I strongly object this State Significant Development (SSD-78996460) application at 16-24 Lord Street & 21-27 Roseville Avenue, Roseville by developer Hyecorp. It should be refused in full.
The project must be put on hold until an agreement is reached between Ku-ring-gai Council and the NSW State Government regarding the planning future of the area.

In addition, the proposal should be refused on the following grounds:
- The proposed project with 9 storeys and 30 meters height within the surrounding heritage conservation areas is oversized and has a significant impact to the characters of the heritage conservation areas and heritage listed houses nearby.
- The development will significantly reduce sunlight and cast long shadows over surrounding residential properties.
- Severe traffic congestion. The development will worsen traffic conditions. Especially the exit from Clanville Ave to pacific HWY, the exit from Hill St to Boundary St.
- The development will demolish 9 houses, each with around 100 years of history. This is a huge loss to the local community and also to Sydney.

Please see the attached document.

Dear Jasmine
I received a Notice of Exhibition in relation to the above project as an adjoining owner significantly impacted by the project.
I attach in pdf my objection to the Project.
Regards
Trisha Afaras

Please refer FILE attachment

My objection to the proposed development project is that it is entirely inconsistent with the character and visual amenity of the part of the Clanville Heritage Conservation Area (HCA) in which it would sit. If built, it will be a complete anachronism, significantly overshadowing surrounding properties and destroying the historical and aesthetic value of the whole surrounding area, and thereby ruining the area’s ability to satisfy both of the two Heritage Council criteria of local heritage significance for which the HCA has been listed.
There are two principal contentions in this objection:
1. The heritage impact of the project on the Clanville HCA as it stands today is wholly unacceptable and the HIS for the project fails to make any arguments contrary to this; and
2. The heritage impact of the project must be assessed against its impact on the HCA as it stands today because Ku-ring-gai Council has mounted a legal challenge to the TOD SEPP, and has proposed a modified plan for the TOD zones in the Ku-ring-gai LGA, and if either of those actions is successful they would remove the TOD uplift for all properties in the Clanville HCA – in which case the Clanville HCA in the vicinity of the project would remain intact, leaving the project having an unacceptable and unjustified impact on the HCA.
Accordingly, the project must not be allowed to proceed, because the HCA and the project are totally inconsistent with each other.
Heritage Impact
The Urbis Heritage Impact Statement (HIS) included in the Application and placed on Exhibition assesses the impact of the project but does not make any serious attempt to justify the project in relation to the existing HCA. Instead, the arguments made in the report to justify the assessment that the project will “have an acceptable impact on the Clanville Conservation Area (C32)” (Urbis HIS Executive Summary, p1) are based on “the effect of the TOD SEPP [being that] the area's future character is expected to evolve significantly” (Urbis HIS Executive Summary, p2).
At section 6.1 of the HIS, Urbis recognises that “the proposal must be tested for the effect it would have on the HCA and the heritage items in the vicinity” and “acknowledges that a degree of visual impact to the setting of the HCA and the heritage item will arise as a result of the proposed development given the notable increase in scale.” but goes on to state that “However, given the intended affordable residential housing programme, the proximity to the Roseville Railway corridor and the planned high-density uplift affecting the future character of the area, the proposal is on balance considered as acceptable for the subject site from a heritage perspective subject to the recommendations outlined within this report.” (Urbis HIS section 6.1, p100) [emphasis added].
The following are several examples of the same argument made in response to relevant clauses in the Ku-ring-gai LEP 2015 and the Ku-ring-gai DCP 2024 as set out in section 6 of the Urbis HIS:
• KLEP 2015 Objectives – (Urbis HIS section 6.2, p100). My comment: The assertion in this comment simply not true. The scale and height of the project will be highly visible from every direction in the surrounding HCA, and it will dwarf even all the very large trees in the vicinity. In the context of the aesthetic value of the HCA, the scale and height of the project will make it an eyesore no matter how well designed it is. In this way it will have a very high adverse impact on the HCA in the vicinity. This is effectively acknowledged in Urbis’ comments on clause 19C.1 item 1 of the Ku-ring-gai 2024 DCP (see Urbis HIS section 6.3, p104 - extract below).
• KLEP 2015 clause (4) – “The proposed development has been assessed to have an acceptable impact on the HCA due its present compromised quality.” (Urbis HIS section 6.2, p101). My comment: As noted in my comments on section 4 of the HIS below, the HIS provides no analysis that justifies the conclusion that the present quality of the HCA is compromised (other than the assertion that other developments will be built between it and the railway station, which is in no way certain to happen – see my comments on this below), and neither does it provide any analysis of how the project’s impact is acceptable.
• Ku-ring-gai 2024 DCP clause 19C.1 item 1 paragraph i.– (Urbis HIS section 6.3, p104). My comment: As noted above ththis comment effectively acknowledges the high impact the large vertical scale of the project will have on the HCA in the vicinity. Again, the only justification for the acceptable impact assessment is the legislative context of the TOD SEPP and the “planned future character” of this area. As explained below, this “planned future character” of the area is not certain and may never happen.
• Ku-ring-gai 2024 DCP clause 19C.1 item 4 – (Urbis HIS section 6.3, p105). My comment: This is another acknowledgement of the high impact on the existing HCA character.
• Ku-ring-gai 2024 DCP clause 19C.1 item 5i – (Urbis HIS section 6.3, p105). My comment: This is another example where the only justification is the anticipated future development within the vicinity. Such future development may never happen and, if it doesn’t, the project will be left as an architectural anachronism.
• Ku-ring-gai 2024 DCP clause 19C.1 item 5iii – (Urbis HIS section 6.3, p105-6). My comment: Again, this comment acknowledges the impact on the HCA. Possible landscaping to address this one issue, even if it is successful, cannot override the other high impacts on the existing character of the HCA.
• Ku-ring-gai 2024 DCP clause 19C.1 item 5vi – (Urbis HIS section 6.3, p106). My comment: This is another acknowledgement of the high impact on the existing HCA character. Given that the scale of the project will dwarf existing trees, let alone new ones, such planting as is proposed cannot mask the vastness of the project’s scale and the deleterious impact that will have on the vicinity.
• Ku-ring-gai 2024 DCP clause 19C.1 item 7 – (Urbis HIS section 6.3, p106). My comment: This is another example where the only justification is the planned future development within the vicinity. Again, such future development may never happen and, if it doesn’t, the project will be left as a monstrosity and completely out of character.
It should be noted that in section 4 of the HIS report, Urbis state that they believe that the “established statement of significance [for the subject heritage conservation area (Clanville Conservational Area C32) sourced from the NSW State Heritage Inventory] does not provide an accurate reflection of the Clanville Conservation Area’s character” (Urbis HIS section 4.3.4, p87). However, the only support for this belief is the analysis they have done on the 5 properties making up the site on which the project is to be built, together with vague and unsubstantiated claims about 2 neighbouring properties. Whilst the analysis of the 5 subject properties may be acceptable in relation to the proposed demolition of those properties, it clearly does not prove that the established statement of significance is not an accurate reflection of the character of the rest of the HCA. Accordingly, the HIS utterly fails to justify the conclusion that the whole HCA, or even the part of the HCA which is in the vicinity of the project, is of a different character to that stated in the established statement of significance. Furthermore, the HIS completely fails to analyse what the character of the HCA (or that part of it) is, nor does it provide any analysis of the impact of the project on the HCA as it is.
The HIS patently and utterly fails to provide any meaningful assessment of the impact of the project on the existing character of the HCA and, in several places, acknowledges that it will be quite out of character. It is obvious that there will be a very high and deleterious impact on the existing character of the HCA. On that basis alone the project should not be allowed to proceed.
TOD SEPP impact
The only possible basis on which the project could be justified, despite its impact on the existing character of the HCA, would be if the planned future development in the area which is alluded to in the HIS actually occurs, or is highly likely to occur. The low impact assessment in the HIS is fundamentally wrong otherwise as outlined above.
However, it is my contention that such anticipated future development is not at all likely at present, and until current uncertainties are resolved it is clearly more unlikely than likely. And therefore the project cannot be allowed to proceed, at the very least until those uncertainties are resolved.
Whist it is acknowledged that the TOD SEPP is currently law, it is a fact that the Ku-ring-gai Council has initiated legal action challenging the validity of the TOD SEPP. It is true, that action has been suspended pending negotiations with the NSW Government over the Council’s proposal that the TOD SEPP be amended as it applies in the Ku-ring-gai LGA. The Council approved proposal would enshrine the Clanville HCA and remove the high density uplifts currently in the TOD SEPP from all properties in the HCA.
Thus if either the legal action or the Council’s proposal were to succeed the existing character of the HCA would be retained and no anticipated future high density development in the vicinity of the project would be permitted.
This obvious uncertainty has deterred any other developers, apart from the Applicant, from embarking on similar high density developments in the vicinity of the project. I am personally aware of at least four groups of properties in Roseville Avenue, outside the site of the project, who have attempted to market a site for development under the TOD SEPP, and all of them have failed to come to an agreement with a developer or in some cases even to attract any bids. The uncertainty is too great.
The project cannot be allowed on a mere hope!

Comments on the attachment.