As a young person in the local area I object to this proposition on many grounds, all with the vision I have educated myself on both sides of the argument, thus adamantly register my objection.


- Roseville is currently overwhelmed with immense traffic at almost all hours of the day, due to Roseville College, the train line, current developments, all of which are supported by many narrow streets which were designed to accomodate the flow of slow residential traffic. Currently Victoria Street is effectively a one way street due to the disastrous set up of Roseville College's car line. Further, multiple lanes which connect the residential streets of Roseville are wide enough only for 3 cars, and will be one way traffic 24 hour a day.

- I am now 19, and when I learnt to drive at 16, I had to wait until 9pm to drive around my area as the volume of constant traffic, coupled with multiple narrow roads. Further I have to be extra cautious crossing hill street at peak times, as the volume of busy drivers is insane, and they have blinders to pedestrians. Arguably this could be helped my putting more than one zebra crossing along Hill street, though clearly no one from council or otherwise has actually been to assess what daily life in our busy suburb is like.

- I feel the council has already skimped in terms of developing roads etc to accomodate the increasing infrastructure, all at the cost of the local residents. If it is absolutely necessary to increase the layout of housing in Roseville (i.e., not primarily just to line the pockets of a huge company, and actually to contribute effectively to the housing crisis), the council needs to make a significant sacrifice by way of facilitating an increase in infrastructure, it the same way it is expecting its' residents to sacrifice by dealing with a terribly thought through project.

Counter proposal?
I am sympathetic to the need to increase infrastructure Australia wide due to our expanding population. I however do not see how this project is going to contribute to our housing crisis more than it serves to line the pockets of a massive company. Roseville has already undergone immense changes on Victoria Street to accomodate development, and it seems slightly ludicrous to slowly destroy the character of this subject by breaking up residential streets with developments, when it would make much more sense to develop all of Victoria Street, thus preserving the integrity of the remaining streets, and also serving to isolate the inevitable traffic disasters to a smaller area. I understand they have already purchased houses along the street they plan to construct, however I have little sympathy for this move as they obviously should have sought community feedback, or considered how they could help negate the wildly obvious negative implications of their decision, such as by contributing to widening roads.

In summary, I fail to see how this project can claim to benefit literally anyone other than some rich company, and potentially the 6 home-homers who now get to comfortably move away for the brewing chaos about to hit our streets.

To Whom It May Concern
As a mum of three grown up children I recognise the importance of providing affordable homes for our growing population, in particular for our essential service workers and first home buyers. However I object to Hyecorp's proposed development of a 9 storey building with 247 apartments in Lord St/Roseville Avenue for the following reasons.
1.Conflict with Ku ring gai Council's Preferred Development Scenario (PDS)
I understand that Ku ring gai Council has worked hard with the local community and State Government to develop the Preferred Development Scenario (PDS) which, if approved, allows the Council to meet the NSW Government housing targets whilst preserving local heritage and the tree canopy. Hyecorp's proposed development is entirely inconsistent with the PDS. If the PDS is approved Hyecorp's 9 storey high apartment block will be an isolated building within the heritage conservation area, surrounded by 1 and 2 story freestanding houses.
2. Lack of Community Engagement
Like my neighbours and friends in the Roseville Community I did not receive any information about the proposed development by Hyecorp. I did not receive the 'community flyer' supposedly delivered to over 1300 local residents and was not aware of the 'drop in' event on 12 March. I was therefore unable to provide any community feedback which i understand that it is a legal requirement for the developer to seek in order to to meet the requirements of the SEAR's.
3. Lack of infrastructure
I am aware of the negative impact that this development would have on the local infrastructure. I am particularly concerned about street parking and traffic in the local area, school capacity and water/sewerage. I don't believe the developer has adequately attempted to address these issues.
4. Lack of affordable units
Given the location of the apartments i think it's unlikely this development will deliver the 'affordable' housing we need. The Hyecorps Juliet apartments on Pacific Highway in Roseville are advertised on Urban.com.au from $1, 000, 000 for a 1 bedroom apartment increasing to over $4, 000, 000 for a 4 bedroom apartment. Even with a 25% discount I think this will be out of reach for our essential service workers and first home buyers.
Conclusion
I oppose the development of the Residential Development with in-fill affordable housing 16-24 Lord Street & 21-27 Roseville Avenue Roseville for a number of reasons. It is inconsistent and conflicts with the Ku ring gah's Preferred Scenario and there was clearly a lack of community engagement and a failure to meet the requirements of the SEARs. I don't believe the developer has addressed the negative impact the apartments would have on the local infrastructure nor will it provide the affordable housing we need for our growing population. I would emphasise I am not opposed to development in Roseville but would argue that it it should be in line with the Ku ring gah's Proposed Development Scenario which would meet the NSW Government housing targets whilst preserving the local heritage character and tree canopy.

This submission is made by me on my own behalf and on behalf of my wife, who has participated in and approved this submission. We live in a nearby house in Roseville Avenue.
We object to the proposed development. It is not in the public interest and shouldn’t be further progressed or determined until the Kuringgai Concil’s Preferred Scenario is resolved, and in any event it should be rejected.
I note the Hyecorp flyer advising the project and meeting was delivered into our mailbox some time after we checked the mail on 12 March, and not received by us until 13 March. Accordingly we were not aware of the meeting until after it occurred. We would have attended if we had known about it.
The application relies on the TOD planning regime. That regime was introduced with limited or insufficient consultation - and as a state process is necessarily broad brush. Kuringgai Council has now followed a detailed consultation process specific to the area. The Kuringgai Council Preferred Scenario will provide the housing the Government wants with less negative impacts through reduction of green habitat (including deep soil areas), damage to heritage) and with preservation/encouragement of the Roseville shopping village.
We also believe that the height of the proposed development will create an unreasonable and unacceptable interface with the adjoining strip of houses on the western side in the direction of Roseville station. This is particularly the case as that strip is affected by the Metro tunnel, which we understand will constrict development of those houses. Other nearby houses in Roseville Avenue, including at least 10, 12 and 16, are excluded from the TOD presumably on heritage grounds. This will also prevent material development of houses nominally included in the TOD such as 14. Thus our subarea will be overwhelmed by this proposed development without being able to develop our own site.
We are further concerned that if this application is successful it will be used as a precedent to gut the effect of the Council’sPreferred Scenario, resulting in worse outcomes for the area generally, and leaving our small pocket of 1-2 story residences surrounded by a “forest” of 9 story buildings.
Thank you for considering our objection

Please refer to the attached document.
Thank you for considering my objection.

See attached objection. It can be read in replacement of SUB-83442208 which can be disregarded.

I refer to the above application and record my strong objection to this proposal.

The proposal:
1. ignores planning by the Kuring-Gai Council which, following community consultatio,n does not allow this height of building in this location
2. Is significantly excessive for the local area resulting in excessive loading on the immediate streets which are already operating at maximum capacity
3. Is of poor design with minimal setbacks, lack of building modulation and a box like design clearly designed to provide maximum profit to the developer
4. Is completely inconsistent with the heritage buildings located with the adjacent area, which have actively been preserved by residents and council
5. Will result in devastating tree loss and impact on wildlife

In summary, it is objectionable that a poorly designed block of units has been proposed, which is completely unsuited to the Roseville heritage streetscape, tree canopy and fauna, and imposes more problems on an already difficult transport situation in Roseville Ave, Lord Ave and Martins Lane (spilling into surrounding backstreets) and which will detract from the liveability for all Roseville residents.

Thank you.

To Whom it May Concern
Re: Residential development with in-fill affordable housing, 16-24 Lord Street & 21-27 Roseville Avenue, Roseville (SSD-78996460)
I am a resident of a home on Roseville Avenue, Roseville, within sight of the proposed development.
I object to the project for the following reasons:
1. The negative impacts that the development will have on the local community and the living environment that exists.
2. The failure to deliver the NSW Governments desired outcomes.
3. The negative impacts on the native flora and the fauna that occupy it.
4. The negative effects a successfully application would have on the community’s faith in the State and Local level Government.
5. The lack of good faith engagement by the developer with the local community and their lack of understanding of the values and heritage of the area.
The Council’s preferred scenario that has been put to the NSW State Government would allow the NSW State Government to achieve its goal while maintaining the character and heritage of Roseville. To support the proposed development before the resolution would cause irreversible damage to the local area.
Hyecorp has not acted in good faith to this point and it stands to reason they will not do so in the future; while claiming to have conducted community outreach, the only evidence I have seen is a flyer that was delivered to my address on the day of the community consultation that occurred between 4:30-6:00pm. This occurred prior to the time I get home from work, leaving me no reasonable opportunity to be consulted. Furthermore, I saw no advertising regarding the history workshop that they say was hosted on the 14th January 2025. Clearly there were others in the same position as me, given only 5 members of the wider community attended the session, and I have spoken to a number of other local residents who are in the same position as me.
Having grown up in Roseville, the local community is a large part of life here and the addition of a 9-storey, 259 apartment building would be in direct contradiction to the values of the community and the aspects of Roseville that attracted residents to it. Should the development go ahead, I fear that we would see an exodus of residents as a direct result, and thereby loss of community.
The application submitted by Hyecorp contains a number of flaws that sit at the heart of the concept itself:
• The streets surrounding the proposed site are commonly full of the parked cars of commuters from the Northern Beaches who utilise Roseville Train Station. It is not uncommon to have cars parked on both sides of the road from Hill St to beyond Martin Ln. As a result, it can already be hard at times to find parking close to home. The addition of 259 apartments will result in additional cars parked in the surrounding area irrespective of the developer’s claim that underground parking will prevent impact.
• The application claims that there will be minimal increase in the number of vehicles coming into and leaving Roseville by way of the surrounding arterial roads; however given they are proposing 344 basement car spaces and their submission states that 56% of residents use cars as their primary commute, therefore it would be an additional 193 cars entering and leaving Roseville on a daily basis and there is not empirical evidence that this percentage would be different for the residents of the development. As a resident who has previously had to commute by car, I can say that it is already hard enough to get onto any of the surrounding arterial roads during peak times, sometime having to wait several sets of lights. This does not even consider the increased traffic during construction.
• The proposal to cut down 91 trees, and the other flora that isn’t mentioned in the application is home to native animals that we see in the area, including Kookaburras, Galahs, Possums, Magpies and Bees to name a few. The destruction of their habitat will have irreversible negative impacts on local populations and the positive effects they have on the flora and the enjoyment of the local community.
• There has been no appropriate consideration given to the impact of placing a 9-storey building into an area completely comprised of 1 or 2 storey homes. It is clear that the applicant is looking to rush to make profit and has not given sufficient consideration to the surrounding Clanville Conservation Area and heritage sites. The aesthetic of the proposal is not in-keeping with that of surrounding buildings and would stick out like a sore thumb.
• Further to being an eye-sore, the application states that some surrounding houses will be in shadow from 2pm daily. Not only would this have a negative impact on those residence, but also the flora in the impacted areas, reducing the sunlight and ability to grow, further negatively impacting the local wildlife.
• The data used by Hyecorp and the 3rd party consultants that it has hired is out of data and brings into question the legitimacy of their assessments. For example, the Traffic Impact Assessment is using data from 2011 and previous assessments conducted in Lindfield.
It is for the aforementioned reasons that I strongly oppose the development proposal.

While the need for housing and the need for affordable housing is clearly a valid and valued goal for our community, this development is not the answer. It is a bad plan, done badly and without genuine consideration of the public interest. The Developer appears to be trusting that the Minister and Government will be so interested in the broader agenda that they will ignore the reality of what is being put forward.
The block and mass of the proposed development is so out character with the rest of the immediate neighbourhood as to be indefensible and the temporary provision of affordable housing to get extra profit unsupportable.
It is clearly in the public interest to reject the proposal and to await the decision of the Governments (Local and State) in the preferred scenario.
Details of the objection are contained in the attachment.