I strongly object to SSD-78996460. Please see attached submission.

Formal Objection – SSD-78996460 (16-24 Lord Street & 21-27 Roseville Avenue, Roseville)

I am writing to formally express my strong OPPOSITION to the State Significant Development Application SSD-78996460, submitted by Hyecorp Property Group, which seeks approval for a 9-storey, 259-unit residential complex at 16–24 Lord Street and 21–27 Roseville Avenue, Roseville. This proposal is highly inappropriate in its current form, bypasses key planning processes, and risks creating lasting negative impacts on the local area.
1. Procedural Concerns - The timing of this application is deeply problematic. It precedes the finalisation of ongoing discussions between Ku-ring-gai Council and the NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure (DPHI) around a more considered and community-informed Transport Oriented Development (TOD) strategy for the region. Council’s preferred approach—developed with local input—aims for sustainable, infrastructure-aligned growth that preserves the character and liveability of Roseville. Advancing this proposal now pre-empts that process and disregards the values and priorities already articulated by local residents.
Submitting this application ahead of the TOD framework's conclusion undermines confidence in public planning processes. It effectively excludes the community from meaningful participation and sidelines Council’s role as a representative body.
2. Inadequate and Misleading Community Engagement - Hyecorp’s claim of fulfilling the SEARs requirement on community engagement (Item 4) and the SSDA’s Social Impact Assessment (SIA) Guidelines is highly questionable. Despite stating that a flyer was distributed to 1300 households to advertise a community drop-in session on 12 March 2025, my household—and many others in the area—did not receive this notification. Consequently, we were unaware of the event and unable to participate in providing feedback.
Furthermore, due to the lack of notification, we were also not informed about the accompanying online community survey on the developer’s website. Had our household been appropriately notified, we would have participated in both the session and the survey.
The data reported by Hyecorp clearly reflects the ineffectiveness of their engagement efforts: only five people attended the community session, and a mere 34 survey responses were collected. Notably, at least two of those attendees were not independent community members but were affiliated with the project as either a property owner within the development site or a professional consultant. This hardly represents a genuine or diverse sample of community opinion.
3. Local Infrastructure and Traffic Impacts - A development of this scale will dramatically strain existing infrastructure and worsen traffic congestion in Roseville:
• Access routes to Archbold Road from Tryon Road and Bancroft Avenue are already beyond capacity, particularly during peak school hours near Roseville College and Roseville Public School.
• The intersection of Pacific Highway and Clanville Road—currently the only exit from Eastside Roseville onto the highway—is a recognised traffic blackspot, with long delays and a concerning accident history, including a recent fatality.
• The alternative route via Hill Street and Boundary Street is similarly problematic. A lack of a right turn onto Boundary Street and heavy school-related traffic further diminishes its feasibility as a major outlet.
Hyecorp’s Traffic Impact Assessment fails to address these genuine concerns. It leans on outdated data, including a 2012 bicycle infrastructure plan that was never implemented, and 2016 Census figures that do not accurately reflect current travel patterns.
Using updated figures from the 2021 Census and Hyecorp’s own estimates, it is reasonable to expect that peak-hour vehicle activity could involve up to 233 car movements. Furthermore, while Hyecorp proposes 309 residential parking spaces, data indicates the likely demand will exceed 417 vehicles—leaving an estimated 108 cars to compete for already scarce on-street parking near the station. The resulting impact on the local community would be highly disruptive.
In conclusion, this proposed development disregards proper planning timelines, fails to deliver on its obligations for community consultation, and threatens to overload traffic and infrastructure systems that are already under pressure.
For these reasons, I respectfully urge the Department of Planning to reject SSD-78996460 and instead prioritise a collaborative, consultative planning approach, as embodied in Ku-ring-gai Council’s Preferred Scenario.
Sincerely,

I wish to make four points in my submission.

The first point is about planning coherence. The Kuring gai Council has taken a responsible approach and gone to immense and genuine efforts to respond to the State Government’s policy objectives of increasing housing density in the suburbs of Roseville, Lindfield, Killara and Gordon. The Council’s response has included a survey of all Roseville residents and residents of other nearby suburbs to develop the Council’s preferred scenario. The scenario is rational, meets State Government objectives, maintains the principal heritage elements of Roseville, maintains tree canopy, and confines multi-storey development acceptably to relatively small areas near the station. The present application which is lodged under TOD planning controls is completely inconsistent with the Council’s preferred scenario. If it is approved, it will introduce a haphazard and incoherent planning structure in Roseville which is not in the public interest.

The second point is about democracy. Council’s preferred scenario was strongly supported by Roseville residents. I voted for it. So did many others. It is not just Council’s preferred scenario; it is the preferred scenario of the local community gathered through the actions of our democratically elected representatives on Council. Why would any planning system that claims to act in the public interest not listen closely to and adopt a community preferred scenario which has been reached through open consultation by a local democratic body, and which meets every requirement of government policy for the delivery of extra housing for the area? What is the point of the State Government asking Kuring Gai Council to consult the community if the Government doesn’t then listen to the community when it provides a solution consistent with Government policy? To now approve this application, which took advantage TOD planning controls (imposed without community consultation) before broader and real community consultation got underway, would be unfair to residents, make a mockery of the whole consultation process with Council and ignore the results of a democratic process.

The third point is about the environment. Council’s preferred scenario does the best that can reasonably be done to preserve the tree canopy and heritage elements of Roseville to preserve its built environment and its overall amenity for residents and the broader community. The character of suburbs like Roseville matters not just for residents but for visitors and for everyone who values a green environment. A towering development up to 8 and 9 stories in the middle of Roseville would graft an urban monument into a garden suburb – hardly a source of pride for any city as wonderful as Sydney.

The last point is about Hyecorp’s lack of consultation. I live in Clanville Road, Roseville. I never received a copy of Hyecorp’s flyer. I was completely unaware of Hyecorp’s application until it was drawn to my attention recently. Hyecorp’s consultation efforts have lacked reach and ambition, in stark contrast to the Council's thorough and open process of public consultation. I would have taken more active steps earlier to oppose this development had I been aware of it, including by communicating my firm opposition to Hyecorp’s application through all available means. Any claim by Hyecorp that the community supports this project should be approached with the gravest suspicion.

Roseville, 2069

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

I have been a resident of Roseville for over 15 years. My property is not directly affected by the NSW TOD or the Council Preferred scenario for development to achieve the increase in residential housing required by the State government, however my property falls within an 800-metre radius of Roseville train station.

I am in support of the Council’s Preferred Scenario which mostly retains the existing zoning in East side Roseville, except in the Hill Street precinct and upper part of Victoria Street. I was involved with the resident engagement for the preferred scenario and provided ample feedback on traffic limitations and other impacts.

I have only recently found out about the planned Hyecorp development on Roseville Ave. I understand it has been lodged under the TOD planning controls. Given the Council’s extensive resident consultation to choose their preferred scenario, I was most surprised to hear of the 9 storey development by word-of-mouth vs via public consultation. I never received any letterbox information about this development and was unaware of any public consultation that may have taken place.

My concern lies with the overall size of the development (4 buildings up to 9-storey each) and how it relates to the surrounding 1-2 storey houses. My understanding is that under the Council’s preferred scenario, the surrounding houses will remain 1-2 storey. There are also development constraints at surrounding sites due to the Metro tunnel reserves. So, whilst images available suggest that surrounding houses will be multi-storey, this will likely not be the case. The new development will be an isolated island of 4 towers surrounded by 1-2 storey houses.

Another related concern involves the inevitable traffic impact of 259 additional apartments. East side Roseville has already experienced a significant increase in commuter traffic as a result of the Metro. This has led to increased pressure on street parking but more significantly the exits to the Pacific Highway, Boundary Street and Archbold Ave are already experiencing significant delays, not to mention the number of car accidents that already happen at these traffic points.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide my input.
Sincerely.

Please see attached "Objection to Application SSD 78996460" and supporting documents.