I continue to object to the proposed development after reviewing the proponent’s Response to Submissions. In my view, the response does not meaningfully resolve the concerns I previously raised. It largely restates the proponent’s position and relies on mitigation measures, without demonstrating that the impacts on my home, my privacy, and my family’s wellbeing would be avoided.

I purchased my home on Lord Street in 2014 as my retirement home, investing the majority of my life savings in reliance on the established low-rise, heritage residential character of this street. My wife and I deliberately chose this location for its privacy, quietness, and stability. The response does not engage with the seriousness of permanently altering those conditions for an adjoining property owner.

I remain concerned about the planning pathway relied upon. The Response to Submissions does not explain why a large-scale residential development in a quiet residential street should proceed as State Significant Development during an unresolved policy transition. It does not address why approval should occur before Council’s preferred planning approach is settled, nor does it address the inequity created for existing residents who remain constrained by R2 zoning.

Loss of privacy remains a central and unresolved issue. My original submission raised the direct overlooking that would occur from multiple levels of the proposed building into my backyard and living areas. The response relies on diagrams and visual material that do not reflect the full height and configuration of the development. As presented, they do not demonstrate that overlooking from upper levels would be avoided, and therefore do not resolve this concern.

Sunlight impacts also remain. While the response acknowledges that additional shadowing would occur, it seeks to justify this outcome rather than avoid it. Reduced access to sunlight across my property, including garden areas that are part of daily use, would be a permanent change to the amenity I relied upon when purchasing this home.

The Response to Submissions does not provide reassurance in relation to the health impacts on my wife. My original submission explained her chronic medical conditions and severe sensitivity to dust. The response does not demonstrate how prolonged demolition, excavation, and construction activity could be carried out without placing her health at risk. This issue remains unresolved.

I am also concerned that the response does not address the financial consequences for my family. The proposal would permanently diminish the amenity and value of the home we invested in as our retirement security. The response does not engage with this loss or with the broader inequity of concentrating development benefits on one site while imposing lasting impacts on neighbouring properties.

Traffic and construction impacts on Lord Street also remain insufficiently addressed. The response accepts increased activity but relies on management measures rather than demonstrating that the safety and residential function of this street would be protected.

For these reasons, I am not satisfied that the Response to Submissions resolves the concerns I raised. The impacts on privacy, sunlight, residential amenity, health, and financial security remain. I therefore maintain my objection and submit that the application should not be approved.

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
Our family is living very close to the proposed project site, within 400 meters on the same street. Since moving here, I love the suburb of Roseville because it is so quiet and beautiful. I heard about the proposed project, but to be honest, our family did not hear about that before, and it was really shocked and sad because such a project will no doubt bring serious negative impact to our community. We strongly object to the proposed Hyecorp development and therefore submit to express our concerns and objection.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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.

I maintain my strong objection to the proposed development. Having reviewed the proponent’s Response to Submissions, I am not satisfied that the concerns I previously raised have been resolved or adequately addressed. The response relies largely on assertion and mitigation rather than demonstrating that the impacts on my health, privacy, sunlight, and quality of life have been avoided.
I am a retired resident who has lived next to the proposed site on Lord Street since 2014. This is my family home and my retirement home. I spend most of my time at home due to ongoing health conditions, including chronic illness and severe allergies. The impacts of this development are not theoretical for me — they are immediate and personal.
Community consultation remains inadequate. The Response to Submissions does not address my concern that I was not meaningfully informed or consulted despite living immediately adjacent to the site. I received notification only after key consultation opportunities had already passed. The response also does not engage with the difficulty I face as a resident whose first language is not English, nor does it demonstrate that any effort was made to ensure information was accessible to residents like me who would be most affected.
I remain deeply concerned about the use of the State Significant Development pathway. The response does not explain why a development of this nature, in a low‑scale residential street, should bypass Council assessment during an unresolved policy transition. It does not address the inequity created by allowing this proposal to proceed before Council’s preferred planning framework is finalised. This concern remains unresolved.
The Response to Submissions does not demonstrate that impacts on sunlight and residential amenity have been resolved. My original submission raised the loss of afternoon sunlight to my north‑facing windows and backyard. The response relies on updated modelling and justification but does not remove or avoid the overshadowing that was identified. The loss of sunlight to my home remains.
Privacy impacts also remain unresolved. The response relies on diagrams and design explanations that do not represent the full height and scale of the proposed development. The material presented does not demonstrate how overlooking from the upper levels of a nine‑storey building would be prevented. As a result, my concern that residents will be able to look down into my private backyard and living spaces remains unaddressed.
The response does not adequately address the serious health impacts arising from construction. My original submission explained that demolition, deep excavation, prolonged construction, dust, and tree removal pose a significant risk to my health due to severe allergies. The Response to Submissions does not demonstrate how these impacts would be avoided or made safe for someone in my circumstances. I cannot relocate during construction, and this risk remains unresolved.
I am also not satisfied that the response addresses the financial impact on my family. My husband and I invested our life savings in this home with the expectation of a quiet, low‑density environment. The response does not address the loss of value, amenity, and long‑term security caused by overshadowing, loss of privacy, and the introduction of a large‑scale development directly next to our home.
Traffic, tree removal, and neighbourhood character impacts also remain. The response acknowledges these impacts but relies on mitigation rather than demonstrating that the harm to this quiet residential street would be avoided.
In summary, the Response to Submissions does not demonstrate that the concerns I raised have been resolved. The impacts on my health, privacy, sunlight, financial security, and quality of life remain. I therefore maintain my objection and submit that this application should not be approved.

Submission in Objection to the Proposed High-Rise Development – Roseville

I am deeply saddened by the proposed destruction of nine heritage homes. The government promised to protect high-value heritage areas, and this development directly contradicts that commitment. These homes are part of Roseville’s identity and history — once they are gone, they are gone forever.

I am writing as a young mother raising small children in this area. Like many families here, we already feel the strain of increasing density without the essential services to support it. Securing school places is stressful, access to GPs and paediatric care is limited, and traffic congestion makes even short trips with children difficult. Against this existing pressure, the proposed high-rise development feels overwhelming and deeply concerning.

First and foremost, the scale and nature of this development is entirely out of character for Roseville. A nine-storey apartment complex comprising several towers will loom over a suburb defined by two-storey homes and family living. The overshadowing, traffic congestion, noise and general loss of amenity will have a real and daily impact on families like mine, who already juggle school drop-offs, childcare, medical appointments and work within a stretched local environment.

Critically, this proposal does not align with the government’s stated low-to-mid-rise housing objectives for this area, as set out in the revised and accepted TOD program. Residents were led to believe that growth would be managed and appropriate to the character and capacity of the suburb. This proposal clearly exceeds those expectations and undermines community trust in the planning process.

Equally troubling is the claim that this development contributes to affordable housing. The reality is that housing and unit prices in Roseville are well beyond the government’s own definition of “affordable.” This development does nothing to assist young families, essential workers or first-home buyers who are already being priced out of the area. It increases density without delivering affordability, services or genuine community benefit.

The cumulative impact on local infrastructure has not been adequately addressed. Schools, childcare centres, and medical services in Roseville are already under strain. As a parent, I am deeply concerned about how hundreds of additional residents will access education and healthcare when current families are already struggling to do so. Density without infrastructure is not planning — it is neglect.

The lack of meaningful community engagement has only added to residents’ distress. The government was clear that developers must adhere to strict community consultation guidelines. Yet there has been little to no notification. Many residents — particularly those most directly affected — only became aware of this proposal by chance through Ku-ring-gai Council or word of mouth. For families trying to balance work and childcare, this lack of transparency feels dismissive and unfair.

Finally, the proposal is misleading in its presentation. While images suggest this development will integrate into a broader future precinct, the reality is that it will be a one-off. The Sydney Metro line runs beneath East-Side Roseville, and Sydney Metro has already refused consent to many SSDs in the area due to these constraints. This means the proposed towers will stand isolated, not as part of a carefully planned transition, but as an intrusive anomaly.

As a mother trying to raise children in a safe, functional and connected community, I feel unheard and overwhelmed by this proposal. Growth must be planned, balanced and supported by infrastructure. This development is none of those things.

I strongly urge the decision-makers to reject this proposal in its current form and to honour the commitments made to families, heritage, and the long-term wellbeing of Roseville.

This objection is made having reviewed the updated technical material contained within the Response to Submissions and the re-exhibited documentation. Traffic and parking were the most frequently raised concerns in public submissions, appearing in 289 submissions, and these issues remain insufficiently resolved .

The Response to Submissions asserts that updated transport modelling demonstrates acceptable impacts. However, the underlying assumptions remain questionable. The proposal would accommodate a residential population exceeding 700 people, yet the traffic assessments continue to predict only modest increases in vehicle movements. These projections are inconsistent with observed car ownership rates in Roseville and do not adequately account for cumulative impacts, including school traffic associated with Roseville College, commuter congestion, visitor movements, service vehicles and ride-share activity. The modelling relies heavily on behavioural assumptions rather than demonstrated local conditions.

Parking provision remains deficient. The revised scheme provides 344 car spaces across three basement levels, including visitor and service spaces. When considered against the scale of the development and local car ownership patterns, this provision will inevitably result in overflow parking into surrounding streets. These streets are narrow, heritage-constrained and already subject to parking stress. The impacts will not be confined to the site but will directly affect neighbouring residents and the public domain.

All vehicular access continues to be concentrated on Lord Street. The Response to Submissions does not present a credible alternative access strategy or demonstrate why Roseville Avenue cannot meaningfully share the traffic burden. Concentrating all access on a single local street creates an avoidable bottleneck, exacerbates congestion and raises legitimate concerns regarding emergency vehicle access, waste collection and construction logistics.

Flooding risks remain a significant and unresolved issue. Both the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water and NSW State Emergency Service dispute the adequacy of the proposed flood mitigation strategy. The Response to Submissions acknowledges increased flood depths on public footpaths of up to approximately 530 millimetres, exceeding Council’s development controls. Site access during flood events is compromised, and evacuation strategies are inadequately substantiated. Reliance on shelter-in-place approaches without robust justification is inconsistent with current flood risk management guidance .

Concerns relating to the Sydney Metro corridor also remain unresolved. Sydney Metro has explicitly advised that it cannot finalise its position without further detailed information, including structural impact assessments, deformation modelling and risk analyses in accordance with the Underground Corridor Protection Guidelines. The proposal involves deep excavation in close proximity to critical transport infrastructure. Approval in the absence of Sydney Metro’s full and unconditional agreement would be premature and contrary to prudent infrastructure protection.

Taken together, the traffic, parking, flooding and infrastructure impacts have not been satisfactorily addressed through the Response to Submissions. The residual risks and uncertainties are substantial and weigh strongly against approval.

This objection is made after reviewing the Response to Submissions prepared by Urbis on behalf of Hyecorp Property Group dated 10 December 2025. While the proponent asserts that the revised proposal represents a material improvement to the exhibited scheme, the fundamental planning, built form and heritage issues raised during exhibition remain unresolved.

The Response to Submissions confirms that 94% of public submissions objected to the proposal, with planning controls, built form, surrounding character and heritage impacts among the most frequently cited concerns. These objections are not matters of preference but go to the core suitability of the site and the appropriateness of the proposed scale within its context. Despite this, the revised proposal continues to seek approval for four buildings of up to nine storeys within the centre of the Clanville Heritage Conservation Area, surrounded by predominantly one and two storey Federation and inter-war dwellings. The Response to Submissions concedes that the proposal will result in “significant change” to its immediate vicinity, yet provides no objective planning basis to demonstrate that such change is acceptable in this location .

The proponent relies heavily on the permissibility of the proposal under the Housing SEPP and the Transport Oriented Development controls as they applied at the time of lodgement. However, the Response to Submissions itself acknowledges that Ku-ring-gai Council’s alternative TOD scenario was endorsed shortly after lodgement and has since been finalised. That alternative scheme would not permit the scale and form proposed. Advancing an application of this magnitude during a known policy transition period, and then relying on technical lodgement timing to avoid consideration of Council’s preferred planning outcome, undermines orderly strategic planning and weakens the integrity of the assessment process.

Although the Response to Submissions refers to a 1.1 metre reduction in maximum height and a minor reduction in dwelling numbers, these changes do not address the underlying issue of excessive bulk and massing. Four nine-storey buildings remain wholly inconsistent with the established and intended character of Roseville and will form an isolated high-rise enclave. The Response to Submissions acknowledges that land surrounding the site, particularly within the Sydney Metro protection area, is excluded from similar redevelopment. This means the proposal cannot be read as part of a cohesive precinct evolution, but rather as a permanent and visually dominant anomaly.

Heritage impacts remain unacceptable. Ku-ring-gai Council, Heritage NSW and the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water all raised concerns that the proposal would adversely affect the setting, significance and integrity of the Clanville Heritage Conservation Area and nearby heritage items, including the Roseville Scout Hall and 19 Lord Street. The demolition of nine contributory dwellings and the introduction of a built form that overwhelms traditional scale, subdivision patterns and landscaped settings is inconsistent with the objectives of the Ku-ring-gai LEP 2015. The Response to Submissions relies on revised visual and heritage assessments, yet these assessments cannot negate the physical reality of a nine-storey development dominating a low-rise heritage environment.

The Clause 4.6 height variations remain inadequately justified. While the proponent characterises the remaining exceedances as minor and largely associated with roof elements, the Response to Submissions confirms that exceedances of up to approximately 1.07 metres persist. In a heritage conservation context, strict compliance with height controls is particularly important, and variations must be supported by robust, site-specific justification. The reasoning provided relies on the very scale and intensity of development that is the subject of objection and therefore fails the established legal tests for variations.

For these reasons, the revised proposal continues to conflict with applicable planning controls, causes unacceptable heritage impacts, and represents an overdevelopment of the site. The application should be refused.

Dear Sir/Madam,
I write to formally object to the re-exhibited State Significant Development application SSD-78996460 at 16–24 Lord Street and 21–27 Roseville Avenue, Roseville, and to renew and reaffirm my previous submission in full.
I note that on 20 January 2026 the NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure published Hyecorp’s Response to Submissions (RTS). While this has resulted in the application being re-exhibited, the changes proposed are minor, cosmetic, and do not materially or meaningfully address the substantive planning, heritage, environmental, and community concerns raised by Ku-ring-gai Council or the 367 community submissions previously lodged.
Importantly, this application continues to rely on Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) planning controls that were introduced without adequate community consultation and which are now fundamentally inconsistent with Ku-ring-gai Council’s Preferred Scenario, agreed with the NSW Government in late 2025. The application should not be progressed or determined until this Preferred Scenario is fully resolved and applied.
The RTS proposes only negligible design amendments. These include a reduction of one storey to part of the smallest tower podium, a reduction in overall tower height of just 1.1 metres (approximately 3.5%), and a reduction in unit numbers from 259 to 252. Despite these minor adjustments, the proposal still exceeds the TOD maximum height of 28.6 metres and remains overwhelmingly out of scale with its surroundings. Most concerningly, the overall bulk of the development—one of the community’s primary objections—has been reduced by a mere 144 square metres, representing a reduction of less than 0.5%. Such a change is effectively imperceptible given the size and mass of the proposal.
The development remains grossly disproportionate to the surrounding low-rise residential context, which is predominantly characterised by one- and two-storey dwellings and sits adjacent to three heritage conservation areas containing 54 heritage-listed homes. The proposed demolition of nine houses and the introduction of four large, visually dominant towers would irreversibly damage the heritage setting, streetscape character, and sense of place that define East Roseville.
The RTS also fails to adequately address expert concerns raised regarding heritage impacts, town planning non-compliance, visual isolation, overshadowing, privacy loss, traffic congestion, infrastructure capacity, tree loss, and construction disruption. Assertions that the proposal now “responds” to Council controls and community feedback are not supported by the actual design outcomes.
As a former resident of Roseville who intends to return to this valued community, I strongly oppose the approval of this development in its current form. The proposal remains fundamentally inconsistent with sound planning principles, local character, heritage conservation, and the long-term interests of the Roseville community.
For these reasons, I respectfully urge the Department to reject the application or, at a minimum, defer determination until the Council’s Preferred Scenario is fully implemented and meaningful community concerns have been genuinely addressed.
Thank you for considering this renewed submission.
Yours sincerely,

Dan Pooley

Dear Sir/Madam,
I am writing to object to the re-exhibited Hyecorp State Significant Development at 16–24 Lord Street and 21–27 Roseville Avenue, Roseville (SSD-78996460), and to confirm that my previous submission remains entirely relevant and should be taken as renewed.
Hyecorp’s Response to Submissions, published on 20 January 2026, is deeply disappointing. Despite the scale of opposition from Council and local residents, the changes proposed are minimal and do not address the core issues raised throughout the exhibition process. In practical terms, this remains the same inappropriate development.
The slight reductions now proposed—most notably a reduction of just 1.1 metres in building height, seven fewer apartments, and a negligible reduction in building bulk of less than half of one percent—do nothing to resolve the overwhelming scale, visual dominance, and incompatibility of this development within a low-rise heritage setting. The buildings remain significantly taller than permitted under TOD controls and vastly out of character with the surrounding neighbourhood.
This proposal continues to sit uncomfortably between three heritage conservation areas, threatening the integrity of Roseville’s historical character and resulting in the loss of nine established homes. The four large towers would appear visually isolated and imposing, permanently altering the streetscape and undermining the cohesive residential identity of East Roseville.
Equally concerning is the continued dismissal of legitimate community concerns relating to traffic congestion, infrastructure capacity, tree loss, and construction impacts. The removal of 91 established trees alone represents a substantial and irreversible environmental loss, while increased traffic and prolonged construction activity will significantly diminish local amenity and safety, particularly around schools and key access routes.
Hyecorp’s RTS gives the impression of responsiveness, yet fails to engage meaningfully with the expert advice commissioned by the East Roseville Action Group or with the planning framework articulated by Ku-ring-gai Council’s Preferred Scenario. Cosmetic changes to colour palettes, seating, or internal layouts cannot compensate for a development that is fundamentally the wrong scale and form for this location.
While I acknowledge the need for additional housing, this must not come at the expense of heritage, liveability, and sound planning outcomes. This proposal remains unsuitable and unsustainable, and approval would set a damaging precedent for Roseville and similar suburbs across the LGA.
I therefore urge the Department to reject this application or, at the very least, delay determination until planning controls are resolved and genuine community concerns are addressed.
Thank you for the opportunity to make this renewed submission.
Yours sincerely,
Rosalie stern

I am writing to object to the proposed development at 16–24 Lord Street and 21–27 Roseville Avenue, Roseville, and in particular to comment on Hyecorp’s Response to Submissions.

While Hyecorp has listed the key concerns raised by residents, their response fails to meaningfully address them. Repeating objections is not the same as resolving them.


1. Height and Scale Remain Unchanged in Practical Terms

Hyecorp acknowledges concerns about excessive height and scale, yet the amended proposal remains a 9-storey building in an area dominated by 1–2 storey homes. This minor reduction does not change the real impact of the development. It will still stand alone, visually dominant and completely out of character with East Roseville, especially now that Council and the State Government have agreed on an alternative planning scenario that upholds heritage standards in this area.

2. Traffic and Parking Impacts Are Downplayed

Hyecorp notes resident concerns about traffic and parking but offers no practical solutions. Streets such as Lord Street, Bancroft Avenue and Martin Lane are already congested and not designed for through traffic. Parking pressure has worsened significantly since the Chatswood Metro opened, with commuters parking all day in Roseville. The proposed development does not provide sufficient parking to prevent further overflow into surrounding streets.

Acknowledging these concerns without addressing them does not make the proposal acceptable.

3. Public Transport Capacity Is Assumed, Not Demonstrated

Hyecorp positions this as a transport-oriented development yet does not address the fact that only one in three trains stops at Roseville and that those services are already overcrowded. Simply stating proximity to a station does not mean the network can support hundreds of additional daily commuters.

4. Heritage Impacts Are Not Resolved

Hyecorp claims the design responds to heritage context but does not explain how a 9-storey building respects a low-rise heritage conservation area. The response avoids the core issue: scale. This development undermines the very heritage controls that existing residents are required to comply with.

5. Impact on Community and Generational Liveability
I have lived in the Roseville/East Roseville area for 18 years. I grew up here and have always valued the character, scale and sense of community that define this neighbourhood. These qualities are not abstract planning concepts, they shape daily life, childhood experiences and the long-term connection people must have where they live. This proposal would fundamentally alter that environment. A development of this scale would change the character of the area in a way that cannot be reversed, and future generations would not have the same upbringing or community experience that I was fortunate to have. The loss is not only visual or physical, but social and cultural.
Planning decisions should consider not just housing yield, but the long-term impact on established communities and the people who have grown up in them. This proposal prioritises density over liveability and disregards the generational value of maintaining the character of East Roseville.

Conclusion

Hyecorp’s response identifies objections but fails to resolve them. The fundamental issues of height, heritage impact, traffic congestion, parking shortages and public transport capacity remain unchanged. As a young person who wants to continue living in this community, I find it deeply concerning that these issues have been acknowledged yet effectively dismissed.

I urge the Department to give proper weight to the unresolved concerns raised by residents and to reject this proposal.

SUBMISSION
Submission in Relation to SSD Application No. SSD-78996460
I object to the proposed development under SSD-78996460 due to serious concerns about its impact on local infrastructure, traffic, neighbourhood character, parking, and the local environment.
1. Metro and Rail Infrastructure Impacts
.
Sydney Metro has requested further information to properly assess the impact of this development on the nearby rail corridor. This shows that the effects on rail infrastructure have not yet been adequately addressed. Until these issues are fully assessed and resolved, the application should not proceed.
2. Traffic and Congestion Impacts
.
The proposed 9-storey development with 259 apartments will significantly worsen traffic conditions in the area. Lord Street, Roseville Avenue, and Martin Lane are already narrow and heavily congested, particularly during peak times due to commuter parking and nearby schools.
Adding this level of residential density will further increase vehicle movements and place unacceptable pressure on these streets, reducing safety and amenity for local residents.
3. Overdevelopment and Inconsistent Height in this heritage area.

The proposed height of 9 to 10 storeys is completely out of character with the surrounding area, which is predominantly 1 to 2 storeys and includes a Heritage Conservation Area.
This scale of development represents clear overdevelopment of the site and will result in significant visual and character impacts that are inconsistent with the established neighbourhood. The destruction of these federation and heritage houses would be a loss not just for the local area, but for greater Sydney. As seen in other cities across the world, there is no turning back once these beautiful areas are overdeveloped.
4. Insufficient Parking Provision
.
The proposed 309 parking spaces are not adequate for a development of this size. With 259 apartments, this will inevitably result in overflow parking into surrounding streets, which are already experiencing parking shortages.
This will further reduce parking availability for existing residents, visitors, and local businesses and worsen existing on-street parking pressures.
5. Environmental Impacts and Tree Loss
.
The proposal involves the removal of eighty-nine (89) trees, with only twenty-six (26) to be retained. This represents a reduction in tree canopy of 31.8%.
This significant loss of mature trees will worsen air quality, reduce local biodiversity, and increase urban heat, making the area less comfortable and less resilient to heatwaves. The loss of tree canopy will negatively affect the local natural environment, lessen bird and animal life which is part of the beauty of this area.
6. Support for Ku-ring-gai Council’s Preferred Alternative Scenario
.
Ku-ring-gai Council’s Preferred Alternative Scenario provides a more balanced and appropriate approach to development on this site. This scenario retains R2 zoning and a maximum building height of 9.5 metres, which is consistent with the surrounding low-rise residential character.
This alternative would better protect neighbourhood character, reduce traffic and infrastructure pressures, and significantly limit environmental impacts while still allowing for appropriate development.

Conclusion
: For the reasons outlined above — including unresolved rail corridor impacts, worsening traffic congestion, excessive building height, inadequate parking, and major environmental impacts, and destruction of historical and heritage buildings — this proposal is inappropriate for the site and should not be approved.