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 we are 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.
We are 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.

To Whom It May Concern,
I, Thomas B. Jambrich of 27 Oliver Road, Roseville, wish to formally lodge my strong objection to the proposed development by Hyecorp, which seeks to construct four apartment buildings (approximately 30 meters in height) at 21–27 Roseville Avenue and 16–24 Lord Street, Roseville.

I have previously objected against this development and that Objection is repeated further below.

I understand that since their first applications, Hyecorp has made some minor amendments to their application and has relodged a new application that in essence contains very minor changes. I understand that some of the changes incorporated into the current submission are minimal and would not alter the substantial adverse impact that would have been the consequence of the previous summation. Some of the minor changes would seem to include:
• The podium of the smallest tower (next to the Scout Hall) has been reduced by just one story (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.m2. That is a pitiful 144 m2 reduction. Such a small reduction will be virtually unnoticeable, given the very large scale of this project

Under the circumstance, I submit that the objections I raised previously remain the same and as such I am incorporating it hereunder.

OBJECTION

Mr Brent Pearce
Assessing Officer
Re: Objection to Development Application EDA0254/25 – 18–20 Roseville Avenue (6+-storey apartment buildings)

Dear Mr Pearce,

I, Thomas Jambrich of 27 Oliver Road, Roseville, formally lodge my strong objection to the proposed development by Hyecorp, which seeks to construct a 6-storey plus apartment building at 18–20 Roseville Avenue.
My property lies diagonally opposite the proposed site, and the development would significantly impact both our household and the broader neighbourhood — affecting visual amenity, natural light, traffic, noise levels, and our general wellbeing.
________________________________________
Lack of Community Consultation
To impose such an intrusive development on a well-established neighbourhood without genuine community consultation is unacceptable. It reflects a profound disregard for the wellbeing of residents whose lives will be materially affected.
It is deeply disappointing that no effort was made by the developers to engage or consult with nearby residents. Proposals of this scale should not proceed without open communication and input from those most directly impacted. The complete absence of consultation demonstrates a concerning lack of transparency and community respect.
________________________________________
Incompatibility with Community Character

The proposed development is fundamentally at odds with the existing character of Roseville, which is predominantly composed of single- and two-storey homes with private gardens. This low-density environment fosters social connection and a strong sense of community — with neighbours chatting over fences and children playing safely in yards and local streets.
Having previously lived in a high-rise setting, I know first-hand how such developments limit social interaction and reduce community cohesion. Encounters are often brief and impersonal, confined to lifts or corridors — undermining the warmth and familiarity that defines suburbs like Roseville.
When my wife and I relocated to Sydney, we deliberately chose Roseville for its welcoming, village-like atmosphere — a quality that would be severely diminished by the intrusion of high-rise buildings.
________________________________________
Visual and Heritage Impact

Our residence is just meters from the proposed site. The planned building would dominate the skyline, overshadow neighbouring homes, and starkly interrupt the low-rise, leafy streetscape.
Furthermore, the proposed development would sit uncomfortably amidst a neighbourhood of heritage-listed homes and traditional Federation-style architecture. Its bulk and scale would be jarring — it would, quite frankly, “stick out like a sore thumb,” diminishing the visual harmony and historic charm that make Roseville unique.
________________________________________
Traffic and Access Concerns

The development would substantially worsen traffic and access in an already-congested area. The proposal includes only 45 parking spaces for 41 apartments — including just 3 spaces for 6 affordable units. This car-to-resident ratio is inconsistent with local usage patterns and inadequate for this setting.
Vehicle access to the Pacific Highway via Clanville Road is already strained and frequently congested. A development of this size would introduce hundreds of additional vehicle movements each day, exacerbating bottlenecks and placing further pressure on local roads.
The area surrounding the proposed site is heavily used by daily train commuters, staff, and visitors to:
• KOPWA Aged Care (12–16 Trafalgar Avenue)
• Roseville Ladies College
• Roseville College (27 Bancroft Avenue)
Year 12 students often drive and park in the vicinity, placing additional demand on limited street parking. The influx of new residents would compound this issue, reducing available parking and impairing access — particularly to the aged care facility — which is neither logical nor responsible planning.
________________________________________
Noise and Community Wellbeing

A development of this magnitude will inevitably increase noise levels — due to higher population density, more vehicle traffic, and construction activities — disrupting the peace and quiet long valued by local residents.
Noise pollution, combined with traffic congestion, overshadowing, and loss of green space, can contribute to heightened stress, a weakened sense of belonging, and a decline in mental wellbeing — all of which should be considered as serious planning issues.
________________________________________
Loss of Sunlight and Natural Amenity

At 30 meters in height, the proposed building would significantly reduce access to sunlight and natural light for surrounding properties. This is not merely an aesthetic concern — it affects energy efficiency, indoor comfort, and the health and wellbeing of residents.
________________________________________
Conclusion

While I acknowledge Sydney’s growing housing demands and support responsible, well-considered development, this proposal — by virtue of its scale, location, and design — is entirely inappropriate for the Roseville area.
It has been advanced without meaningful community input and poses unacceptable risks to heritage integrity, traffic safety, residential amenity, and the social fabric of our neighbourhood.
I therefore respectfully urge relevant planning authorities to reject this development in its current form and instead pursue context-sensitive, community-informed solutions that preserve the character and cohesion of established suburbs.
The Ku-ring-gai Council’s preferred planning option, currently under consideration, provides a far more balanced and sustainable approach to local development — and it has my full support.
Thank you for the opportunity to express these concerns. I trust the voices of existing residents and the unique character of our community will be given the full consideration they deserve.

Yours sincerely,
signed
Thomas B. Jambrich
27 Oliver Road
Roseville NSW 2069

I believe this project does not fit with the current character of the area. A nine storey apartment building surrounded by single to double storey low density housing does not fit within the local context.

A number of views refer to the proposal taking up only sky but this does not consider the existing views and in particular for those on Lord Street that are likely to lose their views, their natural light and more due to impact to the North caused by this proposal.

The landscape proposal does not effectively screen the property from the existing properties. Replacing mature trees with trees that will take decades to reach the same height and canopy coverage is not a suitable replacement, I would suggest removed trees are replaced at a 2:1 ratio and with pot sizes that are a minimum of 100L to reduce impact for residents.

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)
We don't believe this project will benefit for local Roseville East side residents.
- We bought the house End of Aug 2024 because the nice heritage street, leafy trees, natural environment and quiet neighbourhood. Roseville East side is a small community but warm. We would prefer this kind of area to raise our children.
- This application lodged under the TOD scheme, should NOT in the public interest, be further progressed or determined until Council’s Preferred Scenario is resolved.
- We bought the house last year however we didn't receive any flyers/ brochures related to this project/planning until neighbour talking to us. We never received any information / communication related to this application even at same street.
- Roseville has a few heritage streets so did Roseville Ave and Lord street. This project will destroy many established trees significantly causing destruction of native species and obviously greatly impacting the natural landscape.
- 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 issue. Local streets and lanes are already packed at peak hour. Roseville Ave and Lord street are fully parked on working days already. Also Martin's Lane. We can't imagine there are 200 Units more living residents how we could cope on the narrow street.
At Peak hour morning and evening, there are always long queue 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, full of cars and always traffic at peak hour!
- 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.
- Hope our voice can be heard and hope to keep our community as it is.

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

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.

I wish to formally object to the State Significant Development application (SSD-78996460) for the proposed development at 16–24 Lord Street and 21–27 Roseville Avenue, Roseville.

I have lived in Roseville for over 15 years with my family, and we are raising our three children here in my wife’s childhood home, which sits within a Heritage Conservation area. We have a deep personal connection to this suburb and a strong respect for its architectural history, community values and village atmosphere.

I fully acknowledge how fortunate we are to live in such a well-located and beautiful area, close to public transport, and I understand the growing need for affordable housing in Sydney. However, Roseville simply does not have the capacity to absorb the increased traffic and congestion this development would bring. Access in and out of the suburb is already difficult during peak periods, with only a limited number of local streets connecting to main roads. The intersection of Clanville Road and the Pacific Highway is already a major safety concern, with a history of serious accidents, injuries and fatalities. Adding further traffic to this network is not only impractical, but dangerous.

While affordable housing is a legitimate priority, this proposal is far too large and intrusive for its setting. A one-metre reduction in height is insignificant and does nothing to change the real impacts of the project. The building’s bulk, scale and mass remain unchanged, as does the overshadowing and visual dominance over neighbouring homes and streets. The revised proposal does not meaningfully reduce the harm to the surrounding area.

Incompatibility with local heritage and character
Roseville’s identity is built on low-density development, heritage streetscapes and long-standing conservation principles. A development of this scale directly conflicts with those values and would permanently change the character of the suburb. Local residents have complied with strict heritage and planning controls for years, often at considerable personal expense. This proposal effectively disregards those protections and the collective effort of the community to preserve the area’s character.

Overdevelopment and pressure on infrastructure
Combining nine properties into a single high-density development is excessive for this location. It will increase pressure on already strained roads, parking, transport services and local infrastructure. The resulting traffic congestion and parking demand will create genuine safety risks, particularly for families and children in nearby school zones.

Environmental and ecological impact
This development threatens green space, vegetation and local biodiversity, which are essential to Roseville’s appeal and liveability. The environmental impacts have not been adequately addressed, and the landscaping provisions are clearly insufficient for a project of this scale.

Community consultation
There has been no genuine, meaningful engagement with local residents. The community has not been given a real voice in a decision that will permanently and negatively reshape the suburb.

Conclusion
Affordable housing must be delivered in a way that is responsible, balanced and respectful of existing communities. This proposal fails to achieve that balance. It is inappropriate in scale, damaging in impact, and sets a dangerous precedent for future development in Roseville. It should not proceed in its current form. Any future proposal must be significantly reduced in size and bulk, align with Ku-ring-gai Council’s TOD framework, properly address community concerns, and genuinely protect the heritage and character of the area.

I object to the State Significant Development application (SSD-78996460) for the proposed development at 16–24 Lord Street and 21–27 Roseville Avenue, Roseville.

While I acknowledge that Roseville is a highly desirable suburb with access to public transport and recognise the broader need for affordable housing in metropolitan Sydney, this cannot justify development that is inappropriate for its context. Roseville, in its current form, does not have the capacity to accommodate the additional traffic and vehicles generated by this proposal. Existing road infrastructure is already operating beyond reasonable capacity, particularly during peak periods. Access to and from the suburb is constrained by a limited number of local streets connecting to major arterial roads, resulting in regular congestion. The intersection of Clanville Road and the Pacific Highway is a known traffic hazard, with a documented history of serious accidents, including incidents resulting in severe injury and loss of life. Any further increase in traffic volumes will exacerbate these risks and compromise public safety.

Although the provision of affordable housing is an important planning objective, this proposal is wholly disproportionate to the established scale, built form, and heritage character of Roseville. The proposed one-metre height reduction is inconsequential and fails to meaningfully address the impacts of the development. The overall bulk and massing remain excessive, overshadowing impacts are unchanged, and the adverse effects on adjoining properties and the public domain remain unacceptable. These amendments are cosmetic in nature and do not respond to the substantive concerns raised by the community.

Incompatibility with local heritage and character
Roseville is characterised by low-density development, heritage-listed properties, conservation areas, and a consistent streetscape that reflects long-standing planning controls. A development of this scale and intensity is fundamentally incompatible with these characteristics and would result in a permanent and irreversible erosion of the suburb’s identity. Local residents have been required to comply with stringent heritage and planning controls, often at considerable financial cost. Approval of this proposal would undermine the integrity of those controls and set a precedent that disregards both heritage protections and community expectations.

Overdevelopment and infrastructure capacity
The consolidation of nine individual lots into a single high-density development represents a clear case of overdevelopment for this site. The proposal will place unacceptable additional pressure on local infrastructure, including roads, parking, public transport, schools and community services, all of which are already strained. Increased traffic volumes and on-street parking demand will directly impact residential amenity and create heightened safety risks, particularly for pedestrians, families and school-aged children.

Environmental and landscape impacts
The scale and footprint of the development will result in the loss of green space, mature vegetation and local biodiversity, which are essential components of Roseville’s environmental character and liveability. The environmental impacts of the proposal have not been adequately mitigated, and the landscaping strategy is insufficient to offset the loss of existing natural assets. These deficiencies will have long-term and irreversible consequences for the local environment.

Community consultation
The proponent has failed to demonstrate genuine, meaningful and transparent engagement with the affected community. Residents have not been afforded an adequate opportunity to influence a proposal that will permanently and adversely alter the character, amenity and safety of their neighbourhood. This lack of consultation is inconsistent with best-practice planning principles and undermines community trust in the decision-making process.

Conclusion
While affordable housing is a legitimate planning consideration, it must not be pursued at the expense of heritage values, environmental integrity, infrastructure capacity, public safety and residential amenity. This proposal is inappropriate, represents an overdevelopment of the site, and sets an unacceptable precedent for future development in Roseville. The application should be refused in its current form. Any future redevelopment of the site must be substantially reduced in scale and bulk, be consistent with the Ku-ring-gai Council Transit-Oriented Development framework, fully address community concerns, and demonstrate a genuine balance between housing objectives and the preservation of Roseville’s established character.

Please see attached submission objecting to Hyecorp's RTS

I object to the State Significant Development application (SSD-78996460) for the proposed development at 16–24 Lord Street and 21–27 Roseville Avenue, Roseville.

As a lifetime resident of Roseville, I feel as though I am in a good position to give feedback on this submission. I grew up in this area as have my three children. My husband and I live in my childhood home which is protected by Heritage Conservation. We love the area and have deep respect for the significance of the architecture and character of Roseville.

I completely appreciate we are very lucky to live in such a beautiful suburb, conveniently located close to the railway line and understand that Sydney needs more affordable housing in close proximity to public transport. However, Roseville as it currently stands, cannot accomodate more cars and traffic. It is very difficult to drive in and out of Roseville in peak traffic times, as there are only a few local streets where we are able to turn onto a main road and these get very congested with traffic. The Clanville Road and Pacific Highway intersection particularly can be extremely dangerous and several nasty accidents have occurred here, causing severe injuries and there have also been fatalities.

Although affordable housing is important, this development is completely out of scale with the character and heritage of Roseville. The minor one-metre height reduction does nothing to address the real impacts. The bulk of the building remains the same, the overshadowing remains the same, and the impact on surrounding homes and streets remains unacceptable. The changes are tokenistic and do not meaningfully reduce the harm to the neighbourhood.

Incompatibility with local heritage and character
Roseville is defined by its low-density, heritage streetscapes and conservation values. A development of this size is fundamentally inconsistent with that character and would permanently alter the identity of the area. Residents have spent years complying with strict council heritage controls, often at significant personal cost. This proposal undermines those protections and disregards the efforts made by the community to preserve the suburb’s character.

Overdevelopment and strain on infrastructure
The consolidation of nine properties into one high-density site is excessive and inappropriate for this location. It will place further pressure on already strained roads, parking, transport and local services. Increased traffic and congestion will create real safety risks, particularly for families and children near local schools.

Environmental and ecological impact
The scale of this development threatens green space, local vegetation and biodiversity, all of which are central to Roseville’s liveability. The environmental impacts have not been adequately addressed and will have lasting consequences for the local area.
It is also insufficient with regards to landscaping.

Community consultation
There has been a lack of genuine, meaningful engagement with the community. Residents deserve a real voice in decisions that will permanently and detrimentally change their neighbourhood.

Conclusion
While the provision of affordable housing is important, it should not come at the expense of the community's heritage, environmental integrity, and quality of life. This proposal is inappropriate and sets a dangerous precedent for future development and should not go ahead in this form. Should further development be proposed, it should be vastly reduced in size and bulk and align with the Ku-ring-gai Council TOD. All community concerns be addressed and alternative solutions that balance housing needs with the preservation of Roseville's unique character should be investigated.