I would like to express my strong objections to the proposed development on 16-24 Lord Street & 21-27 Roseville Avenue, Roseville (SSD-78996460)

Destruction of Heritage value
The site is situated within the Clanville Conservation Area whereby Lord St and Roseville Ave are renowned for having the most characteristic period homes. The surrounding neighbourhood shares the essence of being a conservation area through harmonious architectural style of buildings, fences, trees and gardens. The Heritage Impact Statement was conducted in the most unprofessional manner stating each property was deemed to have no contributory value and does not warrant being preserved. It appears that Urbis is assessing these properties as “heritage items” rather than houses within a conservation area. Urbis followed the line of argument that as long as a property is not in it’s ORIGINAL format or has had alternation, it bears no heritage value. This method of analysis failed to recognise what encapsulates a conservation area. Given most of the properties were constructed in the early 1990s, it is reasonable to expect alternations/extensions being carried out even just for general upkeep purpose. It is evident from all the photographs in the report that efforts have been made to improve the appearance of these properties. However, all the properties have unquestionably retained the original fabric/characteristic of inter-war bungalows.

There is no logical justification for Urbis to conclude that “The demolition of the existing structures present on the subject site will not result in adverse impacts to the character of the local HCA.” Urbis acknowledge in the report that he form, scale and design of the development are all at odds with the existing surrounding environment and yet their justification is that it is in line with anticipated future redevelopment within the area. This is quite a presumptuous argument to justify today’s proposal based on unfounded future scenarios. Not to mention the contemporary form and design of this development is violates all the design guidelines and principles set by Ku-Ring-Gai Council. Unless all the future developments are determined via the State Significant Development process, this type of design would not be supported by Council therefore Urbis’s argument that “The development would be in line with the planned future character of this area” is not valid.

Loss Quality of Life

The sheer bulk and scale of this development will be the biggest in Roseville as the Metro Tunnel Infrastructure will prevent any larger development closer to the Roseville Station be constructed. The neighbouring residents will lose quality of life where the deprivation of sunlight being the most critical. The other negative aspects include loss of privacy, increased traffic congestion and noise pollution. It is unjust to take away basic human rights from the local residents in the name of affordable housing when in reality, no part of this development will contribute towards affordable housing in any meaningful way.

Therefore, I urge the Minister to decline this development proposal as the scale of this development is simply inappropriate for the area and Roseville does not have the required infrastructure to accommodate.

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 canopy and home it affords so many 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 or determined until Council’s Preferred Scenario is resolved. 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 Hyecorp’s 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 in the last couple months 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 guaranteed 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 normal people are not allowed to remove trees so why can huge developers? There are alternate solutions that have a much softer impact. I urge you strongly not to approve this development.

Please refer to comments and concerns as outlined in the attachment.

Social and affordable housing is most important.

I request DPHI to carefully consider the implications of adopting Ku-ring-gai Council’s alternative planning controls when determining this SSDA (Hyecorp). These proposed new controls are flawed. The existing TOD controls, in contrast, provide the opportunity for balanced and well-integrated urban development that respects both the heritage of the Eastside Roseville area and the broader goals of housing affordability and growth. Should DPHI uphold the current TOD controls, this development (Hyecorp) will integrate effectively into the Eastside Roseville area. On the other hand, if DPHI were to adopt Council’s alternative planning controls and impose blanket restrictions on floor space ratios and density, as proposed, then the bulk and scale of the Hyecorp development, along with other similarly proposed projects, would be inconsistent with the existing character of the area.

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

My name is Eden Cleaver and I live at 5 Roseville Avenue, Roseville, in a small apartment complex just up the road from the proposed Hyecorp development site.

I strongly oppose this proposed development for multiple reasons, which I will proceed to outline below. I have lived in Roseville for almost 4 years and love living in this area for it's quiet leafy green streets and heritage charm. I particularly love how all the streets in the neighbourhood are lined with old-growth trees which provide homes to a multitude of wildlife. I love that Roseville has maintained it's quiet charm despite being situated so close to the bustling metropolis of Chatswood and the more recently burgeoning town centre of Lindfield. Roseville truly feels one of the last remaining gems on the north shore. It is for this reason that I feel it is extremely important to preserve this beautiful suburb from high rise developments such as the proposed residential development for 16-24 Lord Street and 21-27 Roseville Avenue.

Aesthetic Considerations
To allow this development to proceed would be a tragedy, not only for the suburb of Roseville but for the entire north shore area. The proposed Hyecorp development lacks the heritage charm that is synonymous with the area and would visually overshaddow the surrounding streets with an aesthetically unconsidered and inappropriately placed design. To put it bluntly - the Hyecorp development simply does not belong in the area.

Traffic Conjestion
Aesthetic considerations aside, another major concern is the traffic congestion that this proposed development would bring. There is no garage parking in the apartment I live in so finding a street park on or around Roseville Avenue is very challenging on a good day. Often I have to park many streets away and move my car later at night once the street has cleared from commuter cars. The development of the metro line has only added to the parking challenge and I am extremely concerned that if the proposed Hyecorp development were to proceed then it would be near impossible for me to be able to park my car anywhere remotely near to where I live. In addition, construction of the proposed development would no doubt cause even more parking and traffic congestion on the surrounding streets with trade workers adding to the influx.

One particular point of traffic congestion I foresee is Martin Lane, which is basically a one-way street currently. The traffic banks up either side of Martin Lane during peak hour making it very difficult to access.

Impact on Wildlife
The estimated loss of 91 trees if the Hyecorp development were to proceed would be a devastating loss to the area and, in particular, to the local wildlife. I go for a walks most evenings after work and love to see the abundance of wildlife on and around Roseville ave and Lord street. The removal of this significant number of trees would be a high impact and, in addition, could diminish the air quality. In a world that is becoming more and more built-up we need these pockets of green that Roseville provides. These areas are safe havens for wildlife and must be protected and valued.

No Information received from Hyecorp
Additionally, I never received a flyer from Hyecorp in my letterbox about the proposed development. I also later found out only through the save our neighbourhood group that there was a community drop-in session at Lindfield Seniors Centre/Community Hall between 4:00-6:30pm on Wed 12 March 2025. I never would have been able to attend this session because I work full time in the city. It's unreasonable to hold this session during those hours, I often don't get home from work untill after 6:30pm.

I also wasn't aware of the dedicated project pages on the Hyecorp website prior to 25 March 2025 or after that, I was not aware of the community survey on the Hyecorp website and I was never provided any information from Hyecorp representatives. I feel like the neighbourhood was kept completely in the dark about this proposed development. The first I even heard about it was from the save our neighbourhood flyer in my letterbox.

This development application should not be further progressed until Council’s Preferred Scenario is resolved. I support the council’s Preferred Scenario and how this recognises the unique character of Eastside Roseville and takes into account the wildlife and heritage charm of the area.

I strongly object to the proposed Hyecorp development.

Please refer to the attachment setting out reasons for the objection.