OPPOSING SUBMISSION FOR SSD 78996460
16 LORD ST ROSEVILLE ETC

I did not make a submission on the EIS because I was overseas.

I reside at 27A Lord Street, Roseville.

I remain opposed to the amended proposal.

I agree with and adopt the submission by the council and Sydney Water accepting that a few of those submissions have been addressed.

I acknowledge the project meets some of the desires for increased housing but the proposal , while within planning rules , is completely out of character with the now gazetted Roseville planning scheme and the fact an existing SEARS was granted should not prevent a refusal of the application or a major scaling down.

I comment on a number of statements in the report.

The 1.1 m reduction if height is not sufficient to meet maximum building height and the developer acknowledges there will be parts still above the maximum height.

The project will still impact the built environment. The minor variations do not change that fact.

There will also be negative social impacts. EG street parking, traffic movement, increased population in a small area, noise from apartments, privacy.

There will still be negative economic impacts especially on the value of surrounding properties which now cannot participate in high or medium rise developments. This is a strong anti factor not usually occurring in standard high rise developments as the council has zoned the surrounding properties as residential only.

There does not appear to be an assessment of solar impact or overshadowing for properties on the southern side of Lord Street. The architect plans show complete overshadowing of houses in Lord Street at winter solstice. This is wrong and unfair

The number of car park spaces should not be reduced. The surrounding streets are completely parked out now.

The applicant has not adequately addressed the impact on properties on the south side of Lord Street , eg setbacks, overshadowing. Partial shading is acknowledged. This should not be permitted. Not all properties have backyards which are presently shaded. Height reduction is required.

It is stated there will be no impact on HCA. How can this be correct? The project involves demolition of buildings in the HCA.

It is farcical to suggest street level trees and colours on the facade could have any impact on the views in to surrounding houses from the site or to the site. This is established by the Urbaine assessment that the impact on Lord Street is moderate to severe. This confirms the excessive scale of the project.

The sheer bulk and size of the proposal is totally out of character with the HCA. Nine stories is far too high.

Accordingly the project is not in the public interest.




D B Armati
27.1.26
0411631938
[email protected]

To whom it may concern,

I live in West Pymble and I am writing to object to the proposed Hyecorp development in Lord Street and Roseville Avenue, Roseville. My family has strong ties to this area — my grandparents live there — so I know these streets well and understand how they function day to day.

The following outlines my concerns.

Scale and Character issues:
One of the first things that stands out to me is how extreme the scale of this proposal is compared to its surroundings. Four buildings up to nine storeys high will sit among homes that are mostly one or two storeys. That kind of height and bulk is not a gradual change; it will completely dominate the streetscape and permanently alter the character of the area.

Traffic/Congestion:
Another immediate concern is traffic. Congestion around Roseville Station is already intense, particularly during school drop-off and pick-up times. This isn’t theoretical — it’s something I’ve witnessed repeatedly myself and heard discussed often by people who live nearby. Adding hundreds of new residents and 344 car parking spaces will inevitably push traffic into surrounding residential streets, effectively turning them into overflow carparks during peak periods.

Environmental cost, overshadowing and privacy issues:
The environmental cost of this proposal also feels disproportionate. The removal of 91 trees, many of them mature canopy trees, will reduce shade, increase heat and erode the leafy identity that Roseville is known for. These are trees that have taken decades to grow and cannot simply be replaced.

There are also impacts that are less visible at first glance but no less significant. Overshadowing of neighbouring homes and loss of privacy from buildings of this height will affect how existing residents are able to use and enjoy their properties.

Issues previously raised have been largely ignored:
All of these concerns above were raised by hundreds of residents during the first exhibition period, yet the changes made by the developer since that time are minimal and largely cosmetic. None of the amendments materially reduce the scale of the development or its impacts on surrounding residents. The revisions appear to be tokenistic and a box-ticking exercise, rather than a genuine response to community feedback. There has been no meaningful engagement with the community, nor any substantive attempt to address the fundamental problems created by the proposal.

This process raises serious concerns about accountability, as it suggests that developers can technically comply (or appear to comply) with exhibition requirements without genuinely responding to objections or addressing the impacts on established neighbourhoods.

Preferred Housing Scenario:
It is only after considering these on-the-ground impacts that the broader planning issue becomes unavoidable. Since the original exhibition of this proposal, Ku-ring-gai Council has finalised its Preferred Housing Scenario, and this scenario has now been formally approved by the State Government. That framework sets out where housing growth should be focused while protecting local character, heritage, infrastructure capacity and environmental values.

The approved scenario clearly directs higher-density development to areas such as the Pacific Highway corridor and the western side of Roseville — locations with existing scale, transport links and capacity. Lord Street and Roseville Avenue are not identified as suitable for this level of development. Approving a high-rise project here would directly contradict a State-approved planning framework and weaken confidence in consistent decision-making.

Does not improve housing crisis:
When the very significant negative impacts on the suburb are taken into account, I don't believe the development can be justified given the limited public benefit it offers. Only 2% of dwellings are proposed as affordable housing long term, with most apartments clearly targeted at the luxury market. Therefore, this development does not even align with the stated objectives of the TOD program.

For all of these reasons — the excessive scale, traffic and environmental impacts, amenity loss, and inconsistency with a State-approved strategic framework — I urge the State Government to refuse this proposal and to respect Ku-ring-gai Council’s Preferred Housing Scenario.
Sincerely,
Long-term Ku-ring-gai Resident
\West Pymble, NSW

To whom it may concern,

I am a lifelong resident of Ku-ring-gai and I am writing to object to the proposed Hyecorp development at 16–24 Lord Street and 21–27 Roseville Avenue, Roseville.

This proposal would permanently alter one of Roseville’s most established residential pockets and, in my view, does so in a way that is neither necessary nor justified. The combination of heritage loss, environmental damage, traffic impacts, and excessive scale makes this an inappropriate development for this location.

A central issue is that Ku-ring-gai Council’s Preferred Housing Scenario has now been finalised and formally approved by the State Government. This scenario provides a State-endorsed framework for accommodating housing growth while protecting local character, heritage significance, infrastructure capacity and environmental values. It deliberately directs higher-density development to appropriate locations, including along the Pacific Highway corridor, on the western side of Roseville, and in suburbs such as Gordon and Lindfield which are already being built up.

Despite this, the Hyecorp proposal (which was rushed through by the Developer as soon as the State Government TOD was announced) introduces large-scale, high-rise development into Lord Street and Roseville Avenue—quiet, low-density residential streets characterised by heritage homes and mature trees. This is exactly the type of location the approved Preferred Housing Scenario seeks to protect. Approving a development that directly contradicts a State-approved strategic framework would undermine planning consistency. It also sets a very damaging precedent for future decision making.

The proposal involves the demolition of nine existing homes that contribute to the heritage and character of the area. The site is located within and adjacent to multiple heritage conservation areas and is surrounded by a significant number of heritage-listed and character-significant properties. Once these homes are removed, that part of Roseville’s history is lost forever and cannot be replaced.

Environmental impacts are also substantial. The proposal requires the removal of almost a hundred trees, including mature canopy trees that provide shade, reduce urban heat, assist with stormwater management, and support local wildlife. These trees are a defining feature of Roseville’s leafy character, and their loss will permanently diminish the environmental quality of the area.
The scale of the proposed buildings is another major concern. Four buildings of up to nine storeys (approximately 31.1 metres) are completely out of character with surrounding development, which is overwhelmingly one or two storeys. These buildings will dominate the streetscape, result in unacceptable visual bulk, and fundamentally change the look and feel of the neighbourhood.
Amenity impacts on neighbouring properties are significant. The Developer’s Environmental Impact Statement confirms that homes on the southern side of Lord Street will lose precious winter sunlight from early afternoon. In addition, the height of the buildings will lead to extensive overlooking, resulting in a serious loss of privacy for existing residents.

Traffic and parking pressures will also worsen. Congestion around Roseville Station is already severe, particularly during peak commuter and school drop-off and pick-up periods. Streets such as Lord Street, Roseville Avenue, Clanville Road and Hill Street are narrow and operate at or beyond capacity. They were never meant to carry the load of the large population from huge developments such as this Hyecorp development. The proposal includes 344 car parking spaces and will introduce hundreds of additional residents into an area with limited road access, exacerbating congestion and safety risks.

Construction impacts should also be considered. This is not a short-term project but a large-scale development likely to take several years at a minimum – these kinds of developments have the potential to continue on for many years. Extended construction hours, heavy vehicle movements, noise, dust and vibration will cause prolonged disruption to a quiet residential area, affecting families, elderly residents and people working from home.

There is no need to over develop so many beautiful old suburbs in Sydney. Heritage, character, canopy, privacy, traffic control and space are all important for liveability. I would request the government ensure that further development is sensibly located and planned, reasonable with respect to local amenity and character, and incorporates input from local Councils who understand the particular needs of the area. If we develop without council input to ensure appropriate planning controls, and without taking into account residents' concerns, so many areas in Sydney will no longer be “liveable”, character-filled, heritage-rich or even appealing as a location to reside.

I feel it must be rather difficult to justify the many negative impacts on the heritage rich suburb of Roseville given the limited public benefit on housing affordability this development will deliver. Only 2% of dwellings are proposed as affordable housing over the long term, with a further 15% affordable for a limited 15-year period. The remainder of the development is clearly targeted at the luxury market and therefore it does not meaningfully address long-term housing affordability.

Given the existence of a State-approved Preferred Housing Scenario and the cumulative impacts outlined above, I do not believe this development should be approved.

I respectfully request that this proposal be refused.

Kind Regards,
Jackie Nevill
Lifelong resident of Ku-ring-gai with close family ties in Roseville

Dear Sir,

Proposed Development by Hyecorp
16-24 Lord Street & 21-27 Roseville Avenue, Roseville.

This submission sets out my strong opposition to the proposed development by Hyecorp of a 9-storey apartment building in a heritage conservation area. If approved the development will irrevocably change the heritage nature of the suburb to the detriment of current residents and future generations.

Conflicts With the Council’s Preferred Development Scenario

When preparing their application Hyecorp were aware of the alternative planning options being considered by Council and the community feedback to these options however they failed to take these into consideration when preparing their application. I believe that the Department need to assess the application based upon the TOD guidelines but taking into consideration the intent of the Council’s preferred scenario.

To approve a 9-storey development within the heritage conservation area would be entirely inconsistent with the Councils Preferred Scenario and the wishes of a significant majority of residents.

The application is not compliant with the original TOD in a number of key areas and as such should be rejected.

Overwhelming opposition to the proposal

The overwhelming majority of submissions are residents objecting to the proposal. These people live, work and raise their families in the area and their views should be given serious consideration when the application and its impact on the local area is being assessed. The small number of parties making submissions in support of the application appear to be either from people not resident in the area or from people associated with the development and who will benefit financially if the application is approved. Any person or group submitting should be required to declare if they have a financial interest in the outcome of the application.

Failure to Engage with the Community

We reiterate the points raised in our previous submission as a result of the applicant failing to address the concerns in their response to submissions. The minor changes included in the updated submission in no way address our concerns or those of other residents.

Of particular concern is the failure of the developer to comply with the legal requirement to engage with the community to seek their input and to base their development application in light of community feedback.

The applicant’s claim that they “letter box dropped” 1,300 homes in the area of the development is demonstrably incorrect as evidenced by the large number of residents who received no notification and of those that did receive a ‘flyer” it was received too late for them to attend the community drop-in session.

I have personally canvassed residents in Victoria Street and Wandella Avenue and none of the people spoken with had received the developer’s “flyer”

Only 5 people attended the drop in event which should have been an indication to the applicant that their community engagement was not working. Of the 5 attendees a number were owners of sites being sold to the developer and therefore conflicted.

Hyecorp were fully aware of the contentious nature of their application due to the ongoing and very public actions being undertaken by the Council to prevent developments such as theirs in the heritage conservation are. The Councils effective community engagement when preparing their alternative development scenarios clearly demonstrates the public opposition to development such as this in the heritage conservation areas to the east of the railway.

As a minimum Hyecorp should have taken further pro-active steps to effectively engage with the community and fulfill their statutory obligations when preparing a valid EIS.

Hyecorp have made no attempt to engage with community groups when preparing their updated application.

Lack of Infrastructure

In addition to these fundamental issues, I am also very aware of the negative impact this development would have on local infrastructure, in particular the local road network, street parking, school capacity and water/sewer infrastructure. I don’t believe that any of these issues have been adequately addressed by the applicant. On the contrary I believe that the EIS has been prepared with the intended aim of highlighting the positives and disregarding or misleadingly downplaying the negatives.

Affordability

The “affordable” units within the development will not be “affordable” to essential service workers, first home buyers etc as a consequence of the high market value of the units by virtue of the location.

Conclusion

The applicant has failed to lodge a compliant EIS due to their lack of engagement with the community and consequential lack of community input into the project design.

The application should be assessed taking into consideration the Council’s Preferred Scenario as supported by the majority of Ku ring gai residents. On this basis the application should be rejected and developer activity directed to areas identified in the Preferred Scenario for increased density.

Regarding : Residential development with in-fill affordable housing. 16-24 Lord Street &21-27 Roseville Avenue , Roseville 2069

Dear Sir/ Madam,

I am writing to object to the above mentioned SSD at Roseville NSW 2069.
These are the reasons for my objection.

1. The SSD has not taken into account the escalation in traffic in Roseville, particularly since the Metro opened. Local residents are finding it difficult to park their cars around Roseville Station because residents as far as the Northern Beaches are parking here to catch the Metro as it’s just one stop from here to Chatswood.
b) Those involved in the SSD have not taken into account how difficult it is for traffic to currently move in an out of Martin Lane, ( which is where one end of the 9 storey development is proposed). Cars park on either side of this narrow lane. Oftentimes, we have observed buses and large vans having to reverse out of the lane to let oncoming traffic through.
c) The SSD has not taken into account the already difficult and dangerous intersections in Roseville under current conditions. For example, there was a fatal accident recently at the junction of Clanville Road and Pacific Highway, where a car crashed into the Kia Showroom. As residents, we have complained about the dangers of this intersection to the Traffic authorities, with no success. We can’t see the situation improving. In fact it will no doubt worsen if another 250 or more vehicles are to be added to Roseville.

2. The re- exhibition has made minimal changes. The Applicant has added more affordable units in the proposed SSD. But. The statistics on housing/unit prices in Roseville are beyond the government's definition of ‘affordable'.

3. The applicant has continued to ignore community concerns since it’s last exhibition. We have not been invited to speak with them or listen to their proposal. The proposal does not conform to the government's low-to-mid-rise housing objective for the area (as per the revised and accepted TOD program)
4. The proposal does not conform to the government's low-to-mid-rise housing objective for the area (as per the revised and accepted TOD program).

5. The site is proposed in the middle of three heritage conservation areas . There are 54 heritage listed houses close by. This along with the loss of 91 trees to make way for this development is going to further erode the historic value of a part of Sydney that has long been believed to the ‘lungs of Sydney.’

For these reasons, I object to the proposed Development at 16- 24 Lord Street, and 21- 27 Roseville Avenue.






I







Regarding : Residential development with in-fill affordable housing. 16-24 Lord Street &21-27 Roseville Avenue , Roseville 2069

Dear Sir/ Madam,

I am writing to object to the above mentioned SSD at Roseville NSW 2069.
These are the reasons for my objection.

1. The SSD has not taken into account the escalation in traffic in Roseville, particularly since the Metro opened. Local residents are finding it difficult to park their cars around Roseville Station because residents as far as the Northern Beaches are parking here to catch the Metro as it’s just one stop from here to Chatswood.
b) Those involved in the SSD have not taken into account how difficult it is for traffic to currently move in an out of Martin Lane, ( which is where one end of the 9 storey development is proposed). Cars park on either side of this narrow lane. Oftentimes, we have observed buses and large vans having to reverse out of the lane to let oncoming traffic through.
c) The SSD has not taken into account the already difficult and dangerous intersections in Roseville under current conditions. For example, there was a fatal accident recently at the junction of Clanville Road and Pacific Highway, where a car crashed into the Kia Showroom. As residents, we have complained about the dangers of this intersection to the Traffic authorities, with no success. We can’t see the situation improving. In fact it will no doubt worsen if another 250 or more vehicles are to be added to Roseville.

2. The re- exhibition has made minimal changes. The Applicant has added more affordable units in the proposed SSD. But. The statistics on housing/unit prices in Roseville are beyond the government's definition of ‘affordable'.

3. The applicant has continued to ignore community concerns since it’s last exhibition. We have not been invited to speak with them or listen to their proposal. The proposal does not conform to the government's low-to-mid-rise housing objective for the area (as per the revised and accepted TOD program)
4. The proposal does not conform to the government's low-to-mid-rise housing objective for the area (as per the revised and accepted TOD program).

5. The site is proposed in the middle of three heritage conservation areas . There are 54 heritage listed houses close by. This along with the loss of 91 trees to make way for this development is going to further erode the historic value of a part of Sydney that has long been believed to the ‘lungs of Sydney.’

For these reasons, I object to the proposed Development at 16- 24 Lord Street, and 21- 27 Roseville Avenue.

Regarding the Residential development with in-fill affordable housing, 16-24 Lord Street & 21-27 Roseville Avenue, Roseville (SSD-78996460) I am opposed to this development. We purchased our house on Lord St within the last year because we love the street, suburb, neighbourhood feel and stunning leafy outlook. We enjoy many different types of wildlife every day in our own backyard. We love the tree canopy and the home it affords so many native animals. The reason we moved was because our old house was near a major apartment development and no forethought had been given to traffic and school / other infrastructure impact (not to mention environmental). I do not believe that this proposed development is in the best public interest, and I don't think it should be further progressed. It seems to me that the TOD planning controls were introduced without public consultation and I much prefer the proposals under Council's Preferred Scenario, particularly because it maintains the unique character of this beautiful part of Roseville. Further I do not recall ever receiving original flyer in the mail. I find such things particularly interesting and would remember receiving it. I only found out about this proposed development from a neighbour and was not aware of any of the information on Hyecorp's site. I vehemently oppose the demolition of the houses required for this project and don't feel that proper consideration could possibly have been given for the traffic and schooling impact as a result of both construction and after finalisation. We are required to make a right-hand turn off Lord onto Archbold every morning to get our children to their bus. This is a nearly impossible task as it is and I cannot imagine what would happen if we added this many apartments to the street. Martin Lane is already a rat run and this will make things exponentially worse. I further worry about the impact to the scout hall, tree canopy, parking, and the SIGNIFICANT number of trees that would be removed. We as individuals are not allowed to remove trees (even when they cause danger and/significant burden), so why can huge developers? There are alternate solutions that have a much softer impact. Lastly, Hyecorp’s response to original objections is ludicrous and does not offer any meaningful changes to address local residents’ legitimate concerns. Most importantly, none of the changes address the inappropriateness of a building of this scale and bulk in this location. I urge you strongly not to approve this development.

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

I live approximately 250 metres from the proposed development.

I am writing in OBJECTION to Hyecorp’s proposed development in Lord St and Roseville Avenue.

Firstly, the new proposal has taken none of the below concerns into account. In the revised TOD, Ku-ring-gai Council have more than filled the government-required number of new dwellings WITHOUT THIS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.

I have lived in Roseville all my life and would love to continue living in Roseville because of its:
o Biodiversity and a National Park.
o Heritage and cultural history.
o Space and Privacy
o A community and an opportunity to walk to the train station along tree-lined streets.

Firstly, this revised proposed development is NOT in the public interest and should not be progressed or determined until Ku-ring-gai Council’s preferred scenario is resolved. This preferred scenario recognises and preserves the heritage and character of Eastside Roseville. The Council’s Preferred Scenario mostly retains the existing zoning in Eastside Roseville, except in the Hill St precinct and the upper part of Victoria Street.

This proposed development by Hyecorp was introduced without public consultation and is riddled with falsehoods and flaws due to a rushed application. When Ku-ring-gai’s preferred scenario is adopted by the NSW Government, an application like this will be dismissed as it sits squarely in the middle of a heritage conservation area. Who gave developers the right to manipulate and coerce such radical and devastating changes to our landscape? Who voted for them to run state planning?

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: I never received HYECORP’s community flyer (supposedly sent out the first week of March 2025) notifying me that such a development had been proposed. I was definitely not made aware of the information evening held on 12 March. Had i known about the evening I woudl most definiteyl have attended. There was no community engagement, discussion, notification of an information evening or transparency around the proposal. This proposed development will affect me directly. I drive down Roseville Ave, Lord Street and Martin Lane often. I catch the train to the city every day. It is crowded nad unpleasant already. With this proposed developemnt the crowding at the station adn on the trains will be unbearable. Not only will the years and years building work affect my ability to drive around and exit Roseville, but the longer term impact will also be enormous. Eastside Roseville has narrow streets and is full on a day to day basis with parked cars. This proposed development will make that impossible.

THE HERITAGE CONSERVATION AREA on which this proposed 9-storey apartment block will be built will be a stand-alone albatross on the landscape. It will be surrounded by single and two-storey houses. Furthermore, due to the metro and Chatswood to Macquarie Park rail link, further development along Roseville Avenue and Lord Street will be impossible. This building will be a ONE OFF STAND, stand-alone 4 tower eyesore in amongst heritage homes and tree-lined streets. NO SSD’S STATEWIDE UNDER PROPOSAL WILL DEMOLISH SO MANY 100-YEAR-OLD HOUSES. This will destroy the landscape and feel of the area forever. Under the council’s preferred scenario, heritage will be mostly maintained while the required dwelling numbers will be reached, but they will be built in a more appropriate area that retains the heritage and community feel of Eastside Roseville.

The development site is in the middle of three heritage conservation areas, with 54 heritage-listed houses nearby; 91 trees will be cutdown to make way for this developement. Roseville has many native animals living in the trees, where will they go now?

A Heritage Conservation Area is for the conservation of heritage. Once heritage is gone, it cannot be restored. Most 100-plus-year-old houses lie within 4-800 metres of the stations. There are better options.

POSITION: Under the Council’s preferred scenario, development will be in more appropriate areas of Roseville. Along the Pacific highway corridor, there are many sights in need of development. The Roseville Ave/ Lord Street development intends to bulldoze heritage and history. It will bulldoze houses that are more than 100 years old and destroy trees that have stood in the area for more than 50 years.

From my bedroom window, more than 250 metres away I will be able to see the top three storeys of the proposed development. Today, we see trees and the rooftops of one and two-storey houses. I can see as far as Chatswood, but wiht this proposal the skyline of Roseville will be destroyed. This is NOT in keeping with the landscape and tradition of the area.

INFRASTRUCTURE: Roseville has NO MAINSTREAM supermarket. There is nothing within walking distance of Hyecorp’s proposed development. Roseville DOES NOT have a supermarket or parking infrastructure. This means that people will need cars to get to do their basic shopping in Chatswood, Lindfield and Gordon. They will need to exit Roseville regularly for their daily needs. Eastside Roseville has ONE exit onto the Pacific Highway (via Clanville Road). Even today (without more high-rise), it can take up to half an hour in the mornings to get through the traffic lights and onto Pacific Highway. Streets around Martin Lane are gridlocked at school drop-off and pick-up time. Parking as become impossible due to the new metro llink that has recently opened. Rsoeville is a rat run for those who wish to catch the metro from Chatswood.

TRAIN NETWORK: Today, not every train stops at Roseville. In peak hour, you can be waiting half an hour for a train from the city, which will stop at Roseville. In the mornings, when a train does stop, if you can squeeze yourself into a carriage, you’ll often hear the conductor welcoming everyone with ‘Good morning, my little sardines!’ It is unbearable and unhealthy. If we have more apartments, this will only get worse.

I call on the NSW Government to reconsider this proposed development based on its inconsistencies with the landscape and heritage of the area, the enormous pressure it will make on lacking infrastructure and already tight traffic congestion, not to mention the 'blot' on the landscape of such an apratment block. There are better options under Ku-ring-gai’s Council’s preferred scenario that provide sufficient dwellings and satisfy the affordable housing commitment made by the government. I urge the government to reject this proposed development.

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

I live approximately 250 metres from the proposed development.

I am writing in OBJECTION to Hyecorp’s proposed development in Lord St and Roseville Avenue.

Firstly, the new proposal has taken none of the below concerns into account. In the revised TOD, Ku-ring-gai Council have more than filled the government-required number of new dwellings WITHOUT THIS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.

I have lived in Roseville all my life and would love to continue living in Roseville because of its:
o Biodiversity and a National Park.
o Heritage and cultural history.
o Space and Privacy
o A community and an opportunity to walk to the train station along tree-lined streets.

Firstly, this revised proposed development is NOT in the public interest and should not be progressed or determined until Ku-ring-gai Council’s preferred scenario is resolved. This preferred scenario recognises and preserves the heritage and character of Eastside Roseville. The Council’s Preferred Scenario mostly retains the existing zoning in Eastside Roseville, except in the Hill St precinct and the upper part of Victoria Street.

This proposed development by Hyecorp was introduced without public consultation and is riddled with falsehoods and flaws due to a rushed application. When Ku-ring-gai’s preferred scenario is adopted by the NSW Government, an application like this will be dismissed as it sits squarely in the middle of a heritage conservation area. Who gave developers the right to manipulate and coerce such radical and devastating changes to our landscape? Who voted for them to run state planning?

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: I never received HYECORP’s community flyer (supposedly sent out the first week of March 2025) notifying me that such a development had been proposed. I was definitely not made aware of the information evening held on 12 March. Had i known about the evening I woudl most definiteyl have attended. There was no community engagement, discussion, notification of an information evening or transparency around the proposal. This proposed development will affect me directly. I drive down Roseville Ave, Lord Street and Martin Lane often. I catch the train to the city every day. It is crowded nad unpleasant already. With this proposed developemnt the crowding at the station adn on the trains will be unbearable. Not only will the years and years building work affect my ability to drive around and exit Roseville, but the longer term impact will also be enormous. Eastside Roseville has narrow streets and is full on a day to day basis with parked cars. This proposed development will make that impossible.

THE HERITAGE CONSERVATION AREA on which this proposed 9-storey apartment block will be built will be a stand-alone albatross on the landscape. It will be surrounded by single and two-storey houses. Furthermore, due to the metro and Chatswood to Macquarie Park rail link, further development along Roseville Avenue and Lord Street will be impossible. This building will be a ONE OFF STAND, stand-alone 4 tower eyesore in amongst heritage homes and tree-lined streets. NO SSD’S STATEWIDE UNDER PROPOSAL WILL DEMOLISH SO MANY 100-YEAR-OLD HOUSES. This will destroy the landscape and feel of the area forever. Under the council’s preferred scenario, heritage will be mostly maintained while the required dwelling numbers will be reached, but they will be built in a more appropriate area that retains the heritage and community feel of Eastside Roseville.

The development site is in the middle of three heritage conservation areas, with 54 heritage-listed houses nearby; 91 trees will be cutdown to make way for this developement. Roseville has many native animals living in the trees, where will they go now?

A Heritage Conservation Area is for the conservation of heritage. Once heritage is gone, it cannot be restored. Most 100-plus-year-old houses lie within 4-800 metres of the stations. There are better options.

POSITION: Under the Council’s preferred scenario, development will be in more appropriate areas of Roseville. Along the Pacific highway corridor, there are many sights in need of development. The Roseville Ave/ Lord Street development intends to bulldoze heritage and history. It will bulldoze houses that are more than 100 years old and destroy trees that have stood in the area for more than 50 years.

From my bedroom window, more than 250 metres away I will be able to see the top three storeys of the proposed development. Today, we see trees and the rooftops of one and two-storey houses. I can see as far as Chatswood, but wiht this proposal the skyline of Roseville will be destroyed. This is NOT in keeping with the landscape and tradition of the area.

INFRASTRUCTURE: Roseville has NO MAINSTREAM supermarket. There is nothing within walking distance of Hyecorp’s proposed development. Roseville DOES NOT have a supermarket or parking infrastructure. This means that people will need cars to get to do their basic shopping in Chatswood, Lindfield and Gordon. They will need to exit Roseville regularly for their daily needs. Eastside Roseville has ONE exit onto the Pacific Highway (via Clanville Road). Even today (without more high-rise), it can take up to half an hour in the mornings to get through the traffic lights and onto Pacific Highway. Streets around Martin Lane are gridlocked at school drop-off and pick-up time. Parking as become impossible due to the new metro llink that has recently opened. Rsoeville is a rat run for those who wish to catch the metro from Chatswood.

TRAIN NETWORK: Today, not every train stops at Roseville. In peak hour, you can be waiting half an hour for a train from the city, which will stop at Roseville. In the mornings, when a train does stop, if you can squeeze yourself into a carriage, you’ll often hear the conductor welcoming everyone with ‘Good morning, my little sardines!’ It is unbearable and unhealthy. If we have more apartments, this will only get worse.

I call on the NSW Government to reconsider this proposed development based on its inconsistencies with the landscape and heritage of the area, the enormous pressure it will make on lacking infrastructure and already tight traffic congestion, not to mention the 'blot' on the landscape of such an apratment block. There are better options under Ku-ring-gai’s Council’s preferred scenario that provide sufficient dwellings and satisfy the affordable housing commitment made by the government. I urge the government to reject this proposed development.

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

I live approximately 250 metres from the proposed development.

I am writing in OBJECTION to Hyecorp’s proposed development in Lord St and Roseville Avenue.

Firstly, the new proposal has taken none of the below concerns into account. In the revised TOD, Ku-ring-gai Council have more than filled the government-required number of new dwellings WITHOUT THIS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.

I have lived in Roseville all my life and would love to continue living in Roseville because of its:
o Biodiversity and a National Park.
o Heritage and cultural history.
o Space and Privacy
o A community and an opportunity to walk to the train station along tree-lined streets.

Firstly, this revised proposed development is NOT in the public interest and should not be progressed or determined until Ku-ring-gai Council’s preferred scenario is resolved. This preferred scenario recognises and preserves the heritage and character of Eastside Roseville. The Council’s Preferred Scenario mostly retains the existing zoning in Eastside Roseville, except in the Hill St precinct and the upper part of Victoria Street.

This proposed development by Hyecorp was introduced without public consultation and is riddled with falsehoods and flaws due to a rushed application. When Ku-ring-gai’s preferred scenario is adopted by the NSW Government, an application like this will be dismissed as it sits squarely in the middle of a heritage conservation area. Who gave developers the right to manipulate and coerce such radical and devastating changes to our landscape? Who voted for them to run state planning?

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: I never received HYECORP’s community flyer (supposedly sent out the first week of March 2025) notifying me that such a development had been proposed. I was definitely not made aware of the information evening held on 12 March. Had i known about the evening I woudl most definiteyl have attended. There was no community engagement, discussion, notification of an information evening or transparency around the proposal. This proposed development will affect me directly. I drive down Roseville Ave, Lord Street and Martin Lane often. I catch the train to the city every day. It is crowded nad unpleasant already. With this proposed developemnt the crowding at the station adn on the trains will be unbearable. Not only will the years and years building work affect my ability to drive around and exit Roseville, but the longer term impact will also be enormous. Eastside Roseville has narrow streets and is full on a day to day basis with parked cars. This proposed development will make that impossible.

THE HERITAGE CONSERVATION AREA on which this proposed 9-storey apartment block will be built will be a stand-alone albatross on the landscape. It will be surrounded by single and two-storey houses. Furthermore, due to the metro and Chatswood to Macquarie Park rail link, further development along Roseville Avenue and Lord Street will be impossible. This building will be a ONE OFF STAND, stand-alone 4 tower eyesore in amongst heritage homes and tree-lined streets. NO SSD’S STATEWIDE UNDER PROPOSAL WILL DEMOLISH SO MANY 100-YEAR-OLD HOUSES. This will destroy the landscape and feel of the area forever. Under the council’s preferred scenario, heritage will be mostly maintained while the required dwelling numbers will be reached, but they will be built in a more appropriate area that retains the heritage and community feel of Eastside Roseville.

The development site is in the middle of three heritage conservation areas, with 54 heritage-listed houses nearby; 91 trees will be cutdown to make way for this developement. Roseville has many native animals living in the trees, where will they go now?

A Heritage Conservation Area is for the conservation of heritage. Once heritage is gone, it cannot be restored. Most 100-plus-year-old houses lie within 4-800 metres of the stations. There are better options.

POSITION: Under the Council’s preferred scenario, development will be in more appropriate areas of Roseville. Along the Pacific highway corridor, there are many sights in need of development. The Roseville Ave/ Lord Street development intends to bulldoze heritage and history. It will bulldoze houses that are more than 100 years old and destroy trees that have stood in the area for more than 50 years.

From my bedroom window, more than 250 metres away I will be able to see the top three storeys of the proposed development. Today, we see trees and the rooftops of one and two-storey houses. I can see as far as Chatswood, but wiht this proposal the skyline of Roseville will be destroyed. This is NOT in keeping with the landscape and tradition of the area.

INFRASTRUCTURE: Roseville has NO MAINSTREAM supermarket. There is nothing within walking distance of Hyecorp’s proposed development. Roseville DOES NOT have a supermarket or parking infrastructure. This means that people will need cars to get to do their basic shopping in Chatswood, Lindfield and Gordon. They will need to exit Roseville regularly for their daily needs. Eastside Roseville has ONE exit onto the Pacific Highway (via Clanville Road). Even today (without more high-rise), it can take up to half an hour in the mornings to get through the traffic lights and onto Pacific Highway. Streets around Martin Lane are gridlocked at school drop-off and pick-up time. Parking as become impossible due to the new metro llink that has recently opened. Rsoeville is a rat run for those who wish to catch the metro from Chatswood.

TRAIN NETWORK: Today, not every train stops at Roseville. In peak hour, you can be waiting half an hour for a train from the city, which will stop at Roseville. In the mornings, when a train does stop, if you can squeeze yourself into a carriage, you’ll often hear the conductor welcoming everyone with ‘Good morning, my little sardines!’ It is unbearable and unhealthy. If we have more apartments, this will only get worse.

I call on the NSW Government to reconsider this proposed development based on its inconsistencies with the landscape and heritage of the area, the enormous pressure it will make on lacking infrastructure and already tight traffic congestion, not to mention the 'blot' on the landscape of such an apratment block. There are better options under Ku-ring-gai’s Council’s preferred scenario that provide sufficient dwellings and satisfy the affordable housing commitment made by the government. I urge the government to reject this proposed development.

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

I live approximately 250 metres from the proposed development.

I am writing in OBJECTION to Hyecorp’s proposed development in Lord St and Roseville Avenue.

Firstly, the new proposal has taken none of the below concerns into account. In the revised TOD, Ku-ring-gai Council have more than filled the government-required number of new dwellings WITHOUT THIS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.

I have lived in Roseville all my life and would love to continue living in Roseville because of its:
o Biodiversity and a National Park.
o Heritage and cultural history.
o Space and Privacy
o A community and an opportunity to walk to the train station along tree-lined streets.

Firstly, this revised proposed development is NOT in the public interest and should not be progressed or determined until Ku-ring-gai Council’s preferred scenario is resolved. This preferred scenario recognises and preserves the heritage and character of Eastside Roseville. The Council’s Preferred Scenario mostly retains the existing zoning in Eastside Roseville, except in the Hill St precinct and the upper part of Victoria Street.

This proposed development by Hyecorp was introduced without public consultation and is riddled with falsehoods and flaws due to a rushed application. When Ku-ring-gai’s preferred scenario is adopted by the NSW Government, an application like this will be dismissed as it sits squarely in the middle of a heritage conservation area. Who gave developers the right to manipulate and coerce such radical and devastating changes to our landscape? Who voted for them to run state planning?

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: I never received HYECORP’s community flyer (supposedly sent out the first week of March 2025) notifying me that such a development had been proposed. I was definitely not made aware of the information evening held on 12 March. Had i known about the evening I woudl most definiteyl have attended. There was no community engagement, discussion, notification of an information evening or transparency around the proposal. This proposed development will affect me directly. I drive down Roseville Ave, Lord Street and Martin Lane often. I catch the train to the city every day. It is crowded nad unpleasant already. With this proposed developemnt the crowding at the station adn on the trains will be unbearable. Not only will the years and years building work affect my ability to drive around and exit Roseville, but the longer term impact will also be enormous. Eastside Roseville has narrow streets and is full on a day to day basis with parked cars. This proposed development will make that impossible.

THE HERITAGE CONSERVATION AREA on which this proposed 9-storey apartment block will be built will be a stand-alone albatross on the landscape. It will be surrounded by single and two-storey houses. Furthermore, due to the metro and Chatswood to Macquarie Park rail link, further development along Roseville Avenue and Lord Street will be impossible. This building will be a ONE OFF STAND, stand-alone 4 tower eyesore in amongst heritage homes and tree-lined streets. NO SSD’S STATEWIDE UNDER PROPOSAL WILL DEMOLISH SO MANY 100-YEAR-OLD HOUSES. This will destroy the landscape and feel of the area forever. Under the council’s preferred scenario, heritage will be mostly maintained while the required dwelling numbers will be reached, but they will be built in a more appropriate area that retains the heritage and community feel of Eastside Roseville.

The development site is in the middle of three heritage conservation areas, with 54 heritage-listed houses nearby; 91 trees will be cutdown to make way for this developement. Roseville has many native animals living in the trees, where will they go now?

A Heritage Conservation Area is for the conservation of heritage. Once heritage is gone, it cannot be restored. Most 100-plus-year-old houses lie within 4-800 metres of the stations. There are better options.

POSITION: Under the Council’s preferred scenario, development will be in more appropriate areas of Roseville. Along the Pacific highway corridor, there are many sights in need of development. The Roseville Ave/ Lord Street development intends to bulldoze heritage and history. It will bulldoze houses that are more than 100 years old and destroy trees that have stood in the area for more than 50 years.

From my bedroom window, more than 250 metres away I will be able to see the top three storeys of the proposed development. Today, we see trees and the rooftops of one and two-storey houses. I can see as far as Chatswood, but wiht this proposal the skyline of Roseville will be destroyed. This is NOT in keeping with the landscape and tradition of the area.

INFRASTRUCTURE: Roseville has NO MAINSTREAM supermarket. There is nothing within walking distance of Hyecorp’s proposed development. Roseville DOES NOT have a supermarket or parking infrastructure. This means that people will need cars to get to do their basic shopping in Chatswood, Lindfield and Gordon. They will need to exit Roseville regularly for their daily needs. Eastside Roseville has ONE exit onto the Pacific Highway (via Clanville Road). Even today (without more high-rise), it can take up to half an hour in the mornings to get through the traffic lights and onto Pacific Highway. Streets around Martin Lane are gridlocked at school drop-off and pick-up time. Parking as become impossible due to the new metro llink that has recently opened. Rsoeville is a rat run for those who wish to catch the metro from Chatswood.

TRAIN NETWORK: Today, not every train stops at Roseville. In peak hour, you can be waiting half an hour for a train from the city, which will stop at Roseville. In the mornings, when a train does stop, if you can squeeze yourself into a carriage, you’ll often hear the conductor welcoming everyone with ‘Good morning, my little sardines!’ It is unbearable and unhealthy. If we have more apartments, this will only get worse.

I call on the NSW Government to reconsider this proposed development based on its inconsistencies with the landscape and heritage of the area, the enormous pressure it will make on lacking infrastructure and already tight traffic congestion, not to mention the 'blot' on the landscape of such an apratment block. There are better options under Ku-ring-gai’s Council’s preferred scenario that provide sufficient dwellings and satisfy the affordable housing commitment made by the government. I urge the government to reject this proposed development.