State Significant Development
Response to Submissions
Residential development with in-fill affordable housing, Pockley Avenue, Roseville
Ku-ring-gai
Current Status: Response to Submissions
Interact with the stages for their names
- SEARs
- Prepare EIS
- Exhibition
- Collate Submissions
- Response to Submissions
- Assessment
- Recommendation
- Determination
Want to stay updated on this project?
Demolition of existing buildings and construction of a residential apartment development with 178 apartments, including 39 affordable housing apartments, above basement car parking.
Attachments & Resources
Notice of Exhibition (1)
Early Consultation (1)
Request for SEARs (1)
SEARs (2)
EIS (38)
Response to Submissions (1)
Agency Advice (3)
Submissions
Showing 21 - 40 of 111 submissions
Kathy Raine
Object
Kathy Raine
Object
ROSEVILLE
,
New South Wales
Message
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
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
Chris Raine
Object
Chris Raine
Object
ROSEVILLE
,
New South Wales
Message
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
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
Paul Slater
Object
Paul Slater
Object
Roseville
,
New South Wales
Message
Objection no.1 - THERE IS ALREADY A MAJOR PROBLEM IN BEING ABLE TO EXIT THE EXISITING RESIDENTIAL AREAS OF THE FOLLOWING COMBINATION OF CORONA AVENUE, KINGS AVENUE, ALEXANDER PARADE, POCKLEY AVENUE, NOLA ROAD, LARKIN STREET, LARKIN LANE AND MACLAURIN PARADE.
MacLaurin Parade is the only right hand turn exit to the Pacific Highway. The current volume of traffic required to use the only right hand lanes out of Maclaurin Parade is from the residential population of the following combination of Corona Avenue, Kings Avenue, Alexander Parade, Pockley Avenue, Nola Road, Larkin Street, Larkin Lane and MacLaurin Parade itself.. There is no other exit point to turn right onto the Pacific Highway than from MacLaurin Parade.
The "Green" traffic light signal from MacLaurin Parade currently provides a time to exit on to the Pacific Highway of between 6 to 10 seconds!! Depending on the time of day this equates to between 4 and 10 cars being able This small, totally inadequate timeframe for exiting MacLaurin Parade is followed by a 4 minute "Red" traffic light signal time period for cars travelling North / South along the Pacific Highway. For any hour in the day this equates to 15 x 4 minute periods for vehicles travelling on the Pacific Highway compared to between 60 - 150 cars per hour from the 8 streets area referred to above. There are currently approximately 400 vehicles in this residential area., Obviously the exit of 60 - 150 in an hour is only an average and traffic jams are happening across the peak periods.
Proper traffic studies are required to address this major problem for residents travel requirements and bush fires.
my other objections relate to the bush fire threats to properties and the social problems with sousing an additional 178 units without parks, recreational areas and the rules for strata plans for using common property - there are major community issues here.
This whole proposal needs to be reassessed to address my objections.I am happy to provide further evidence of the concerns I have summarised above.
MacLaurin Parade is the only right hand turn exit to the Pacific Highway. The current volume of traffic required to use the only right hand lanes out of Maclaurin Parade is from the residential population of the following combination of Corona Avenue, Kings Avenue, Alexander Parade, Pockley Avenue, Nola Road, Larkin Street, Larkin Lane and MacLaurin Parade itself.. There is no other exit point to turn right onto the Pacific Highway than from MacLaurin Parade.
The "Green" traffic light signal from MacLaurin Parade currently provides a time to exit on to the Pacific Highway of between 6 to 10 seconds!! Depending on the time of day this equates to between 4 and 10 cars being able This small, totally inadequate timeframe for exiting MacLaurin Parade is followed by a 4 minute "Red" traffic light signal time period for cars travelling North / South along the Pacific Highway. For any hour in the day this equates to 15 x 4 minute periods for vehicles travelling on the Pacific Highway compared to between 60 - 150 cars per hour from the 8 streets area referred to above. There are currently approximately 400 vehicles in this residential area., Obviously the exit of 60 - 150 in an hour is only an average and traffic jams are happening across the peak periods.
Proper traffic studies are required to address this major problem for residents travel requirements and bush fires.
my other objections relate to the bush fire threats to properties and the social problems with sousing an additional 178 units without parks, recreational areas and the rules for strata plans for using common property - there are major community issues here.
This whole proposal needs to be reassessed to address my objections.I am happy to provide further evidence of the concerns I have summarised above.
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
ROSEVILLE
,
New South Wales
Message
These streets have echidnas, blue tongue lizzards and powerful owls - what is the governments position on traffic impact on the environment
Fire is a significant concern for this area as flagged by zoning over recent years
The local road network is not compatible with the scale of this development is this being address with sympathy and safety
What will be put in place for parkland, public amenity, and local schools. I understand that local highschools and primary schools may not have the capacity.
THe ability to access general practitioners in the area is limited as they are all at full capacity. How iis the state government managing this need. Is railway corridor priority addressing, ecology, education, health and recreation and traffic management as part of this.
Fire is a significant concern for this area as flagged by zoning over recent years
The local road network is not compatible with the scale of this development is this being address with sympathy and safety
What will be put in place for parkland, public amenity, and local schools. I understand that local highschools and primary schools may not have the capacity.
THe ability to access general practitioners in the area is limited as they are all at full capacity. How iis the state government managing this need. Is railway corridor priority addressing, ecology, education, health and recreation and traffic management as part of this.
Lissa Tarleton
Object
Lissa Tarleton
Object
ROSEVILLE
,
New South Wales
Message
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.
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.
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
ROSEVILLE
,
New South Wales
Message
This project is too large for the locations road system to support. Access is already difficult with only 3 streets open to Pacific Highway, only one with lights and no turn arrow. It can take multiple cycles of lights to get in our out and intersection is frequently blocked. The streets in question are narrow and windy with poor visibility due to remnant protected Blue Gum Forest. There is no other road access. Note this is before the 2 large developments currently under construction are complete. It is important to note that this is a bushfire zone with many properties in the flame zone backing onto 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 in case of a bushfire emergency.
Ku-ring-gai Council
Object
Ku-ring-gai Council
Object
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
ROSEVILLE
,
New South Wales
Message
Subject: Submission in Response to SSD-77825469 – Concerns Regarding Bushfire Evacuation Risks in West-Roseville
I am submitting the attached document in response to SSD-77825469, which proposes a residential development on Pockley Avenue, Roseville.
This submission outlines serious legal, financial, and reputational risks for the NSW Government should development proceed in the West-Roseville precinct without first addressing well-documented bushfire evacuation constraints. The area is already beyond safe evacuation capacity, with only three viable exit routes and over 1,200 car spaces either existing or planned—far exceeding the safe household threshold of 301–600 dwellings identified in peer-reviewed research.
Key concerns raised in the submission include:
Non-compliance with planning regulations: The proposed development does not meet the requirements of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021 or the SSD Guidelines, particularly in relation to cumulative traffic impacts and bushfire risk.
Inadequate evacuation infrastructure: The precinct’s evacuation capacity has not been independently assessed, especially under future climate scenarios.
Rising climate litigation risks: There is a global increase in legal actions against governments for failing to adapt to known hazards. Approving developments in high-risk areas exposes the Government to similar liabilities.
Significant financial exposure: The bankruptcy of Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) in California—due to over $30 billion in wildfire-related liabilities—illustrates the potential financial consequences of ignoring foreseeable risks.
In light of these risks, we strongly urge the NSW Government to:
Immediately halt 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 future development aligns with safe evacuation thresholds and complies fully with planning laws.
Recognize that this is not merely a planning issue—it is a matter of legal accountability and public safety.
We respectfully request that this submission be given full consideration and that future decisions reflect both the scientific evidence and the Government’s duty of care.
I am submitting the attached document in response to SSD-77825469, which proposes a residential development on Pockley Avenue, Roseville.
This submission outlines serious legal, financial, and reputational risks for the NSW Government should development proceed in the West-Roseville precinct without first addressing well-documented bushfire evacuation constraints. The area is already beyond safe evacuation capacity, with only three viable exit routes and over 1,200 car spaces either existing or planned—far exceeding the safe household threshold of 301–600 dwellings identified in peer-reviewed research.
Key concerns raised in the submission include:
Non-compliance with planning regulations: The proposed development does not meet the requirements of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021 or the SSD Guidelines, particularly in relation to cumulative traffic impacts and bushfire risk.
Inadequate evacuation infrastructure: The precinct’s evacuation capacity has not been independently assessed, especially under future climate scenarios.
Rising climate litigation risks: There is a global increase in legal actions against governments for failing to adapt to known hazards. Approving developments in high-risk areas exposes the Government to similar liabilities.
Significant financial exposure: The bankruptcy of Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) in California—due to over $30 billion in wildfire-related liabilities—illustrates the potential financial consequences of ignoring foreseeable risks.
In light of these risks, we strongly urge the NSW Government to:
Immediately halt 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 future development aligns with safe evacuation thresholds and complies fully with planning laws.
Recognize that this is not merely a planning issue—it is a matter of legal accountability and public safety.
We respectfully request that this submission be given full consideration and that future decisions reflect both the scientific evidence and the Government’s duty of care.
Attachments
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
ROSEVILLE
,
New South Wales
Message
- 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
- 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
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
ROSEVILLE
,
New South Wales
Message
- 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
- 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
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
ROSEVILLE
,
New South Wales
Message
- 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
- 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
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
ROSEVILLE
,
New South Wales
Message
- 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
- 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
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
ROSEVILLE
,
New South Wales
Message
- 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
- 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
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
ROSEVILLE
,
New South Wales
Message
Gross over development, deep soil inadequate for proposed Remnant Blue Gum tree plantings and too close to building so canopy will be severely pruned, trees removed or poisoned. Traffic generation doe snot consider impact on the only safe right turn access at the identified by SSD-77825469 to Pacific Highway intersection of all developments under construction now and the amalgamated traffic generated by the 3 developments identified as SSD-77829461, SSD-77825469 and Council eDA0189/25,the last of which is handled through Council by the Sydney North Planning Panel. It is a requirement that the aggregate traffic impacts be considered not just each proposed development in isolation.
Attachments
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
ROSEVILLE
,
New South Wales
Message
There has been a major trafic issue at Maclaurin Parade traffic lights . When driving the car to turn right from Maclaurin Parade to Pacific Highway toward Chatswood and City direction, Currently only 2-3 cars can move to the Pacific Highway in the Morning peak hours even though green light is on due to no space in the Pacific High Way. It has affected all residents living in Findlay Ave, Corona Ave, Kings Ave, Alexander Parade as Maclaurin Parade traffic light is the only way they can go towards Chatswood and city. The current trafic capacity has been reached and overloaded, if more cars from the new development in Pockley Ave and Larkin st , How serious the traffic problem will be .
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
LINDFIELD
,
New South Wales
Message
Traffics, public facilities and capacity limitations of this area.
Matthew Sladescu
Object
Matthew Sladescu
Object
ROSEVILLE
,
New South Wales
Message
Please find attached my submission objecting to this project.
Yours sincerely
Dr Matthew Sladescu
Yours sincerely
Dr Matthew Sladescu
Attachments
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
ROSEVILLE
,
New South Wales
Message
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,
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,
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
ROSEVILLE
,
New South Wales
Message
Safety and wellbeing concerns of residents must be addressed. The proposed developments could lead to serious catastrophic scenarios in not-too-distant future.
Attachments
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
ROSEVILLE
,
New South Wales
Message
Please see attachment for safety concerns regarding the project
Attachments
Pagination
Project Details
Application Number
SSD-77825469
Assessment Type
State Significant Development
Development Type
In-fill Affordable Housing
Local Government Areas
Ku-ring-gai