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

I object - gross over development, inadequate consideration of traffic generated by new, under construction and proposed developments on access to the Pacific Highway especially at peak hours, failure to consider storm water effects and consequential damage, loss of land to properties in Alexander Parade adjoining Blue Gun Creek, lack of consideration of bushfire evacuation risk and bushfire from ember spread from adjacent properties on Bushfire Prone Land, should be fewer units and more on site car spaces as street parking is very limited for existing, new, under construction and proposed developments.

We know development will happen, we just want to limit the height and size so it doesn’t impact traffic and in particular bushfire evacuation for all of us come the time we need to escape quickly like in 1993 when the bushfires were at the bottom of the street. The new plans are too far off Kuringgai Councils plans and State Government should revisit South West Roseville developments.

South West Roseville is the ONLY suburb within Kuringgai council that has a bushfire risk within 800m of the station and they want to add in thousands of new units and cars to this danger zone without addressing traffic concerns. It truely is an LA waiting to happen, so please spend the time resubmitting and adding a couple of sentences to your original letters.

Combined Submissions and Amendment Report Infill Affordable Housing 2 - 16 Pockley Avenue, Roseville SSD-77825469
In his development application Mr Tom Goode of Planning&Co, on behalf of Aqualand, names the site” Pockley Island”. Pockley Avenue is not an island in any sense, and the proposed development will have a major impact on the residents of neighbouring streets. I object to the proposed development. I understand the need for additional housing but not in isolation of infrastructure issues such as roads, traffic, schools, etc
I object to the State of NSW considering such development without addressing (ie taking simple action* regarding) traffic and social impact issues as a first step. We residents have long requested traffic access improvements with no action from the State. Ninety recently built or apartment dwellings underway will already exacerbate this problem before any further development on Pockley Avenue or elsewhere in the precinct. The Pockley Avenue development includes 252 resident car parking spaces, 30 visitor car parking spaces, 2 car share spaces and 11 motorcycle parking spaces. With no action by the State to improve the traffic access issues at the intersection of Maclaurin Parade and the Pacific Highway, both State and local government authorities will be dealing in the future with many additional complaints, and I suspect there will be many additional traffic accidents.
The Combined Submissions and Amendment Report for 2-16 Pockley Avenue states that Transport for NSW “raises no objection as the proposed development is unlikely to have a significant impact on the state classified road network (i.e. Pacific Highway). TfNSW notes that all vehicle access is proposed via Pockley Avenue, which is a local road under the care and control of Council as the relevant road authority. As such, no concurrence from TfNSW will be required under Section 138 of the Roads Act 1993 for the works that are proposed as part of this development within Pockley Avenue.”
If TfNSW has no objections, they are not listening to residents. I personally have spoken to and written about the problems at the Maclaurin Parade and Pacific Highway intersection several times and I know others in the precinct have as well. Additionally, I know that MP Matt Cross recently raised this issue with the Transport Minister’s office and in essence the response suggested there wasn’t an issue. *A simple solution is to have KEEP CLEAR on the road surface at the intersection, but the State continues to ignore this simple low-cost solution, suggesting instead police monitoring, which is certainly a more costly and less effective solution to a problem. Is anyone in State Transport actually listening????? Further, do the Ministers for Planning, Transport and Education actually work together at any stage to coordinate overall community needs??
With reference to the Traffic Report at Appendix J, Mr Donald Lee of Varga Traffic Planning concludes: “That projected future level of traffic generation potential is minimal and will clearly not have any unacceptable traffic implications in terms of road network capacity.” Mr Lee had clearly not consulted residents with lived experience. Again, is anyone actually listening to current residents with lived experience??
The submission’s response does note under section 4.4 “Ku-ring-gai Council’s Submission to this SSDA has noted the following which addresses the public’s concerns on this matter: “While improvements to the intersection and nearby roads are possible and are being planned, these can be costly and have not been considered or approved by Transport for NSW or Council. Key transport-related works already identified in the Development Contributions Plan 2010 that are being re-assessed include road widening on Pacific Highway to accommodate 3 northbound lanes and fully controlled right turns into Maclaurin Parade. A Transport Response is being developed, to mitigate the impacts of new development and to create a centre with improved walkability/bicycle access to the shops and station. Any new transport infrastructure identified in the TIA will inform the review of the Contributions Plan,” etc.
That’s reference to a Kur-ring-gai Council submission but it’s a NSW State issue. And road widening of the Pacific Highway will not improve our traffic access issues.
Further, the following response statement ignores the fact that there are similar access issues at the Shirley Road and Pacific Highway intersection and doesn’t solve the problem. “The supplementary parking and traffic matters letter included in Appendix J note, “Council is proposing a new road link between Pockley Avenue and Shirley Road which will provide another route in/out of the precinct, thereby enabling local traffic activity generated by the precinct to be more widely dispersed via other local roads, without the need to access the Pacific Highway.” The cost/ benefit and risks of the proposed road should be re-evaluated with the benefit of the local road user voice and experience.
In the revised submission summary, in the section on issues related to the submission, under the heading Traffic and Parking Provision it was noted that “Impact of additional car parking on traffic of road network.” This statement does not capture the public submissions to the first proposal and current public interests. We are not concerned so much about static car parking. We are very concerned about the impact on cars moving in and out of the area and the impact on accessibility in and out of our neighbourhood.
This plan appears to ignore the fact that families also need outdoor recreation and play space. There appears to be very little green space adjacent to the apartments. While the development proposal talks about Communal Open Space (COS), I don’t see that on the graphics and images provided. There is a provision for rooftop COS. Realistically, will parents send their children to play alone on a rooftop??
In response to comments from the public on Insufficient open space infrastructure in the locality, the response is “the site is within 300 metres of the Blue Gum Reserve which is about 17 hectares. The Hotham Reserve is an 11 minute walk from the site.” Again, parents will not be sending their young children off to these spaces. Blue Gum is largely bushland with limited access points. Hotham Reserve isn’t even linked to our group of streets and is a small, damp park surrounded by apartment buildings. The response is laughable.
In an earlier development submission, a small park was proposed at the bottom of Pockley on the western side below the Rifleway. Good idea to include a local park but this site would likely be dark and damp in that gully.
Since 1992, I have been a homeowner in Findlay Ave, Roseville. 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.
The revised submission also states:
“The site is not located on bushfire prone land and is beyond the bushfire risk buffer zone in Ku-ring-gai Council’s online mapping tool. Being in an urbanised and well established residential suburb, there is a low risk of bushfire. Therefore, a Bushfire Impact Assessment has not been prepared for this SSDA. Further, DPHI, other government agencies nor Council have raised this bushfire as a notable risk to address. However, a Bushfire Emergency Management Plan can be conditioned in any determination if deemed as necessary.
The site is not mapped as bushfire prone land in Council or NSW Rural Fire Service bush fire prone land mapping.”
For those of us who lived through the 1994 bushfires which defied the government guidelines referenced above, we simply state that lived experience says differently, and it scares the daylights out of us. It will happen again despite a low risk profile. Can we then hold the Council and the State accountable for ignoring lived experience?
Summary
There are three multi-story developments already under construction or nearing completion 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 still not been evaluated realistically and systematically with the benefit of lived experience of the residents of the neighbourhood.
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.
Aqualand’s overall 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 in this location, 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.

My objecions to the proposal include:-
1. Maclaurin Parade is the only exit to the Pacific Highway to go South for 8 streets including the proposed development. The 8 streets which rely on the Maclaurin Parade exit are Corona Avenue, Kings Avenue,Alexander Parade, Nola Road, Larkin Street, Larkin Lane, Pockley Avenue and Maclaurin Parade.
2. Exit from Maclaurin Parade is restricted to 10 cars (maximum) as Maclaurin Parade only has the Green light for 10 seconds with 4 minutes Green light being given to Pacific Highway traffic. This allowance is only 2.5 minutes in each hour which would allow only 150 cars in each hour to exit Maclaurin Parade. On the basis that the peak hour is 2 hours this would allow 300 cars to exit. However, this assumes that the 300 car exit time is evenly spread over a 2 hour period which, of course, it isn't.
3. At the present time there are approximately 300 homes in the 8 streets set out in para 1 above. These 300 homes have 440 cars which equates to 1.5 cars per home.
4. The proposed Pockley Avenue development has provision for 284 cars for 180 homes (1.6 cars / home.)
5. The total number of cars to exit to the Pacific Highway will therefore increase by 65% to 724 cars. The Development Application makes no provision for the increased traffic exit.
6. The current and additional number of cars in the 8 streets mentioned above would require 72 sets of Green lights to exit Maclaurin Parade.
7. The nonsense of increasing an already terrible exit process from Maclaurin Parade would mean it would be totally unacceptable if the development for a 65% increase in cars were allowed.
8. The above problems would not only significantly erode the amenity of the residents lifestyle but would also mean certain devastation in the event of an emergency, such as a bushfire.
9. The excellent environment that this area enjoys is largely the product of its substantial native forest. However, as has been seen in recent years and as recently as a couple of weeks ago, bushfire risk is increasing dramatically. The fact that the last serious threat of bushfire in our area was 32 years ago means that the likelihood of another such serious event is closer. In the event of a bushfire the serious problems of exit detailed above would be catastrophic for all homes in the 8 streets mentioned above. The increase in the number of homes by 60% without any associated increase in protection from bushfire would result in a disaster. The suggestion that the proposed development would not be affected by a bushfire is illogical. A bushfire does not stop at an arbitrary line estimated by "experts".
10. The proposed development does not provide appropriate amenity for the residents of the additional 180 homes which would be home to around 450 adults and children. The provision of "open space" at ground level and rooftop must be detailed as to the facilities and the total surface being provided to accomodate the lifestyle amenity for the 450 residents.
11. All of the matters raised above should be examined and reported on by independent experts and these reports must be made public for scrutiny and comment by the current residents. The analysis and report must be truly independent and be the result of ON SITE examination and analysis by genuine experts experts.
12. I have barely touched the surface of the many issues which mean that this development must not proceed as currently proposed. Its many and serious shortcomings require independent assessment to ensure the integrity of any further action of this proposal.

The Traffic Jam is very serious now. All residents in the Findlay Ave, Alexander Parade, Kings Ave, Corona Ave, Maclaurin Parade, Pockley Ave, Larkin st Roseville need turn to Chatswood / city direction and boundary street at the traffic light at Maclaurin Parade / Pacific High way . As the distance between the traffic light at Maclaurin Parade / Pacific High way and the traffic light at boundary street / Pacific High way is very short. therefore It is very hard for local residences to turn to Pacific Hig Way at Maclaurin Parade traffic light. The proposal development project has 180 apartments with 284 car parks will definitely make the current serious traffic issue even more worse. The Pockley Ave is the highest point in terms of terrain.The proposed project has 10 stories which will make the surrounding residents feel very oppressed.

Being a resident in 9-15 Kings Avenue 2069 I objected to the overpowering bulk of the proposed development, the visual impact of it and the dramatic effect on the surrounding streets of the traffic accessing the Pacific Highway. I now find the amended proposal has increased the height of the development, reduced the number of car parking spaces, increased the number of dwellings and increased the floor space ratio.

The relevent issues raised in objections to the original submission have been ignored out of hand further impacting the bush fire evacuation issues and restricting the access of emergency services to the area during an event.

My further objections are as follows.


Visual/Environmental Impact
The transition from a single storey property at number 6 Kings Avenue that lies at the bottom of McLaurin Parade/ Pockley Avenue means this single-family residence will lie immediately adjacent to a ten-storey apartment block, restricting daylight, sun and creating an undesirable visual impact. This will be exacerbated by 6 Kings Avenue and 4a-10 Mclaurin Parade lying some three metres lower than the lowest part of the proposed development.

The height of the ten-storey building C significantly impacts on the apartments of the mid-rise flatted development at 9-15 Kings Ave, overpowering it and reducing sunlight.

The applicant’s proposal is twice the height of the highest recent developments and EIS 4.8 shows the massing of Block C to be the greatest of the three towers at the point where it has most adverse impact to properties at the bottom of Mclaurin Parade.

The applicant’s Traffic Impact Statement (TIA) is only a desk top study and not based on an actual traffic study. It makes no reference to the implications of the additional vehicles accessing the Pacific Highway from the 178 properties in this development or the Cumulative Impact of the new developments in Corona Avenue, Pacific Highway, McLaurin Parade, Larkin Lane and Pockley Avenue. These will in result in 425 properties seeking to access Pacific Highway at the Mclaurin Parade junction without recognition of that or there are likely to be further applications in the future.

Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA)

TIA 3.1 Road Hierarchy

The comments do not reflect the status of Pacific Highway at the junction with Mclaurin Parade. The Pacific Highway is two lanes, not three, in both directions with one southbound turning bay. The increased traffic from the proposed development at this bottleneck will lead to significant congestion at the junction, on McLaurin Parade and the streets leading to it. McLaurin Parade is both a school bus route and path for emergency vehicles with congestion leading to delays and danger in particular in the event of bush fires which have previously encroached on Finlay Avenue (1994).

TIA 3.6 Projected Traffic Generation
Claims. “That projected change in the traffic generation potential of the site as a consequence of the development proposal is minimal and will clearly not have any unacceptable traffic implications in terms of road network capacity”. This assessment refers only to the capacity of pacific Highway and does not take account of traffic entering from Mclaurin Parade, the only controlled junction allowing traffic to access the Pacific Highway in both directions. A proposal to connect Pockley Avenue to Shirley Avenue is not assured to meet the needs of access and egress of traffic to the area and a full assessment is necessary.

Environmental Impact Assessment (EIS)

2.2.8 Surrounding Development
Asserts in support of the application that the area has both medium and high-density residential development. This is inaccurate and the proposed development id twice the height of the most recent.

Operational Traffic Management
Asserts in support of the development “the development will not have any unacceptable traffic implications in terms of road network capacity” This statement takes no account of the impact of the area being nominated as a TOD and the 425 additional properties recently completed or proposed in current applications. No consideration has been given to future applications.

Community Feedback.

Environmental Impact Assessment EIS 6.2
Multiple respondents expressed concern regarding the implications for traffic accessing the Pacific Highway Traffic & on-street parking

• Multiple attendees from the drop-in session noted existing difficulties with respect to
accessing the Pacific Highway particularly during peak hours. There is limited right-turn
access from Maclaurin Parade onto the Pacific Highway, which creates congestion by
preventing left-turning vehicles from proceeding.
• Concerns were highlighting existing challenges with on-street parking and sought
assurances on parking provisions within the development.
• Concerns in relation to adding new dwellings son an already congested access point t
the Pacific Highway, particularly considering another development under construction at
the corner of Pacific Highway and Maclaurin Parade.

No recognition or mitigation is planned for the concerns raised and a connection to Shirley Avenue will create an undesirable ‘rat run’ through narrow residential streets.

Green Travel Plan
The Green Travel Plan does not meet the objectives of

Reducing Dependence on Private Cars
Reducing Congestion in the Local Area

If the principle is to develop close to public transport hubs and railway stations, it should not be necessary to provide parking for 250 cars for 178 apartments.

Cumulative Impacts
EIS 3.4 Recognises that future development in the catchment area should be a consideration for cumulative impacts (of the area being designated a TOD)

Council feedback

Ku ring gai Council was asked:
Q: Why has Council prepared the housing scenarios prior to having traffic studies
completed?

A: Council was given minimal warning before the NSW Government’s TOD provisions
commenced in May 2024. Accordingly, due to time constraints Council commenced supporting studies including Traffic Impact Assessments while simultaneously investigating alternate housing scenarios. The Traffic studies are expected to be completed later this year subject to TfNSW’s time to review and respond.

Conclusion
The proposed development exceeds the guidelines, seeking to maximise the apartment numbers and in doing so has an undesirable impact on the neighbouring properties. Block C should be reduced in height to allow for a sympathetic transition from the single storey house adjacent and reduce overshadowing the property at 9-15 Kings Ave.

The impact of the additional traffic from this proposal cannot be taken in isolation and approval should be withheld until Ku ring gai council has completed its Traffic Study, identifying the full traffic impact and proposed solutions to the increased volume of traffic for the whole area within the TOD.

I am a resident of 9-15 Kings Avenue 2069 I objected to the extension of height (from 8-10 stories) of the proposed development, the visual impact of it and the dramatic effect on the surrounding streets of the traffic accessing the Pacific Highway. The amended proposal has increased the height of the development, reduced the number of car parking spaces, increased the number of dwellings and increased the floor space ratio.

The issues raised in objections to the original submission have been ignored outright further impacting the bush fire evacuation issues and restricting the access of emergency services to the area during an event.

My further objections to the proposal are as follows.
Visual/Environmental Impact
The transition from a single storey property at number 6 Kings Avenue that lies at the bottom of McLaurin Parade/ Pockley Avenue means this single-family residence will lie immediately adjacent to a ten-storey apartment block, restricting daylight, sun and creating an undesirable visual impact, lying some three metres lower than the lowest part of the proposed development.
The height of the ten-storey building C significantly impacts on the apartments of the mid-rise flatted development at 9-15 Kings Ave, overpowering it and reducing sunlight.

The applicant’s Traffic Impact Statement (TIA) is not based on an actual traffic study. There is no reference to the implications of the additional vehicles accessing the Pacific Highway this development or the Cumulative Impact of the new developments in Corona Avenue, Pacific Highway, McLaurin Parade, Larkin Lane and Pockley Avenue. These will in result in 425 properties seeking to access Pacific Highway at the Mclaurin Parade junction .

Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA)
TIA 3.1 Road Hierarchy
The comments do not reflect the status of Pacific Highway at the junction with Mclaurin Parade. The Pacific Highway is two lanes, not three, in both directions with one southbound turning bay. The increased traffic from the proposed development at this bottleneck will lead to significant congestion at the junction, on McLaurin Parade and the streets leading to it. McLaurin Parade is both a school bus route and path for emergency vehicles with congestion leading to delays and danger in particular in the event of bush fires.

TIA 3.6 Projected Traffic Generation
Claims. “That projected change in the traffic generation potential of the site as a consequence of the development proposal is minimal and will clearly not have any unacceptable traffic implications in terms of road network capacity”. This is a clearly misguided statement with no factual assessment of the actual capacity of traffic entering up ONTO the pacific highway. This assessment refers only to the capacity of pacific Highway and does not take account of traffic entering from Mclaurin Parade, the only controlled junction allowing traffic to access the Pacific Highway in both directions. A proposal to connect Pockley Avenue to Shirley Avenue is not assured to meet the needs of access and will only create significant rat runs through local streets.

Environmental Impact Assessment (EIS)
2.2.8 Surrounding Development
Asserts in support of the application that the area has both medium and high-density residential development. This is inaccurate and the proposed development is twice the height of the most recent buildings. The proposed development is also in the valley and there has been no assessment of the noise travel from the proposal to include communal rooftop spaces where many residents could potentially gather and create an absolute wave of noise into the surrounding valley where the sound is trapped and bounces.

Operational Traffic Management
Asserts in support of the development “the development will not have any unacceptable traffic implications in terms of road network capacity” This statement takes no account of the impact of the area being nominated as a TOD and the 425 additional properties recently completed or proposed in current applications. No consideration has been given to future applications.

Community Feedback.
Environmental Impact Assessment EIS 6.2
Multiple respondents expressed concern regarding the implications for traffic accessing the Pacific Highway Traffic & on-street parking
• Multiple attendees from the drop-in session noted existing difficulties with respect to entering Pacific Highway
during peak hours. There is limited right-turn access from Maclaurin Parade onto the Pacific Highway, which creates congestion by
preventing left-turning vehicles from proceeding.
• Concerns were highlighting existing challenges with on-street parking and sought assurances on parking provisions within the development.
• Concerns in relation to adding new dwellings on an already congested access point to the Pacific Highway, particularly considering another development under construction at the corner of Pacific Highway and Maclaurin Parade.

Cumulative Impacts
EIS 3.4 Recognises that future development in the catchment area should be a consideration for cumulative impacts (of the area being designated a TOD)
Council feedback
Ku ring gai Council was asked:
Q: Why has Council prepared the housing scenarios prior to having traffic studies completed?
A: Council was given minimal warning before the NSW Government’s TOD provisions commenced in May 2024. Accordingly, due to time constraints Council commenced supporting studies including Traffic Impact Assessments while simultaneously investigating alternate housing scenarios. The Traffic studies are expected to be completed later this year subject to TfNSW’s time to review and respond.
Conclusion
The proposed development exceeds the guidelines, seeking to maximise the apartment numbers and in doing so has an undesirable impact on the neighbouring properties. Block C should be reduced in height to allow for a sympathetic transition from the single storey house adjacent and reduce overshadowing the property at 9-15 Kings Ave.
Approval should be withheld until Ku ring gai council has completed its Traffic Study, identifying the full traffic impact and proposed solutions to the increased volume of traffic for the whole area within the TOD.

Being a resident in 9-15 Kings Avenue 2069 I object on a number of grounds:
- Predominately the traffic and access to and from the neighbouring streets,
- limited off street parking on a steep hill
- no continuous footpath exists from Pockley Avenue or Maclaurin Parade that runs to the Pacific Highway for the disabled or people with prams or bicycles
- pedestrian and child safety on a steep, narrow and busy street
- lack of children's playgrounds/areas
- lack of supporting infrastructure including lack of available schools (only private schools in the area which would contradict the "affordable housing" basis for the development); all the surrounding public and private schools are already at maximum capacity
- no existing childcare centres in the immediate area - further exacerbating the traffic problem
- the overpowering bulk of the proposed development,
- the visual and noise impact of it and the dramatic effect of traffic noise on the surrounding (steep hillside) streets as traffic attempts to access the Pacific Highway.
- the amended proposal has increased the height of the development, reduced the number of car parking spaces, increased the number of dwellings and increased the floor space ratio.
- the amended proposal also includes a communal rooftop - creating the strong possibility of additional noise from groups using the rooftop in a quiet suburban neighbourhood and valley where the smallest of noises carries across significant areas
- the relevant issues raised in objections to the original submission have been ignored out of hand
- there is no provision for the evacuation of residents in the case of a bush fire
- further complicating an existing issue with access of emergency services to the area during any event.

My further objections are as follows.


Visual/Environmental Impact
The transition from a single storey property at number 6 Kings Avenue that lies at the bottom of McLaurin Parade/ Pockley Avenue means this single-family residence will lie immediately adjacent to a ten-storey apartment block, restricting daylight, sun and creating an undesirable visual impact - lying some three metres lower than the lowest part of the proposed development.

The height of the ten-storey building C significantly impacts on the apartments of the mid-rise flatted development at 9-15 Kings Ave, overpowering it and reducing sunlight.

The applicant’s proposal is twice the height of the highest recent developments and EIS 4.8 shows the massing of Block C to be the greatest of the three towers at the point where it has most adverse impact to properties at the bottom of Mclaurin Parade.

The applicant’s Traffic Impact Statement (TIA) is only a desk top study and not based on an actual traffic study. It makes no reference to the implications of the additional vehicles accessing the Pacific Highway from the 178 properties in this development or the Cumulative Impact of the new developments in Corona Avenue, Pacific Highway, McLaurin Parade, Larkin Lane and Pockley Avenue. These will in result in 425 properties seeking to access Pacific Highway at the Mclaurin Parade junction without recognition of that or there are likely to be further applications in the future.

Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA)

TIA 3.1 Road Hierarchy

The comments do not reflect the status of Pacific Highway at the junction with Mclaurin Parade. The Pacific Highway is two lanes, not three, in both directions with one southbound turning bay. The increased traffic from the proposed development at this bottleneck will lead to significant congestion at the junction, on McLaurin Parade and the streets leading to it. McLaurin Parade is both a school bus route and path for emergency vehicles with congestion leading to delays and danger, in particular in the event of bush fires which have previously encroached on Finlay Avenue (1994). In addition, Maclaurin Parade is an extremely steep and narrow street but limited in its length. With additional traffic it will increase noise, will be high risk of accident and increased risk of an injury/ fatality of pedestrians with prams and or disabled/wheelchair bound people trying to get to the Pacific Highway and the Roseville Station.

TIA 3.6 Projected Traffic Generation

Claims. “That projected change in the traffic generation potential of the site as a consequence of the development proposal is minimal and will clearly not have any unacceptable traffic implications in terms of road network capacity”. This assessment refers only to the capacity of pacific Highway and does not take account of traffic entering from Mclaurin Parade, the only controlled junction allowing traffic to access the Pacific Highway in both directions. Accessing the Pacific Highway from Maclaurin Parade is already problematic due to vehicles blocking the intersection - this will be exacerbated with such a significant number of additional vehicles, should the development be approved. A proposal to connect Pockley Avenue to Shirley Avenue is not assured to meet the needs of access and egress of traffic to the area and a full assessment is necessary.

Environmental Impact Assessment (EIS)

2.2.8 Surrounding Development

Asserts in support of the application that the area has both medium and high-density residential development. This is inaccurate and the proposed development is twice the height of the most recent development - which is already significant.

Operational Traffic Management

Asserts in support of the development “the development will not have any unacceptable traffic implications in terms of road network capacity” This statement takes no account of the impact of the area being nominated as a TOD and the 425 additional properties recently completed or proposed in current applications. No consideration has been given to already approved projects that are yet to be completed nor any future development applications.

Community Feedback.

Environmental Impact Assessment EIS 6.2

Multiple respondents expressed concern regarding the implications for traffic accessing the Pacific Highway Traffic & on-street parking

• Multiple attendees from the drop-in session noted existing difficulties with respect to accessing the Pacific Highway particularly during peak hours. There is limited right-turn access from Maclaurin Parade onto the Pacific Highway, which creates congestion by preventing left-turning vehicles from proceeding.

• Concerns were highlighting existing challenges with on-street parking and sought assurances on parking provisions within the development.

• Concerns in relation to adding new dwellings on an already congested access point to the Pacific Highway, particularly considering another development under construction at the corner of Pacific Highway and Maclaurin Parade.
No recognition or mitigation is planned for the concerns raised and a connection to Shirley Avenue will create an undesirable ‘rat run’ through narrow residential streets.

Green Travel Plan

The Green Travel Plan does not meet the objectives of:
Reducing Dependence on Private Cars
Reducing Congestion in the Local Area
In fact, it is highly likely that there will be significant increases in dependence on private vehicles and congestion - which is confirmed by the amended development to increase the number of parking spaces on the development site. If the principle is to develop close to public transport hubs and railway stations, it should not be necessary to provide parking for 250 cars for 178 apartments.

Cumulative Impacts

EIS 3.4 Recognises that future development in the catchment area should be a consideration for cumulative impacts (of the area being designated a TOD)

Conclusion

The proposed development exceeds the guidelines, seeking to maximise the apartment numbers and in doing so has an undesirable impact on the neighbouring properties. Block C should be reduced in height to allow for a sympathetic transition from the single storey house adjacent and reduce overshadowing the property at 9-15 Kings Ave.

The impact of the additional traffic from this proposal cannot be taken in isolation and approval should be withheld until Ku ring gai council has completed its Traffic Study, identifying the full traffic impact and proposed solutions to the increased volume of traffic for the whole area within the TOD.

SSD-77825469 - 2-16 Pockley Ave, Roseville, NSW, 2069
My objection is for the following reasons:-
1) This project, along with other projects within the vacinity will create high volumes of traffic which will impact access to Pacific Highway (both in and out) for all residents. Other zonings around this development are even more dense and will, in the future, add to these traffic volumes immensely. Our access via Maclaurin Pde traffic lights is already problematic and this increase in traffic movements will create real traffic problems causing gridlock at Maclaurin Pde and Pacific Highway. Traffic studies need to be done for the precinct as a whole taking into account the cumulative effect of all future developments now that the state government have finalised land zonings. This should include proper consultation with the local residents who know and understand the area.
We currently have 3 projects that are still in building stage and these will add another 167 car parks from these 3 projects. The extra traffic volumes are yet to be tested and I envisage we won't know the impact that this extra traffic will have until say December 2026.
2. The precinct's streets are full of winding streets, narrow lanes, narrow streets and blind corners and I envisage problems with feeder streets entering Maclaurin Pde ie Nola Ave, Pockley Ave and Larkin Street and Larkin Lane.
3. Bushfire Evacuation Hazzard - Our safety and amenity is jeopardised by your authorities simply ignoring the facts that Alexander Pde and Findlay Ave both back onto BUSHFIRE PRONE LAND and it is not unreasonable to state that an LA BUSHFIRE DISASTER OR A KOOLEWONG BUSHIRE EVENT could and most likely will occur in this area at some time in the future as they have occurred back in 1994 and early 2000's. Bushfires race up a hill very quickly (the steep gradient of Maclaurin Pde and Pockley Ave are examples of this type of scenario).
Evacuation in this situation would be very difficult and problematic. I even wonder how the fire brigade would even get to a fire in our precinct as traffic along Pacific Highway increases every year and will eventually choke and gridlock the highway preventing ambulances and fire trucks to get to a disaster. Fires spread by embers and when windy they spread like wildfire.
4. The buildings are too high especially when taken into account that they sit on a steep slope blocking sunlight, overshadowing and creating hard surfaces for water runoff.
5. Sewerage Pipes
I do wonder what impact this and surrounding developments will have on our old sewerage systems and whether they will be able to cope.
I object to this development as to it is too high and dense for the site. That it, along with future developments make bushfire evacuation very difficult and impossible for residents to escape a bushfire. By approving this development it sets a PRECEDENT for height and density. Planning should be HOLISTIC taking into account cumulative traffic increases etc and not on a stand-a- lone basis.
6. The entry/exit at Maclaurin Pde will prove to be dangerous and would be better placed in Pockley Ave or Larkin Street.
There is a huge volume of apartments that you, the State Government have approved for West, South Roseville Precinct , the number of apartments I have estimated as something like 3,500 apartments (and it is probably more) which means traffic increase of say 5,250 vehicles.
This precinct cannot take this increase in traffic and you must not approve this development without taking future developments into account.

I have previously made an objection submission to this development. Unfortunately, none of the objections have been looked into especially significant issues with traffic which appear to be largely overlooked by the approval process. A major issue is the driveway entry/exit onto Maclaurin Pde that remains which is an extremely dangerous choice and has to be moved to Pockley Ave.
Now the development has been made worse due to the following:
going even taller,
taking away car spaces,
increasing dwelling numbers,
Increasing floor space ratio
All of the above impacts' bushfire evacuation for all of us and is a potential litigation issue if the emergency services cannot access properties and we cannot evacuate.

I am deeply concerned that my previous submission has not been adequately considered. The risks associated with bushfires are real and continuing to affect the lives of residents in the Roseville West Ward community. Ongoing traffic issues are also significant and worsening over time. Approving this project without properly addressing these serious community concerns would be irresponsible and reckless.

I formally oppose this project and request that the planning office provide a clear explanation of how approval could be granted without fully considering and addressing the above concerns.

As a longtime resident on Corona ave, I am very concerned that my submission has not been adequately considered. The risks associated with bushfires are clear and continuing to affect the lives of residents in the Roseville West Ward community. Ongoing traffic issues are also significant and worsening everyday. Approving this project without properly addressing these serious community concerns would be irresponsible and reckless.

I formally oppose this project and request that the planning office provide a clear explanation of how approval could be granted without fully considering and addressing the above concerns.

I am deeply concerned that my previous submission has not been adequately considered by the planning office. The risks associated with bushfires are so real and continuing to affect the lives of residents in the Roseville West Ward community. Ongoing traffic issues are also significant and worsening over time. Approving this project without properly addressing these serious community concerns would be irresponsible and reckless.

The developments in roseville west are already over populated, I don't understand why any new development will still be considered. I formally oppose this project and request that the planning office provide a clear explanation of how approval could be granted without fully considering and addressing the above community concerns.

I am very concerned that my previous submission has not been adequately considered. The risks associated with bushfires are real and continuing to affect the lives of residents in the Roseville West Ward community. Ongoing traffic issues are also significant and worsening over time. Approving this project without properly addressing these serious community concerns would be irresponsible and reckless.

I formally oppose this project and request that the planning office provide a clear explanation of how approval could be granted without fully considering and addressing the above concerns.

I am extremely concerned that my previous submission appears to have been disregarded. The bushfire risk is serious, ongoing, and directly threatens the safety and wellbeing of residents in the Roseville West Ward community. The traffic situation is already unacceptable and continues to deteriorate, placing further strain on local infrastructure and creating clear safety risks.

Any approval of this project without fully and transparently addressing these critical issues would be grossly irresponsible and a failure of due process. I strongly oppose this project and formally demand that the planning office justify how approval could be granted without properly considering and resolving these legitimate community concerns.

I am concerned that my previous submission does not appear to have been fully acknowledged or addressed. The risk of bushfire remains a serious and ongoing issue that directly affects the safety and wellbeing of residents in the Roseville West Ward community. In addition, existing traffic conditions are already strained and continue to worsen, creating genuine safety and infrastructure concerns.

I respectfully submit that any approval of this project should not proceed without clear evidence that these risks have been properly assessed and appropriately mitigated. I formally object to this project and request that the planning office provide a transparent explanation of how community safety and amenity concerns have been considered and addressed in the decision-making process.

I am deeply concerned over populated developments in the roseville west areas.There are risks associated with bushfires are real and continuing to affect the lives of residents in the Roseville West Ward community. Ongoing traffic issues are also significant and worsening over time. Approving this project without properly addressing these serious community concerns would be irresponsible and reckless.

I formally oppose this project and request that the planning office provide a clear explanation of how approval could be granted without fully considering and addressing the above concerns.

I'm concerned
that my previous submission appears to have been disregarded. The bushfire risk is serious, ongoing, and directly threatens the safety and wellbeing of residents in the Roseville West Ward community. The traffic situation is already unacceptable and continues to deteriorate, placing further strain on local infrastructure and creating clear safety risks.

Any approval of this project without fully and transparently addressing these critical issues would be grossly irresponsible and a failure of due process. I strongly oppose this project and formally demand that the planning office justify how approval could be granted without properly considering and resolving these legitimate community concerns.

I am deeply concerned that my previous submission has not been adequately considered. The risks associated with bushfires are real and continuing to affect the lives of residents in the Roseville West Ward community. Ongoing traffic issues are also significant and worsening over time. Approving this project without properly addressing these serious community concerns would be irresponsible and reckless.

I formally oppose this project and request that the planning office provide a clear explanation of how approval could be granted without fully considering and addressing the above concerns.

I'm writing to express my ongoing concerns regarding this proposal and to seek clarification on how community submissions have been considered. In particular, I remain concerned about the potential bushfire risk and its impact on the safety and wellbeing of residents in the Roseville West Ward community, as well as the existing and worsening traffic conditions in the area.

I respectfully request that the planning office provide further information on how these matters have been assessed and addressed as part of the decision-making process. I appreciate the opportunity to provide feedback and ask that my objection be taken into careful consideration before any final determination is made.