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

There are too many high rise built or is building. no more on a heritage listed street. Traffic is very bad and no way to turn right (south) on Pacific high way.

The updated version of the proposal for SSD-77825469 at Pockley Avenue development has proposed to increase the building height of the 3 towers to 10 stories. This was not in the original proposal to the community (UP TO 9 stories was the original proposal). Even the original proposal the main building height of the 3 towers was objectionable including the traffic flow on Maclaurin Parade. There is no response to these community concerns other than to note it is a concern and pushing the reliance back on the NSW government to fix the traffic congestion issues onto Pacific Highway from Maclaurin Parade. The significant development by increasing the height of the 3 towers to 10 stories is wholly objectionable and to do this proposal in this way, by having NO intention in initial consultations to have 3 buildings at 10 stories and all the work provided to community regarding shadow created by the buildings, noise, amenity, traffic for buildings was not proposed on 10 stories. To seek community engagement and then in the background lodge an application to increase the height so that the developer can afford their project by getting rebates for 'affordable' housing is treating the residents who surround this development with contempt. Three 10 story buildings in this pocket of Roseville is a complete overdevelopment. The concerns of noise, height, shadow, and traffic are magnified. Maclaurin Street is already choked and difficult to navigate during construction of the apartment building on Maclaurin next to Nola Road and the development above the Roseville Memorial club. The street is blocked both sides with trade vehicles and trucks already. And these are just 2 developments that are by no means the size and scale proposed in this development by increasing to 10 stories. There are no 10 story buildings in Roseville that can possibly be measured in line with this development. Even the apartments along Boundary street are not 10 stories high - they are 6 stories and the new apartment on Pacific highway above the Memorial Club is not 10 stories.
The development itself is not the issue as has already been raised in community engagement, even though most people were not aware of it. More housing is important. However, residents should not be tricked into supporting a project and receiving no answers or then having the developer behind the scenes keep amending the request to increase stories all to obtain 'affordable' house benefits. I wholly object to the increased scale of this project.

My major concern with this development is the height. It is too imposing for the streetscape. The artist's impression is of a lovely wide street, with no parked cars visible. This is totally unrealistic, as the street is frequently parked-out now.
As a senior citizen, I currently enjoy visits from my peers, who need to park on the street, as our address has no visitor parking. Despite the 150 parking spaces proposed in the development, there will be much increased difficulty for my friends and family to find accessible parking when they come to visit me. My street, and the surrounding streets are very hilly, and would be difficult for my visitors to struggle with.
As well, the much increased amount of traffic attempting to access the Pacific Highway in this area will be horrendous, as McLaurin Parade is our only option for exiting this area.
My unit is situated next door to the proposed development, 6 Larkin Street, and my loungeroom, kitchen window, and balcony face east. I believe the proposed development will tower over 6 Larkin Street, and invade my skyspace limiting the natural light that I currently enjoy.
I respectfully request that the height and number of apartments proposed in this development be reduced to avoid forever spoiling such a pleasant place to live.

Thank you for your consideration.
Earnestly
Jane Robinson

I object to this development as it doesn’t address:
1. the local housing demand. This is a chinese property developer building new dwellings to sell back to Chinese investors. All these apartments will be sold at a ridiculous price that excludes access to frontline and essential workers. There is no inclusion for social and low income housing. This is completely a profit making activity that benefits the developer and the State government and NOT local Australians. A minimum requirement should be PR status to purchase the new dwellings.
2. Local street traffic. Do you even live in this local area? Do you know how hard it is to get out of McLaurin parade in the morning onto the Pacific Highway? It takes 4 sometimes 5 light changes to turn right- it’s the only safe way you can go right from the streets in this local area. Why should my morning commute be impacted by the greed of the State government and an overseas property developer who will do NOTHING to advocate for better traffic conditions in the local area.
3. Increase cars parking on the roadside. The Minns government is deluded if it thinks the heavy rail is going to be the main means of transport for apartment dwellers. Each dwelling will have two cars and most of these will be parked on the roadside. This has happened in roads where there are existing apartments and it’s a nightmare driving in streets with parking on each side reducing dual lane access and increasing accidents, a nightmare for emergency services and the local bus route. Of course none of this will be addressed by this development.
4. Local schools and hospitals. Are you going to pack the kids from these developments into local schools pushing numbers in access of 1000 students like Chatswood Public School which ironically has an ‘international reputation’? How do you think Royal North Shore hospital and Hornsby Hospital will cope with all these people and their extended families who inevitably come out on family reunion? Where’s the thought/ planning on services these people will require in the local area?

I am a homeowner in Findlay Ave, Roseville, which is nearby to the development projects in Roseville. I object to this project and to nearby projects going ahead until the longstanding problems with the Pacific Highway are remedied, as I will discuss in detail below. I will first mention my history in the neighbourhood, then turn to my specific concerns, and conclude with my specific objection.

My history in the neighbourhood
My parents built this house in 1965 and I grew up in it, so I have long-term experience in this neighbourhood. My submission today concerns traffic and, in particular, access between my neighbourhood and the Pacific Highway. That is, I would like to focus on the heavy traffic implications of the project.

My specific concerns
I am very concerned about:
1. the cumulative effect of new developments around Roseville station on the amenity of my neighborhood, particularly vehicular access, and
2. the implications of new high-density developments on the West side of the Pacific Highway in Roseville under, for example, Kuringgai Council's preferred scenario, or under any high-density buildout on the West side of the Pacific Highway in Roseville.

The fundamental problem is that the Pacific Highway is unable to cope with the existing vehicular traffic requirements put on it due to decades of neglect. The preference in traffic light signalling for Pacific Highway flow over access to and from side streets is extreme and detrimental to residents of these side streets.

My principal concern is about the implications for exiting and entering my neighborhood to the Pacific Highway by car, since:
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,
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 not protected, and
5. the only traffic-light controlled access to exit the neighbourhood headed southbound on the Pacific Highway is at MacLaurin Pde.

To summarize, it is already difficult to exit and enter the neighbhourhood by vehicle, including for both residents and emergency vehicles. 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 proposed connection between Pockley and Shirley does nothing to solve the access problems that I face.

Furthermore, there are three multi-story developments already under construction in the neighbourhood, and I understand that multiple other properties have been bought by a developer or developers with the intention of building high-density developments. Even the existing 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 under Kuringgai Council's preferred scenario or any other high density buildouts 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 the 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 nearby to our neighbourhood until the longstanding problems with the Pacific Highway are solved.
It has been clear for decades that the Pacific Highway from at least the Gore Hill Freeway to Mona Vale Road has been inadequate for the traffic demands on it. In my opinion, the Pacific Highway needs to be bypassed and this should be accomplished before even more traffic is added to the Pacific Highway from high density developments in Roseville, Lindfield, Killara, and Gordon.

My objection
I object to the development of dense housing, and its attendant traffic, without first solving the fundamental problem of the already overloaded Pacific Highway. Increased density should not be contemplated until the state commits to bypassing the Pacific Highway between the Gore Hill Freeway and Mona Vale Road.

I do not object to the project SSD-77829461 as a whole, but I would like highlight and question the findings of the Transport And Accessibility Impact Assessment Report, which concludes that the increase in vehicles “will not have any unacceptable traffic implications in terms of road network capacity”.
The existing traffic in the area already makes it difficult to access the Pacific Highway from MacLaurin Parade, especially at peak times when traffic backs up on the south bound side of the Highway from the junction lights at Boundary Street. So, the present infrastructure is not adequately coping with current vehicle density
There are multiple high-density developments planned or under construction in Larkin St., Larkin Lane, Pockley Avenue and MacLaurin Parade, as part of the local Transport Oriented Development Together these will add many more vehicles than the 150 or so extra proposed by development SSD-77829461. The Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure needs to consider the cumulative effect on traffic, and put traffic flow improvements in place before approving these developments, rather than evaluating each individual claim against the current, barely acceptable, infrastructure.
Whilst the Construction Traffic Management Plan stipulates entry via Pockley Avenue, there should also be mention that Larkin St is a narrow cul de sac and the northern end of Larkin St. is not suitable for large truck to park awaiting access to the site.

See Submission Attachment.

I am impressed with the environmental reports that were carried out in regard to this development. This development will be a valuable addition to the housing stock because of its proximity to transport and retail venues. In my opinion the attractive design meets the requirements of the TOD SEPP.

The original TOD proposal included my property. This would mean that there would be mid-rise building on my property. The current proposed alternative from Kuringai council excludes my property. The proposed development will directly block and shadow my property as it will be a development which will be built blocking the easterly light and sun and moving up a hillside which will make it much higher than the proposed 10 storeys. In addition, the subsequent noise and air pollution if my property is not included as part of a SSD or TOD will be unbearable given the number of SSDs in the Larkin and Pockley Ave developments. In fact all of the streets of Larkin and Pockley directly facing my property will be building site. Consideration needs to be given to our property which is part of the TOD but under the KMC alternative excludes us.

This development should be approved in order to help alleviate the housing crisis within Sydney. It is imperative that these dwellings are built, and the department should ignore the locals who are trying to stifle any form of development. We live in a city with a growing population, and this area is ripe for development with great access to employment, local amenities, and amazing transport infrastructure. It is more economical and environmentally friendly to provide housing in a higher density form, thus it is in the best interests of the taxpayers of this state that this development is approved.

In the EIS, section 4.1, table 6, there appears to be an discrepancy between the specified amount of market dwellings to be provided, and the specified dwelling mix of market units. What is the final dwelling mix and total number of units to be built?

A tasteful design addressing the requirements of the TOD SEPP. A perfect location to accommodate the growing needs of more homes and the current state and council municipality housing crisis. Sensitive consideration to the environmental and infrastructure needs of the location.

Dear Sir or Madam,

I am writing to formally object to the proposed development project for the following reasons:

1. Inconsistency with Council’s Preferred Scenario
The general design plan is inconsistent with Council’s preferred scenario, which takes community feedback, local character, heritage considerations, and appropriate transition etc into account. The council planning scenario also considers the cumulative impact due to all future developments across the suburb.

2. Excessive Floor Space Ratio and Building Height
The proposed FSR of 3.19 is greater than the area's proposed planning controls, which permit an FSR 2.34 (30% bonus after base 1.8). Such a scale would severely impact the surrounding area by disrupting solar access, diminishing sunlight, and altering the established character of nearby properties—raising significant transition concerns.

3. Inadequate Deep Soil Provision
The proposal includes only 16% deep soil, far below the required 50% for council's high-density development requirement. This shortfall undermines essential urban design principles including tree canopy retention, biodiversity support, and effective stormwater infiltration.

Given that the Council’s preferred scenario is the result of more than 18 months of collaborative work between the Council and the community, and it should be respected in future planning decisions.

Thank you for considering my submission.

Don’t do it mate

I live on Larkin St, this is a quiet, suburban area with huge amounts of trees and vegetation, along with heritage properties, you will completely destroy all biodiversity in the area. This is an important wildlife corridor for so many species, you will increase the amount of hit by car accidents of wildife and will inevitably deprive many of food resources.

It is sad that by allocating a mere 29 units as affordable housing the idiotic state gov will probably approve this huge development on a site that should'nt be developed. Leave these pockets of nature and greenery alone, we have enough hard space. STOP with these huge concrete developments that have such long lasting effects on the environment. The area is also not convenient for public transport so the traffic will increase dramatically on a very very narrow one lane street, not to mention the ligh pollution that will occur in the area. Light pollution has been proven to be causing wide spread blindeness in both ringtail and brushtail possums, both of which are protected native species.

Find another devleopment area that doesnt encroach on important environmental pockets that will destroy so much native fauna.

Firstly I would like to say that my husband and I support the overall intention to provide increased development and housing in our suburb. However we do not support the very large scale of this proposed development, especially as it accompanies a neighbouring development by the same company - SSD-77825469. This development is for 111 apartments, and the neighbouring one in Pockley Ave is for 178 apartments, a total of 289 apartments of 9-10 and 10 stories. This is a huge number in a small area with currently one access road to the Pacific Highway - already a bottleneck.
Our major objection is that this development, and the neighbouring one, will be significantly out of keeping with the
Ku-Ring-Gai Council’s alternative preferred proposal to the original TOD scheme for this area, which we support. It allows for development in this area but at lesser density in terms of height and FSR, far more in keeping with the local area and surrounding single level housing properties. The Council’s preferred proposal places far less demands on local infrastructure and much less severe transitions between adjoining properties.
We would happily support development across this site in keeping with Ku-Ring-Gai Council’s preferred proposal, but not the excessive scale of this SSD application.

I would like to object to this project being included in the SSD classification as I do not believe it meets the requirements to be included. The size of this parcel of land is 3552m2 on the corner of two narrow streets. It is not connected to any other site and was sold separately to other sites in the same street. I believe the developer is trying to include this site as part of the SSD project located across the road. They are two seperate developments and should be treated as such. On its own this site is not suitable for lodgement under the SSD classification and should go through a traditional DA process.
I would also like to object to height being proposed by the developer. This site is at the highest point of the street. The topography of the land needs to be taken in account when height limits are looked at. This project will negatively impact other residents and any future developments occurring in the area. A neighbouring site downhill from this site will be completely overshadowed by the size of this development. Hours of sunlight for neighbouring sites will be impacted greatly.