Due to the location of the Hyecorp development it is in a part of the exclusion zone of the metro tunnel.
If it is approved it will always be a stand alone 9 storey building at the end of Roseville Ave and Lord St to Martin Lane as the houses west of it ,between it and the station ,are part of the exclusion zone and cannot (even according to Hyecorps own submission) be developed. This makes a mockery of the diagrams from them showing it being one of a series of residential 6-9 storey buildings between it and the station.
This will look like a mini Blues Point tower equivalent in a suburb where if the State Govt accepts the council scenario everything around it will be R2 residential, especially on those properties that are in the exclusion zone.

Please see attached document

Dear Sir/Madam,
I am writing to formally object to the proposed development on the following grounds:
1. Concerns About the Pace and Impact of the Development
While I support balanced and thoughtful development, this proposal appears rushed and inappropriate, especially given the long-term environmental and social consequences it may have for future generations. In particular, the plan to demolish numerous houses with heritage features and remove many trees within a designated Heritage Conservation Area—an area that has existed for about a century—is deeply concerning. Decisions of this magnitude should be made with due care and respect for heritage and the environment. Furthermore, the Council is still working on the preferred scenario for an improved development plan. Such rapid development is more characteristic of countries still building their regulatory frameworks, not of Australia, where due and fair process and sustainable planning should prevail.
2. Lack of Genuine Community Engagement
The developer's application appears to have bypassed thorough and meaningful community consultation. Despite public claims to the contrary, the process did not reflect the level of transparency and engagement expected. For example, our household had no knowledge of the community drop-in session at Lindfield Seniors Centre/Community Hall on 12 March 2025. This raises concerns about how widely and effectively the consultation process was communicated.
3. Insufficient Consideration of Infrastructure Capacity
The proposed development does not adequately address the capacity of existing infrastructure, including drainage, stormwater management, water pressure, sewerage, power supply, and roads. Existing to Pacific Hwy and Boundary Street during peak hours is already difficult. In addition, our property already experiences subfloor flooding, and the council’s drainage system becomes overwhelmed during the rainy season. Introducing further development without resolving these issues will only exacerbate the problem for current and future residents.
4. Availability of a Better Alternative
The Council’s Preferred Scenario offers a more balanced and considered approach to development. It is essential to ask: if we can do better, why don’t we? There is no need to compromise so much our heritage, our environment, and the well-being of future generations when more suitable alternatives are available.
Thank you for your consideration.

To NSW Government Major Projects team
Re: Proposed residential development at 16-24 Lord Street & 21-27 Roseville Avenue, Roseville (SSD-78996460)
I have lived a street away from this proposed apartment complex for over 10 years. I object to a 9 storey, 267 unit complex being built in this location as it will stick out like a sore thumb in what is a uniformly low rise house & garden neighbourhood, famous for its heritage character. The huge scale of this development will also badly exacerbate parking issues near the station (which people living out of the area rely on) as well as the traffic in peak periods where we find it almost impossible to exit east side Roseville due to severe restrictions on where we can access the Pacific Highway, Boundary Street or Archbold Road. It will be a devastating blow to the tree canopy and wildlife that inhabit the 91 trees that are to be destroyed. I understand Council has a plan that will result in a significant increase in housing supply but in a more planned and considered way that will preserve the special characteristics of this area. I don't understand why our neighbourhood has to be destroyed forever when there are more appropriate locations on the table.
Please consider this obection, thank you
Alex

All my objections are in the attached submission.

I have been a proud resident of Roseville for the past 11 years, and I am writing to formally object to the proposed 9-storey residential development in our community. The height and scale of the project are completely out of character with the surrounding area and would set a concerning precedent for future developments. I am particularly worried about the increased traffic congestion such a large development would bring to our already strained local roads, as well as the lengthy construction period, which would cause significant disruption to daily life. Additionally, the development poses a serious threat to the heritage and unique charm of Roseville, which is one of the key reasons I chose to raise my family here. This proposal should not be approved in light of its lasting impact on our community’s character, infrastructure, and livability.



Residential Development with in-fill affordable housing,16-24 Lord Street and 21-27 Roseville Avenue Roseville

I am providing feedback regarding the HyeCorp development under the State Significant Development Application SSD-78996469.

There are a number of issues regarding the size of the development in this heritage location.

The development is very close to the station, hence its appeal, but the local streets will not cope with a development of this size with garaging. There is already a lot of traffic on these streets during peak times with passengers being picked up from the station and commuters with their cars parked in the local streets.

There are also a lot of cars using the local streets as a rat run avoiding highway traffic during peak hours both am and pm.

The streets on weekdays surrounding the station have always been parked out with commutrers since we moved here in 2004. Since the Metro opened last year there are many more commuters parking and using the station to gain access to the Metro as Roseville Station is one stop away.

It is often difficult to even get in or out of the driveway, with traffic flow and parking making visibility poor. Since we have purchased the property we have backed into the drive as it is too dangerous to back out with lack of visibility, but with the Metro the situation has become a weekday grind. Twice in the last fortnight we have had a commuter block our driveway completely, no car in or out for an extended period.

With previous changes to right hand turns onto Boundary and there being only a single left hand turn lane onto Boundary at Hill Street the traffic along Hill Street and over the single lane each way Clanville bridge to the lights on the Pacific Highway often stretches back for blocks during morning peak hour. This is also impacted by parents dropping children to Roseville College which is situated in Bancroft Avenue one block south of the proposed development, parking in the area is also impacted by the College. There is also a before and after school care run in the church near the corner of Martin Lane and Lord Street which adds to traffic congestion in both am and pm peak times, often when parking is at a premium.

There is an issue with the Metro exclusion corridor which due to restrictions on surrounding homes will mean that the streetscape will be adversely impacted with single story dwellings abutting this 9 story development. These properties have not been picked up by the developer due to these restrictions and will be presumably of no interest to developers in the future.

At no time were we consulted by HyeCorp regarding the development and the impact on the local amenity. I feel that their experts’ assessment of a number of the properties to be demolished to make way for the development are for some self serving.

The alternative proposals being worked through by Ku Ring Gai Council provide outcome that meets the requirements of the State Government’s target housing. The NSW Government has emphasized collaboration with councils to ensure place-based outcomes are achieved. I feel that these assurances given by the state government should be honored ( I do realize that the council have been slow to act), but at the same time I feel that HyeCorp has rushed through the application hoping to get a foot in the door without community consultation.

Thank you for taking the time to read my feedback,

Kind regards,






Sent from my iPad

I am in the same area as the development and in the 400m distance to the station. I am all for development for Sydney and the area but wish it could be planned in a sensible and equitable way.
Now we are in a situation where the Hyecorp development can be approved as a SSD under TOD Sepp, yet after 13 June no other developments under the same conditions can be, and if the council scenario is accepted then very restricted development areas in the HCA area near the station.
This leads to a situation where you will have a 6-9 storey building at the extreme end of the 400m with only R2 houses around it and between it and 6-9 storey buildings at the shops. How is that good urban planning?
In this area there were numerous properties and groups that were for either for sale or talking to developers until the uncertainty that came from the council legal action and NSW State Government policy of TOD Sepp. Now with the council scenario expected to be accepted by the NSW government, by approving this SSD you will isolate and now restrict those same owners and groups that were accepting of the need for development.
I am against the development if it means an isolated 6-9 storey building surrounded by R2 zoning that is closer to the station than this SSD with no possibility of development in an HCA and the council scenario.