Dear Mr Ng,
I have been a resident of this area for 11 years and am writing to formally object to State Significant Development Application SSD-78996460 for the proposed residential development at 16–24 Lord Street and 21–27 Roseville Avenue, Roseville. While I acknowledge the need for additional housing supply and affordable housing in Sydney, I believe this particular development is fundamentally inappropriate for this location. My objection is based on the following grounds:

1. Conflict with the Agreed TOD Alternative Scheme
In November 2025, the NSW Government and Ku-ring-gai Council finalised an alternative Transport Oriented Development scheme following extensive negotiation and community consultation. This agreed scheme:
• Focuses high-density development (6–24 storeys) in Gordon and Lindfield centres
• Provides for more moderate uplift at Roseville and Killara, with buildings up to 8 storeys
• Protects high-value heritage conservation areas
• Delivers over 24,700 homes — exceeding the original TOD target
The subject site at Lord Street/Roseville Avenue falls within an area where the agreed scheme contemplates significantly lower density than this proposal. This 267-dwelling, 8–10 storey development directly contradicts the planning outcome negotiated between the State and Council.
While I understand that SSDs lodged with valid SEARs before the new scheme was gazetted may be assessed under the original TOD controls, I submit that the Department should give significant weight to the fact that:
1. The agreed scheme represents the considered position of both the NSW Government and Ku-ring-gai Council on appropriate development in this location
2. Approving developments that conflict with the agreed scheme undermines the integrity of the negotiated outcome
3. The community participated in extensive consultation on the expectation that the agreed controls would apply
Approving this SSD would set an inequitable precedent where one developer benefits from outdated controls while all future development must comply with the agreed framework.

2. Incompatibility with Heritage Conservation Area
The proposed development site is located within or immediately adjacent to the Lord Street/Bancroft Avenue Heritage Conservation Area (C36) and near the Clanville Conservation Area (C32) and The Grove Conservation Area (C35). This area contains significant Federation and Californian Bungalow architecture from the early twentieth century.
The proposed 8–10 storey building is grossly incompatible with:
Scale and grain: The area consists predominantly of 1–2 storey detached dwellings in landscaped garden settings. A building of this height and bulk cannot be sympathetically integrated.
Heritage guidelines: The NSW Government's own Design Guide for Heritage states that new infill buildings in heritage areas should "generally be no higher than neighbouring heritage buildings."
Contributory items: There are concerns that some existing dwellings on the subject site may themselves be contributory heritage items.
The agreed TOD alternative scheme specifically sought to protect heritage conservation areas — approving this development would undermine that key objective.

3. Excessive Height and Bulk
At 8–10 storeys, the proposed development would tower over the surrounding single and two-storey homes. This will result in:
• Severe overshadowing of neighbouring properties, reducing solar access and amenity
• Loss of privacy for adjacent residents due to direct overlooking from elevated apartments
• Visual intrusion that fundamentally alters the streetscape character
• An incongruous high-rise island surrounded by low-density heritage housing
4. Traffic and Parking
The local road network in East Roseville is already severely congested. Lord Street, Roseville Avenue, and Martin Lane experience significant traffic during peak hours and school drop-off/pick-up times.
• Martin Lane is extremely narrow and regularly reduced to single-lane traffic due to commuter parking
• Vehicles queue extensively on Hill Street and Clanville Road at peak times
• Lord Street and Roseville Avenue are already fully parked during weekdays
• Adding 315 car parking spaces for 267 dwellings will exacerbate congestion to an unsustainable level

5. Infrastructure Strain
The existing infrastructure serving this low-density area is not designed for a sudden eightfold increase in population density. Concerns include stormwater drainage capacity, sewerage systems, water supply and pressure, electrical infrastructure, and local school capacity (Roseville Public School is already at capacity).

6. Environmental and Tree Canopy Loss
Roseville is valued for its leafy, tree-lined streets and established gardens. The development will remove mature trees and established gardens across nine residential lots, reduce permeable surfaces, and displace native fauna habitat. The proposed replacement trees will take years to mature and may not survive

7. Inadequate Community Consultation
I understand that many residents in the immediate vicinity report they did not receive the community flyer from Hyecorp that was purportedly distributed. Residents on Lord Street itself were not notified and only learned of the proposal through neighbours.

Accordingly, I respectfully request that the Department refuse this application.
The agreed TOD alternative scheme represents the appropriate balance between housing delivery and heritage protection for Roseville. This development conflicts with that agreed outcome and should not proceed.

I submit that if the application is to be considered further, substantial reductions in height, bulk, and density would be essential, consistent with the "moderate uplift" contemplated for Roseville under the agreed scheme.

Thank you for considering this submission.

This development must be approved to help alleviate Sydney's housing crisis. We need to provide more housing at every opportunity. Higher density developments like this one help support local business, improve environmental outcomes, supporting more vibrant communities and encouraging social interaction, and utilises existing transport infrastructure at the nearby Burwood station.

By providing a combination of housing, commercial, hotel space, this project will help further activate the area, continuing to transform Burwood into a destination, and not simply a place to live.

The amount of parking proposed is excessive for an area with such excellent public transport links and proximity to local shops and services, and should be decreased by providing more bike parking or storage space for residents.

I support the addition of housing and businesses in such a well connected location. Providing jobs and housing next to good public transport should be a top priority.

I encourage a reduction in on-site parking. With the station so close by, many residents and visitors will not need a car. Reducing parking will reduce traffic and make the project more affordable.

We are the landowners of 26 Railway Parade, Burwood (heritage-listed church and publicly accessible courtyards) and 5 Burleigh Street Burwood (community facilities and courtyard). We are writing in response to the public exhibition of the proposed development by NSW Housing Corporation at 2–4 Burleigh Street and 20–24 Railway Parade, Burwood.

Our Parish and Community acknowledges the intent to increase housing and community outcomes in the area; however, we wish to raise a number of critical concerns in relation to this development, specifically relating to building separation, visual privacy, development interface and traffic impacts, particularly in relation to our adjoining properties.

Our detailed objections and concerns are outlined in the attached letter.

As a general matter, this development must be supported. Sydney, NSW, and Australia are experiencing an extended housing crisis. This means we need to provide more housing at every opportunity. We need to prioritise the provision of more housing, which benefits everyone in the community. Ultimately, more intense housing provision, at higher densities supports better environmental outcomes. It also supports more vibrant communities, and makes active and public transport more viable. Everyone in Sydney benefits from provision of more housing and hotel accommodation, as it reduces systematic pressure on these markets.

Burwood has done a fantastic job of densifying the local area to date, and there’s no reason to stop now. This project is high quality, and will further enhance the local area. Burwood has excellent public and active transport links, and a local character that is going from strength to strength as the area become home to more people.

By providing a mixture of housing, commercial and hotel space, this should continue the process of further activating the area. Hotel space is at a premium in Sydney, and the provision of it helps reduce the prevalence of short term holiday rentals.

The quantity of parking being provided seems excessive for an area with such excellent public transport links, but this should not be seen as a reason to reject the proposal. Instead, the proponent should be permitted to find alternative uses for this space, such as additional bicycle parking or residential storage spaces.

Everyone in Sydney benefits from provision of more housing and hotel accommodation, as it reduces systematic pressure on these markets.

Burwood is already overdeveloped suburb without the necessary infrastructure to support further development with an unnecessary 39 storey building. The trains are already crowded with the limited rush hour trains and high population density. Further development will exacerbate these issues. The proposed parking within the new 39 storey building will also be insufficient causing overflow onto the streets where there is already an issue with illegal parking because of the lack of available parking for residents and visitors.
Building a 39 storey building will also not be in keeping with the character of burwood which should try and maintain its older buildings and remaining history.
This website and need for creation of a login and the multiple steps necessary to authenticate email and then complete profile is an unnecessarily difficult interface which prevents people from making submissions. I can speak for numerous older generation individuals and chinese residents of burwood in which English is a second language have not been able to make submissions because of the difficulty. It appears that it is an intentional decision to limit people's ability to make their opinion known by the government to push across their agenda. The website is not mobile friendly as unable to see/easily find the
login button due to large banner on the main page. The submissions need to be more user friendly and more easily accessible. Also only a limited number of burwood residents were informed about this large 39 storey project when all burwood residents will be inevitably impacted also seems a deliberate omission to limit objections.

See attached submission

I strongly object to the project for the below 3 reasons:

1. Design - Even if the planners have no looked at Burwood the Architectural plans show a massive 39 story building it clearly does not fit into surburban Burwood NSW. Look at the height of the surrounding building 20ish floor, this one doubles them. Have a look at the poor church that does not fit into that design and why leave a old red brick unit to make it look even worse. Also it is glass the glare that Circa residential will receive from that building will have a serious environmental effect on the residents. Why does a "boutique" hotel need to be 39 story and why suburban Burwood. 5 level of underground car spots is not enough for 39 levels. Circa has 5 sub levels of parking. This building sticks out like an appendage, this is not Sydney CBD , it should not belong in a suburb and if redevelopment is a concern the 2 old buildings right next to the highrise should also be taken into consideration.

2. Affordable housing - There is a clear correlation and research that affordable housing is related to increase in crime rate. Especially in terms of assaults, have a look in the news paper for the recent gang attack on people of asian decent in Eastgardens. Putting affordable housing in the middle of burwood chinatown is not a good idea. Have a look the apartments on the corner of clarence street and Burwood road, they have a wall of letter theft, looks like FBI most wanted. Not sure why the option to put affordable housing next to a polce station and court house. One stop shop. Get arrested bailed to go home and go to court the next day all within walking distance?

3. Traffic - Railway parade cannot accomodate more people without major upgrades. One side of the road near the railway can only fit one pedestrian at a time and the other side can only fit 2, there is 3 high rises aleady. The crossing at Burwood road to the station is getting to the point of dangerous. there is so many people waiting to cross during peak hour an accident is waiting to happen.