Dear Ms Tranquille,
Please find attached Eastside Roseville Action Group Inc's submission and supporting documents in relation to SSD-78996460, Residential development with in-fill affordable housing, 16-24 Lord Street & 21-27 Roseville Ave, Roseville:
1. Eastside Roseville Action Group Inc letter & submission
2. Storey & Gough letter
3. Planning Report, SJB Planning with attachments as follows:
a. Heritage Report, Lisa Trueman, Heritage Advisor
b. Survey Report, Mitch Ayres Surveying
c. Community Engagement Report, Margaret Harvie, PlanCom
Yours sincerely,
Natasha Sherwood
Chairperson
Eastside Roseville Action Group Inc

Whilst I am not against development in the proposed 400 meters from the station, I believe that this proposal is too large for the area and do not think that adequate research has been given to traffic, Martin Lane, entry to Hill and Boundary Street as well as parking considerations.

I would like to object to this project.
Traffic congestion
Roseville is bound on three sides by RTA managed roads and junctions. The Hyecorp application references traffic data from 2016. Since that time there have been many changes to our roads as to how we can exit and re enter our suburb. While we understand that the RTA needs to keep the major arterial roads moving the result for us is less traffic light intervals when we can exit Roseville and therefore we already have major back ups in the suburb on weekdays and also on weekends. The congestion pictured below is a regular occurrence.

We need innovative solutions to getting people to and from the station – since the Sydney metro opened and Roseville’s ready access to the metro at Chatswood our all day parking on the avenues has increased and most days extends to 500 m up both sides of Bancroft Avenue, Lord Street, Roseville Avenue and Oliver Road.
Having lived in London and Zurich where there are many measures to deter motorists, reduce car ownership, increase use of public transport and ebikes I think we need to be more innovative in our approach to increasing accommodation density in Roseville. Adding more people with vehicles is certainly not going to help.
I object to the Hyecorp development as it offers no transport related innovation or focus on sustainability – lots of private car parking spaces, a very small number of car share spaces etc or consideration of the high level of existing congestion that is a feature of Roseville streets today. Martin Lane which bounds the eastern side of the block is one of the narrowest streets in Roseville and this is the street via which all cars if this development is approved would enter and leave the property. Martin lane is almost always one way due to to all day commuter parking.
I am calling upon the State Government and planning authority to do better and think about the long term practical and environmental implications of approving large developments in areas already struggling with congestion on its roads.

I object to this project on two grounds.
1: Excessive height. The allowance is 28.6 m (includes the 30% affordable housing bonus). All 4 towers exceed that limit by between 5.6% and 8.7%. The development has asked for extra height in order to have 9 levels. Removing the extra floor would take 3.3 m off the height. 28.6 m should be considered the absolute maximum, and it is only reasonably possible to achieve 8 storeys in that window.
2: Heritage. This area is part of a conservation area. The plans make the assumption that similar RFBs will be built in this area. However, Kuringgai Council is about to approve a new LEP, which still will provide the same level of housing as TOD, and the new LEP maintains this area is 9.5 m R2. THis new development would be compeltely out of character.
Thank you

To the NSW Department of Planning,

I wish to register my strong objection to the proposed State Significant Development at 21–27 Roseville Avenue and 16–24 Oliver Road in Roseville.

This proposal represents a drastic and ill-conceived departure from responsible planning. It sets aside the considered work of Ku-ring-gai Council, circumvents genuine community consultation, and imposes a scale and intensity of development wholly out of step with the local context.

Process and Planning Integrity
It is unacceptable that this project proceeds under the guise of State Significance, stripping away the oversight of our local council and disempowering the very community it affects. The fact that a Mediation Agreement exists between Ku-ring-gai Council and the State of NSW makes this attempt to sideline Council even more egregious. If agreements and consultation processes can be so easily overridden, what confidence can the public place in future planning processes?

Infrastructure and Community Strain
The proposed density far exceeds what local infrastructure can reasonably support. There has been no transparent evidence of how our ageing sewer, stormwater, electrical, or transport systems will cope with a nine-storey development in a low-rise area. Roseville’s roads - already narrow and heavily congested during peak periods - will be choked with construction vehicles, trade parking, and eventually hundreds of additional cars.

This development fails to demonstrate how it will avoid overburdening essential services, from water pressure and waste management to emergency access and parking availability.

Construction Impact and Amenity Loss
If approved, this project will subject local residents to a minimum of two years of heavy construction - cranes, excavation, noise, dust, and disruption. For those living on neighbouring streets, this is not a temporary inconvenience; it is a prolonged degradation of quality of life, with risks to health, safety, and access. No clear plan has been provided to manage or mitigate these construction impacts on a tightly bound residential area.

Environmental Recklessness
The proposed removal of 91 trees is not only environmentally irresponsible—it is reckless. The site sits within a critical corridor of tree canopy that forms part of Greater Sydney’s ecological lungs. Destroying this canopy will accelerate urban heat, diminish local biodiversity, and directly harm wildlife already under pressure from habitat loss. That this proposal risks damage to two Critically Endangered Ecological Communities - without rigorous environmental assessment - is appalling.

Visual Scale and Incompatibility
Four towers rising up to 9 storeys will loom over single-storey homes, churches, and schools, severing the scale and visual harmony of the area. This is not a natural evolution of the suburb; it is an abrupt imposition, with severe and lasting consequences on privacy, solar access, and neighbourhood character.

Conclusion
This development offers no benefit to existing residents. It disrespects our planning system, our local environment, and the values we hold as a community. I call on the Department to reject the proposal in its entirety and reaffirm the principle that growth should serve - not overpower - the communities it enters.

Sincerely,
Resident, Lindfield NSW

Please refer to attached submission