics of the Ku Ring Gai Council LEP;

4. The proposal does not satisfactorily address the impacts of vehicular traffic caused by the development.

5. It is completely relevant to consider that Council's updated proposed LEP for residential housing uplift has been fully accepted by The Minister, and therefore whilst technically capable of being considered from a legal planning perspective (due to its application being received during a small window of opportunity), it is abundantly clear that it is significantly inconsistent with the parameters spelt out in that new LEP. Just as it is always incumbent on consent authorities to consider draft environmental planning instruments when determining a DA, so should therefore this newly accepted Council LEP be taken into serious consideration, noting that the LEP does not permit such overdevelopment in this specific location.

I am writing to object to the proposal for development at Lord Street / Roseville Avenue.
The existing residential character of the area is well established and valued by those who live there.
The proposed development would erode this character through excessive height and bulk, fundamentally changing the streetscape.
I strongly object to this project in this delicate area, Very bad traffic already along Hill St towards Boundary St and the narrow streets running down to Archbold cannot handle more traffic .

See attached Submission