Residential development with in-fill affordable housing, Larkin Street & Pockley Avenue, Roseville

To Whom It May Concern,
I am writing to object to the proposed high-density developments at and around Pockley Avenue, Roseville. While I acknowledge the importance of increasing housing supply — including affordable housing — these developments raise serious concerns about traffic congestion, infrastructure strain, and the erosion of local character in our suburban neighborhood.
Traffic Congestion
The intersection of MacLaurin Parade and the Pacific Highway is already under immense pressure. During peak periods, it can take multiple traffic light cycles just to merge southbound due to heavy congestion and blockages caused by the adjacent Boundary Street intersection. Even residents trying to turn left are often stuck behind right-turning vehicles, leaving no clear path through.
Weekend traffic mirrors weekday congestion, and this issue has grown markedly worse with recent developments in Corona Avenue, Kings Avenue, and now MacLaurin Parade. The addition of over 200 new dwellings through the proposed projects will increase daily vehicle movements significantly. Without serious upgrades to local road infrastructure, we are facing gridlock and worsening safety risks for both drivers and pedestrians.
Parking and Street Overflow
Many of the surrounding streets are already struggling with limited on-street parking. If the developments under consideration do not provide sufficient off-street parking — and affordable housing units often come with reduced allocations — we can expect a major overflow into nearby streets. This not only disrupts existing residents’ lives but can also block sightlines, increase hazards at intersections, and restrict access for emergency services.
Infrastructure and Services
Beyond traffic, we are concerned about the strain on local infrastructure. Basic services such as garbage collection, sewerage, and stormwater drainage are not designed for this sudden and concentrated increase in density. Public transport services are limited, local schools are nearing capacity, and there has been no indication that supporting facilities will be upgraded in line with the growing population.
Neighborhood Character and Suitability
Roseville is a low-rise, family-oriented suburb with a quiet, green streetscape. The proposed nine-storey apartment blocks are entirely out of character with the surrounding area. Their scale will dominate the skyline, overlook neighbouring homes, and impact privacy and sunlight.

Environmental and Heritage Impacts
The proposed developments may also result in the loss of mature trees and green cover, contributing to heat island effects and habitat loss. We are also concerned about possible impacts on heritage streetscapes that give this neighborhood its distinct charm and identity.
Cumulative Impact and Consultation
This is not an isolated proposal. Large-scale developments have recently been approved or completed nearby — yet no corresponding investment has been made in road upgrades, transport options, or community facilities. It feels as though each proposal is being assessed in isolation, without any serious consideration of the cumulative impacts on the area.
Moreover, many residents feel left out of the planning process. While exhibition periods exist, there has been little meaningful consultation or community engagement. We urge the department to listen to the voices of local residents who know these streets and live with the consequences of poor planning decisions.
________________________________________
In Conclusion
We ask that this development be reconsidered or significantly scaled back until proper traffic solutions, infrastructure upgrades, and planning controls are in place. A sustainable future for Roseville must include thoughtful urban planning — not ad hoc high-rise developments in low-rise neighborhoods.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
The Sheppard family

Please refer to the attached document.

I am writing to formally oppose developments SSD-77825469 and SSD-77829461 for the following reasons:

1. Overdevelopment and Traffic Congestion
The two proposed developments would add 289 residential units. Combined with other nearby developments—7, 9, and 11 Pockley Avenue; 4A, 6A, 6, 8, and 10 Maclaurin Parade; the Roseville Memorial Club site; and the recently completed 1–3 Corona Avenue—the total rises to 427 new units and an estimated 686 additional vehicles. This scale of development will place enormous strain on already congested local roads, especially Maclaurin Parade. The traffic congestion will significantly affect daily commutes and emergency response times.

2. Environmental Impact
The developments pose a serious threat to the local environment. The Blue Gum High Forest is a critically endangered ecological community and home to approximately 40 native animal species. These projects risk permanent destruction of habitat and biodiversity, which cannot be restored once lost.

3. Bushfire Risk and Emergency Evacuation Concerns
According to bushfire simulations conducted by Ku-ring-gai Council, both proposed developments are located in areas classified as "very high risk" in the event of a bushfire. During the 1994 bushfires, 12 homes in this area were completely destroyed. In the event of a similar disaster, traffic in and out of Maclaurin Parade would likely be completely cut off, making evacuation and emergency access impossible.

Conclusion
I strongly urge the planning committee to reject these development proposals and stop further development proposals. Approving them without major upgrades to local traffic infrastructure and a detailed bushfire evacuation strategy would put the local community at unacceptable risk. While I understand the need for housing, developments of this scale must be sustainable and responsible. Without clear plans to address environmental impacts, traffic congestion, and bushfire safety, these proposals are detrimental and irreversible.

I am writing to formally oppose developments SSD-77825469 and SSD-77829461 for the following reasons:

1. Overdevelopment and Traffic Congestion
The two proposed developments would add 289 residential units. Combined with other nearby developments—7, 9, and 11 Pockley Avenue; 4A, 6A, 6, 8, and 10 Maclaurin Parade; the Roseville Memorial Club site; and the recently completed 1–3 Corona Avenue—the total rises to 427 new units and an estimated 686 additional vehicles. This scale of development will place enormous strain on already congested local roads, especially Maclaurin Parade. The traffic congestion will significantly affect daily commutes and emergency response times.

2. Environmental Impact
The developments pose a serious threat to the local environment. The Blue Gum High Forest is a critically endangered ecological community and home to approximately 40 native animal species. These projects risk permanent destruction of habitat and biodiversity, which cannot be restored once lost.

3. Bushfire Risk and Emergency Evacuation Concerns
According to bushfire simulations conducted by Ku-ring-gai Council, both proposed developments are located in areas classified as "very high risk" in the event of a bushfire. During the 1994 bushfires, 12 homes in this area were completely destroyed. In the event of a similar disaster, traffic in and out of Maclaurin Parade would likely be completely cut off, making evacuation and emergency access impossible.

Conclusion
I strongly urge the planning committee to reject these development proposals and stop further development proposals. Approving them without major upgrades to local traffic infrastructure and a detailed bushfire evacuation strategy would put the local community at unacceptable risk. While I understand the need for housing, developments of this scale must be sustainable and responsible. Without clear plans to address environmental impacts, traffic congestion, and bushfire safety, these proposals are detrimental and irreversible.

I am writing to formally oppose developments SSD-77825469 and SSD-77829461 for the following reasons:

1. Overdevelopment and Traffic Congestion
The two proposed developments would add 289 residential units. Combined with other nearby developments—7, 9, and 11 Pockley Avenue; 4A, 6A, 6, 8, and 10 Maclaurin Parade; the Roseville Memorial Club site; and the recently completed 1–3 Corona Avenue—the total rises to 427 new units and an estimated 686 additional vehicles. This scale of development will place enormous strain on already congested local roads, especially Maclaurin Parade. The traffic congestion will significantly affect daily commutes and emergency response times.

2. Environmental Impact
The developments pose a serious threat to the local environment. The Blue Gum High Forest is a critically endangered ecological community and home to approximately 40 native animal species. These projects risk permanent destruction of habitat and biodiversity, which cannot be restored once lost.

3. Bushfire Risk and Emergency Evacuation Concerns
According to bushfire simulations conducted by Ku-ring-gai Council, both proposed developments are located in areas classified as "very high risk" in the event of a bushfire. During the 1994 bushfires, 12 homes in this area were completely destroyed. In the event of a similar disaster, traffic in and out of Maclaurin Parade would likely be completely cut off, making evacuation and emergency access impossible.

Conclusion
I strongly urge the planning committee to reject these development proposals and stop further development proposals. Approving them without major upgrades to local traffic infrastructure and a detailed bushfire evacuation strategy would put the local community at unacceptable risk. While I understand the need for housing, developments of this scale must be sustainable and responsible. Without clear plans to address environmental impacts, traffic congestion, and bushfire safety, these proposals are detrimental and irreversible.

I OBJECT TO THIS PROPOSAL FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:-
The current exit to turn right from MacLaurin Parade to head South on the Pacific Highway is the only exit from within the area of all streets bounded by Corona Avenue down to the bottom of Alexander Parade to Pockley Avenue, along Larkin Street and along Larkin Lane. The "Green' light time for exiting is between 6-10 seconds which is followed by a 4 minute wait for traffic on the Pacific Highway. Accordingly, the total time allowed to exit during ONE WHOLE HOUR is 15 time frames totalling only between 90 seconds and 150 seconds!! This is currently totally inadequate for residents required to drive South to work, parents trying to get their children to school, residents trying to attend medical appointments and emergency vehicles. The addition of 111 units with 150 car spaces will only make this situation worse.
The additional units will cause addsitional bush fire dangers. Please note that bush fires duo not stop at locations designated by the authorities which make arbitrary guesses of where bush fires stop. Bush fires which occurred some 30 years ago had embers which travelled along green areas to residentces next to the bush areas but also residences close to the trees which were burning and the embers which travelled across roads. Greater residential units will exacerbate the problems that fire and ambulance vehicles and personnel which will result from the proposed additional 111 units under this SSD-77829461. It should be remembered that each year that goes by increases the probability of another bush fire disaster. This risk grows as time passes and the impact of climate change increases - the terrible events on the North Coast bear testimony to my concerns and one of the reasons for my objection.
I am also greatly concerned about the social problems which will arise from the increased number od people residing in this enclosed area detailed above without any additional recreation or leisure facilities such as parks and playgrounds. My objection to this unsatisfactory omission from the proposal is compounded by the fact that strata laws place barriers on the freedom that unit residents are subject to and which are not dealt with by developments.
This development should not be progressed until these and other objections are properly and effectively addressed by bodies such as the NSW Government Planning authorities.

In particular I am concerned about the strain on the local community that we will be caused by this and other proposed developments in the precinct.
These concerns are:
- the scale of the development, and the associated overcrowding they will cause
- the inadequacy of the local road system to deal with increased traffic volumes
- traffic studies should consider the totality of increased traffic volumes of ALL existing and proposed developments within the precinct, not just an incremental approach
- the inadequacy of the road network to cope with emergency situations, such as bushfire

In particular I am concerned about the strain on the local community that we will be caused by this and other proposed developments in the precinct.
These concerns are:
- the scale of the development, and the associated overcrowding they will cause
- the inadequacy of the local road system to deal with increased traffic volumes
- traffic studies should consider the totality of increased traffic volumes of ALL existing and proposed developments within the precinct, not just an incremental approach
- the inadequacy of the road network to cope with emergency situations, such as bushfire

Over development, deep soil provision for significant trees and under story inadequate to promote and approach Government and Council aim of 40% tree cover and maintain remnant Blue Gum High Forest.
Will add considerably to the current congestion at the Highway intersection. Bush fire evacuation risk not considered but a real threat with rapid climate changes. Storm water discharge volume will double over current levels thereby prejudicing the banks of Blue Gum Creek for inhabitants downstream in Kings Avenue and Alexander Parade notwithstanding detention storage which doesn't limit volume, just flow rates, Sizing must be done to cater for the 1 in 100 or more stringent (eg 1 in 500) storm rainfall whch happens increasingly often. There has been loss of creek banks already without these extra over sized developments.

Any buildings over 5 stories would look completely out of place in these quiet, suburban streets.. High-rise buildings are inappropriate. There is already a major apartment building being constructed in Maclaurin Parade and another in Six-Mile Lane.
Traffic is already a problem. The Pacific Highway is gridlocked at busy times of the day and Maclaurin Parade has to be used by all drivers who want to turn right onto the highway. Larkin Street is effectively one-lane with parking on both sides of the street.
If the sketch of the buildings is anything to go by: where do the children play? Are you going to build a new school? This is an explosion of population: how is this good for our community?

This project is too large for the location and its road system to support. I note there are actually 2 developments proposed for this tiny pocket which combined is mammoth. 3 other projects are already underway.
Access is already difficult with only 3 streets open to Pacific Highway, only one with lights and no turn arrow and the Boundary Road intersection in the middle. It can take multiple cycles of lights to get in or out and intersection is frequently blocked. The streets in question are narrow, winding and have poor visibility due to remnant protected Blue Gum Forest. There is no other road access. This is before 2 large unit blocks under construction are complete and occupied.
It is important to note that this precinct is a bushfire zone with many properties in the flame zone backing on to Lane Cove National Park.
No further development should occur without a proper plan and road changes to enable safe daily life and crucially mass evacuation of residents in a bushfire emergency

Dear SSD:
Since 1992, I have been a homeowner in Findlay Ave, Roseville, which is near the development projects in Roseville, particularly Pockley Ave and Larkin Street. I object to this project going ahead until the longstanding access and traffic problems with the Pacific Highway are remedied, and specifics of the proposed developments respond to the real concerns of residents.
Specifically, I am very concerned about:
1. the cumulative effect of new developments around Roseville station on the amenity of my neighborhood, particularly vehicular access.
2. the implications of new high-density developments on the West side of the Pacific Highway in Roseville under, for example, Kuring-Gai Council's preferred scenario, or under any high-density buildout on the West side of the Pacific Highway in Roseville.
3. the proposal for a new road between Pockley Avenue and Shirley Road. This road would be a costly infrastructure build which will not solve traffic issues and in fact is likely to create an additional problem, creating a rat run through our streets to gain access to Lady Game Drive, with related safety issues for our children. The cost/ benefit and risks of the proposed road should be re-evaluated with the benefit of the local road user voice and experience.
4. the proposed park at the bottom of Pockley Avenue. I think including a park in additional development is a good idea, but the site proposed is in a gully which will always remain damp and mosquito prone. A park would be better placed at the top of Pockley Ave or on Larkin Street.
5. The neighbourhood is adjacent to bushland to the West and, in the event of a fire, the difficulty in exiting the neighbourhood would pose serious safety concerns.
The fundamental problem is that our precinct of streets and the Pacific Highway is unable to cope with the already existing vehicular traffic requirements. The preference in traffic light signaling for Pacific Highway flow over access to and from side streets is extreme and detrimental to residents of these side streets.
We have limited access routes to the Pacific Highway. Our safest access is via the traffic light at Maclaurin Parade which is already a congested intersection at peak hour. We have written repeatedly to State and Local Governments about traffic concerns and the impact of a significant level of development in our small precinct.
1. the only way to enter and exit the neighbhourhood is via the Pacific Highway, and the only streets that connect to the Pacific Highway are MacLaurin Pde, Corona Ave, and Findlay Ave, with the only traffic light and therefore safest access is at Maclaurin Parade.
2. there is no right-hand turn allowed into Findlay Ave from the Pacific Highway southbound,
3. there is no right-hand turn allowed into Corona Ave from the Pacific Highway southbound,
4. right-hand turns from the Pacific Highway southbound into MacLaurin Pde at the traffic lights are difficult at peak hour and there is no timing allowance with a right turn only arrow to make this turn safe, and
5. the only traffic-light controlled access to exit the neighbourhood headed southbound on the Pacific Highway is at MacLaurin Pde. However, especially at morning peak hour Southbound Pacific Highway drivers queue across the intersection, leaving little room for cars turning right out of Maclaurin Parade to access the Pacific Highway. This is the current situation without exacerbation from further development.
Emergency access and egress
It is already difficult to exit and enter the neighbhourhood by vehicle, including for both residents and emergency vehicles. We were threatened by the fire of 1994 when fire engines positioned at the end of Findlay Avenue were fighting fires not far behind the last houses in Findlay Avenue. All residents had evacuated children and had cars parked in the street ready for a signal from the firefighters to evacuate. Luckily with a wind change, this was not necessary. Since then, many additional apartments have already been built or are underway in our precinct of streets. I am fearful of the consequences to our safety of the impact of the additional SSD and Kuring-Gai developments on the West side of the Pacific Highway, further limiting the ability for residents and emergency vehicles to evacuate the area.
Summary
There are three multi-story developments already under construction in the neighbourhood. These developments will add significant numbers of cars to the neighborhood, all vying for the limited exit and entry access to the neighbourhood. Additional significant development will further exacerbate this already difficult situation. The implications for vehicular access have not been evaluated systematically for cumulative effects.
I urge you to consider vehicular access implications for our neighbourhood of imposing so much concentrated development where there is unsatisfactory traffic-light controlled access to the neighbourhood. I urge you to delay further high-density developments in and near our neighbourhood until the longstanding problems with the Pacific Highway are solved.
I understand that there is a proposal to create a new road from the bottom of Pockley Ave to the bend in Shirley Road. In my view as a long-term user of these roadways, this will not solve our problems nor the Pacific Highway access problems from Shirley Road. Further, it may create a rat run through our neighbourhood, making our streets less safe.
The Pockley Avenue development, as I understand it, has proposed a park in the gully at the bottom of Pockley Avenue. Again, with long term knowledge of the area, I believe this is the wrong place to position a park – it will be damp and mosquito ridden. The positioning of the park is important and should be reconsidered, for example positioning it at the top of Pockley Avenue.
I object to:
- the development of dense housing, and its attendant traffic, without first solving the fundamental problem of the already overloaded precinct of streets and access and safety issues. Increased density should not be contemplated until the state commits to improvements. Recent requests to simply have KEEP CLEAR road markings across the intersection of Maclaurin Parade and the Pacific Highway have been rejected by State authorities despite this being a simple and relatively inexpensive means of abating a current problem which will worsen with further development.
- the proposed location of the park at the bottom of Pockley Avenue.
I am aware that many of my neighbours share my concerns. I am also aware that some of them have made submissions including photos/videos which clearly demonstrate our current congestion problems which will be greatly exacerbated by the addition of these developments. However, I can also provide photographic evidence to support this submission if required.

I am submitting the attached document in response to SSD-77829461, which proposes a residential development on Pockley Avenue, Roseville.

This submission raises serious concerns about the legal, financial, and reputational risks the NSW Government may face if development in the West-Roseville precinct proceeds without first addressing known bushfire evacuation limitations. The area is already beyond its safe evacuation capacity, with only three viable exit routes and more than 1,200 car spaces either existing or planned—far exceeding the safe household threshold of 301–600 dwellings identified in peer-reviewed research.

The submission outlines the following key issues:

Regulatory non-compliance: The proposed development does not satisfy the requirements of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021 or the SSD Guidelines, particularly in relation to cumulative traffic impacts and bushfire risk.
Insufficient evacuation infrastructure: The precinct’s evacuation capacity has not been independently assessed, especially under projected climate change scenarios.
Escalating climate litigation: There is a growing global trend of legal action against governments for failing to adapt to known hazards. Approving developments in high-risk zones exposes the NSW Government to similar liabilities.
Financial risk: The bankruptcy of Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) in California—due to over $30 billion in wildfire-related liabilities—demonstrates the potential financial consequences of ignoring foreseeable risks.
In light of these concerns, we respectfully urge the NSW Government to:

Immediately suspend all development approvals in the West-Roseville precinct until an independent review of evacuation capacity is completed.
Commission a comprehensive assessment that includes bushfire simulations, climate projections, and traffic modelling.
Ensure all development aligns with safe evacuation thresholds and complies fully with planning legislation.
Recognise that this is not merely a planning matter—it is a question of legal responsibility and public safety.
We ask that you give this submission your full consideration and ensure that future decisions are guided by scientific evidence and the Government’s duty of care.

Yours sincerely,
A concerned Roseville resident

- excess building heights
- traffic and parking congestion for local residents
- Bushfire evacuation risk and potential litigation
- overshadowing due to height
- streetscape detriment
- environmental concerns, water runoff, threatened species due to endangered micro bat population in the vicinity

Traffics, poor public facilities and capacity limitations of this area.

Please find attached my submission objecting to this project.

Yours sincerely

Dr Matthew Sladescu

Safety and wellbeing concerns of residents must be addressed. The proposed developments could lead to serious catastrophic scenarios in not-too-distant future.

Please see attachment for concerns on project/development safety

Dear Sir/Madam,

I reside at Findlay ave, Roseville. The development is few street away from my premises and I am strong oppose the development on the following reasons:

Reason 1: Traffic impact
Roseville was once a quiet area along with well persvered heritage elements. The states roll out of TODs has already invite unmanagable amount of developments into this neighbourhood which in my view has already burdened a lot of aspects in the locality. There are currently no accomodation in relation to adding more amenities (shops, streets, functional centres) to the areas, e.g. no widening of the street to accomodate the car, nor has additional public transport for other travel methods.

As a resident in Findlay Ave, currently we perfer Maclaurin Parade as the only safe option. This is because, the Pacific highway is alway congested as people wishes to turn into the Boundary Street and therefore restrained our ability to turn right into M1 direction. Also worth mentioning that Boundary street is a SP2 road and now also having the same traffic congestion issue due to the state unplanned developments in the area so far. The Corona Lane which intersect with the Boundary Street and Pacific Highway can only be lefted turned due to what I believe is for consideration of a seagull design. Therefore, for us the Findlay resident to heading the right direction (towards M1) we can only rely on Maclaurin Parade. However, this SSD has high potential to use Maclaurin Parade as main street to travel as well, and this time the development would create 178 apartments which the damage to the existing traffic condition would be unbearable.
Furthermore, the Maclaurin Parade is currently a 2 lane way street (approximate 6m wide) and has a huge sloping elevation. Therefore it is very unsafe for more developments to locate near this area without proper accomodation to widen the street or have an alternative option.

Reason 2: Critical endangered animals
As a long term resident in Roseville, I have encountered many native faunas near MaClaurin Parade as I often enjoyed a little walk exercise over there. I have seen protected animal species e.g. echinas, blue tone lizards, posseums on that street. Therefore the development would creates risks for these animal habitats to be removed. I strongly suggests the development to accomodate a BDAR to review the significance of the site rather than a simple letter to suggests a BDAR waiver. If a BDAR is indeed not required, the Department shall release the procedure on how they reach their conclusion. E.g. is a test of significance conducted, or has any argonimist has gone out to the site for examination.

reason 3: Clause 4.6 affordable housing
In my opinion the clause 4.6 to have additional 26.8% is totally for the benefit of the developer to have more tenants which means to bring more economic benefit of the landlord, rather than to accomodate affordable housing. In the response of the 4.6 "the proposed height exceedance is not anticipated to have any impact on the promotion of the social and economic welfare of the community" has already contrayed to the objective a) to promote the social and ecnomic welfare of the community. (I wish to highlight the wording of "promote" here to address the objectives)

Furthermore, the 4.6 response has lack information on how the development would achieve ecologically sustainable design which under object (b) "to faclitate ecologically sustainable development by integrating relevant ecomoic, environmental and social considerations in decision -making about EPA act", however as noted, the development has no BDAR assessment or any sort of the document to support the claim the environmental factor, furthermore the applicant's own words of development is not anticipate to have any social and economical factor does not align with the objective b as well.
In this regard, the development has not included the consideration in relation to the tripple-bottom line approach being social, economical, and environemental and therefore I urge the development to be refused as the submitted clause 4.6 has no benefits to the general public. If the clause 4.6 approves, then i would question the legimacy of the statuory grounds, which in my opinion the 4.6 is clearly made for the rich being more richer rather than truely caring of the public.

Kind regards,

Safety and wellbeing concerns of residents must be addressed. The proposed developments could lead to serious catastrophic scenarios in not-too-distant future.