The Project:
- is too large and modern for the location, will look out of place in a heritage area and take away from the quiet nature of the neighbourhood;
- will impact the overall amenity of the heart of the suburb by significantly increasing the number of cars in the street, people who will need the local schools, public transport, infrastructure, utilities etc without any compensating factors to address these problems;
- the streets are already narrow and busy at peak times and an extra 300 cars at those times will create traffic gridlock and pollution;
- the public transport is already full and an extra 300 people will make it cramped and unsafe on the platforms and bus stops by the roadside; and
- the local council has been negotiating with the state government about an variation to the TOD scheme which will increase housing density, retaining the current amenity for current and new residents while protecting the natural and the heritage
characteristics of the area. To push this through now undermines confidence in the NSW government planning systems.
We all know we need to increase housing density, but this should be done in a way that creates great places for everyone to live. This development will not achieve this. We have a pathway forward and the approval of this development, despite the negotiated variations to the TOD lacks strategic justification.

Submission relates to: Residential development with in-fill affordable housing, 16-24 Lord Street & 21-27 Roseville Avenue, Roseville (SSD-78996460)
My residence is 400m from the planned development and I object to the development
The development application, 16-24 Lord Street & 21-27 Roseville Avenue, Roseville (SSD-78996460) lodged under the NSW Governments TOD scheme should not in the public interest be further progressed or determined until Council’s Preferred Scenario is resolved. The TOD planning regime was introduced without consultation and is to be set aside if the Council’s Preferred Scenario is adopted.
Further my household DID NOT receive ANY communication, notification or community flyer from developer HYECORP in the first week of March 2025 and before 12 March or at any other time.
I moved to Roseville in 2009, to raise my family in an area with good amenities, transportation, schools and with significant natural and built heritage. As with all of Sydney the suburb has become busier. Many of the roads and key access and exit points are struggling to cope with the growing numbers of vehicles. On most mornings it can take 20-30min to exit onto the Pacific Highway, Boundary Street or Archbold Road. The addition of the proposed development at a well known "rat run" and choke-point (Martin Lane) will be a major issue for residents and also those accessing schools and local business from outside of the suburb.
I have significant concerns regarding the scale of the development in its planned location, at over 9 levels it will be completely out of character and will dominate a low-lying residential area, overshadowing heritage and community buildings. I often drive and park at Roseville Station and have concerns about the number of parking places available for residents, there are insufficient places at present, the development will make the situation worse.
Clanville Road access to key artery Archbold Road was recently restricted, turning right onto Archbold Road is now only possible at Bancroft Avenue. This route is often very congested. The planned development both during construction and when complete will severely restrict my ability to enter and exit the suburb.
I support Kuring-Gai Councils preferred TOD Scenario vs the NSW State Government's original TOD, it delivers much needed density and affordable housing without compromising the built and natural environment. The KMC preferred scenario maintains critical planning principles which factor in vehicular access and protection of the natural environment.
The developer Hyecorp has made NO attempt to engage or consult with me or my household regarding the development, I was not aware and no ability to attend the community drop-in session at Lindfield Seniors Centre/Community Hall between 4:00-6:30pm on Wed 12 March 2025. Had I known I would have shared my views directly with Hyecorp, to influence their proposal.
I was not aware of project pages on the Hyecorp website prior to 25 March 2025 or after that, the development proposal was only brought to my attention when it was described in a Sydney Morning Herald article in April.
I was not aware of any community survey on the Hyecorp website, Hyecorp has not provided information or sought feedback about the project to me or my household.
It is concerning that a major development impacting an entire community and avoiding planning consideration / conventions has progressed to this stage without any genuine residential consultation or scrutiny.

Please refer to the detailed submission attached as a word document.

In short summary,

This development is fundamentally incompatible with the unique heritage, environmental values, and community character of East Roseville. It undermines local planning principles, fails to respect heritage protections, and risks overwhelming local infrastructure.

I strongly urge the Department to reject SSD-78996460 in its current form and await the finalisation of Council’s preferred TOD framework.

To Whom It May Concern
Re: State Significant Development SSD-78996460 – 16–24 Lord Street & 21–27 Roseville Avenue, Roseville

My name is Paul Hitchcock, and I have been a resident of Roseville for over 20 years. I am writing to lodge a formal objection to the above-mentioned State Significant Development (SSD) proposal by Hycorp.

1. Inappropriate Height and Density
The proposed development—comprising 259 apartments across four nine-storey buildings—is entirely out of character with the Roseville area, which is predominantly made up of single and double-storey dwellings. Located just 200 metres from my home, the scale and bulk of this proposal are grossly inconsistent with the established neighbourhood.

Not only would this height result in significant overshadowing of nearby homes, but it would also severely compromise the privacy of existing residents, with apartment windows overlooking private backyards. This level of intrusion is unacceptable and unnecessary.

2. Undermining of Council’s Strategic Plan
I acknowledge the urgent need for increased housing in Sydney and am not opposed to well-considered development. However, the current proposal is not in line with thoughtful urban planning.

Ku-ring-gai Council has developed a carefully balanced housing strategy which, once endorsed by the State Government, will meet—and indeed exceed—the housing targets for this area. That plan was developed through extensive community consultation and reflects local character, infrastructure capacity, and heritage considerations.

Allowing an ad hoc, oversized development such as this to proceed in parallel with the council’s more sustainable approach undermines good planning practice. Once the council’s scenario is adopted, this SSD should no longer be considered viable.

3. Lack of Community Engagement
Hycorp has failed to conduct any meaningful consultation with local residents. Neither I nor my neighbours have received any information, flyers, invitations to community meetings, or surveys regarding this development. This lack of transparency is deeply concerning and suggests an attempt to avoid public scrutiny and bypass local planning controls.

4. Traffic and Parking Concerns
Roseville is already under significant traffic pressure, particularly during peak school and commuting hours. The addition of over 300 parking spaces will bring an influx of vehicles, with many residents unlikely to rely solely on public transport. The resulting congestion on Lord Street and surrounding roads will further degrade the quality of life in our community and place undue strain on existing infrastructure.

5. Destruction of Established Trees
The planned removal of 91 mature trees is devastating. These trees have taken decades to grow and provide critical environmental, aesthetic, and community value. Their destruction for the sake of high-density development is not justifiable—especially when alternative, lower-impact housing options exist within the council’s preferred scenario.

In summary, this development proposal is poorly suited to the character of Roseville and disregards the well-considered planning framework being put forward by Ku-ring-gai Council. I urge the NSW Government to reject this SSD and support a more integrated and community-backed approach to housing growth.

Thank you for considering my submission.

Paul Hitchcock
Roseville Resident

To Whom It May Concern

Re: Objection to SSD-78996460 – Proposed Development at 16–24 Lord Street & 21–27 Roseville Avenue, Roseville

My name is Justin Hitchcock. I’m 27 years old and have lived in Roseville for most of my life.
I’m writing to formally object to the proposed residential development listed above.

Out of Character within the Area

The proposal for four nine-storey apartment buildings is completely out of step with the look and feel of Roseville. This is a quiet, residential area made up almost entirely of single and double-storey homes. I’ve grown up in this neighbourhood, and I know firsthand how important the low-rise, community-focused environment is to the people who live here.
A development of this scale would totally dominate the streetscape and tower over surrounding homes. It would not only affect privacy and sunlight for nearby properties, but also fundamentally change the character of the suburb.

Proper Planning Should Come First

While I understand the need to build more housing in Sydney, it should be done with a long-term view, not by forcing oversized developments into areas that aren’t designed for them.
Ku-ring-gai Council has already put forward a detailed plan that exceeds the state housing targets while still respecting local heritage and infrastructure limits. That plan was created through a proper process, with community involvement. Ignoring it in favour of fast-tracking a massive project like this just doesn’t make sense.

Lack of Community Input

It’s also concerning that so many locals—including my family—have heard nothing directly from Hycorp about this project. There’s been no communication, no consultation, and no effort to involve the people who live here. A development of this size should not be allowed to move ahead without genuine community feedback.

Traffic and Overload on Local Roads

Traffic and parking are already major problems in Roseville, especially during peak hours and around the train station. The new Metro has added pressure to local streets as more people park nearby and walk to the station.
Adding over 300 car spaces through this development is only going to make the situation worse. Not everyone will take the train—many people will still drive to work or elsewhere—and the result will be more congestion and safety concerns for existing residents.

Destruction of Trees:

Finally, the planned removal of 91 established trees is devastating. The green, tree-lined streets are part of what makes Roseville such a great place to live. Bulldozing mature trees for a high-density complex is a huge environmental loss, and completely at odds with the community’s values.
________________________________________
This development proposal is far too large, out of place, and rushed. It goes against the principles of smart, community-focused planning and would have long-term negative impacts on the area I’ve grown up in and still care deeply about.
I respectfully ask that this project be rejected in favour of better alternatives—like the council’s proposed plan—that strike a real balance between growth and preservation.

Sincerely,

Justin Hitchcock
Roseville Resident

To Whom It May Concern

Re: SSD-78996460 – Proposed Residential Development at 16–24 Lord Street & 21–27 Roseville Avenue, Roseville

My name is Joanne Hitchcock, and I have lived in Roseville with my family since 1999.
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed SSD referenced above.

1. Overdevelopment and Height Incompatibility

The proposed construction of four nine-storey apartment buildings—totalling 259 units—is completely at odds with the established low-rise character of Roseville. Our neighbourhood consists almost entirely of single and two-storey homes, and this scale of development would dominate the surrounding landscape, causing visual disruption, privacy intrusion, and excessive overshadowing of nearby properties.
This project does not reflect the built form or the residential nature of the area and would significantly alter the peaceful and suburban atmosphere that residents have long valued.

2. Planning Concerns and Council’s Preferred Pathway

I fully appreciate that Sydney must find ways to accommodate a growing population and that housing supply is a pressing issue. However, this must be done thoughtfully and in coordination with local planning strategies.
Ku-ring-gai Council has already developed a preferred scenario for future housing which not only meets but exceeds the NSW Government’s targets. This plan was shaped through meaningful consultation with the community and is more in keeping with the heritage, infrastructure, and identity of our local area.
It is difficult to understand why a project like this—one that is clearly inconsistent with the council’s broader planning approach—should proceed when a more sensible and sustainable solution is being finalised.

3. Lack of Community Engagement

It is particularly troubling that residents in the immediate area, myself included, have received no direct communication from the developer. There has been no letterboxing, no public consultation sessions, no community surveys, and no attempt at meaningful engagement. A development of this scale should not be allowed to progress without proper consultation with those who will be most affected.

4. Traffic and Infrastructure Pressure

Our local roads are already experiencing high levels of congestion, particularly during school drop-off and pick-up times, and commuter hours. With the introduction of the Metro, parking and traffic have worsened as more people drive to the station from surrounding suburbs.
The proposed development would bring hundreds of new residents and more than 300 additional vehicles to an area already at capacity. This would worsen bottlenecks and compromise road safety, particularly around schools, shops, and intersections near Lord Street.

5. Tree Removal and Environmental Impact

I was deeply disturbed to learn that this proposal includes the removal of 91 trees—many of which are mature and contribute to the leafy, green streetscape that defines Roseville. These trees are not just part of the visual character of the area; they also play a role in biodiversity, air quality, and the well-being of local residents. Their removal would be a significant and irreversible loss.
________________________________________
In conclusion, this development does not respect the scale, context, or values of the Roseville community. It bypasses the more considered and consultative work being done by the Ku-ring-gai Council and would have lasting negative impacts on our environment, infrastructure, and way of life.
I respectfully ask that this proposal be rejected in favour of smarter, community-backed planning solutions.

Yours sincerely,

Joanne Hitchcock
Roseville Resident

Please see attached file.
Many thanks.

Please see my comments in the attached.