I live across the road from the proposed development. The 8-9 storeys will create terrible shadowing and excessive noise and traffic. A church is next door to me so I will be wedged between 9 storeys and the church. which diminishes light into my house even more. The impact of this development will be significant for me in terms of my lifestyle: too many cars, and a highrise which is out of place in this heritage area. The apartment block will look straight into my front and back yard invading my privacy and impacting my mental health. I HAVE LIVED AT NO 26 LORD STREET SINCE 1962 AND IT WAS SUCH A PEACEFUL PLACE THEN.. LATER ON KURING-GAI COUNCIL LISTED US AS HAVING TO BE HERITAGE LISTED WHICH WAS A VERY GOOD IDEA BUT THEN RECENTLY THINGS CHANGED AGAIN AND NOW HYECORP WANTS TO PURCHASE PROPERTIES, DEMOLISH THEM AND BUILD 9 STOREY APARTMENTS. PEOPLE DONT WANT TO MOVE BUT IF SOMEONE DECIDES TO SELL AND HYECORP BUILDS A 9 STOREY UNIT BESIDE THEM OF COURSE THE NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOURS WILL SELL AND BUY INTO A MORE PEACEFUL ENVIRONMENT. HAVING LOOKED AFTER THEIR PROPERTY TO KEEP IT IN ITS HERITAGE CONDITION FOR MANY YEARS..THERE WILL NO LONGER BE ANY HERITAGE HOMES.
I OBJECT TO THIS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND ASK THAT MAJOR PROJECTS CONSIDER DISMISSING THE APPLICATION.

STREET PARKING - Already commuter parking is congested in Roseville Ave and surrounding streets.
TRAFFIC STREET CONGESTION - Presently surrounding streets are used as RAT RUNS for through traffic.
ACCESS WAYS - To and from proposed development will be safety concern especially narrow confines of Martin Lane.
PRIVACY, OVERSHADOWING and SAFETY - Privacy to surrounding neighbours wil be compromised and personal safety to neighbours.
TREESCAPE - Loss of beautiful tree scape from subject properties.
HERITAGE HOUSING - Los of Federation Heritage housing.
VISUAL BULK - Proposed buildings looking out of place and will not be in keeping with existing houses.

Thank you for the opportunity to Object to the Hyecorp SSD proposal, 'Residential development with in-fill affordable housing, 16-24 Lord Street & 21-27 Roseville Avenue, Roseville'

Our family has lived in Roseville for 20+years and we been fortunate to enjoy Roseville's heritage environment, leafy green neighborhood and safe & secure living throughout this time. Now, we object very strongly to the prospect of the State Government unilaterally allowing a commercial developer like Hyecorp to ‘vandalize’ Roseville with their proposed 30+metre high, nine-storey apartment development.
Whilst we understand the current State government is committed to creating ‘in-fill’ housing across Sydney for a rising population, especially along Sydney's existing rail transport corridors, approving Hyecorp’s Roseville development, as currently proposed, set amongst 100+ year old, heritage-rich federation homes is ill-considered and contrary to Ku-ring-gai Council's preferred proposal for infill housing development. A COPY OF OUR SUBMISSION IS ATTACHED. Thank you for considering our views. Regards, P&A Beaumont

Submission Objecting to State Significant Development SSD-78996460
16–24 Lord Street & 21–27 Roseville Avenue, Roseville
To Whom It May Concern,
I am a 28-year-old resident living with my parents in Roseville, and I am writing to object to the proposed State Significant Development at Lord Street and Roseville Avenue.
I am part of the generation that is constantly told that increasing housing supply will improve affordability and make it easier for people like me to live near where we grew up. Unfortunately, this proposal does the opposite. Despite its size and scale, it does not deliver housing that is even remotely affordable for young people, first-home buyers, or young families.

1. This Development Is Not Affordable for My Generation
While the proposal includes 252 apartments, only 55 are classified as “affordable housing.” The remaining apartments are clearly aimed at the top end of the market.
Based on current prices for new apartments in Roseville and nearby suburbs, a two-bedroom apartment in this development is likely to sell for well over $2 million, with three-bedroom apartments significantly higher. These prices are far beyond what someone my age can afford, even with full-time employment and responsible saving.
The average apartment price in Sydney is approximately $1.2 million. Apartments at more than double that price cannot realistically be described as helping with the housing affordability crisis. This development does not help people like me stay in the area — it actively prices us out.

2. High Density Does Not Automatically Mean Affordable Housing
There is a common assumption that taller buildings and higher density will automatically result in more affordable homes. This proposal shows that is not the case.
Increasing height to nine storeys and allowing additional density has simply enabled the developer to maximise profits, not to deliver genuinely affordable housing. The majority of apartments will be sold at full market rates to buyers with substantial existing wealth or investment capacity, including downsizers and investors.
For younger residents trying to enter the housing market, this kind of development offers no pathway into home ownership in Roseville.

3. Oversized and Out of Character With the Area
Beyond affordability, the scale of this development is completely out of character with Roseville. The surrounding neighbourhood is predominantly made up of single and two-storey homes, yet this proposal introduces four nine-storey buildings in a tightly constrained site.
The bulk and height of the buildings will overshadow neighbouring homes and remove privacy from nearby residents. These impacts have not been meaningfully reduced in the amended plans, despite claims of refinement by the developer.

4. Conflict With Council’s Adopted Housing Strategy

Ku-ring-gai Council has already developed a housing strategy that balances growth with local character, infrastructure capacity, and environmental outcomes. This strategy has now been endorsed by the NSW Government and is expected to meet housing targets for the area.
Allowing a much larger, ad-hoc development to proceed alongside that strategy undermines long-term planning and sends a message that community consultation and strategic planning can be overridden when it suits large developers.
Why is the developer not getting on with providing housing in line with the Kuringai Council plan that was endorsed by NSW Government instead of fighting the local residents and contravening the approved plan.

5. Loss of Trees and Neighbourhood Amenity
The proposal includes the removal of a large number of mature trees that define the character of this part of Roseville. These trees contribute to the environmental quality of the suburb and to why many people, including younger residents, want to live here in the first place.
Removing them to build apartments that younger people cannot afford makes the outcome even harder to justify.

Conclusion
As a young adult who would like the option to live in or near the suburb where I grew up, this development is deeply disappointing. It claims to address housing supply, but in reality it delivers housing that is financially out of reach for my generation while imposing significant impacts on the local community.
I urge the NSW Government to reject this proposal and support housing solutions that genuinely improve affordability and provide real opportunities for younger people and first-home buyers.
Thank you for considering my submission.

Yours sincerely,
28 year old Roseville Resident

To Whom It May Concern,
I am writing to formally object to the State Significant Development (SSD-78996460) application for 16–24 Lord Street and 21–27 Roseville Avenue, Roseville. While I support the intent of affordable housing, the scale of this proposal remains fundamentally incompatible with the area.
I must express my profound disappointment that the most recent submission from Hyecorp fails to address the broad concerns previously raised by the community. The amended plans reflect only minimal changes and do not rectify the core issues at hand; consequently, all my original objections remain in full force.
1. Incompatibility with Local Heritage
The proposed 10-storey scale contradicts Roseville’s established low-density, heritage-rich character. It also undermines the strict Council rules that existing residents have faithfully and financially supported to preserve our local history. Allowing this development would disrespect the collective effort families have made to balance improvement with architectural conservation for more than a century
2. Infrastructure and Safety Strain
Consolidating nine properties for high-density living will overwhelm infrastructure that is already operating at capacity. The resulting increase in traffic congestion poses significant safety risks for families and children attending nearby schools, while placing unsustainable pressure on street parking and local road access, local streets already impeded by traffic at times of the day including by public transport will be unusable.
3. Environmental Impact
A development of this magnitude threatens Roseville's green spaces and biodiversity. We must prioritize the ecological footprint and ensure that construction does not lead to irreversible environmental degradation, trees, water quality and endangered fauna are all impacted by development at this scale.
4. Lack of Consultation
There remains a critical need for transparent community engagement. Residents deserve a meaningful opportunity to ensure planning aligns with local values rather than being excluded from the process. There is also no consistency with the Kuring-Gai council’s approved TOD which is a well structured strategic plan for our suburb, one that council and the state government have agreed to. This development is at odds with the will of the people of Kuringai LGA and the people of NSW via the state government.
I urge the Department of Planning and Environment to reject the current proposal and demand solutions that respect Roseville's unique character and quality of life.
Thank you for considering my submission.

1. Inconsistent with the low rise context set forth in the new TOD
The newly approved Transport Oriented Development (TOD) scheme around Roseville Station is designed for low and mid rise housing forms, not isolated 9 storey towers. The proposed development, being then a single tall apartment block which will only be surrounded by low rise residential buildings, is inconsistent with the planned character of the surrounding residential streets. Following the agreement of the new TOD with State Government the Government specifically noted that historical SSD applications will still be viewed with an eye to the development consistency with the new TOD – as a substantial standalone island development that is not required to meet future density needs now the TOD is in place, the development can not be seen as consistent in any way given its scale.
2. Visually dominant and out of scale
At >250 apartments over 9 storeys, the Hyecorp building will substantially exceed the height and bulk of the low rise houses and townhouses envisaged under the TOD – it will be a standalone “island” entirely inconsistent with surrounding buildings and will be visually dominant from Lord Street, Roseville Avenue and nearby properties as a result.
3. Failure to achieve “compatible height” objective
NSW planning height controls explicitly aim to ensure that street frontages are in proportion and in keeping with the character of nearby development. The development as a stand alone 9 storey form among low rise buildings does not meet this compatibility objective.
4. Poor streetscape integration
The TOD program for Roseville seeks well designed, walkable residential areas around the station, but an oversized tower on a single large amalgamated site will disrupt the fine grain streetscape pattern of detached and low rise dwellings and create a hard urban edge on quiet residential streets.
5. Undermines TOD planning intent for balanced density
The new TOD controls set heights and floor space ratios to balance additional density with good design, landscaping and amenity. The proposed development would be a taller, bulkier building than the framework anticipates - undermining this thoughtful density strategy that will define all surrounding areas.
6. Adverse amenity impacts on neighbours
Being a significantly taller building than its neighbours today, and in the future given the new TOD, the proposed development increases overshadowing of surrounding properties well beyond necessary density requirements which are otherwise allowed for in the new TOD. The loss of privacy to adjoining low rise homes, contrary to objectives that developments seek to minimise impacts on the amenity of surrounding properties, will be substantial at 9 stories.
7. No respect for adjacent heritage items
The new development will dwarf the heritage listed adjacent scout hall which is a heritage item. This is clearly seen on drawings where the hall (albeit Hyrecorp have attempted to hide it behind a tree that doesn’t exist) is completely dwarfed by the adjacent property with 4 stories at the closest edge still and with 9 stories still in dominant form above it. Heritage protections specifically note that adjacent properties must be sympathetic to the property – the development is entirely in consistent with this
8. Not necessary to deliver extra housing given new TOD
The new and approved TOD and Low/Mid Rise reforms therein already enable substantial new housing capacity around Roseville Station via terraces, townhouses and mid rise apartments; achieving housing targets does not require a single dominant 9 storey building that conflicts with the planned character and is entirely inconsistent with the suburb plan and will be a standalone island.
9. Inconsistent with community expectations for Roseville and adverse local impact
The TOD framework for Roseville was consulted on as a balanced approach to growth that protects local character. The insertion of an isolated high rise block into a predominantly low rise residential context is inconsistent with those expectations and will create substantial impacts given over 250 apartments and associated traffic / parking impacts on streets that are already overly busy given the train station and lack of train parking. Given the new TOD has made allowances for dense housing in other areas the proposed development will not be consistent with additional urban planning and infrastructure investments to cope.
10. Risk to Metro expansion
Given the depth of the development, there is a risk that future Metro developments will not be able to expand near the new development. Given the new TOD will enable enhanced density in other areas to allow the development would put Sydney ‘s future transport expansion at risk for the sake of one building / development only which would be poor future planning.

Please find attached and also pasted below.

Submission: Objection to Proposed Residential Development at 16–24 Lord Street & 21–27 Roseville Avenue, Roseville (SSD-78996460)
From: Joan and Kiril Peev
Address: 83 Lord Street, Roseville NSW 2069

We are long-term residents of Lord Street, and have lived at number 83 for over three decades. We are writing to formally object to the development application SSD-78996460 currently under consideration. This proposal represents a major and inappropriate departure from the character and planning controls that have long protected this unique part of Roseville.

Community Engagement and Transparency
We only became aware of this proposal when a Hyecorp flyer arrived at our home in late March 2025— long after the Lindfield drop-in session on 12 March had taken place which we only found out about in April. We did not have any prior knowledge of the Hyecorp website, survey, or consultation process.
We completed the online feedback form once we found it, but never received any acknowledgment. On reviewing the Engagement Outcomes Report, we were surprised to find the published responses bore little resemblance to the concerns we had expressed. That is not meaningful engagement — it’s box-ticking.
This raises serious doubts about the integrity of the community consultation process. Many of our neighbours have shared similar experiences.

So-Called “Affordable” Housing
We agree that more housing options are needed across Sydney — but this development will not meet that need. Describing it as “affordable housing” is misleading. In practice, it will benefit developers and investors, not the essential workers or young families who truly need affordable options.
We know this because we’ve seen similar developments in other suburbs marketed as affordable, only to be priced out of reach for most residents.
So while we agree in principle that affordable housing is necessary in Sydney, only 10 – 15% of a development will be for those needing affordable housing. In reality in Roseville the other 85% will be unaffordable and will be bought by high income earners and investors. So the only real winners in this particular proposal will be developers and investors.

Infrastructure and Environmental Concerns
There has been very little information shared about how existing infrastructure — such as sewerage, stormwater systems, and roads — will accommodate such a significant development. Roseville’s infrastructure is old and was never designed to support high-density housing on this scale.
What assessments have been made about the environmental impact of connecting new buildings to ageing infrastructure? Will existing pipes and drains be replaced? Will our water pressure, sewage, and power supply be affected? Who will take responsibility for potential damage to old pipes?
These are fundamental issues that have not been adequately addressed.
We are also alarmed by the proposal to remove 91 trees, many of which are mature and contribute significantly to the green canopy of Lord Street. This will affect wildlife, shade, and stormwater absorption.

Height, Scale, and Traffic Impacts
The scale of the proposed development — up to nine storeys — is completely out of proportion to the surrounding neighbourhood, where almost all homes are one or two storeys. This dramatic height difference will:
• Obstruct solar access to neighbouring homes;
• Impair privacy, with balconies and windows overlooking family backyards and pools;
• Disrupt the consistent low-rise appearance of the street.
Traffic congestion is another major concern. The development would significantly increase vehicle movement along already narrow roads, particularly during school pickup and drop-off at nearby Roseville College. Intersections around Roseville are already under pressure during peak times, and Martin Lane has become a dangerous rat-run. Adding hundreds more residents and cars will make this worse.

Construction and Ongoing Impacts
Construction of four buildings of this size is expected to take at least two years, assuming there are no delays. This means:
• Noise and heavy vehicles on our street five to six days a week;
• Reduced parking and access on already tight streets;
• Potential damage to road surfaces and kerbs from trucks and cranes.

Lack of Alignment with Local Planning Framework
It is deeply concerning that this application has been lodged under the Transport Oriented Development (TOD) framework before Ku-ring-gai Council’s Preferred Scenario has been finalised. The TOD mechanism was introduced without proper consultation with residents and should not take precedence over the extensive and considered planning undertaken by Council.
We strongly believe no determination should be made on this application until the Preferred Scenario is resolved. We support Council’s draft plan, which seeks to protect Eastside Roseville’s distinct heritage and low-density residential environment. This development, by contrast, is completely out of scale with the surrounding area.

Impact on Heritage Character
Lord Street is well-known for its heritage-listed homes and streetscape. It has always been a quiet, leafy residential street — and the heritage character of this area has been upheld consistently over many years. In fact, we personally know of neighbours who have had even minor renovations knocked back by Council in the name of protecting this heritage.
A striking example is the former owners of 24 Lord Street, who tried to add a rumpus room above their garage. Despite multiple revisions and widespread neighbour support (including a petition we signed), Council repeatedly rejected their application due to height concerns — even though nearby homes were taller. This proposed development now includes four buildings up to nine storeys, right in the middle of the same heritage precinct. The inconsistency is baffling.

Further, while the RTS provides a summary of the objections, Hyecorp has done very little to address any of the legitimate concerns that have been raised by local residents - particularly around the destruction of heritage, and the requirement to fit in with local character. For example, the minimal changes now proposed regarding building size include:
• The podium of the smallest tower (next to the Scout Hall) has been reduced by just one storey (from five to four), and the height of the remaining three towers has been lowered by only 1.1m to 30.1m – a reduction of just -3.5%. This means that the height remains greater than the maximum allowed under the TOD (28.6m).
• The number of units has barely been reduced from 259 to 252 (a reduction of -2.7%).
• Most importantly, the bulk of the building – which is one of residents’ greatest concerns in terms of local area impact - has been reduced by just -0.48% to 30,248.6m2. That is a pitiful 144 m2 reduction. Such a small reduction will be virtually unnoticeable, given the very large scale of this project.
This development would lead to the demolition of nine homes that contribute to the heritage conservation area and would overshadow and dominate the existing streetscape. It would visually and physically overwhelm the single- and double-storey homes that surround it.
These disruptions will affect not only immediate neighbours but the broader community — many of whom are elderly or have young children.

Final Thoughts
We chose to live in Roseville — and raised our family here — because of its peaceful character, abundant greenery, and the sense of community it fosters. We have welcomed appropriate development along main roads and close to the station. But this proposal is something entirely different: it would insert four oversized towers into the heart of a low-density heritage street. That is neither necessary nor responsible planning.
We urge you to reject this development application in its current form. It is inconsistent with Council’s strategic direction, incompatible with existing infrastructure, and threatens the very essence of what makes Eastside Roseville so special.

Sincerely,
Joan and Kiril Peev
83 Lord Street, Roseville NSW 2069

See attached and also pasted below.
Submission: Objection to Proposed Residential Development at 16–24 Lord Street & 21–27 Roseville Avenue, Roseville (SSD-78996460)
From: Daniella Peev
Address: 83 Lord Street, Roseville NSW 2066

I am writing to express my strong objection to the proposed development lodged under SSD-78996460. I have lived at 83 Lord Street for most of my life, and I walk this street daily. Lord Street is not just where I live — it is my community, my history, and a place with a deeply rooted identity that must be preserved.

Misalignment with Community Expectations and Council’s Planning Vision
While I understand the need to plan for growth and more diverse housing, this development is completely out of step with the Council’s Preferred Scenario, which recognises the distinct character of Eastside Roseville and aims to retain its established residential form. With the exception of specific areas like Hill Street and the upper end of Victoria Street, this part of Roseville was never intended for high-density zoning.
I support Council’s Preferred Scenario, which has been carefully developed to balance planning needs while maintaining the integrity of our heritage-listed streets. The introduction of the Transport Oriented Development (TOD) framework — without proper community consultation — is not in the public interest and should not override the thoughtful planning already undertaken by our local council.
Even if this SSD commenced under earlier settings, it should still be assessed against the intent of the TOD framework, including whether it appropriately fits the local character and planning context.

Lack of Transparency and Genuine Community Engagement
I received Hyecorp’s flyer back on the 20th March — too late to attend the drop-in session in Lindfield on 12th March, which I only learned about after it had occurred. Despite completing their online survey, I never received any acknowledgment or follow-up. My responses also do not appear to be accurately reflected in their published engagement outcomes report page 8-10.
To call this “community consultation” is misleading. The process has felt rushed and inaccessible to many in our neighbourhood, which only adds to the growing mistrust surrounding this proposal.

Inconsistent Treatment of Residents
It is also deeply frustrating to see this large-scale development considered, when individual homeowners on Lord Street — including the previous owners of 24 Lord Street — were denied modest extensions under strict heritage restrictions. That application was repeatedly rejected by Council due to height concerns, despite similar houses nearby being taller. Those owners eventually gave up and moved. It is astonishing that a multi-storey complex is now being proposed in the very location where single-storey additions were deemed inappropriate.

Infrastructure Concerns
There has been no clear information about how existing infrastructure — particularly the sewer system, stormwater drainage, and road capacity — will handle the increased demand. Our area is built on ageing infrastructure not designed for developments of this scale. Without significant upgrades, there is a serious risk of long-term damage and ongoing disruption to residents.
Has an environmental impact study been conducted? How will new sewer lines integrate with century-old pipes? These are not small questions — they are critical, and they remain unanswered. If there are issues who will be accountable?

Impact on Heritage and Community Character
This proposal would demolish nine homes that contribute to the heritage conservation area and replace them with four buildings up to nine storeys high, right in the middle of a quiet, leafy residential street known for its Federation homes. This is not a matter of architectural taste — it is a fundamental and irreversible change to the entire character of the neighbourhood.
Lord Street is one of Roseville’s most treasured heritage streets. It is part of three overlapping heritage conservation areas, with over 50 heritage-listed properties nearby. Inserting high-rise buildings into this setting would irreparably damage the streetscape and undermine decades of heritage protections.

Response to Submissions (RTS) – Failure to Address Core Concerns
While Hyecorp’s Response to Submissions (RTS) provides a summary of objections raised by Council and local residents, it does very little to meaningfully address the legitimate and substantive concerns that have been raised — particularly those relating to heritage destruction, excessive scale and bulk, and incompatibility with local character.
The changes now proposed are minimal and largely cosmetic. For example:
• The podium of the smallest tower (next to the Scout Hall) has been reduced by just one storey (from five to four), and the height of the remaining three towers has been lowered by only 1.1 metres to 30.1 metres — a reduction of just 3.5%. Importantly, this height still exceeds the maximum height permitted under the TOD controls (28.6 metres).
• The total number of dwellings has barely been reduced, from 259 to 252, representing a reduction of only 2.7%.
• Most concerningly, the overall bulk of the development — one of residents’ primary objections due to its impact on local amenity and character — has been reduced by just 0.48%, to 30,248.6m². This equates to a reduction of only 144m², which is negligible and would be virtually imperceptible given the enormous scale of the project.
Such minor reductions do not constitute a genuine response to the concerns raised. They do not address the fundamental issue: that a development of this size, height and bulk is wholly inappropriate for this location.
While the RTS references changes such as a darker colour palette, additional seating in public areas, internal layout adjustments and claims of future setbacks, these measures do nothing to resolve the core planning conflicts. The proposal remains vastly out of scale, visually dominant, and incompatible with the established character of Lord Street and Eastside Roseville.

Further, the RTS dismisses the concerns raised by independent heritage, planning and urban design experts engaged by the East Roseville Action Group (ERAG). As such, the issues raised in my original submission remain unresolved and continue to apply in full.

Visual, Environmental, and Social Impacts
• The visual impact of the proposed towers will be immense — visible from adjoining properties and streets in all directions.
• The height of the buildings will create significant privacy issues, overshadowing, and loss of solar access for nearby homes, many of which have backyards and pools.
• The removal of 91 trees is alarming and inconsistent with the environmental values of our suburb.
• Traffic impacts will worsen congestion on already narrow streets, especially during school pickup/drop-off times at Roseville College. The Martin Lane rat-run is already a hazard during peak hours.
• The construction phase is projected to last at least two years, with large trucks and machinery disrupting daily life, damaging roads, and reducing street parking.

Affordable Housing — A Misleading Label
While I support the principle of increasing affordable housing, this proposal does not appear to meaningfully serve that purpose. Based on the information available, only around 10–15% of the development would be allocated as affordable housing. In reality, the remaining majority of dwellings are likely to be priced well beyond the reach of many local residents, and more likely to be purchased by higher income earners and investors — rather than the younger families or key workers often cited as the intended beneficiaries.

Final Comments
This proposal is fundamentally incompatible with the fabric of Lord Street and Eastside Roseville. It undermines the heritage, environment, and liveability of an area that generations have worked hard to preserve. We are not opposed to thoughtful development — but it must be appropriate, consultative, and respectful of the unique character of the place it affects.
I urge you not to progress or approve this application until Council’s Preferred Scenario is formally adopted and a proper, transparent process is followed.

Sincerely,
Daniella Peev
83 Lord Street, Roseville NSW 2069