Please see my submission attached.

This attachment supersedes my original submission - I have removed personal details from the name of the file attached.

Please see attached.

________________________________________
RE: Formal Objection to the Proposed Residential Development with In-Fill Affordable Housing at 16–24 Lord Street & 21–27 Roseville Avenue, Roseville NSW 2069 (SSD-78996460)
From: Olivia Dainton, 86 Roseville Avenue, Roseville NSW 2069
________________________________________
Denial of Procedural Fairness
As a long-term resident of Roseville, having lived in this community for over 26 years, I am writing to express my strong objection to the proposed development by Hyecorp for a nine-storey, 259-unit residential complex incorporating in-fill affordable housing at the above address.
I reside approximately 600 metres from the proposed site, at the corner of Roseville Avenue and Archbold Road. Roseville has always been a quiet, leafy suburb defined by its heritage character and strong sense of community. This development proposal represents a drastic and inappropriate overreach that undermines the established planning controls, disrespects heritage protections, and disregards the expectations and values of the community.
________________________________________
Scale and Incompatibility with Local Character
The proposed height and bulk of the development are fundamentally inconsistent with the fine-grained residential character of Roseville, particularly on the eastern side of the railway. The building would dominate the streetscape and permanently alter the visual landscape in an unacceptable manner.
The proposal:
• Disregards existing Transport Oriented Development (TOD) planning controls. This development is not in the public interest and is at odds with Council’s preferred planning scenario, which recognises the unique character of East Roseville and seeks to maintain existing zoning except in very limited precincts.
• Proposes the demolition of nine existing homes, many of which contribute to the area’s heritage conservation value.
• Fails to integrate with the existing streetscape, eroding Roseville’s historic identity.
• Presents an imposing, box-like design, ignoring the local topography, established residential context, and heritage character.
• Will cause significant overshadowing, overlooking, and a loss of privacy for surrounding dwellings (as clearly evidenced in the architectural plans, pages 23, 24, 31 & 32).
• Will result in visual clutter, reduce sunlight in public spaces, and degrade pedestrian amenity.
________________________________________
Environmental Destruction
One of the most alarming aspects of this proposal is the planned removal of 91 mature trees, many of which are integral to the Ku-Ring-Gai canopy. This is in direct contradiction to the objectives of the Ku-Ring-Gai Urban Forest Policy and Biodiversity Strategy 2030. Such a loss represents a serious and irreversible environmental degradation.
________________________________________
Infrastructure and Traffic Overload
This scale of development would place unbearable strain on local infrastructure, which is already under pressure from nearby developments on Boundary Road and Victoria Street. Unlike those three-storey developments, this nine-storey complex would severely exacerbate existing issues, including:
• Traffic congestion at critical intersections, especially Pacific Highway / Clanville Road.
• Inadequate local roads and on-street parking, already stressed by commuter traffic from the Northern Beaches and Roseville Ladies College.
• Increased traffic through Martin Lane and other local “rat runs”, compromising safety and accessibility.
• Existing stormwater, sewerage, and public transport systems are insufficient and have not been upgraded to support such high-density development.
________________________________________
Construction Disruptions
The likely impact of construction cannot be overstated—large trucks, cranes, and prolonged works on narrow roads will create severe disruptions, deteriorate already worn road surfaces, and compromise the safety and comfort of residents over a lengthy construction period.
________________________________________
Misuse of the State Significant Development (SSD) Pathway
There appears to be no valid justification for classifying this proposal under the State Significant Development pathway. The project does not provide substantial public benefit nor a meaningful provision of affordable housing. The use of the SSD mechanism in this instance appears to be a strategic attempt to bypass local planning controls, which should not be permitted.
________________________________________
Lack of Genuine Community Engagement
Community consultation has been inadequate and misleading. I only became aware of the proposed development through a flyer found on my driveway on the evening of 18 March. It was not delivered to my letterbox, nor was any official communication received. Upon contacting my neighbour, she too was unaware of the development and had to share the news with other neighbours.
Furthermore, the community drop-in session on 12 March at Lindfield Seniors Centre was poorly advertised and scheduled during typical working hours, effectively excluding many working residents from participating. I also received no notification of any community survey conducted by Hyecorp.
________________________________________
Conclusion
This application fails on every relevant planning, environmental, and community standard:
• It does not comply with height restrictions or existing planning controls.
• It inflicts permanent damage to the unique character and village atmosphere of Roseville.
• It undermines public trust in transparent and equitable planning processes.
• It ignores the infrastructure, environmental, and amenity needs of the current and future community.
For these reasons, I strongly urge the responsible authorities to reject this application in its entirety. The future of Roseville must be guided by thoughtful, inclusive, and sustainable planning—not by opportunistic developments that prioritise profit over community.
Yours sincerely,
Olivia Dainton
86 Roseville Avenue
Roseville NSW 2069

I strongly object to SSD-78996460. Please see attached submission.

Formal Objection – SSD-78996460 (16-24 Lord Street & 21-27 Roseville Avenue, Roseville)

I am writing to formally express my strong OPPOSITION to the State Significant Development Application SSD-78996460, submitted by Hyecorp Property Group, which seeks approval for a 9-storey, 259-unit residential complex at 16–24 Lord Street and 21–27 Roseville Avenue, Roseville. This proposal is highly inappropriate in its current form, bypasses key planning processes, and risks creating lasting negative impacts on the local area.
1. Procedural Concerns - The timing of this application is deeply problematic. It precedes the finalisation of ongoing discussions between Ku-ring-gai Council and the NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure (DPHI) around a more considered and community-informed Transport Oriented Development (TOD) strategy for the region. Council’s preferred approach—developed with local input—aims for sustainable, infrastructure-aligned growth that preserves the character and liveability of Roseville. Advancing this proposal now pre-empts that process and disregards the values and priorities already articulated by local residents.
Submitting this application ahead of the TOD framework's conclusion undermines confidence in public planning processes. It effectively excludes the community from meaningful participation and sidelines Council’s role as a representative body.
2. Inadequate and Misleading Community Engagement - Hyecorp’s claim of fulfilling the SEARs requirement on community engagement (Item 4) and the SSDA’s Social Impact Assessment (SIA) Guidelines is highly questionable. Despite stating that a flyer was distributed to 1300 households to advertise a community drop-in session on 12 March 2025, my household—and many others in the area—did not receive this notification. Consequently, we were unaware of the event and unable to participate in providing feedback.
Furthermore, due to the lack of notification, we were also not informed about the accompanying online community survey on the developer’s website. Had our household been appropriately notified, we would have participated in both the session and the survey.
The data reported by Hyecorp clearly reflects the ineffectiveness of their engagement efforts: only five people attended the community session, and a mere 34 survey responses were collected. Notably, at least two of those attendees were not independent community members but were affiliated with the project as either a property owner within the development site or a professional consultant. This hardly represents a genuine or diverse sample of community opinion.
3. Local Infrastructure and Traffic Impacts - A development of this scale will dramatically strain existing infrastructure and worsen traffic congestion in Roseville:
• Access routes to Archbold Road from Tryon Road and Bancroft Avenue are already beyond capacity, particularly during peak school hours near Roseville College and Roseville Public School.
• The intersection of Pacific Highway and Clanville Road—currently the only exit from Eastside Roseville onto the highway—is a recognised traffic blackspot, with long delays and a concerning accident history, including a recent fatality.
• The alternative route via Hill Street and Boundary Street is similarly problematic. A lack of a right turn onto Boundary Street and heavy school-related traffic further diminishes its feasibility as a major outlet.
Hyecorp’s Traffic Impact Assessment fails to address these genuine concerns. It leans on outdated data, including a 2012 bicycle infrastructure plan that was never implemented, and 2016 Census figures that do not accurately reflect current travel patterns.
Using updated figures from the 2021 Census and Hyecorp’s own estimates, it is reasonable to expect that peak-hour vehicle activity could involve up to 233 car movements. Furthermore, while Hyecorp proposes 309 residential parking spaces, data indicates the likely demand will exceed 417 vehicles—leaving an estimated 108 cars to compete for already scarce on-street parking near the station. The resulting impact on the local community would be highly disruptive.
In conclusion, this proposed development disregards proper planning timelines, fails to deliver on its obligations for community consultation, and threatens to overload traffic and infrastructure systems that are already under pressure.
For these reasons, I respectfully urge the Department of Planning to reject SSD-78996460 and instead prioritise a collaborative, consultative planning approach, as embodied in Ku-ring-gai Council’s Preferred Scenario.
Sincerely,