To Whom It May Concern,

I am writing to express my firm objection to the proposed Hyecorp development referenced above. I live at 60 Roseville Avenue, just a few houses from the development site, and I am deeply concerned about the consequences this project would have on the character, amenity, and livability of our local neighbourhood.

The Process Should Be Halted Until Council’s Preferred Scenario is Decided
This development has been put forward under the TOD scheme, which was introduced without genuine community consultation. It is my understanding that Ku-ring-gai Council is currently finalising a more appropriate plan for future development in our area—the Preferred Scenario. I believe it is both premature and inappropriate for this project to proceed before that process has concluded. Planning decisions of this scale should not be made in isolation from local strategic directions.

Community Notification Was Inadequate
I did not receive a flyer from Hyecorp before the 12 March 2025 community drop-in event. In fact, I was not made aware of any consultation opportunities until long after the fact—through neighbours, not the developer. If I had been properly informed, I would have attended the session to raise my concerns. It is disappointing that a development of this size proceeded without ensuring all affected residents had a fair chance to engage.

I was also unaware of the online project pages or community survey until late March. I feel the engagement effort was limited and ineffective, and this undermines the credibility of the so-called consultation outcomes.

Excessive Height and Density
The proposed buildings—up to 9 storeys high—are completely out of scale with our residential neighbourhood, which is predominantly made up of single-storey and double-storey homes. These towers will dominate the skyline, block sunlight, and overlook many existing homes, including mine. The impact on privacy and solar access is unacceptable.

Heritage and Neighbourhood Character
This part of Roseville is defined by its leafy streets, heritage homes, and low-density charm. The proposed development would sit within three heritage conservation areas and remove several homes that contribute to our area’s historical identity. Once these houses are gone, they cannot be replaced. The proposal threatens to permanently erode the character of East Roseville.

Traffic, Parking, and Safety Concerns
Our street is already under strain from through-traffic, school drop-offs, and limited parking. Adding hundreds of new residents and vehicles will make this significantly worse:

Martin Lane is already misused as a shortcut and can’t cope with more cars;

Congestion around Roseville College is a daily struggle;

Intersections out of Roseville are bottlenecks during peak hours;

Many of our local roads are narrow and not suitable for increased traffic volumes.

Parking overflow is also a real worry, as existing on-street parking is already limited.

Infrastructure Not Fit for High Density
The scale of this project would place an enormous burden on stormwater systems, sewerage, water pressure, and electricity networks. I doubt these services were ever designed to cope with the demands of four high-rise buildings in a suburban street.

Loss of Trees and Environmental Impact
I was shocked to learn that 91 trees will be removed if this development proceeds. Roseville’s beauty lies in its greenery—this mass clearance will damage the ecosystem, reduce shade, and increase urban heat. The community has long valued our natural environment, and this project shows little regard for that.

Disruption from Construction
Two or more years of construction will be intensely disruptive to daily life. Heavy machinery, road blockages, noise, and dust will affect everyone living nearby. Our streets were not built to accommodate the trucks and cranes needed for a project of this magnitude. The impacts on safety, mobility, and amenity will be unavoidable.

This Development is Out of Step With the Community
In my many years living in Roseville, I’ve seen gradual, thoughtful change—but this proposal represents a sudden and aggressive shift, out of alignment with the area's identity and future. I support Council’s Preferred Scenario, which acknowledges our community’s needs while preserving its heritage and liveability. This application should not be allowed to leap ahead of that important process.

For all of these reasons, I respectfully ask that the Department refuse this development application.

I object to the application on the grounds stated in the attached letter

Objection: I am writing to object to the proposed development (SSD-78996460)

In Summary: The application made by Hyecorp under the TOD scheme, should NOT in the public interest, be further progressed or determined until Council’s preferred scenario is resolved. I support the Council’s Preferred Scenario which recognises the unique and historical character of East Roseville and is sympathetic to the existing built form in the area. The Preferred Scenario has the support and backing of the East Roseville community, with development in the Hill St precinct and upper part of Victoria St Roseville. The lodging of this SSD application – prior to the adoption of Councils preferred scenario - undermines democratic planning processes and denies residents the opportunity to provide genuine input.

Please refer to attachment which outlines the key points of my objection.

1) the government has an agreement to work with council to have time to submit a proposal that the local residents would like which allows for the number of new dwellings as demanded by the state but at the same time the local residents prefer. This preferred scenario has been decided. Why not show respect to the local residents and fulfil your agreement to council to wait for their submission and don't consider any development application until then.
2) As you travel the world, the most people love the most beautiful cities that do not allow high rise such as Paris and in Italy.When are we going to lift our sites above the mundane and respect the value of beauty. This is an old suburb with beautiful houses, gardens and streetscape.If under your orders it is destroyed it will never be be replaced and left for future generations to enjoy. Retaining and creating beauty is one of the most important responsibilities of a government. The less beauty the more destitute with lack of meaning our lives are. This development will destroy the vista of trees and greenery in a heritage precinct
.

I reside directly adjacent to the proposed development site and wish to lodge a strong objection to the project. This submission outlines my concerns and observations regarding the proposal and its impacts on our local community.

Timing of Submission and Request for Deferral
This application has been lodged under the TOD (Transport Oriented Development) Scheme. I strongly believe that the project should not proceed until Council’s Preferred Scenario has been adopted and implemented. The TOD planning regime was imposed without public consultation and is due to be reconsidered. Proceeding with this application now is premature and not in the public interest.

Community Engagement Deficiencies
I did not receive Hyecorp’s community flyer before the community drop-in session on 12 March 2025. In fact, I only became aware of this development proposal in April through community members—not through Hyecorp. Had I been informed in time, I would have attended the drop-in session. I also was not aware of the dedicated project pages on the Hyecorp website or the online survey until well after 25 March.

This lack of engagement meant that I, like many neighbours, was unable to provide meaningful feedback early in the process. It raises serious concerns about the quality and inclusiveness of the consultation process.

HEIGHT AND VISUAL IMPACT
The proposed buildings reach up to 9 storeys, which is completely out of scale with the existing character of Roseville East. Our area is comprised primarily of 1–2 storey detached homes, and the contrast would be stark and jarring. This proposal will severely impact streetscape character and dominate the surrounding low-density built form. The Visual Impact Assessment confirms that the towers will be visible from multiple directions, intruding into the visual privacy and enjoyment of neighbouring properties.

HERITAGE IMPACTS
The development site sits in the middle of three heritage conservation areas and within close proximity to 54 heritage-listed homes. The proposal will result in the demolition of nine existing houses, several of which contribute positively to the area’s heritage character. This will irreversibly damage the historical fabric and identity of East Roseville.

TRAFFIC AND PARKING
The scale of the proposed development will significantly increase traffic congestion in an area already burdened by narrow streets and local chokepoints.

The Martin Lane rat-run already poses traffic and safety issues, which this development will exacerbate.

Peak-hour traffic at the intersections exiting Roseville will worsen.

School-related congestion, especially around Roseville College, is already challenging and would become unmanageable.

There is insufficient provision for on-site parking, and overflow will impact nearby residential streets already under pressure.

INFRASTRUCTURE PRESSURES
The development will place significant stress on local infrastructure, including drainage, stormwater, water pressure, sewerage, and electricity. Our area was not designed to support the density proposed, and these systems are already under strain.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT – TREE REMOVAL
The proposal would see the removal of 91 trees, a staggering loss of greenery in a neighbourhood known for its leafy character. This would significantly alter the environmental character of Roseville Avenue and contribute to urban heat island effects.

CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS
Construction over a minimum two-year period will severely disrupt the daily lives of residents. We are concerned about:

Noise and dust;

Heavy trucks and cranes operating in a narrow street;

Limited parking for construction workers and the risk of road degradation.

INAPPROPRIATENESS OF THE TOD IN ROSEVILLE EAST
The TOD framework is wholly inappropriate for the Eastside of Roseville. It was introduced without genuine public consultation and does not reflect the local context. The Council’s Preferred Scenario, which retains low-density residential zoning for this area, reflects the community’s values and should be respected. Approving this development would be a complete departure from the scale and character that makes Roseville such a desirable place to live.

CONCLUSION
For the reasons above, I respectfully urge the Department of Planning and Environment to reject this application. The proposed development is excessive, incompatible with the surrounding area, poorly consulted, and premature given Council’s impending decision on the Preferred Scenario.

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 live in Roseville, around the corner from this proposed development and I have lived on and off in Roseville since 1969. I object to the proposed residential development at 16-24 Lord St Roseville & 21-27 Roseville Ave Roseville.

My first objection is the scale of this development in an already traffic heavy area of Roseville. These two streets (in the area of the
proposed development) are already very heavily congested. St Martin's Lane, which joins the two streets and is practically adjacent to the development is even more congested. It will be impossible for traffic to move in the area if the proposed development is allowed to proceed. Commuter parking in the area extends along Lord Street and Roseville Ave and is already at capacity.

I also object to this development being allowed to go ahead in this area of Roseville where existing infrastructure cannot even cater for the current population. We have had to undergo significant sewerage works at our property due to Sydney Water's ageing sewage network running down our street where old pipes were broken and damaged by tree roots. In a heavy rain event last year we had storm water rising up through all our drains as the system could not cope. How on earth will the sewerage and storm water system cope with the proposed 250 new residences?
Roseville Public School is already at capacity - how will it cope with the extra students?
The trains at peak hour are also at capacity and I understand that it is impossible to increase anymore train crossings over the Harbour Bridge at peak hour.

I also object to the proposal on heritage and environmental grounds. The proposal is completely out of keeping with the area of predominantly one and two storey dwellings and leafy gardens that are home to a varied population of flora and fauna. Roseville has always had its own character as distinct from say Chatswood's 'high rise hell'. Why have successive Governments always been intent on destroying Sydney's heritage? If Paris and London can manage to keep theirs, why can't we?

And I would like to bring attention to the "affordable housing" inclusion of the proposal. We all know there is NO such thing as affordable housing on Sydney's North Shore. I understand developers withold a certain percentage of apartments for 'affordable housing' so they are able to get through planning controls. After a few years of renting these apartments at an affordable rate, the developers are then able to sell them at market rate. So much for ongoing affordable housing, it's a complete lie.

I'd also like to address the inequality of the whole arrangement where people with heritage listed properties in so-called 'heritage zones' cannot participate in this redevelopment land grab as their properties are now a liability. Previously deemed highly desirable now they are worse than worthless, they are a liability as developers won't touch them nor will they be able to be sold. A heritage listed house next to an eight story apartment block will become a white elephant museum piece, just like in the movie"Up". It's a disgraceful way to treat people who have looked after and preserved these homes.

This application lodged under the TOD planning controls, should not be further progressed or determined until Ku-Ring-Gai Council’s Preferred Scenario is resolved. The TOD planning controls were introduced without any public consultation. I totally support the Council’s Preferred Scenario and how this recognises the unique character of the eastern side of Roseville having regard to the existing built form in the area of the proposed development. The Council’s Preferred Scenario mostly retains the existing zoning in the eastern side of Roseville and I understand that the Preferred Scenario actually delivers the Government more dwellings than it has asked for.

It's just so disappointing for our State Government to have such little regard for its constituents when it has come to the TOD Planning Controls. It has caused a lot of grief, unhappiness and uncertainty in the community when considered consultation could have gone some way to averting this and providing solutions that would be acceptable to both sides.

Subject: Formal Objection to State Significant Development (SSD) Application SSD-78996460. Residential development with in-fill affordable housing, 16-24 Lord Street & 21-27 Roseville Avenue, Roseville

To Whom It May Concern,

I wish to strenuously object to State Significant Development (SSD) Application SSD-78996460, a nine-storey residential development with in-fill affordable housing, at 16-24 Lord Street and 21-27 Roseville Avenue, Roseville.

In my opinion, this proposal represents a severe overreach that contravenes established planning controls, disrespects heritage protections, and fails to align with the values and expectations of the local community.

1. Denial of Procedural Fairness
This application pre-empts ongoing negotiations between Ku-ring-gai Council (Council) and the NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure (DPHI) regarding a more suitable Transport Oriented Development (TOD) framework for Roseville. My understanding of Council’s “Preferred Scenario”, endorsed in response to the NSW Government’s Low and Mid-Rise Housing Reforms, proposes measured growth that aligns with local infrastructure capacity, heritage conservation, and community expectations.

In my opinion, the lodging of this SSD application – prior to the finalisation of the TOD framework – undermines democratic planning processes and denies residents the opportunity for genuine input. It represents a failure of procedural fairness and community input, and an unacceptable sidelining of local governance.
In my opinion, this SSD application, as lodged under the TOD planning controls, should NOT be progressed further or determined until Council’s Preferred Scenario is resolved. The TOD planning controls were introduced without public consultation and are to be set aside when the Council's Preferred Scenario is adopted.
I fully support Council’s Preferred Scenario given that it recognises the unique character of Roseville having regard to the existing built form in and around the proposed development. My understanding is that Council’s Preferred Scenario mostly retains the existing zoning in the area except for the Hill St precinct and upper part of Victoria St.

2. Lack of Community Consultation by the Developer
From my perspective, there has been a complete lack of appropriate and meaningful engagement and consultation by the developer with the local community, viz:
• I have never received a copy of a flyer that I understand the developer said was distributed to the local community on or before Wednesday 12 March 2025.
• I was never made aware of a community drop-in session at Lindfield Seniors Centre/Community Hall between 4:00-6:30pm on Wed 12 March 2025.
• The suggestion that one community session is adequate to accommodate the needs of the local community is ridiculous
• I was never made aware of the proposed development before the end of March 2025, so I was never able to:
• Visit the developer’s website; nor
• Complete the survey on the developer’s website
• I was only made aware of the project through my contact with neighbours and fellow residents well after the end of March 2025

3. Non-Compliance with Planning Controls and Excessive Height
It is my understanding that the development proposes a nine-storey structure exceeding 30 metres, flagrantly breaching the existing Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2015 (KLEP 2015) and Ku-ring-gai Development Control Plan (KDCP), which impose a maximum building height of 22 metres in the area. Even factoring in the State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing) 2021, the scale of this development vastly exceeds what might be reasonably allowed under any bonus provision.

This excessive height and bulk is entirely inconsistent with the fine-grained character of Roseville, particularly on the eastern side of the railway, and would dominate the streetscape to an unacceptable degree.

4. Irreparable Heritage Impacts
It is my understanding that the subject site is in the middle of three Heritage Conservation Areas (HCA), with 54 heritage listed houses located nearby; properties protected under Schedule 5 of KLEP 2015 and the NSW Heritage Act 1977.

Furthermore, in my opinion, the proposal:
• involves the demolition of nine houses that contribute to these HCA,
• will result in visual isolation and overshadowing of significant heritage assets, and
• makes no serious attempt to integrate or defer to the prevailing heritage streetscape, and in doing so, risks eroding the historic identity of the area.

The proposed development fails to observe Section 3.9 of the KDCP, which requires that new development adjacent to heritage items must respect established scale, roof forms, setbacks, and architectural detailing.

5. Failure of Good Urban Design Principles
In my opinion, the proposed development is incongruous with the urban fabric of Roseville, violating core town planning principles, including those outlined in the NSW Urban Design Guide (2015) and Better Placed: An Integrated Design Policy. Notably:
• Contextual Incompatibility: The building’s scale, bulk and bland “box-like” design ignores the area’s topography, established residential character, and heritage fabric.
• Amenity Impacts: There will be significant overshadowing, overlooking, and loss of privacy to surrounding dwellings, with non-compliant setbacks and poor interface transitions.
• Public Domain Impact: The overdevelopment of the site will cause substantial visual clutter, lack of sunlight in the public domain, and degradation of pedestrian amenity.

6. Environmental Destruction and Loss of Tree Canopy
My understanding is that the application proposes the removal of many mature trees (as many as 91), many of which form part of the Ku-ring-gai tree canopy, a recognised ecological and visual asset. This would:
• Contravene the aims of the Ku-ring-gai Urban Forest Policy and Biodiversity Strategy 2030,
• Destroy habitat for protected and locally significant fauna, including Kookaburras, Galahs, Rosellas, Echidnas, and Ringtail Possums, and
• Accelerate heat island effects and significantly reduce the suburb’s environmental resilience.

7. Infrastructure and Traffic Overload
In my opinion, the proposed development will place unsustainable pressure on local infrastructure:
• Traffic congestion, at the already critical Hill Street/Mowbray Road and Hill Street/Clanville Avenue intersections, will worsen,
• Local roads and street parking are inadequate and insufficient to accommodate the resulting increase in vehicle movements. My understanding is the developer has relied on a traffic survey that is nearly 10 years old. If this is true, it is further evidence of a flagrant disregard of a proper and reasonable planning process,
• Existing water, stormwater, and sewerage infrastructure – not upgraded to accommodate such density – will be severely strained, contrary to planning principles that require development to match service capacity. I have lived in area for over 20 years and the water pressure at my property has been in gradual and continued decline over many years. So much so now, I can no longer run a bath in my house!
• Where are the children meant to go to childcare/school? My understanding is that all the local schools are at or above capacity.

8. Misuse of State Significant Development Pathway
There is no apparent legitimate basis for this proposal to be classified as “State Significant.” It does not demonstrate any extraordinary public benefit or strategic merit that would warrant bypassing Council oversight and community engagement mechanisms.
My understanding is the proposed development of 259 units only includes eight (8) truly ‘affordable’ dwellings. An additional 40 units have put forward as ‘affordable’ but they are only temporarily ‘affordable’ as they have a life of only 15 years.
The use of the SSD pathway in this case appears to be a deliberate tactic by the developer to circumvent local controls, which must not be rewarded.

9. Conclusion
In my opinion, this application fails all tests of reasonableness and fairness, as well as almost every relevant good planning principle:
• It is non-compliant with applicable height limits and planning controls,
• It inflicts severe and permanent damage to Roseville’s heritage and character,
• It undermines public confidence in fair and transparent planning processes, and
• It disregards the environmental, amenity, and infrastructure needs of the community.
For these reasons, I urge the NSW Department of Planning to reject this application in full, and to support Ku-ring-gai Council’s evidence-based, consultative planning approach for Roseville’s future.

With warm regards,

I do not support Hyecorp’s proposed development for 16-24 Lord Street & 21-27 Roseville Avenue, Roseville (SSD-78996460).