My comments are attached in the PDF document.

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 for the following reasons:

1. Achieving a balanced development plan combining community wishess with state government targets
Ku-ring-gai council has completed a thorough exercise engaging the local community for the optimal way to achieve the State Government's housing targets and together they have agreed a plan. This development by hyecorp was just a rushed application to try and sneak in a development for the sole purpose of personal financial gain & is in no way achieving the goals of the local community, the state government or any other group apart from this one developer. This and all other SSDAs should be rejected if not in accordance with the Council/State Govenment / local community agreed TOD amendment.

2. Height
The revised plan is still well over the 28.6m maximum, with the revised documentation stating 30.4m. It is simply out of specification. Any proposed project with 9 storeys and a 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.

3. Impact on the local community
- The development will significantly reduce sunlight and cast long shadows over surrounding residential properties. These families acquired their homes at significant financial cost to live in the heritage conservation area that holds such history. This singular orphan building will destroy that, causing significant financial, emotional and mental cost to all these individuals, just so a single developer can get financial reward.
- Severe traffic congestion. The development will worsen traffic conditions. Especially the exit from Clanville Ave to Pacific Highway, the exit from Hill St to Boundary St.
- The development will demolish 9 houses, each with around 100 years of history, to build a totally out of character ophan multi-storey building that has a negative impact on hundreds of homes and the entire local commmunity as it is totally out of character the with entire area. This is a huge loss to the local community and also to Sydney.
- loss of fauna and flora : It is awful to consider the loss of trees that is proposed, scarring the local area.
- Flooding : the local topography means this will be built in a flood area and will be a major issue if constructed.

4. Sydney Metro impact
This plan does not address the encroachment on restricted areas for a multi-billion dollar piece of NSW infrastrucutre. Why risk impacting such investment for the financial gain of just a few.

5. lack of local consultation.
We live in the area that Hyecorp claim they communicated with regarding the development proposal. We received not notification, nor have all our neighbours. It simply did not seem to happen. However, the council did complete this process thoroughly & therefore this should be the plan that the NSW governement use when reviewing this SSDA and any other additional application.

Planning requires the consultation of all who are impacted, especially the local community and for propective developers to follow the rules and regulations. This has not occurred in the SSDA planning requirements, the impact to locals with surrounding contect and charatcer , the sydney metro, and several other areas. To build 250 units to provide housing where is has such a detrimental impact on significantly higher numbers of people and their families makes no sense. The ku-ring-gai council and NSW government have agreed on a modified TOD plan that followed the appropriate process of getting the best plan for meeting housing needs and also the community needs and all development in this council area should follow that amended TOD plan.

For the interest and good of all the community, reject the financially motivated request of this selfish developer who simnply wants to negatively impact others for their own gain only.

Please see attached - am objecting the proposal

Subject: Formal Objection to Hyecorp Development Application SSD-78996460 at 16-24 Lord Street & 21-27 Roseville Avenue, Roseville

I'm writing to you today, as a concerned resident, to formally object to the Hyecorp development application for 16-24 Lord Street & 21-27 Roseville Avenue, Roseville (SSD-78996460). Hyecorps resubmission in no way addresses the issues of a building such as this and its impact to the environmnent, its inappropriateness to the local character of the street and area, and its impact on town planning. My complaint therefore remains unchanged.

Frankly, this proposal simply isn't right for our community.

A Disappointing Lack of Engagement
I must say, I’m quite disappointed by how little Hyecorp has engaged with our community on this project. It feels like we’ve been left in the dark. I never received any flyer or direct information from Hyecorp about this. If I had, I certainly would have made it to their community drop-in session at Lindfield Seniors Centre/Community Hall on Wednesday, March 12, 2025 – I was available! It wasn't until March 25, 2025, that I even knew about the dedicated project pages on their website, let alone the community survey. It’s clear to me that Hyecorp wasn't actively trying to inform or get feedback from residents like me. The only reason I found out about this whole thing was through a neighbour and a local community group’s flyer on April 8. This is a big miss when it comes to genuinely reaching out to the community.

________________________________________
Why This Project Simply Doesn't Fit Our Community
I chose to live in Eastside Roseville for very specific reasons: its lovely low-density homes, the abundance of green spaces, and that wonderful calm, family-friendly feeling. The way our streets and buildings are now is so important to our quality of life and the heritage charm of the neighbourhood. Our area is distinctly different from places that are suitable for high-density development, especially with our existing buildings, significant heritage considerations, and its primarily residential nature.

The current Ku-ring-gai Council’s Preferred Scenario thoughtfully acknowledges Eastside Roseville's unique character, respecting the current built form around this proposed development site. The Council’s Preferred Scenario largely keeps the existing zoning in Eastside Roseville, with sensible exceptions only for the Hill St precinct and the upper part of Victoria St. This approach respects our community's established amenity and liveability, and it just makes sense. This application is at odds with the current planning scenario.

________________________________________
My Specific Concerns About the Hyecorp Project
Let me get down to the nitty-gritty of why this proposed Hyecorp project is so concerning. Firstly, our existing infrastructure – the drainage, stormwater run-off, water pressure, sewerage, and power – simply isn’t designed to handle a development of this size. The increased demand will surely lead to problems like more stormwater run-off and increased pressure on our current drainage system, which could very well lead to flooding. It will also put undue strain on our water pressure, sewerage, and power supplies, which could mean frustrating service disruptions for all of us, and get ready for more potholes and damage to our roads due to the increased heavy vehicle traffic, both during and after construction.

Secondly, and perhaps my biggest worry, this development would fundamentally change the very essence of Eastside Roseville. Nine storeys? It’s just outrageous and completely clashes with Eastside Roseville's existing and future built environment. Our area is defined by low-rise housing, and a towering structure like this will have a profoundly negative effect, causing a loss of sunlight for nearby properties and invading our privacy with direct views from countless apartments. This immense height will completely dominate our streets, destroying the established low-rise residential feel and creating an unappealing, high-density environment. It will be an eyesore, permanently altering the cherished low-density, leafy character that defines Eastside Roseville; we chose to live here for that character! Four buildings, each up to nine storeys, are completely out of scale with our neighbourhood's typical one-to-two-storey homes. It's also entirely incompatible with the Council’s Preferred Scenario, which aims to preserve our low-rise residential fabric. This project would create an isolated island of towers surrounded by single-family homes, made even worse by the Metro tunnel reserves limiting other nearby development. This jarring contrast will severely harm the amenity of the entire area. The visual impact will be immense and highly detrimental, especially from neighbouring properties and public spaces. The architectural plans (pages 23, 24, 31, 32) and the Visual Impact Assessment (pages 15 onwards) clearly show the overwhelming bulk and scale. These towers will be highly visible from all directions, creating an oppressive sense of enclosure for nearby homes and significantly detracting from the beauty of our streetscapes.

This development also poses a grave threat to our area's heritage. The site is right in the middle of three established heritage conservation areas, with 54 heritage-listed houses nearby. The planned demolition of nine homes that contribute to these heritage conservation areas represents an intolerable destruction of invaluable historical and architectural assets. This proposal completely ignores existing heritage protections and will permanently damage Eastside Roseville's unique history and character. Lastly, the plan to remove 91 trees for this development is simply unacceptable. These trees contribute significantly to our local tree canopy, biodiversity, and Eastside Roseville's leafy character. Their loss will have a damaging environmental impact and further degrade the amenity of our area.

Finally, the impact on traffic and parking will be substantial, affecting our daily lives. The additional traffic from this development, particularly during peak hours, is a major worry. Roseville’s local road network is already under significant pressure, and this proposal will severely worsen existing problems, including increased traffic through Martin Lane, heightening its use as an already problematic shortcut, negatively impacting residential amenity and safety. We'll see even more gridlock at key intersections leading out of Roseville, causing longer delays and frustration for all of us. Many local streets are effectively one-way due to parking and narrowness; they simply cannot handle the projected increase in vehicles. The area around Roseville College already faces significant traffic during school times, and this development will critically exacerbate these bottlenecks, creating safety risks and severe disruption. Even with proposed on-site parking, the sheer number of new residents and visitors will inevitably force cars onto already crowded local streets, leading to intense competition for parking spaces and a noticeable decline in amenity for current residents. Where are we all going to park?
________________________________________
In Summary
In summary, the Hyecorp project is fundamentally incompatible with Eastside Roseville's current character and how we envision our future. It represents an overdevelopment that will severely diminish our community's amenity, heritage, and overall liveability. I strongly urge the NSW Government to halt this application.
Thank you for taking the time to consider my submission. I truly hope you’ll listen to the concerns of the residents.

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

I am the owner of a house in Bancroft Ave, Roseville.
I am writing to formally object to the Hyecorp development application lodged for 16-24 Lord Street & 21-27 Roseville Avenue, Roseville (SSD-78996460)”. I have made a previous submission in regard to this application. However, Hyecorp's resubmission has made no changes to address the inappropriateness of a building of this scale and bulk in this location. The RTS completely dismisses the concerns raised in relation to heritage, town planning and local character. Therefore, the issues and objections I raised in my previous submissions remain the same.

It is my strong belief, and I wish to clearly state, that this application, should NOT, in the public interest, be further progressed.

Community Engagement
I wish to provide a clear statement regarding the extent to which Hyecorp has engaged with me regarding this project.
I have not received Hyecorp’s community flyer, or any information from Hyecorp in regard to this project as at the time of writing.
Regarding the community drop-in session at Lindfield Seniors Centre/Community Hall on Wednesday 12 March 2025, between 4:00-6:30 pm, I would have had availability to attend , had I been made aware of it in a timely manner.
I was not aware of the dedicated project pages on the Hyecorp website prior to 25 March 2025,
I was not aware of the community survey on the Hyecorp website .
Hyecorp and/or its representatives did not otherwise provide information to me or seek feedback about the project.
I found out about the proposed development through a neighbour/local community group on April 8 following a flyer in my mailbox from a concerned local community group. This demonstrates a severe lack of effective community engagement on the part of the developer.

Reasons for Objection
I am a resident of Eastside Roseville, and I chose to live in this area because of its unique character, featuring predominantly low-density residential homes, abundant green spaces, and a quiet, family-friendly atmosphere. The existing built form contributes significantly to the quality of life and the heritage appeal of the neighbourhood..
The application fails to recognise and respect the unique character of our neighbourhood. Eastside Roseville is distinctly different from areas typically targeted for high-density development due to its existing built form, heritage considerations, and the predominantly residential nature of the community.

I strongly express my support for Ku-ring-gai Council’s Preferred Scenario. This scenario accurately and thoughtfully recognises the unique character of Eastside Roseville, having due regard to the existing built form in the area of the proposed development.

My specific objections to the proposed Hyecorp project are detailed below:

HEIGHT OF THE DEVELOPMENT:
The proposed height of the development, up to 9-storeys, is fundamentally inconsistent with the existing and future built form of Eastside Roseville. Our neighbourhood is characterised by 1-2 storey houses, and the imposition of a 9-storey structure will have a devastating impact on:
• Overshadowing: Significant overshadowing of adjoining properties, reducing solar access to homes and private open spaces.
• Privacy: A severe loss of privacy for surrounding residences due to direct overlooking from numerous apartments.
• Streetscape: The imposing height will completely dominate the streetscape, eroding the established low-rise residential character and creating an unappealing, high-density environment.
• Character: It will irreversibly alter the cherished low-density, leafy character of Eastside Roseville.

OVERALL SIZE AND ISOLATED NATURE OF THE DEVELOPMENT: The overall size of the proposed development, comprising four buildings up to 9-storeys each, is completely out of scale with the existing built form in the neighbourhood of 1-2 storey houses. Furthermore, it is entirely incompatible with the future built form, which under Council’s Preferred Scenario, would largely retain 1-2 storey houses. This development will effectively create an isolated island of four towers surrounded by single-family homes, exacerbated by the significant development constraints at surrounding sites due to the Metro tunnel reserves. This creates a jarring and incongruous development that will negatively impact the amenity of the entire area.

HERITAGE IMPACT: The proposed development poses a significant threat to the heritage of our area. The site is situated in the middle of three established heritage conservation areas, with 54 heritage-listed houses nearby. The planned demolition of nine houses, which contribute significantly to these heritage conservation areas, represents an unacceptable loss of irreplaceable historical and architectural value. This development disregards the hard-won heritage protections in place and will irrevocably damage the unique character and history of Eastside Roseville.

VISUAL IMPACT: The visual impact of the proposed development will be immense and detrimental, particularly from adjoining properties and the public domain. The architectural plans (pages 23, 24, 31, 32) and the Visual Impact Assessment (pages 15 and following) clearly demonstrate the overwhelming scale and bulk of the buildings. These towers will be highly visible from all directions (north, south, east, and west), creating an oppressive sense of enclosure for neighbouring homes and significantly detracting from the aesthetic appeal of the streetscapes.

TRAFFIC IMPACT: The additional traffic that will be generated by the proposed development, particularly during peak periods, is a major concern. Roseville’s local road network is already under significant pressure, and this proposal will exacerbate existing issues, including:
• Martin Lane Rat-Run: Increased traffic through Martin Lane will intensify its use as an already problematic rat-run, impacting residential amenity and safety.
• Congestion at Key Intersections: Further congestion will occur at key intersections out of Roseville, leading to longer delays and increased frustration for residents.
• Local Street Capacity: Many local streets are already essentially one-way due to parking and narrowness, and they simply cannot accommodate the projected increase in vehicle movements.
• Roseville College Drop-off and Pick-up: The area around Roseville College experiences significant traffic during school drop-off and pick-up times. This development will critically worsen these existing bottlenecks, posing safety risks and causing severe disruption.
PARKING IMPACT: The impact on parking will be substantial. Even with proposed on-site parking, the sheer volume of new residents and visitors will inevitably spill onto already constrained local streets, leading to increased competition for parking
spaces and amenity impacts for existing residents.

INFRASTRUCTURE IMPACT: The existing infrastructure, including drainage, stormwater run-off, water pressure, sewerage, power, and roads, is not designed to accommodate a development of this scale. The increased demand will likely lead to:
• Drainage and Stormwater: Increased stormwater run-off and pressure on the existing drainage system, potentially leading to localised flooding.
• Utilities: Strain on water pressure, sewerage, and power supplies, which may result in service disruptions or require costly upgrades that are not factored into the development.
• Roads: Accelerated degradation of local road surfaces due to increased heavy vehicle movements during construction and ongoing traffic.

TREE REMOVAL: The proposal to remove 91 trees to accommodate the development is unacceptable. These trees contribute significantly to the local canopy, biodiversity, and the leafy character of Eastside Roseville. Their loss will have a detrimental environmental impact and further degrade the amenity of the area.

CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS: The anticipated construction period of at least two years (assuming no delays), with work scheduled Mon-Fri 7 AM – 8 PM and Saturday 8 AM – 1 PM, will impose significant burdens on the local community. These impacts include:
• Parking: Further exacerbation of local parking issues due to construction worker vehicles.
• Narrow Streets: The use of narrow local streets by large trucks and cranes will create severe traffic disruptions, safety hazards, and wear and tear on road surfaces.
• Noise and Dust: Significant noise and dust pollution will impact the residential amenity of surrounding homes for an extended period.

In conclusion, the Hyecorp project, is fundamentally incompatible with the existing and desired future character of Eastside Roseville. It represents an overdevelopment that will severely diminish the amenity, heritage, and liveability of our community. I urge the NSW Government to halt the progression of this application.

Thank you for considering my submission.

We are against the Residential Development project located at 16-24 Lord Street and 21-27 Roseville Ave, Roseville, in a couple of aspects as listing below:

1. Connection to the Proposed Development
We are living very close to the proposed project site, within 400 meters on the same street. We love the suburb of Roseville as it is such a unique, quiet and beautiful place that everyone loves it for its character and culture that full of elegancy, quietness and history of heritage. We did not receive any notification from the developer about the proposed project, but we were shocked and sad when hearing about such a giant building to be erected within our eyesight!! We strongly object to the proposed Hyecorp development and therefore submit to express our concerns and objection.

2. Premature Application Under the TOD Program
The development application has been submitted under the Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) program, and it is misleading to regard this proposal as serving the public interest until a Preferred Option has been formally adopted. Should the Council’s Preferred Option be endorsed, this TOD program would no longer apply to this area.

3. Distribution of Hyecorp Community Flyers
As mentioned, we have never receive any Hyecorp’s community notification flyer, and there is no transparency and fair community consultation. As a local resident whose interest to be adversely affected by such a big program, we deserve an opportunity to be notified timely and properly.

4. Incompatibility with Local Character and Planning Controls
The proposed development is excessive in scale and especially height, inconsistent with the existing low-density residential character of Roseville Eastside. The design damages the visual harmony, privacy, and our neighborhood. Roseville Eastside is not suited to the type of high-density R4 zoning envisioned under the TOD framework. We understand from their recent information that the height of the building has been modified with meters lower, however, that does not substantially change any negativity to our community. Rather, it just shows that the continuity of the Hyecorp's project keeps against the interest of the local residency and community.

5. Support for the Council’s Preferred Option
We continuously support Ku-ring-gai Council’s Preferred Option, and it has well preserved the existing density controls across most of Roseville East and considered the established character of the area. Only areas directly adjacent to the station (Hill Street and Victoria Street) may be appropriate for limited increases in density.

6. Concerns about Traffic and Parking Impact
This is a huge concern to our living in Roseville. The current suburb is already packed by cars during peak hours in the morning and in the afternoon every single day. According to the proposed development, the growth of hundreds of people will significantly worsen traffic congestion and parking shortages in an area as it already struggles with limited street parking. Lord Street and Roseville Avenue, and also Martin Lane, are very narrow streets, and they are not designed to accommodate the traffic volume this proposal would generate. This will also bring danger to the local living area, as children, the aged people and dogwalkers will face more traffic issues.

7. Visual Impact and Overshadowing
It will be terrible to witness a giant building in this area among the residential houses nearby, and the scale of the proposed building will result in unacceptable visual bulk and overshadowing of surrounding properties. The Visual Impact Assessment clearly shows an adversely detrimental impact on the streetscape, especially looking at neighboring homes. Privacy will be seriously affected and that is a huge concern for everyone living in this community.

Declaration
I confirm that the information provided in this submission is true and not misleading. It contains no offensive, threatening, or defamatory content, and does not include any personally identifiable information about others without their consent. Thank you.

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.
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.