My family moved to 5 Gerald Ave in 1984. This home is 500 meters from the proposed development.
We moved to the area because of the environmental & social amenity.
It was a leafy suburb, I grew up in the country.
It was an harmonious built environment.
It had access to good schools, community facilities like parks and sporting groups, shops, public transport & main roads.
The social amenity is such that I still attend a book club with mothers I met at Roseville Public school where our children attended.
The leafy suburb and leafy suburb have been protected bu Council policies.
Ku -ring gai council is working towards a Preferred solution to satisfy the requirements to increase the number of dwellings in the council area. This particular submission should never be approved and not should any such proposal be approved until the Council has submitted its Preferred solution.
The environmental amenity of our community has been protected by Council policies. The destruction of 91 trees - will be like a cancer in the middle of a body. We all know the benefits of a leafy environments for the human & natural world. What is the impact of this project on climate change?
SSD - 78996460 should be rejected on the basis of environmental impact.
The social amenity will be significantly compromised.
The access to schools - how many more students can Roseville public school take
The access the playing fields and parks - the number of dwellings has increased significantly over the 41 years that we have lived here but the number of parks has not.
One should be able to exit and enter ones home by car. Currently the traffic congestion leaving the square of Boundary Rd; Hill St; Clanville Rd & Archbold Rd makes exiting & entering the square difficult. The creation of an extra 250 dwellings will make it even harder. There is added congestion associated with pick up & drop off at Roseville College & Roseville public school
What about parking? During our 41 years we have seen the number of cars parking by the station creep along Bancroft Ave; Lord St; & Roseville Ave. There is limited parling at the station. There has been an increase in the number of cars associated with students at Roseville college. The impact on parking - during & after construction is devasting to social amenity.
The height of the proposal - we have a harmonious built environment with Council limiting development to 2 stories and buildings which are consistent with conservation values. This has meant that developments do not negatively impact neighbors. Having a 9 story building in the middle of a conservation area has a huge negative impact on the suburb and current residents. It also has a negative impact on our social history.
SSD - 78996460 should be rejected on the basis of impact on social amenity.
This proposal has a negative impact on our social history.
The protection of the area from this development is a protection of our social history. We travel the world and positively remark on areas where the areas have been protected by development. We have The Rocks, in Sydney & Viictoria St in Kings Cross to thank for social action & far sighted decisions.
Please reject the Hyecorp proposal so that in the future you are applauded for protecting our social history.
I live part of my week in the country so I have not been able to attend community consultation meetings regarding the proposal. I have been made aware of the proposal by neighbours.
Within the Kuring-Gai Council area there are examples of what I call medium density development - 4 stories. Along Dumaresq St Gordon there are 4 story unit blocks that are completely consistent with the environment - social & natural. The height of the buildings is the same as the Eucalypts in the street.
The Council should be able to complete its Preferred Solution.
Please reject the SSD - 78996460 on the basis of:
Environmental Amenity
Social Amenity
Social History
Regards
Julia Wokes
5 Gerald Ave
Roseville
28.5.25

I object to this application lodged under the existing TOD scheme, as it is not in the public interest. It should not be determined until Council’s Preferred Scenario is resolved with the State Government. The imposition of the TOD planning regime was without public consultation and will be cast aside if the Council’s Preferred Scenario is adopted. I believe Kuringai Council preferred scenario will be released early next month for approval and adoption.

The location, size and scale of this development does not comply with the new proposed scenario and if approved will be a desert island eye sore and scar on the residential landscape. Notwithstanding this, as a resident that is located only 100m from this proposed new development, there was no public consultation nor did I ever receive the Hyecorp flyer pertaining to the development. I had no idea there was a community drop in session relating to this development nor was I made aware of a dedicated project website by the developer.

I am fully supportive of Council’s Preferred Scenario as this recognises the unique character of Eastside Roseville . The Council’s Preferred Scenario mostly retains the existing zoning which is R2 in Eastside Roseville, except in the Hill St precinct and upper part of Victoria St ( zoned high density ). In essence the new proposed scenario keeps the historical residential neighbourhood in tact which is why I bought into this area.

I just cant understand why the developer would like to build a series of 9-storeys complexes. This will have significant impact on overshadowing / privacy / solar access / streetscape / character as the proposed new plan will only allow for R2 zoning - low density housing. In addition to this, the metro line that runs underneath upper Lord and Roseville sts precludes any new medium or high rise development so the proposed development will be in stark contrast to the remaining neighbourhood and streetscape.

I am also deeply concerned of the impact of the existing heritage conservation areas and surrounding heritage houses. My house is a heritage house and this development sits within 3 HCAs and 54 heritage houses. The existing TOD provisions state very clearly that any new development can not impact the heritage character of an area. This development clearly does.

The proposed development also has not taken into consideration traffic, water and sewerage implications. The surrounding streets are very small and are subject to a great deal of traffic already from Roseville school and peak hour traffic. The roads will simply not be able to handle the additional dwellings without significant road widening and traffic controls. During the construction phase it will be even worse with heavy machinery and vehicles.

Lastly I am concerned that the development will alter the existing tree canopy and wildlife that currently enjoys the variety of tree species for food and shelter.

I implore the State government to reject this proposed development for the reasons outlined above. It simply will be ludicrous for this development to go ahead as proposed in the middle of a HCA and totally out of context with Councils new proposed scenario.

Thanks

See attached.

these homes are all beautiful traditional federation homes in the quiet neighbourhood of Roseville - do not rid of them in order to create another project. People’s homes, families and memories live within these properties

I fully support the Council’s Preferred Scenario, which presents a more thoughtful and sustainable approach to development. I am not opposed to balanced and appropriate development.
There are many suitable locations in Roseville where apartment buildings could be appropriately built. Areas near the Pacific Highway, Boundary Street, and the upper part of Victoria Street offer considerable potential for higher-density development. Many of the existing shops and houses along the Pacific Highway and Hill Street are only one or two storeys high, making them far more suitable for redevelopment in case infrastructure can be improved. The Council’s Preferred Scenario rightly identifies these areas as appropriate for growth, achieving a balance between necessary development and the protection of our heritage and environment.
Given this, it is difficult to understand why the current proposal involves demolishing numerous houses with heritage features and approximately 91 trees, and why it would allow development so close to many heritage-listed homes within designated Heritage Conservation Area.
Moreover, why is this proposal being pushed forward before the Council has finalised a more comprehensive and well-considered development strategy?
For these reasons, I strongly object to this particular plan. Although framed as a plan for infill affordable housing, it appears poorly conceived and not truly in the public interest. It risks causing irreversible harm to our community character, our heritage, and our environment—threatening the very values we hope to preserve for future generations.

Re: Residential development with in-fill affordable housing, 16-24 Lord Street & 21-27 Roseville Avenue, Roseville (SSD-78996460)
Dear Sir/Madam,
I want to object to the proposed SSD at 16-24 Lord Street & 21-27 Roseville Avenue, Roseville.
I am a resident in rydeand have lived here for almost 6 years.
I object to the proposal for a few reasons
1.It’s excessive height. At a height of 9 storeys this will be over 31 meter which is significantly higher than its surrounding houses.
my friend live in Roseville and we see each other every week. We enjoyed having private time in their backyard. The proposed development will be causing overshadowing and reduce the privacy of a number of residences.
2. Every time I go to Roseville to visit my friends, find parking and traffic are always very difficult. I think the traffic and infrastructure overload already. The corner of Clanville Road as well as the traffic entering the Pacific Highway is already overloaded.
3. Isolation of Heritage homes. The development will destroy the heritage value of many homes adjacent and opposite the proposed development and nearby properties.
In summary. This project has no benefits to the community. And This proposal does not incorporate any public areas such as parks to benefit the community. It will only bring more people in, causing this area overwhelming, bring more pressure to the infrastructure.

Kind regards

See attached.

Please refer to the attached document. Thank you for considering my comments.