Please see attached Submission by Richard and Lee Steele

To the Planning Commission / Council Assessment Team,

I am writing as a nearby resident of 24 Clanville Rd, within the immediate impact area of the proposed residential development. This submission is a formal objection to the application as currently designed, and a request that Council refuse it, or at minimum require a substantial redesign and strengthened conditions prior to any approval.

The first point must be stated plainly, because it is too often treated as a rhetorical trick: objecting to this proposal is not the same thing as objecting to affordability. In fact, the project’s affordable-housing label functions here as a kind of moral shield, as if the mere invocation of “affordable” dissolves the ordinary planning obligations of scale, safety, amenity, infrastructure capacity, environmental performance, and genuine neighbourhood fit. The result is a familiar mechanism: the public is asked to accept an outsized, under-justified intensification in exchange for a symbolic good, while the practical costs are dispersed onto the surrounding residents and local services (and, eventually, onto the future occupants themselves, who deserve better than a poorly serviced, compromised outcome).

My objections are grounded in the specifics of planning impacts, not in sentiment. The application, as presented, raises serious concerns in at least five interlocking areas.

First, the proposed bulk, height, and massing are excessive for the site context and appear to rely on the language of “infill” while delivering something closer to a step-change in intensity. Infill is supposed to be incremental, legible, and infrastructurally honest; it is not supposed to be a loophole through which the neighbourhood absorbs a de facto rezoning without the discipline of a proper strategic process. The current design risks overwhelming the streetscape, eroding privacy, and producing unreasonable overshadowing and visual domination for neighbouring dwellings. Council should require a clear, quantitative analysis of height transition, setbacks, overlooking, and shadow impacts across all seasons, at a minimum.

Second, the transport, parking, and safety assumptions appear optimistic to the point of being negligent. If the development increases local trip generation without credible mitigation—particularly at peak times—it will worsen congestion, reduce on-street availability, and introduce conflicts around driveways, sightlines, and pedestrian movement (including children walking to and from school, older residents, and people with mobility needs). “Car-lite” rhetoric cannot substitute for demonstrated capacity. Council should require an independent traffic and parking study that models cumulative impacts, not just the project in isolation, and that proposes enforceable mitigation measures rather than aspirations.

Third, the application does not convincingly address infrastructure load: stormwater, drainage, waste collection, emergency access, and local service capacity. The reality is that densification is not an abstract ethical posture; it is a physical burden that must be engineered. If stormwater capacity is strained, if waste trucks cannot service the site without blocking the street, if fire access is compromised, if local utilities are nearing thresholds, the development becomes a planning failure disguised as virtue. Council should require detailed hydraulic/stormwater reports, construction management planning, waste servicing plans, and confirmation of utility capacity—before approval, not after.

Fourth, construction impacts are being treated as a temporary inconvenience rather than a predictable, multi-month (or multi-year) disruption to health, access, and basic daily functioning. Noise, dust, vibration, road occupation, and work-hour compliance are not minor matters when the site is close to homes. Council should impose strong, explicit construction conditions: restricted hours, dust suppression, vibration monitoring, truck routes, on-site worker parking controls, and clear complaint and enforcement mechanisms. If the proponent cannot accept enforceable conditions, that is itself evidence the proposal is not mature enough for approval.

Fifth, and most importantly, the proposal offers too little confidence that it will deliver a good long-term living environment—both for neighbours and for future residents. A planning system should not manufacture conflict by placing the “good cause” of affordability into a built form that generates predictable resentment because it is poorly scaled, poorly mitigated, and weakly serviced. That is how the debate is poisoned: not by residents raising legitimate planning concerns, but by a project structure that converts those concerns into a moral spectacle. Council should not participate in that dynamic. It should demand a scheme that is context-responsive, infrastructure-credible, and amenity-sound.

Accordingly, I request that Council refuse the application as currently proposed. If Council is minded to approve in principle, then at minimum it should require (1) reduced height/bulk and improved setbacks/transition, (2) verified traffic/parking and safety mitigation, (3) robust stormwater and servicing proof, (4) enforceable construction management conditions, and (5) a design response that demonstrably protects privacy and limits overshadowing for adjacent homes. Without these, the application reads less like responsible planning and more like an attempt to trade a moral label for a technical waiver.

Please confirm that this submission will be included in the assessment record and considered prior to determination.

Sincerely,
Justin Gao
24 Clanville Rd

I object to this development.
- Very little or no community consultation
- Poor planning / integration into the local area
- Adding 300 plus cars to an already overloaded area. (See Clanville and Boundary street queues of cars 20 + long)
- Over shadowing of neighbours (I am not a neighbour, rather live in the community)
- Over shadowing of the scout hall hertitage building
- Removal of heritage homes
- Removal of tree canopy for birds and native animals
- Sydney Water's infrastructure is overloaded now - we are down hill from this proposed development

I have lived at 46 Lord St Roseville for 47 years and value the unique heritage conservation and the number of trees in the area. There has been a massive increase in traffic in recent years particularly affecting Pacific Highway to Archbold Rd via Clanville Rd bridge, Martin Lane and Lord St. The proposed development must, unequivocally, aggrevate this traffic congestion. Parking in Lord St is extremely difficult currently and I am very concerned this will be worse if the development proceeds.
The proposed multi-storey development will be surrounded by mostly one to two storey Federation houses, many of which will be affected by shadowing.
I am also very concerned about the effects on infrastructure such as stormwater drainage, power, sewerage etc. Traffic around Roseville Ave, Martin Lane, Lord St, Glencroft St & Bancroft Ave is already at saturation levels, especially during School Terms, & this inevitably will be markedly exacerbated if the proposal is accepted.
The treasured heritage listed Scout Hall would be totally overwhelmed by this huge building. The scouts often use the outdoor area for training and enjoy time around the fire pit which will be unusable.
This TOD development also seems inappropriate due to the lack of major shopping outlets at Roseville.
I note the maximum height permitted under TOD is 28.6 m, but the proposal has a height of 30.1m. Also, the internal changes proposed by Hyecorp do not change the fact that the development does not fit in with the local character of the area.
I am not against an increase in population in the area (such as a high-rise building on Pacific Highway) but I believe this current proposal is totally inappropriate for the reasons outlined above.

I strongly object to the development of the proposed Residential development with in-fill affordable housing, 16-24 Lord Street & 21-27 Roseville Avenue, Roseville (SSD-78996460)

This project will not benefit Roseville residents nor the people who may want to reside.
- We are at Lord street (same street), we never received any flyers/ brochures regarding to this project/planning until neighbour mentioned to us. We never received any information / communication regarding to this application even at same street.
- Lots of houses in Roseville are heritage. We love the area with heritage buildings and leafy trees. This project will destroy many established trees significantly causing destruction of native species and obviously greatly impacting the natural landscape.
- East side of Roseville Station is with one story or 2 stories houses. This project has excessive height and is of poor design. It will cause significant overshadowing to adjacent homes and streets. The site is in the middle of three heritage conservation areas, with 54 heritage listed houses nearby; more like an isolated island surrounded by 1-2 storey houses totally changed the Suburb’s character. The tall building impacts on overshadowing, privacy, solar access, streetscape to the nearby or surrounding neighbourhood.
- Local Traffic nightmare. Local streets and lanes are already jammed at peak hour. Hardly find parking on working days on Lord street and Roseville Ave already. Martins Lane is a very narrow street fully parked during working days.
At Peak hour, it is long queue to get out from Roseville Key intersections- eg. Hight street North Bond left turn to Pacific highway; high street South bond left turn to Boundary st; Bancroft Ave, East Bond to Archbold Rd, all busy!
- Local Public school is already crowded and struggle with capacity.
- Impact on local drainage, stormwater run-off, water pressure, sewerage, power, etc
- The project appears to have been no/very less consultation with residents in the area and the issues I have outlined appear to have not been fully considered or addressed.
- As local resident more than 20 years, we need to speak out our invoice to object .

Dear Madam / Sir,
I previously made a submission regarding the above development. The developer has responded without taking into consideration any of my previous comments.
The changes they have made are so negligible that they may as well not have made any. All of my previous comments remain as well as the fact that the RTS states that Hyecorp will implement the setbacks typically stipulated by Ku-ring-gai Council, which they haven’t done and that council have alternative proposals which are more suitable and in keeping with the majority of the residents which this proposal ignores.

Regards
Ann Meagher

I strongly oppose the amended proposal from Hyecorp. Its revised proposal has in no way addressed any of my concerns.

Please see my comments in the attached file.