Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
ROSEVILLE
,
New South Wales
Message
I strongly object to this development proposal. The proposal for such high density in Roseville east side will cause significant impact to local heritage conservation areas and heritage items. There are many family homes nearby will be badly impacted by this development. This will cause a serial of problems like parking issues, traffic congestion, sunlight and overshadowing to adjacent houses.
This development is inconsistent with the preferred scenario of the Ku-ring-gai council.
It’s inappropriate and it’s going to be a huge damage to the surrounding heritage conservation areas.
It’s inappropriate and it’s going to be a huge damage to the surrounding heritage conservation areas.
Name Withheld
Comment
Name Withheld
Comment
ROSEVILLE
,
New South Wales
Message
I support the effort of the Government to increase housing supply close to rail stations. I think the current proposal is not equitable to those in the area because increases zoning allowances fronting Martin Lane and Hill Street and leaves some ten or twelve allotments with no increase in zoning allowances. Some of these allotments are encumbered with the Metro Line conditions. There is confusion of what construction is possible above or adjacent to the Metro tunnels. The Metro lines conditions would appear to work against what was proposed by the TODD papers. The area between Hill St, Martin Lane,Roseville Av.,and Lord St need to be treated as one if the suburban environment is to be good.
Isabelle Afaras
Object
Isabelle Afaras
Object
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
Roseville
,
New South Wales
Message
I live very close to the proposed development. I am in the “primary locality” as per Social Impact doc fig 3 the area that may experience the most direct impacts.
I have serious concerns about Hyecorp’s application:
• There are so many omissions, inaccuracies and unfounded statements that it can’t be relied upon as a true assessment of the impacts. It is little more than an advertising brochure
• the community engagement described bears no resemblance to my experience of their activities
• the proximity to the underground metro tunnel needs examining very closely to avoid the potentially catastrophic risk of getting it wrong
• a ‘state significant’ application should meet a very high standard of rigorous assessment. Near enough is not good enough
Community engagement
I did not see the activity that Hyecorp reported in its Engagement Outcomes Report. I didn’t get a brochure about a community information session on 12 March. I don’t know anyone who got such a brochure. I don’t know anyone who attended the session.
They held the session in a different suburb/venue from where it was apparently advertised. The Report repeats twice that it was held in East Lindfield, 2.5km away from the advertised location.
The online survey didn’t close on 24 March. It was still available on 13 April.
I received a brochure on 20 March with no reference to an information session. It directed me to a ‘project survey’. I did the online survey. I asked that Hyecorp delay the project because it would undermine Ku-ring-gai’s Council’s ‘preferred scenario’ for the area. At the end of the survey, I gave my email details to be kept up to date on the project. Hyecorp has never contacted me. The brochure says 'members of the community will be invited to make a submission' once their application is lodged. I have not become aware of any such ‘invitation’. Later in April all reference to this project had disappeared. I was shocked to hear through local word of mouth that Hyecorp had lodged a detailed SSD application.
It is very concerning that a major project like this could get to this stage in a secretive way with barely any engagement with local residents. Even now, there is no physical sign erected at the site to make residents aware that such a major application is on exhibition.
It is concerning that the EOR has been submitted with doubt as to many of its claims.
Unfortunately, Hyecorp has not followed its own recommendation in its Social Impact Report about continued community consultation early and during all stages being “crucial” to forming a rapport with residents to ensure a smooth transition.
Impact of metro tunnel on future development in Roseville
Hyecorp’s analysis of the impact on the surrounding area assumes that other large developments may be built in the future eg Architectural Design statement diagram (p21) “Potential development under Housing SEPP within the TOD area”.However, this ignores the fact that the metro tunnel underneath will prevent any future development of many houses in Roseville Ave and Lord St because of the shallower depth of the tunnel there.
This means that much of Hyecorp’s analysis about how the suburb will develop in future is flawed.
In relation to the impact of the metro tunnel on Hyecorp’s current proposal, their ‘Metro Reserve Plan’ shows that the ‘first reserve’ of the metro tunnel is partly in the site area, and close to the proposed deep excavation. Rigorous examination is needed to decide if this excavation is advisable, given the increasing heavy rains, climate change and earth movements. The recent sinkholes in Rockdale near the M6 tunnel excavation should be a warning, and raises questions as to whether the Roseville site is a suitable site or if this is in the public interest. Thousands of people hurtling underground in the metro every 4 minutes under Roseville Ave would not want excavation within metres of the tunnel if there is any risk of adverse impact on the tunnel.
Communal open space
There is a lack of clarity about the status of the building entrance path setback area in the Roseville Avenue façade. It is included in the calculation to satisfy the required % of communal open space. Yet, the Architectural Statement says it will be for ‘residents and neighbours alike’, adding to the series of pocket parks in the area. It seems to be open to the public and unfenced. It will get high foot traffic - post delivery, couriers, food deliveries etc. This area is not included in the Landscape Plan as ‘communal open space’, and it doesn’t fit the requirements for ‘communal open space’ in that Plan ie “Present as a private area for use by residents only; Be in addition to any public thoroughfares;”
Can Hyecorp satisfy the required % of ‘communal open space’ if this area at the entry to Roseville Ave actually does not qualify as communal open space. If it does qualify, then the Landscape plan is deficient and should reassess this area, and how it will be a safe place for residents’ children and dogs to play if it is open to street traffic and the public.
Bus services
Hyecorp’s documents make a repeated claim about bus services that gives a false impression ie bus services are “available on the Pacific Hwy providing services to Chatswood and Sydney CBDs and the wider Kur-ring gai locality.” To my knowledge, the only bus service to the Sydney CBD is the limited ‘Night Rider’ N90 service that only operates in the early hours of the morning when trains are not running.
Proximity to transport is a focus of Hyecorp’s application. This should have been accurate.
Parks
The access to parks is clearly a very important factor to assess in this application. However, Hyecorp creates a false impression in its description of the nearby parks and their true useability for residents, especially children. Also, there’s no consistency in the documents about which parks it is relying on to support its case. For example the Social Impact Statement, p15, names 6 parks as being in Roseville. Only one is walkable from the site. I have never heard of 3 of them and they’re not listed on Council’s Roseville parks list, another one is in Chatswood and the other is 15 min brisk walking. At p17 it neglects to say that Little Digger is across the busy 4-lane Archbold Rd with no nearby safe crossing point and has no facilities.
School capacity
Hyecorp’s analysis of the projected population and school capacity should be an important factor. However, its analysis about Killara High is seriously flawed and shouldn’t be relied on.
The Social Impact Statement says Killara High will have future capacity. This is based on a completely misconceived impact of 2 new high schools to be in Asquith (p 3, 16 and 31).Asquith is 15 km away from Killara, and those changes will not affect Killara High. See Dept of Education website’s list re Asquith changes.
Visual impact
Hyecorp downplays the significant visual impact and sad loss of amenity for all community members. The beautiful view from the upper landing of the railway bridge will be diminished. Currently, everyone can see the extensive view over the district. The photomontage (p 15/16 VIS) makes it easy to imagine the adverse impact but Hyecorp deems it ‘acceptable’. and the Social Impact Statement (p22) says existing views to local bushland are not obstructed by the proposed development. It is hard to see how they justify this statement.
Hyecorp say they’ve applied the Connecting with Country Framework. How does a stark large building in the landscape fit the principle of “View Country” ie Maintain views across Gamaragal Country to emphasise landscape connections….Hyecorp’s answer to this is “Increased building heights allow for new opportunities to view Gamaragal Country from the site”. This seems a distortion of what is intended. Surely ‘View Country’ principle isn’t intended to benefit a few living in penthouses, at the expense of the rest of the community.
High Quality
The documents promise everything will be ‘high quality’. There is no definition or benchmark for this. Is the estimated cost of development $148m sufficient to produce everything of ‘high quality’? Can Hyecorp’s claims be delivered, especially with increasing construction costs.
Noise
There is no analysis of potential noise impact of having 700+ new residents in the common open areas, with many children. What will be the capacity of the kids club near the Roseville Ave entrance? Will it need regulation for safety of potentially large groups of children? The common open areas could potentially have the equivalent number of a whole class of school kids playing at the same time.
There’s no planning for the potential number of dogs. Dog ownership is common– sometimes 40% of households. Out of 259 new dwellings, this could mean 100 dogs living in the project site. But the Landscape plan doesn’t mention if materials and fencing has been designed with dogs in mind. There is no analysis of the noise impact of a large number of dogs in the common open areas.
Council’s preferred scenario
KRG Council has produced an alternative scenario to the Government’s TOD controls, with community consultation. Hyecorp would be well aware of this. Under that scenario, the project area would be saved from development because it is a Heritage Conservation Area.
If no other future development is permitted in this area (either because of the metro tunnel or the preservation of the Heritage Conservation Area) then Hyecorp’s enormous building will be an anomaly in the landscape. How can this outcome be reconciled with a meaningful application of Connecting with Country framework.
Conclusion
Hyecorp’s documents have many instances where they downplayed issues and made unfounded assertions. As a result, I do not have any confidence that Hyecorp’s ‘assessments about the bulk, scale and impact of the project are reliable. Significant independent investigation of these important issues is needed.
I have serious concerns about Hyecorp’s application:
• There are so many omissions, inaccuracies and unfounded statements that it can’t be relied upon as a true assessment of the impacts. It is little more than an advertising brochure
• the community engagement described bears no resemblance to my experience of their activities
• the proximity to the underground metro tunnel needs examining very closely to avoid the potentially catastrophic risk of getting it wrong
• a ‘state significant’ application should meet a very high standard of rigorous assessment. Near enough is not good enough
Community engagement
I did not see the activity that Hyecorp reported in its Engagement Outcomes Report. I didn’t get a brochure about a community information session on 12 March. I don’t know anyone who got such a brochure. I don’t know anyone who attended the session.
They held the session in a different suburb/venue from where it was apparently advertised. The Report repeats twice that it was held in East Lindfield, 2.5km away from the advertised location.
The online survey didn’t close on 24 March. It was still available on 13 April.
I received a brochure on 20 March with no reference to an information session. It directed me to a ‘project survey’. I did the online survey. I asked that Hyecorp delay the project because it would undermine Ku-ring-gai’s Council’s ‘preferred scenario’ for the area. At the end of the survey, I gave my email details to be kept up to date on the project. Hyecorp has never contacted me. The brochure says 'members of the community will be invited to make a submission' once their application is lodged. I have not become aware of any such ‘invitation’. Later in April all reference to this project had disappeared. I was shocked to hear through local word of mouth that Hyecorp had lodged a detailed SSD application.
It is very concerning that a major project like this could get to this stage in a secretive way with barely any engagement with local residents. Even now, there is no physical sign erected at the site to make residents aware that such a major application is on exhibition.
It is concerning that the EOR has been submitted with doubt as to many of its claims.
Unfortunately, Hyecorp has not followed its own recommendation in its Social Impact Report about continued community consultation early and during all stages being “crucial” to forming a rapport with residents to ensure a smooth transition.
Impact of metro tunnel on future development in Roseville
Hyecorp’s analysis of the impact on the surrounding area assumes that other large developments may be built in the future eg Architectural Design statement diagram (p21) “Potential development under Housing SEPP within the TOD area”.However, this ignores the fact that the metro tunnel underneath will prevent any future development of many houses in Roseville Ave and Lord St because of the shallower depth of the tunnel there.
This means that much of Hyecorp’s analysis about how the suburb will develop in future is flawed.
In relation to the impact of the metro tunnel on Hyecorp’s current proposal, their ‘Metro Reserve Plan’ shows that the ‘first reserve’ of the metro tunnel is partly in the site area, and close to the proposed deep excavation. Rigorous examination is needed to decide if this excavation is advisable, given the increasing heavy rains, climate change and earth movements. The recent sinkholes in Rockdale near the M6 tunnel excavation should be a warning, and raises questions as to whether the Roseville site is a suitable site or if this is in the public interest. Thousands of people hurtling underground in the metro every 4 minutes under Roseville Ave would not want excavation within metres of the tunnel if there is any risk of adverse impact on the tunnel.
Communal open space
There is a lack of clarity about the status of the building entrance path setback area in the Roseville Avenue façade. It is included in the calculation to satisfy the required % of communal open space. Yet, the Architectural Statement says it will be for ‘residents and neighbours alike’, adding to the series of pocket parks in the area. It seems to be open to the public and unfenced. It will get high foot traffic - post delivery, couriers, food deliveries etc. This area is not included in the Landscape Plan as ‘communal open space’, and it doesn’t fit the requirements for ‘communal open space’ in that Plan ie “Present as a private area for use by residents only; Be in addition to any public thoroughfares;”
Can Hyecorp satisfy the required % of ‘communal open space’ if this area at the entry to Roseville Ave actually does not qualify as communal open space. If it does qualify, then the Landscape plan is deficient and should reassess this area, and how it will be a safe place for residents’ children and dogs to play if it is open to street traffic and the public.
Bus services
Hyecorp’s documents make a repeated claim about bus services that gives a false impression ie bus services are “available on the Pacific Hwy providing services to Chatswood and Sydney CBDs and the wider Kur-ring gai locality.” To my knowledge, the only bus service to the Sydney CBD is the limited ‘Night Rider’ N90 service that only operates in the early hours of the morning when trains are not running.
Proximity to transport is a focus of Hyecorp’s application. This should have been accurate.
Parks
The access to parks is clearly a very important factor to assess in this application. However, Hyecorp creates a false impression in its description of the nearby parks and their true useability for residents, especially children. Also, there’s no consistency in the documents about which parks it is relying on to support its case. For example the Social Impact Statement, p15, names 6 parks as being in Roseville. Only one is walkable from the site. I have never heard of 3 of them and they’re not listed on Council’s Roseville parks list, another one is in Chatswood and the other is 15 min brisk walking. At p17 it neglects to say that Little Digger is across the busy 4-lane Archbold Rd with no nearby safe crossing point and has no facilities.
School capacity
Hyecorp’s analysis of the projected population and school capacity should be an important factor. However, its analysis about Killara High is seriously flawed and shouldn’t be relied on.
The Social Impact Statement says Killara High will have future capacity. This is based on a completely misconceived impact of 2 new high schools to be in Asquith (p 3, 16 and 31).Asquith is 15 km away from Killara, and those changes will not affect Killara High. See Dept of Education website’s list re Asquith changes.
Visual impact
Hyecorp downplays the significant visual impact and sad loss of amenity for all community members. The beautiful view from the upper landing of the railway bridge will be diminished. Currently, everyone can see the extensive view over the district. The photomontage (p 15/16 VIS) makes it easy to imagine the adverse impact but Hyecorp deems it ‘acceptable’. and the Social Impact Statement (p22) says existing views to local bushland are not obstructed by the proposed development. It is hard to see how they justify this statement.
Hyecorp say they’ve applied the Connecting with Country Framework. How does a stark large building in the landscape fit the principle of “View Country” ie Maintain views across Gamaragal Country to emphasise landscape connections….Hyecorp’s answer to this is “Increased building heights allow for new opportunities to view Gamaragal Country from the site”. This seems a distortion of what is intended. Surely ‘View Country’ principle isn’t intended to benefit a few living in penthouses, at the expense of the rest of the community.
High Quality
The documents promise everything will be ‘high quality’. There is no definition or benchmark for this. Is the estimated cost of development $148m sufficient to produce everything of ‘high quality’? Can Hyecorp’s claims be delivered, especially with increasing construction costs.
Noise
There is no analysis of potential noise impact of having 700+ new residents in the common open areas, with many children. What will be the capacity of the kids club near the Roseville Ave entrance? Will it need regulation for safety of potentially large groups of children? The common open areas could potentially have the equivalent number of a whole class of school kids playing at the same time.
There’s no planning for the potential number of dogs. Dog ownership is common– sometimes 40% of households. Out of 259 new dwellings, this could mean 100 dogs living in the project site. But the Landscape plan doesn’t mention if materials and fencing has been designed with dogs in mind. There is no analysis of the noise impact of a large number of dogs in the common open areas.
Council’s preferred scenario
KRG Council has produced an alternative scenario to the Government’s TOD controls, with community consultation. Hyecorp would be well aware of this. Under that scenario, the project area would be saved from development because it is a Heritage Conservation Area.
If no other future development is permitted in this area (either because of the metro tunnel or the preservation of the Heritage Conservation Area) then Hyecorp’s enormous building will be an anomaly in the landscape. How can this outcome be reconciled with a meaningful application of Connecting with Country framework.
Conclusion
Hyecorp’s documents have many instances where they downplayed issues and made unfounded assertions. As a result, I do not have any confidence that Hyecorp’s ‘assessments about the bulk, scale and impact of the project are reliable. Significant independent investigation of these important issues is needed.
Nicholas James
Object
Nicholas James
Object
ROSEVILLE
,
New South Wales
Message
Please refer attached our objection to this proposal.
thanks
Nick & Lucy James
thanks
Nick & Lucy James
Attachments
James Afaras
Object
James Afaras
Object
ROSEVILLE
,
New South Wales
Message
Dear Jasmine
I live in a residence which received a notice of exhibition and object to the project which significantly impacts our home which is across the road.
I attach in pdf a letter outlining my submissions and objection.
Regards
James Afaras
I live in a residence which received a notice of exhibition and object to the project which significantly impacts our home which is across the road.
I attach in pdf a letter outlining my submissions and objection.
Regards
James Afaras
Attachments
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
ROSEVILLE
,
New South Wales
Message
Please see my attached objection