ROSEVILLE Heritage in Peril Walk

On Saturday 26 April 2025 FOKE led a walk around Roseville highlighting ‘Roseville Heritage in Peril’.

Duration: 9.45am – 12.15pm, 1.5-2 hours, covering ~2.5 km
Moderate; some gentle slopes
Wear comfortable shoes
Water bubblers at Roseville Railway Station and Roseville Scout Hall

Introduction
Welcome to the ‘Roseville Heritage in Peril’ walk, hosted by Friends of Ku-ring-gai Environment (FOKE) celebrating the Australian Heritage Festival 2025.

Thank you for coming
Thank you to the over 50 attendees, from Ku-ring-gai and across Sydney, who showed their interest, curiosity and concern about Roseville’s heritage and their awareness that what is allowed to happen in Roseville will have consequences for every suburb across Greater Sydney.

Introductory Questions
How many live in Roseville?
How many live in Ku-ring-gai?
How many live in another local government area?
How many are members of the National Trust (NSW)?

Itinerary
Roseville Railway Station, Pacific Highway, Maclaurin, Larkin, Pockley, Hill, Lord, Roseville, Trafalgar, Oliver, The Grove, Clanville and Hill roads/streets/avenues

PLEASE
take photos of the tour and email them to info@foke.org.au
let us know if you DO NOT WISH TO BE IN A PHOTO
try and stay together on the walk

INTRODUCE FOKE
Who is a member of FOKE?
Who is for the first time attended a FOKE event?

Friends of Ku-ring-gai Environment (FOKE) is a dedicated community voluntary organization advocating for the preservation of Ku-ring-gai’s unique heritage and environment. Founded to protect the Ku-ring-gai’s architecture – know to contain some of the best domestic 20^th Century architecture in the nation, FOKE has been a leading voice against overdevelopment since it was formed in 1994. Today, FOKE actively campaigns for stronger heritage and environmental sustainability protections.

Acknowledge and thank you to the FOKE Committee Members in attendance.

PLEASE: During this ‘Roseville Heritage in Peril’ think about a letter you could write to:
Chris Minns NSW Premier office@premier.nsw.gov.au
Paul Scully NSW Planning Minister Paul Scully: https://www.nsw.gov.au/nsw-government/ministers/minister-for-planning-and-public-spaces
Mark Speakman NSW Leader of Opposition: Liberal.Leader@parliament.nsw.gov.au
Scott Farlow Shadow NSW Planning Minister scott.farlow@parliament.nsw.gov.au
Matt Cross, MP for Davidson (Roseville, Lindfield, Killara & Gordon) davidson@parliament.nsw.gov.au
Alister Henskens MP for Davidson wahroonga@parliament.nsw.gov.au
Cr Sam Ngai (Roseville Ward) Councillor Telephone 0436 655 543 Email sngai@krg.nsw.gov.au
Cr Alec Taylor (Roseville Ward) Councillor Telephone 0459 907 375 Email ataylor@krg.nsw.gov.au
Ku-ring-gai Councillors councillors@krg.nsw.gov.au
Ku-ring-gai Council: krg@krg.nsw.gov.au
Eastside Roseville Action Group Inc Email: saveourneighbourhood1@gmail.com
Save Greater Sydney Coalition Email savegreatersydneycoalition2@gmail.com
National Trust (NSW) Board of Directors info@nationaltrust.com.au

Dear …………………………….

On Saturday 27 April, 2025 I attended the Australian Heritage Festival ‘Lindfield Heritage in Peril Walk’ organised by Friends of Ku-ring-gai Environment (FOKE).

During this walk I was distressed to learn …………………………………, amazed to discover ……………………………. and very concerned about ……………………………………

I respectfully ask that you ……………………………………….

Yours sincerely
……………………………………….

PLEASE:
Send your photos of this walk to Friends of Ku-ring-gai Environment (FOKE) info@foke.org.au
Send copies or your letters to FOKE info@foke.org.au
Sign onto receiving FOKE Newsletters HERE
If you wish to sign onto Save Greater Sydney Coalition email savegreatersydneycoalition2@gmail.com

Acknowledgement of Country
Friends of Ku-ring-gai Environment (FOKE) acknowledges the Gammeragal people as the traditional custodians of the land on which Roseville stands, paying respect to Elders past, present, and emerging.

For tens of thousands of years, the Gammeragal have nurtured this Country, traversing its tracks and ridgelines to connect communities and sustain cultural practices. We express deep regret for the profound loss and disruption the Gammeragal people experienced when timber cutters cleared their forests, altered the fire regime, and took this land for farming, disregarding their deep spiritual and cultural connection to Country.

Unlike modern economic notions of ownership, the Gammeragal lived in harmony with the land, without attachment to possession.

We are grateful that the forests and trees have regrown, fostering a strong affinity for this place among many who now live in Ku-ring-gai. We honor the Gammeragal ‘s enduring legacy, reflected in the ancient pathways that underpin Roseville’s roads and railways, including those along the North Shore line – a railway line of outstanding scenic beauty. We commit to respecting their ongoing connection to this land, its tall Blue Gum High & Sydney Turpentine Ironbark forests, waterways and wildlife.

Roseville Heritage in Peril Itinerary
Stop 1: Roseville Railway Station

Roseville Station Group, (Hill Street), Heritage listed
89 Pacific Highway, Former station master’s residence, Heritage listed
83 Pacific Highway, Former Commonwealth Bank building, Heritage listed, and is significant because it represents a good example of the Art Deco style.

Historical Context: Roseville Railway Station, opened in 1890, is a cornerstone of the suburb’s urban development. The station’s Federation-style architecture, with its red-brick facade and tiled roof, reflects the era’s aesthetic. The station was built after the demolition of Rose Villa, a stone cottage owned by Richard Archbold’s son-in-law, from which Roseville derives its name.

Heritage Significance: The station is part of the North Shore railway line, an environmentally sensitive corridor and heritage corridor. Its proximity to art deco buildings, like the former Commonwealth Bank, enhances its historical value.

Heritage in Peril: The Ku-ring-gai Preferred Scenario (3b refined), endorsed for exhibition at the Extraordinary Council Meeting on 31 March 2025, targets 3,353 dwellings (24,562 dwellings across the four TOD precincts Lindfield, Gordon, Roseville, Killara), to meet the NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure’s (DPHI) minimum of 23,054 dwellings. Building heights reach up to 8 storeys within 800m of stations like Roseville. While 80% of HCAs are protected, some heritage items may face “development uplift” to integrate them into master-planned sites, potentially compromising their integrity. Council has requested that the DPHI not “save” current SSD proposals, as they are inconsistent with the Preferred Scenario and could lead to out-of-scale developments. A moratorium on new SSD applications is also sought, but no response has been received. These pressures threaten Roseville’s low-density, heritage-listed streetscapes.

Ku-ring-gai’s Green Corridors:

Approach to centres

Stop 2: Roseville RSL, Pacific Highway

Roseville RSL Club before demolition in 2024

Historical Context:
The Pacific Highway is home to the recently demolished Roseville Memorial RSL Club at 64-66 Pacific Highway.

Heritage Significance:
The RSL Club, established in 1946, was a post-WWII community hub until its recent demolition in 2023 for the “Juliet” mixed-use development, approved on 12 December 2023 (DA0049/23), which includes a ground-floor club and seven storeys of 37 apartments, designed by PBD Architects and developed by Hyecorp Property Group in partnership with the RSL Club.

Heritage Significance:
The RSL site, while no longer standing, was significant for its role in commemorating veterans and fostering community. The “Juliet” development retains some heritage sensitivity by stepping down in height to respect adjacent low-scale areas and the heritage-listed “Killiecrankie” at 1 Maclaurin Parade.

The “Juliet” project, while approved, highlights the Preferred Scenario’s allowance for “development uplift” of heritage items, risking their isolation or integration into larger sites.

RSL Conservation Plan appendix-3-heritage-impact-statement-amended-part-62-64-6-pacific-highway-roseville (1)Download

Stop 3: Roseville War Memorial, 112-116 Pacific Highway

A bronze plaque set on a sandstone rock over a single sandstone step. The monument is flanked on each side by a flagpole and smaller sandstone rock.
There are approx. 7 memorials / plaques in the park with the majority being adjacent to the northern pathway / RSL property boundary and the sandstone monument, bronze plaque and flagpoles are identified on the NSW Register of War Memorials.

Stop 4: Maclaurin Avenue

1 Maclaurin Parade, “Killiecrankie”, Heritage listed
The heritage item is a two-storey blond brick house constructed in the Nautical Moderne style, a late type of Art Deco architecture that emerged in the 1930s. Its architectural style emphasized curving forms, long horizontal lines, and sometimes nautical element.
The house is largely physically intact with some later additions at the rear including a twostorey brick garage with entry from Larkin Lane. Many original features have been retained including brickwork, window framing, glass block double height window in the stairwell, roofing, guttering and the sandstone street wall and flagstone paving and the metal entry gate from McLaurin Parade.

Historical Context: Named after a prominent local family, Maclaurin Avenue features Federation and Californian bungalow homes from the 1890s to 1930s, characterized by gabled roofs, leadlight windows, and lush gardens. These homes reflect Roseville’s early suburban expansion.

Heritage Significance: The street is part of Roseville’s potential Heritage Conservation Area, valued for its cohesive architectural style and historical integrity.

Heritage in Peril: Subdivision and redevelopment pressures, exacerbated by the Preferred Scenario’s target of 3,353 dwellings in Roseville, threaten to replace these homes with modern apartments, eroding the street’s character. The documentary State of Siege (2011), directed by local resident filmmaker Denis Grosvenor and now archived, vividly captures the overdevelopment in Ku-ring-gai, highlighting how areas like Maclaurin Avenue, identified as environmentally sensitive due to their lush greenery and biodiversity, faced demolition threats. Grosvenor’s film underscores the lack of democratic community input, a concern still relevant with the current TOD proposals.

Additionally, as part of Council’s assessment of transport impacts in the Roseville precinct, discussions with Transport for NSW (TfNSW) are underway to improve the Pacific Highway and Maclaurin Parade intersections. To enhance connectivity for West Roseville and reduce demand at this intersection, a new access road between Pockley Avenue and Shirley Road is being considered, which could further disrupt the area’s heritage and environmental character.

The Preferred Scenario is, on balance, not favorable for West Roseville, increasing pressures on streets like Maclaurin Avenue.

Stop 5: Larkin Street

Historical Context: Larkin Street, likely named after an early settler or official, showcases inter-war bungalows with tiled roofs and brick facades, typical of the 1920s-1930s. The street’s leafy canopy adds to its charm.

Heritage Significance: Its uniform architectural style contributes to Roseville’s heritage narrative, reflecting post-WWI suburban growth.

Heritage in Peril: The street’s low-density housing is at risk from the Preferred Scenario’s density targets, with Roseville’s 3,353 dwellings, further intensify these pressures, with a proposed 7-storey development over RSL Park on Larkin Street threatening the area’s character. Council, a significant landowner in the Larkin Street carpark, faces additional pressure from SSD proposals nearby, amplifying development risks.

State Significant Development (SSD) on by Aqualand Prestige at 2-4 Larkin Street and 1-5 Pockley Avenue Roseville

Stop 6: Pockley Avenue

Historical Context: Pockley Avenue features modest 1940s-1950s homes, reflecting post-WWII development. While less ornate than Federation homes, these houses represent Roseville’s mid-20th-century growth and are part of its evolving heritage.
Heritage in Peril: Small streets like Pockley have been included in the Preferred Scenario’s high-density goals for Roseville’s 3,353 dwellings. Pockley Avenue is located near environmentally sensitive areas that contain remnant rainforest and Blue Gum High Forest (BGHF), will also increase traffic gridlock and egress onto the Pacific Highway.

Pockley Avenue’s steep terrain and bushfire risks, highlighted by Ku-ring-gai Council’s Sim Table based on 12 houses destroyed in a past bushfire, underscore the area’s vulnerability. Despite Council’s planning principles that aim to avoid high-density development in such environmentally sensitive areas it has included Pockley Avenue for more intense development.

‘Bad for the whole of NSW’: Inside the north shore’s NIMBY crusade (The north shore’s NIMBY soldiers), by Michael Koziol, June 23, 2024:

Cashing in

While councillors insist Ku-ring-gai voters are against the state government’s housing reforms, there are some on the north shore who disagree: the home owners who stand to make a killing.

. . . . has lived in her Roseville home for 18 years, and calls it as the classic renovator’s dream. She and two neighbours are now looking at selling to a developer. Early offers have arrived, but any settlement would be long-term. If market conditions change, or the TODs get ripped up, or the council blocks the DA, any deal could fall through.

Read article HERE

State Significant Development:

2-4 Larkin Street and 1-5 Pockley Avenue, Roseville
2,4,6,8,10,12,14, & 16 Pockley Avenue, Roseville

Directions: Walk along Council carpark/ Larkin Lane to Roseville Cinema

Stop 7: Roseville Cinemas, 112 Pacific Highway, Heritage Listed

SPECIAL GUEST: Emma Addario, Director, Roseville Cinemas

Historical Context:
The Pacific Highway is home to the historic Roseville Cinema at 112 Pacific Highway. The cinema, originally a town hall and community centre built by Ku-ring-gai Council in the early 1900s, served as a venue for dances and meetings. It has also been a Congregational church and a preparatory school. Its transformation into a cinema began when it became Traynor’s Picture Palace in 1919. It was transformed into a full-scale cinema in 1936 under the ownership of DB O’Connor, with an art deco facade. In 1974 it was transformed into a top-rate suburban cinema under the ownership of Hans van Pinxteren. It was renovated in 1995 to include twin screens, and remains an independent, family-owned venue.

Roseville Cinema has had an interesting and varied history: originally a hall and community centre,
it has been both a Congregational church and a preparatory school. Its transformation into a
cinema began when it became Traynor’s Picture Palace in 1919, a full-scale cinema in 1936 under
the ownership of DB O’Connor, and in 1974 a top-rate suburban cinema under the ownership of
Hans van Pinxteren. It was renovated and extended to accommodate two screens in 1995.

Heritage Significance: The Roseville Cinema is a rare surviving suburban independent cinema, its art deco facade a hallmark of 1930s architecture and its evolution from town hall to cultural landmark.

Heritage in Peril: The cinema faces pressures from the Preferred Scenario’s high-density targets, with Roseville’s 3,353 dwellings contributing to buildings up to 8 storeys , which could overshadow its heritage value.

Stop 8: Roseville Railway Station & Hill Street

Roseville Railway Station – with increase in population, pressure will be put on train system, overcrowded trains and commuter and residential parking.
Hill Street, near Roseville Railway Station has plaque that explains Roseville Railway Station’s heritage gardens
1 Hill Street, “Beresford”, Heritage listed

Stop 9: Lord Street

2 Lord Street, Ku-ring-gai Council carpark
7A Lord Street, Roseville Uniting Church, originally the Methodist Church opened in 1907
16-24 Lord Street, STATE SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT
19 Lord Stret, Heritage listed
28 Lord Street, St Luke’s Church Hall, Heritage listed

Historical Context: Lord Street has two churches – Roseville Uniting Church and St Luke’s Presbyterian Church, both significant community centres. The street features Federation and inter-war homes, contributing to its historic charm.

Heritage Significance: The churches and homes reflect Roseville’s strong religious connections and residential heritage, with lush gardens enhancing the streetscape. The Lord Street/Bancroft Avenue Conservation Area (C36) is a key heritage precinct, encompassing many of these heritage properties.

Heritage in Peril: The C36 Lord Street/Bancroft Avenue Conservation Area is included in the TOD zone, affecting most of the HCA except for 37 Lord Street, omitted due to anomalies in the 400m radius used to define the TOD boundary, and 10 heritage items isolated by the TOD. Due to its high concentration of heritage items, C36 is deemed largely unsuitable for development. However, the Preferred Scenario (3b refined) protects C36 in its entirety, aligning with Principle 2 (Minimize impacts on Heritage Items), Principle 3 (Preserve Heritage Conservation Areas), and Principle 5 (Manage transition impacts).

A significant threat is the SSD proposal at 16-24 Lord Street and 21-27 Roseville Avenue, covering 9 lots and 9,400 sqm, targeting 267 dwellings with a 10-storey building (including a 30% affordable housing bonus). This proposal, led by Hyecorp, conflicts with the Preferred Scenario’s heritage protections. Council, a significant landowner in the Lord Street carpark, has urged the DPHI to reject such SSDs and impose a moratorium, but delays in adopting and gazetting the Preferred Scenario by May 2025 could allow the Hyecorp application to advance, undermining C36’s integrity. Friends of East Roseville argue that Roseville is in a race against time to ensure the Preferred Scenario is adopted, submitted, and gazetted to protect this HCA.

Read article HERE

Stop10: Roseville Scout Hall, Roseville Avenue

SPECIAL GUEST: EASTSIDE ROSEVILLE ACTION GROUP INC who represents 190 + local residents, opposing the Hyecorp Development in Roseville Ave/Lord St Roseville, as it will be a ‘non-compliant development’ when Ku-ring-gai Council’s adopts its Preferred Scenario.

Email: saveourneighbourhood1@gmail.com

Stop 11: Roseville Avenue

10 Roseville Avenue, Heritage listed
12 Roseville Avenue,“Lawarra”,Heritage listed
16 Roseville Avenue, Heritage listed
22 Roseville Avenue, Heritage listed
29 Roseville Avenue, Roseville Scout Group Hall, Heritage listed
31 Roseville Avenue, Heritage listed
32 Roseville Avenue, Heritage listed
40 Roseville Avenue, Heritage listed
45 Roseville Avenue, Heritage listed
47 Roseville Avenue, Heritage listed

Historical Context: Named after the suburb’s origins (Rose Villa), Roseville Avenue features grand Federation homes with intricate detailing, built in the early 1900s.

Heritage Significance: The street is a showcase of Roseville’s architectural splendour.

Heritage in Peril: Large lots are prime targets for redevelopment, risking loss of heritage homes, with the Preferred Scenario’s target of 3,353 dwellings for Roseville heightening this risk. The nearby SSD proposal at 21-27 Roseville Avenue further threatens Roseville’s heritage integrity.

Photos from The Age article by Megan Gorrey, 26 March 2025 HERE

Stop 12: Trafalgar Avenue

Historical Context: Trafalgar Avenue, likely named after the famous battle, features Californian bungalows and Federation homes, with wide verges and mature trees.

Heritage Significance: Its cohesive streetscape is emblematic of Roseville’s heritage charm.

Heritage in Peril: New housing provisions could allow multi-storey units, altering the street’s character, with the Preferred Scenario’s high-density plans for Roseville’s 3,353 dwellings increasing these pressures.

Stop 12: Oliver Road

9 Oliver Road, Heritage listed
16-24 Oliver Road, STATE SIGNFICANT DEVELOPMENT
35 Oliver Road, Heritage listed
37 Oliver Road, Heritage listed

Historical Context: Oliver Road, possibly named after a local family, features inter-war and post-war homes, reflecting Roseville’s growth in the 1930s-1950s.

Heritage Significance: The street contributes to the suburb’s diverse architectural timeline.

Heritage in Peril: Smaller lots are vulnerable to infill development, with the Preferred Scenario’s target of 3,353 dwellings for Roseville exacerbating this risk.

Properties at nos. 2, 4, 6, 8, and 10 Oliver are zoned for mixed-use or high-density residential under the Preferred Scenario, threatening the C35 HCA’s integrity.

State Significant Development 16-24 Oliver Road Roseville

Stop 14: The Grove

Historical Context: The Grove is a small, exclusive street with Federation and inter-war homes, known for its secluded, leafy setting, forming part of the C35 The Grove Conservation Area.

Heritage Significance: Its intact streetscape and gardens are a microcosm of Roseville’s heritage, with properties at nos. 2-16 The Grove representing the core of C35’s heritage value.

Heritage in Peril: The C35 The Grove Conservation Area is included in both the TOD and the Preferred Scenario (partially, covering 11 properties). The TOD affects all properties within the block defined by Clanville Road, The Grove, Oliver Road, and Hill Street, part of C35, creating an opportunity to extend the Hill Street commercial precinct with additional retail and commercial uses to support future population growth. In the Preferred Scenario, properties on the southwestern edge.

Stop 15: Clanville Road

1-3 Clanville Road, zoned for mixed-use
5, 7, 9 Clanville are designated for high-density residential.
10 Clanville Road, “Gooyong”, Heritage listed
14 Clanville Road, “Luton”, Heritage listed
31 Clanville Road, Heritage listed
81 Clanville Road, “Bryn-Mawr”, Heritage listed

1 and 3 Clanville, nos. 2 and 4 Oliver, 75 Hill Street) are zoned for mixed-use, while those to the rear (nos. 5, 7, 9 Clanville, nos. 6, 8, 10 Oliver) are designated for high-density residential. Only properties fronting The Grove (nos. 2-16) are retained as part of C35, aligning with Principle 7 (Support Local Centre Revitalisation) and contributing to Roseville’s 3,353 dwelling targets. This partial retention compromises C35’s cohesive heritage, as mixed-use zoning along Hill Street prioritises commercial activation over heritage preservation.

Historical Context: Named after Daniel Dering Mathew’s 1819 Clanville Estate, this street is tied to Roseville’s earliest European settlement. Eden Herschel Babbage, the “Father of Roseville,” lived at “Rawhiti” here, contributing to local parks and development. Properties like nos. 1, 3, 5, 7, and 9 Clanville are part of the C35 HCA, facing development pressures.

Heritage Significance: The street’s Federation homes and historical ties to pioneers like Mathew and Babbage make it a heritage gem, integral to Roseville’s identity.

Heritage in Peril: Clanville Road faces severe development pressures from the Preferred Scenario (3b refined), updated April 4, 2025, which targets 24,562 dwellings across the four TOD precincts, with Roseville allocated 3,353 dwellings within 800m of the station, featuring building heights of 3-28 storeys and FSRs of 0.85:1 to 8.0:1. Endorsed for exhibition on March 31, 2025, following community feedback, the scenario protects only 80% of HCAs, leaving areas like C35 vulnerable. The 21-day consultation period, ending April 22, 2025, reflects Ku-ring-gai Council Vs NSW Planning Minister’s mediation agreement’s tight May 2025 deadline for submission to the NSW Government, limiting major revisions despite community concerns.

The mixed-use/high-density zoning of nos. 1, 3, 5, 7, and 9 Clanville, combined with the “development uplift” allowance for isolated heritage items, threatens the street’s historical integrity.

The May 2025 deadline for the Preferred Scenario’s submission adds urgency to protecting C35’s remaining heritage.

Stop 15: Hill Street

65 Hill Street, former Bank of NSW (Westpac), Heritage listed. In 1929, the Bank of New South Wales opened for business at an agency in Hill Street until the construction of new premises in 1937
63a Roseville Post Office (opened in 1925). Please send a letter to an MP

Conclusion

Thank you for joining the ‘Roseville Heritage in Peril’ walk. Roseville’s heritage—its Federation homes, leafy streets, and historic landmarks like the railway station, Roseville Cinema, and former RSL site—defines its unique character. However, the Ku-ring-gai Preferred Scenario (3b refined), updated April 4, 2025, with 24,562 dwellings (3,353 for Roseville), building heights up to 8 storeys, poses significant heritage threats.

The May 2025 deadline, agreed in the Ku-ring-gai Council Vs NSW Planning Minister’s Mediation Agreement, leaves little time for major changes, and SSD proposals could further undermine heritage preservation. Council has urged the DPHI to reject current SSD applications and impose a moratorium on new ones, but the outcome remains uncertain. FOKE encourages you to support heritage conservation efforts, such as advocating for stronger HCA protections and interim heritage orders.

SUMMARY: Key Issues from Friends of Ku-ring-gai Environment (FOKE) on Ku-ring-gai Council’s TOD Scenario 3b (Refined) for Roseville

Threat to Heritage Conservation Areas (HCAs) and Local Character
Preferred Scenario (pressured by DPHI and to be approved by NSW Minister for Planning) aims to protect all Heritage Conservation Areas by shifting development away from these zones, but FOKE is concerned that high-density development within 400–800m of Roseville station could compromise the suburb’s heritage integrity. Roseville’s historic character, defined by its Federation and inter-war architecture and garden suburb layout, risks being eroded by overshadowing, visual intrusion, or pressure from adjacent high-rise buildings, which clash with the area’s low-density aesthetic.
Abandoning Federal, NSW and local environmental protections
FOKE is gravely concerned about the environmental impacts of the Preferred Scenario (pressured by DPHI and to be approved by NSW Minister for Planning) on Roseville’s critically endangered ecological communities, including the Blue Gum High Forest and Sydney Turpentine Ironbark Forest, both listed as critically endangered under state and federal legislation.
The intensified development risks further loss of tree canopy, vital for maintaining Ku-ring-gai’s biodiversity and mitigating urban heat. FOKE warns that clearing or fragmentation of these habitats, even indirectly through expanded development zones, could accelerate biodiversity extinction, threatening native species such as powerful owls, microbats, and other flora and fauna dependent on these ecosystems. The lack of comprehensive environmental studies exacerbates these risks, leaving Roseville’s ecological assets vulnerable.
Climate Threats/ Bushfire Risks
FOKE is deeply concerned about the climate-related risks posed by Preferred Scenario (pressured by DPHI and to be approved by NSW Minister for Planning), particularly the increased bushfire threat in Roseville due to its proximity to bushland and the presence of dense vegetation, including Blue Gum High Forest and Sydney Turpentine Ironbark Forest. The intensification of development, with high-density buildings up to 800m from the station, could heighten bushfire risks by placing more residents in fire-prone areas without adequate mitigation measures. FOKE argues that the absence of climate risk assessments, including bushfire hazard studies, in the TOD planning process endangers Roseville’s community and undermines resilience to climate-driven extreme weather events.

Ku-ring-gai is the ‘lungs of Sydney’. Ku-ring-gai’s giant trees keep Sydney cool. More important than ever with extreme heat waves.
Insufficient Environmental and Infrastructure Studies
FOKE emphasizes the absence of critical studies (e.g., environmental, traffic, parking, water, sewerage, and utilities) to support the intensified development proposed in the Preferred Scenario (pressured by DPHI and to be approved by NSW Minister for Planning), which includes apartment buildings up to eight storeys (or 10 with affordable housing provisions) within 800m of Roseville station. Without these studies, the scenario risks unsustainable development, straining local infrastructure and exacerbating environmental degradation.
Overdevelopment and Community Impact
The scale of development in the Preferred Scenario (pressured by DPHI and to be approved by NSW Minister for Planning), contributing to ~24,562 dwellings across Roseville, Lindfield, Killara, and Gordon, is viewed by FOKE as overdevelopment for Roseville. Extending high-density zones to 800m from the station could disrupt the suburb’s low-density residential areas, leading to increased traffic, parking challenges, and reduced amenity for residents, prioritising state-mandated housing targets over local community needs.
Lack of Genuine Community Input and Transparency
Although the Scenario 3b was the community’s preferred option during the November–December 2024 consultation, FOKE questions the council’s process for selecting the refined scenario, suggesting it may not fully reflect community preferences. The condensed 21-day feedback period (ending April 22, 2025) restricted meaningful input from Roseville residents, particularly those within the 800m rezoning zone, whose concerns may be diluted by submissions from less-affected areas.
Undemocratic State Government Influence
FOKE views the TOD policy underpinning the Preferred Scenario (pressured by DPHI and to be approved by NSW Minister for Planning) as a top-down, state-imposed framework that overrides local planning controls. This approach limits Ku-ring-gai Council’s ability to protect Roseville’s unique environmental and heritage values, with the NSW Government’s push for high-density development near stations prioritising housing quotas over the suburb’s character and sustainability.
Undermining of Strategic Planning by State Significant Developments
FOKE is deeply concerned that State Significant Development Applications, processed by the NSW Housing Delivery Authority, bypass Ku-ring-gai Council’s strategic planning processes, including Scenario 3b’s framework. In Roseville, such developments could override local controls, leading to inconsistent, developer-driven projects that conflict with the council’s vision for balanced growth, heritage preservation, and environmental protection.
Failure to Provide Genuine Affordable Housing
FOKE criticised the Preferred Scenario’s approach to affordable housing, arguing that the provision for additional storeys (up to 10) in exchange for affordable housing lacks enforceable mechanisms to ensure meaningful outcomes. They contend that the TOD framework prioritises developer profits over delivering genuinely affordable housing for Roseville’s residents, particularly low- and middle-income households, risking the production of high-cost apartments that fail to address local housing needs.
Global Property Investments Overriding Community Interests
FOKE is alarmed that global investment in Ku-ring-gai’s property market, facilitated by the state’s TOD policies, overrides the interests of Roseville’s community. The push for high-density development in Scenario 3b attracts international developers and investors, driving up property prices and prioritising luxury apartments over community-focused housing. This trend threatens to displace local residents, erode community cohesion, and transform Roseville into a speculative investment hub, undermining its livable, heritage-rich character.
Corruption-Prone Development Processes
FOKE is concerned about the potential for corruption in the development processes associated with the NSW Government’s planning reforms, driven by the influence of powerful developer interests and the state’s streamlined approval mechanisms. The bypassing of local planning controls through State Significant Developments and the lack of robust oversight in the TOD framework create opportunities for undue influence, favoritism, or opaque decision-making. In Roseville, this could result in approvals that prioritise developer profits over community welfare, heritage preservation, or environmental sustainability, eroding public trust in the planning process.
Proposed Open Space Acquisitions as Insufficient Mitigation
Scenario 3b includes plans to acquire sites for open space to mitigate the impact of increased density. However, FOKE views these measures as inadequate to offset the environmental and social impacts of high-density development in Roseville, particularly given the potential loss of tree canopy and increased pressure on public amenities due to population growth.
Abandonment of Heritage in NSW
FOKE is highly critical of the broader trend of heritage abandonment in NSW, which they see as exacerbated by the Preferred Scenario (pressured by DPHI and to be approved by NSW Minister for Planning) and the state’s TOD, Low to Mid-Rise and dual occupancy policies. The prioritisation of high-density development over heritage preservation threatens Roseville’s significant Federation and inter-war architectural legacy. FOKE argues that the NSW Government’s failure to strengthen heritage protections, combined with weakened local planning controls, risks the irreversible loss of Roseville’s cultural and historical identity, aligning with a statewide pattern of neglecting heritage assets.

The ‘wicked problem’ of isolating heritage properties and creating a culture where owners of heritage properties wish to delist their heritage homes..
Poor Planning Practices
FOKE contends that the Preferred Scenario (pressured by DPHI and to be approved by NSW Minister for Planning) reflects poor planning practices, characterized by a lack of integrated, evidence-based strategies to balance growth with environmental and social outcomes. The absence of comprehensive studies on infrastructure capacity, environmental impacts, and climate risks, coupled with the rushed 21-day consultation period, undermines the planning process’s credibility. In Roseville, this results in a development framework that fails to account for the suburb’s unique ecological and heritage constraints, risking haphazard, unsustainable urban growth.
Undemocratic Nature of the NSW Housing Delivery Authority
FOKE is deeply concerned about the undemocratic nature of the NSW Housing Delivery Authority, which processes State Significant Developments and exerts significant influence over the Preferred Scenario (pressured by DPHI and to be approved by NSW Minister for Planning) implementation. The authority’s ability to override local council decisions and bypass community consultation undermines democratic governance in Roseville. FOKE argues that this centralized, developer-friendly approach prioritises state housing targets over the needs and voices of Roseville residents, eroding local autonomy and accountability.
Widespread Loss of Heritage and Character Across Sydney
FOKE emphasises that heritage tours, such as those organized in Ku-ring-gai, vividly illustrate what is at stake, showing residents the tangible heritage and character that will be lost under the Preferred Scenario (pressured by DPHI and to be approved by NSW Minister for Planning). This issue extends beyond Roseville, affecting every suburb and neighborhood across Sydney. The state’s TOD policies, which prioritise high-density development over local heritage, environmental, and community values, threaten to homogenize Sydney’s unique suburbs, replacing distinctive neighborhoods with generic high-rise developments. This widespread loss undermines the cultural, historical, and social fabric of the city, diminishing its livability and identity.
Cumulative impact of increased housing densification across Greater Sydney and how Sydney is an integrated landscape.

WHAT CAN YOU DO?

Join FOKE’s next Heritage in Peril Walks in Lindfield (29.4.25), Killara (3.5.25), and Gordon (4.5.25) as part of FOKE’s celebration of the Australian Heritage Festival.
Join FOKE as a member. Details at www.foke.org.au
Send your photos of this walk to Friends of Ku-ring-gai Environment (FOKE) info@foke.org.au
Send copies of any letters you write to FOKE info@foke.org.au
Sign onto receiving FOKE Newsletters HERE
Join Save Greater Sydney Coalition Email savegreatersydneycoalition2@gmail.com
If you wish to sign onto Save Greater Sydney Coalition email: savegreatersydneycoalition2@gmail.com

PLEASE WRITE A LETTER ABOUT WHAT YOU HAVE LEARNT ON THIS WALK TO:

Chris Minns NSW Premier office@premier.nsw.gov.au
Paul Scully NSW Planning Minister Paul Scully: https://www.nsw.gov.au/nsw-government/ministers/minister-for-planning-and-public-spaces
Mark Speakman NSW Leader of Opposition: Liberal.Leader@parliament.nsw.gov.au
Scott Farlow Shadow NSW Planning Minister scott.farlow@parliament.nsw.gov.au
Matt Cross, MP for Davidson (Roseville, Lindfield, Killara & Gordon) davidson@parliament.nsw.gov.au
Alister Henskens MP for Davidson wahroonga@parliament.nsw.gov.au
Cr Sam Ngai (Roseville Ward) Councillor Telephone 0436 655 543 Email sngai@krg.nsw.gov.au
Cr Alec Taylor (Roseville Ward) Councillor Telephone 0459 907 375 Email ataylor@krg.nsw.gov.au
Ku-ring-gai Councillors councillors@krg.nsw.gov.au
Ku-ring-gai Council: krg@krg.nsw.gov.au
Eastside Roseville Action Group Inc Email: saveourneighbourhood1@gmail.com
Save Greater Sydney Coalition Email savegreatersydneycoalition2@gmail.com
National Trust (NSW) Board of Directors info@nationaltrust.com.au

Dear …………………………….

On Saturday 27 April, 2025 I attended the Australian Heritage Festival ‘Lindfield Heritage in Peril Walk’ organised by Friends of Ku-ring-gai Environment (FOKE).

During this walk I was distressed to learn …………………………………, amazed to discover ……………………………. and very concerned about ……………………………………

I respectfully ask that you ……………………………………….

Yours sincerely

……………………………………….

Ku-ring-gai Council’s artist impression of Ku-ring-gai Council’s Preferred Scenario for Roseville looking south, April 2025:

Roseville Preferred Scenario Download

Australian Heritage Festival 2025

The Australian Heritage Festival, 18 April-18 May 2025, focuses on the theme “Unearthed”, which focuses on revealing lesser-known histories and stories, such as over 30 years of advocacy by FOKE including:

1920s: Ku-ring-gai resident, Annie Wyatt forms the Ku-ring-gai Tree Lovers’ Civic League
1997: the National Trust recommended 27 precincts in Ku-ring-gai be classified as Urban Conservation Areas (UCAs), more than any other local government area in NSW
1945: Ku-ring-gai resident, Annie Wyatt instrumental in forming the National Trust (1945)
2009: National Trust Heritage Awards Highly Commended
2008: NSW Government Heritage Volunteers Award
2007: FOKE nominated Ku-ring-gai for the Australian National Trust’s “Most Endangered Places” list due to the NSW Government’s urban consolidation polices, which threatened Ku-ring-gai’s unique built and natural heritage. The National Trust of Australia (NSW) further underscored the national significance and vulnerability of Ku-ring-gai’s Urban Conservation Areas within the context of the Original Blue Gum High Forest by nominating them for the “Top Ten Heritage @ Risk Places in Australia”.
2000: FOKE, WINNER, NSW Heritage Office Cultural Heritage Conservation Award “Heritage Watch over our place of National Significance – Ku-ring-gai” Keep Australia Beautiful Council (NSW) (NSW) Metro Pride Award PRIDE Awards
2008: FOKE produced A Photographic Record of Sites and Streetscapes, documenting ~2,000 homes, including many in Lindfield, threatened by state-mandated rezonings. Copies are archived at Ku-ring-gai Library, Ku-ring-gai Historical Society, and the National Trust, Sydney
2015: National Trust Heritage Festival Annie Wyatt, Gordon
2015: National Trust Heritage Festival walk: Sheldon Forest, Turramurra
2015: National Trust Heritage Festival walk: Turramurra
2016: National Trust Heritage Awards Highly Commended
2016: National Trust Heritage Festival talk: Biodiversity Matters
2016: 2016: National Trust Heritage Festival walk: Paddy Pallin, Lindfield
2016: National Trust Heritage Festival walk: Sheldon Forest, Turramurra
2017: National Trust Heritage Festival walk: Butterflies, Blue Gums and Camellias, Killara

FOKE’s walk closely aligns with the Australian Heritage Festival “Unearthed” theme. Roseville in Heritage Walk ‘unearths’ Ku-ring-gai’s rich, often under appreciated heritage, exposing threats to its preservation, and encouraging community involvement in safeguarding these stories for future generations.

Reveals Hidden Histories: This walk highlights Ku-ring-gai’s built and natural heritage, including its twentieth-century architectural gems and conservation legacies, which are often overshadowed by NSW Government development pressures. By showcasing these sites, FOKE uncovers stories of the Gammeragal people’s stewardship, the area’s pioneering conservationists (e.g., Annie Wyatt, Eccleston du Faur), and the historical significance of the Ku-ring-gai’s town planning led by town planning/architect icon John Sulman.
Addresses Threats to Heritage: The “Heritage in Peril” focus draws attention to the ongoing risk to Ku-ring-gai’s heritage from developer-led planning, such as the Transport Oriented Development (TOD), Low to Mid-Rise Housing and Dual Occupancy ‘one size fails all’ planning policies. This narrative of loss and resilience resonates with the theme’s emphasis on unearthing stories that are often ignored by the mainstream media.
Empowers Future Custodians: Through guided tours, FOKE engages the community, in understanding the heritage and environmental significance of Ku-ring-gai. By connecting modern roads and railways to ancient Gammeragal pathways and highlighting conservation efforts, the walks inspire participants to advocate for heritage preservation, aligning with the festival’s goal of fostering custodianship.
Drives Community Storytelling: As a community group, FOKE’s walks embody the festival’s community-driven ethos, offering a platform to share local knowledge and advocate for the protection of Ku-ring-gai’s unique character.

Ku-ring-gai’s National, State and Local heritage significance:

• Its exceptional collection of twentieth-century housing, showcasing a diverse range of high-quality designs by prominent Australian architects.

• Its embodiment of twentieth-century town planning and conservation philosophies.

Ku-ring-gai has been the home of influential conservationists, including Gordon’s Annie Wyatt (1885-1961), founder of the National Trust (NSW); Turramurra’s Eccleston du Faur (1832-1915), who established Ku-ring-gai Chase National Park, one of Australia’s earliest national parks; Lindfield’s Paddy Pallin (1900-1930), a pioneering bushwalker and entrepreneur who championed the early twentieth-century bushwalking conservation movement; Turramurra’s Alex Colley (1909-2014), instrumental in securing World Heritage listing for the Greater Blue Mountains National Park; and Lindfield’s Charlie Veron (1945-), a marine biologist, who highlighted the devastating impact of climate change and warming ocean temperatures on the Great Barrier Reef. Their collective efforts underscore Ku-ring-gai’s enduring legacy in shaping Australia’s conservation movement.

Heritage Conservation Areas in Ku-ring-gai

Ku-ring-gai Council’s website states: A Heritage Conservation Areas (HCA) is an area recognised and valued for its special historical and aesthetic character. Important elements that contribute to the heritage significance of a HCA include the architectural style of buildings, fences, trees and gardens. Furthermore “HCA’s (are meant to) protect not just single homes but whole areas from inappropriate development.”

‘Conservation Areas – Guidelines for Managing Change in Heritage Conservation Areas (1996) are also defined as:

A heritage conservation area is more than a collection of individual heritage items. It is an area in which the historical origins and relationships between the various elements create a sense of place that is worth keeping.

A heritage area is identified by analysing its heritage significance and the special characteristics which make up that significance. These may include its subdivision pattern, the consistency of building materials or the common age of its building stock. The least important characteristic is the ‘look’ of the place, although the commonly held community view is that this is the determining factor.

Heritage areas reveal many different aspects of our cultural history. They show how Australians have responded physically, emotionally, socially and architecturally to the environment and how places have been variously occupied, used, ignored, refined, degraded or associated with Australian society over time.

NSW legislated Heritage Conservation Areas (HCAs) in Ku-ring-gai highlight Roseville’s distinctive historical, aesthetic, and cultural value, encompassing exceptional architectural styles, mature canopy trees, and gardens and Critically endangered Blue Gum High Forest and Sydney Turpentine Ironbark Forest.

Roseville’s HCAs, renowned for its outstanding interwar Federation and Californian bungalow architecture showcases of twentieth-century Australian town planning. The National Trust (NSW) recommended 27 precincts to be classified as Urban Conservation Areas in 1997. This was more than any other local government area in NSW.

Map of the 28 conservation areas in the vicinity of the four TOD stations. Source TKD Architects. Ku-ring-gai Heritage Conservation Area Review, prepared for Ku-ring-gai Council, October 2024

OMC_30102024_AGN_AT_EXTRA_Attachment_15886_3-Draft-Heritage Download

The Transport Oriented Development (TOD) State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) undermines heritage protections in Ku-ring-gai by prioritising high-density development, targeting approximately 3,353 dwellings in Roseville with 6–8 storey buildings within 400m of the station. This threatens the integrity of Heritage Conservation Areas (HCAs), as only 80% are safeguarded under the Preferred Scenario (3b refined), leaving heritage streetscapes vulnerable to “development uplift” and State Significant Development (SSD) spot rezonings. The weakening of robust HCA protections risks eroding Roseville’s irreplaceable heritage under unprecedented development pressures.

Transport Oriented Development (TOD) Impacts on Roseville

Roseville, along with Gordon, Killara, and Lindfield, is one of 37 stations in the Transport Oriented Development (TOD) program, which rezones low-density areas within 400 meters of Roseville Station for mid-rise apartment buildings (6–8 storeys). This fundamentally threatens Roseville’s heritage-rich, low-density Heritage Conservation Areas [Lord Street/Bancroft Avenue (C36), Clanville Conservation Area C32 & The Grove (C35)] with its Federation and Californian bungalow homes and lush gardens.

Ku-ring-gai Council resolved to place on public exhibition (31 March 2025) an alternative Preferred Scenario (3b refined). This recommends 3,353 dwellings to Roseville within a 24,562-dwelling target across the four railway precincts, with building heights of 3–8 storeys and a density FSR range of 0.85:1 to 8.0:1 and 800 metres from Roseville Railway Station.

The opportunity to consult with the community from November to December 2024 on an alternative TOD scenario resulted in the recommendation for the alternative Preferred Scenario (3b refined). This public consultation was agreed as part of the Land & Environment Court Mediation Agreement between Ku-ring-gai Council Vs Minister for Planning.

Council must soon vote on the alternative Preferred Scenario (3b refined) and resolve it as a Local Environment Plan to be gazetted by the NSW Minister of Planning Paul Scully. If Council does not meet this May 2025 deadline, the original TOD controls will be implemented. This has placed enormous pressure on communities as well as creating new ‘winners & losers’.

The short public exhibition deadline (31 March to 22 April 2025) limited community input. Council indicated it would only ‘tweak’ small changes. This is despite considerable opposition at the 31 March 2025 Public Forum. Many argued that Council’s alternative scenario “development uplift” proposal for heritage items, would devalue heritage items as they become integrated into larger developments. Many heritage owners argued that developers would not wish to integrate their properties and they would be left ‘isolated’ and be financially disadvantaged.

State Significant Development (SSD) proposals, including a 10-storey, 267-dwelling project at 16-24 Lord Street, threaten to bypass local controls, with Council’s requested moratorium pending NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure (DPHI) response. The TOD also strains infrastructure, increasing traffic on Pacific Highway and Roseville Avenue, and endangers biodiversity near Blue Gum High Forest, while unaddressed bushfire risks loom.

Ku-ring-gai Council’s preferred scenario 24,500 dwelling targets:

3,353 in Roseville; 8 storey maximum; FSR: 0.85:1 to 8.0:1; 800m from Roseville Railway Station
9,419 in Lindfield; 18 storey maximum; FSR 0.85:1 to 5.0:1; 800m from Lindfield Railway Station
2,778 in Killara; 8 storey maximum,
9,012 in Gordon; 28 storey maximum

State Significant Development with DPHI, as of 25 April, 2025:

All currently at a stage of prepare EIS.

Roseville

2-4 Larkin Street and 1-5 Pockley Avenue, Roseville
2,4,6,8,10,12,14, & 16 Pockley Avenue, Roseville
21-27 Roseville Avenue and 16-24 Oliver Road, Roseville
17-21 Shirley Road, Roseville

Lindfield

9-21 Beaconsfield Road Lindfield
12-16 Bent Street Lindfield
2-4 Woodside & 1-3 Reid Street Lindfield
2-8 Highgate Road Lindfield
1-5 Nelson Road Lindfield
27-29 Tryon Road Lindfield (currently on public exhibition)
59-63 Trafalgar Avenue, 1A and 1B Valley Road Lindfield
11-19 Middle Harbour Road Lindfield
24, 26, 28 Middle Harbour Road Lindfield

Killara

10, 14, & 14A Stanhope Road Killara

Gordon

3-9 Park Avenue Gordon
3a,3b,5a, 7 Burgoyne and 1&3 Pearson Avenue and 4 Burgoyne Lane Gordon

Roseville Heritage in Peril Maps

Roseville Heritage Conservation Areas

Lord Street/Bancroft Avenue Conservation Area C36
Clanville Conservation Area C32
The Grove Conservation Area C35

Roseville Heritage listed Houses

Roseville, “Sirocco”, dwelling house, 33 Abingdon Road, Lot 18, DP 13028; Lot 2, DP 338644, Local, I661
Roseville, Dwelling house, 3 Addison Avenue, Lot 27, DP 6341, Local, I662
Roseville, Dwelling house, 6 Addison Avenue, Lot 61, DP 1263037, Local, I663
Roseville, Dwelling house, 33 Addison Avenue, Lot 39, DP 7517, Local, I664
Roseville, Dwelling house, 15 Alexander Parade, Lot 17, DP 9613, Local, I90
Roseville, Dwelling house, 33 Amarna Parade, Lot 80, DP 11994, Local, I666
Roseville, Dwelling house, 17 Archbold Road, Lot 61, DP 6341, Local, I667
Roseville, “Rochester”, dwelling house, 3 Bancroft Avenue, Lot 2, DP 114228; Lot 5, DP 1046733, Local, I91
Roseville, Dwelling house, 6 Bancroft Avenue, Lot 10, DP 1046912, Local, I92
Roseville, Dwelling house, 8 Bancroft Avenue, Lot 1, DP 662342, Local, I93
Roseville, “Leightonlyn”, dwelling house, 9 Bancroft Avenue, Lot 7, Section C, DP 5035, Local, I94
Roseville, Dwelling house, 10 Bancroft Avenue, Lots 1 and 2, DP 132799, Local, I95
Roseville, Dwelling house, 19 Bancroft Avenue, Lot 11, Section C, DP 5035, Local, I96
Roseville, Dwelling house, 24 Bancroft Avenue, Lot 1, DP 544047, Local, I97
Roseville, “Westover”, dwelling house, 26 Bancroft Avenue, Lot B, DP 407900, Local, I98
Roseville, Dwelling house, 28 Bancroft Avenue, Lot C, DP 407900, Local, I99
Roseville, Dwelling house, 59 Bancroft Avenue, Lot 1, DP 1099727, Local, I668
Roseville, Dwelling house, 9 Belgium Avenue, Lot 53, DP 7872, Local, I669
Roseville, Dwelling house, 15 Belgium Avenue, Lots 1 and 2, DP 314995, Local, I670
Roseville, “Ku-ring-gai Court”, residential flat building, 3 Boundary Street, Lot 10, DP 1151068, Local, I100
Roseville, “Clermiston”, dwelling house, 79 Boundary Street, Part of Lot A, DP 414205, Local, I671
Roseville, Roseville Park, including Firs Estate Cottage, Clanville Road, Lots 1–5 and 7–11, DP 9475; Lots 8–14 and 25–31 and 43–49, DP 10038; Lot 2, DP 132908; Lot 6, DP 667676; Lot 1, DP 166600, Local, I674
Roseville, “Gooyong”, dwelling house, 10 Clanville Road, Lot D, DP 331294, Local, I101
Roseville, “Luton”, dwelling house, 14 Clanville Road, Lot E, DP 416239, Local, I102
Roseville, Dwelling house, 31 Clanville Road, Lot 5, DP 4771, Local, I672
Roseville, “Bryn-Mawr”, dwelling house, 81 Clanville Road, Lots 23, 24 and 28, DP 9475, Local, I673
Roseville, “Taylor”, dwelling house, 15 Clermiston Avenue, Lot 17, DP 6535, Local, I675
Roseville, “Chilcote”, dwelling house, 17 Clermiston Avenue, Lot 18, DP 6535, Local, I676
Roseville, Dwelling house, 7 Dudley Avenue, Lot 46, DP 5313, Local, I677
Roseville, Dwelling house, 8 Dudley Avenue, Lot 1, DP 302112, Local, I678
Roseville, “Ambleside”, dwelling house and original interior, 24 Dudley Avenue, Lot 1, DP 209190, Local, I685
Roseville, Dwelling house, 48 Duntroon Avenue, Lot 1, DP 1260404, Local, I679
Roseville, Dwelling house, 54 Duntroon Avenue, Lot 1, DP 1196796, Local, I680
Roseville, Dwelling house, 44 Earl Street, Lot 104, DP 11994, Local, I681
Roseville, Dwelling house, 48 Earl Street, Lot 102, DP 11994, Local, I682
Roseville, Dwelling house, 18 Gerald Avenue, Lot 9, DP 5313, Local, I683
Roseville, Dwelling house, 12 Glen Road, Lot 1, DP 330460, Local, I684
Roseville, Roseville Station Group, Hill Street, Part of Lot 260, DP 1189542, Local, I1108
Roseville, “Beresford”, dwelling house, 1 Hill Street, Lot 3, DP 1046141, Local, I103
Roseville, Former Westpac Bank building, 65 Hill Street, Lot B, DP 333949, Local, I104
Roseville, “Doralyn”, dwelling house, 16 Kelburn Road, Lot 8, Section 2, DP 5653, Local, I105
Roseville, Dwelling house, 1 Longford Street, Lot 98, DP 13028, Local, I687
Roseville, Dwelling house, 19 Lord Street, Lot A, DP 318963, Local, I106
Roseville, St Luke’s Hall, 28 Lord Street, Lot 2, DP 507702; Lot 21, Section B, DP 3277; Lot 1, DP 1111339, Local, I689
Roseville, “Killiecrankie”, dwelling house, 1 Maclaurin Parade, Lot 1, DP 339732, Local, I107
Roseville, Dwelling house, 9 Oliver Road, Lot 9, DP 7872, Local, I108
Roseville, Dwelling house, 35 Oliver Road, Lot 60, DP 662410, Local, I691
Roseville, Dwelling house, 37 Oliver Road, Lot 59, DP 7872, Local, I692
Roseville, Former Commonwealth Bank building, 83 Pacific Highway, Lot 2, DP 1096041; Lot 1, DP 442434, Local, I109
Roseville, Former station master’s residence, 89 Pacific Highway, Lot 2, DP 808504, Local, I110
Roseville, Roseville Cinema, 112–116 Pacific Highway, Lot 1, DP 566196, Local, I111
Roseville, Dwelling house, 10 Roseville Avenue, Lot 7, Section A, DP 3277, Local, I112
Roseville, “Lawarra”, dwelling house, 12 Roseville Avenue, Lot 8, Section A, DP 3277, Local, I113
Roseville, Dwelling house, 16 Roseville Avenue, Lot 2, DP 1046734, Local, I114
Roseville, Dwelling house, 22 Roseville Avenue, Lot C, DP 417928, Local, I695
Roseville, Roseville Scout Group Hall, 29 Roseville Avenue, Lot 63, DP 667814, Local, I115
Roseville, Dwelling house, 31 Roseville Avenue, Lot 1, DP 507702, Local, I697
Roseville, Dwelling house, 32 Roseville Avenue, Lot 19, Section A, DP 3277, Local, I698
Roseville, Dwelling house, 40 Roseville Avenue, Lots 2 and 3, DP 1067237, Local, I699
Roseville, Dwelling house, 45 Roseville Avenue, Lot 55, Section B, DP 3277, Local, I700
Roseville, Dwelling house, 47 Roseville Avenue, Lot 1, DP 502712, Local, I701
Roseville, Dwelling house, 1 Roslyn Avenue, Lot 1, DP 948635, Local, I702
Roseville, Dwelling house, 2 Roslyn Avenue, Lot 1, DP 222886, Local, I703
Roseville, Dwelling house, 3 Roslyn Avenue, Lot 9, DP 1047030, Local, I704
Roseville, Dwelling house, 4 Roslyn Avenue, Lot 2, DP 1047030, Local, I705
Roseville, Dwelling house, 5 Roslyn Avenue, Lots 7 and 8, DP 1047030, Local, I706
Roseville, “Cerne Abbas”, dwelling house, 6 Roslyn Avenue, Lot 3, DP 1047030, Local, I707
Roseville, Dwelling house, 8 Roslyn Avenue, Lot 5, DP 1047030, Local, I708
Roseville, Dwelling house, 6 Shirley Road, Lot 1, DP 974014, Local, I116
Roseville, “Rose Haven”, dwelling house, 12 Shirley Road, Lot 18, DP 940618, Local, I117
Roseville, “Netherwood”, dwelling house, 16 Shirley Road, Lot 1, DP 925709, Local, I118
Roseville, Dwelling house, 33 Shirley Road, Lot B, DP 925232, Local, I119
Roseville, “Lynwood”, dwelling house, 63 Shirley Road, Lots E and F, DP 391438, Local, I709
Roseville, “Colmar”, dwelling house, 5 The Grove, Lot 19, DP 7872, Local, I120
Roseville, Dwelling house, 11 The Grove, Lot 16, DP 7872, Local, I121
Roseville, Dwelling house, 14 The Grove, Lot 2, DP 667635, Local, I122
Roseville, Dwelling house, 16 The Grove, Lot A, DP 329635, Local, I123
Roseville, Dwelling house, 17 The Grove, Lot 1, DP 615588, Local, I124
Roseville, Residential flat building, 21 The Grove, Lot B, DP 319235, Local, I125
Roseville, Dwelling house, 18 Trafalgar Avenue, Lot 3, DP 1047218, Local, I126
Roseville, Dwelling house, 26 Trafalgar Avenue, Lot 11, DP 1047288, Local, I711
Roseville, “Walthamstow”, dwelling house, 16 Victoria Street, Lot 12, DP 659015, Local, I127
Roseville, Dwelling house, 49 Victoria Street, Lot 12, DP 786859, Local, I713
Roseville, Dwelling house, 50 Victoria Street, Lot 4, DP 6642, Local, I714
Roseville, Dwelling house, 52 Victoria Street, Lot 5, DP 6642, Local, I715

References:

Ku-ring-gai Council’s Preferred Scenario documentation (updated April 4, 2025).
Ku-ring-gai Heritage Conservation Area Review, Prepared for Ku-ring-gai Council, October 2024 by TKD Architects, Tanner, Kibble & Denton
Roseville Heritage in Peril Guided Walk Tour Notes (26 April 2025).
FOKE’s Submissions and evidence tabled at NSW Upper House Inquiries https://www.foke.org.au/
Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan heritage listings: https://legislation.nsw.gov.au/view/html/inforce/current/epi-2015-0134#sch.5-pt.1
Ku-ring-gai Historical Society https://khs.org.au/
Documentary State of Siege (2011) by Denis Grosvenor, archived
How to trace your Ku-ring-gai house
Ku-ring-gai Council Submission (No 159) to Inquiry into Development of the Transport Oriented Development Program, 28 March 2024
Ku-ring-gai Council, Transport Oriented Development Program and Low and Mid-Rise Housing Provisions, Ordinary Meeting of Council, 20 February 2024
Independent Heritage Advice – Proposed changes to NSW Planning Systems – Implications for Ku-ring-gai’s heritage by Lisa Trueman Heritage Advisor, 2 February 2024
Ku-ring-gai Heritage Conservation Area Review, Prepared for Ku-ring-gai Council, October 2024 by TKD Architects, Tanner, Kibble & Denton
Independent Assessment into the potential ecological impacts associated with the NSW Government Planning reform: the TOD SEPP and the Low-Mid rise Housing Policy (v1.0) by Land Eco Consulting, 6 February 2024

Transport Oriented Development (TOD) background information

Overview of Council response to NSW Government planning reforms

In December 2023, the NSW Government announced a range of major planning reforms to deliver additional housing.

This included:

The establishment of Transport Oriented Development precincts between Roseville and Gordon.
The Low and Mid-Rise reform to allow additional terraces, townhouses, multi-unit dwellings and apartment buildings near stations and town centres.

Ku-ring-gai Council expressed concern that the proposed one-size-fits-all reforms would have a range of unnecessary and unwanted impacts on the Ku-ring-gai Council area, particularly in relation to Ku-ring-gai’s environment and heritage and the strain on existing infrastructure and facilities.

Submission

In February 2024, Council lodged a submission on the reforms.

Council work since this time

Since this time, Council has been undertaking a series of actions to plan for additional housing, which considers community feedback and responds to Ku-ring-gai’s unique local area.

These actions include: