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

This project has building heights that are too tall to be in keeping with the surrounding character of the area. With no or little setback this development will be a blight on the streetscape.
The extra traffic and lack of parking will be extremely problematic. The roads here are narrow and hilly with very limited access out of the isolated area, particularly onto Pacific Highway. This will be potentially catastrophic in the event of a bushfire in the adjacent Blue Gum forest area.
The 9-10 story height will obviously lead to significant overshadowing of adjacent properties.
Environmental concerns associated with this development include increased water runoff and I am concerned about the endangered micro bat population in the vicinity.

My objection is primarily because the infra-structure around this development does not support such a development. The only vehicular access for residents in and around MacLaurin Parade / Kings Avenue / Larkin Avenue and Pockley Avenue to the Northwest and to the city is via the Pacific Highway. It is already starting to be congested in the mornings with the new apartment constructions currently underway along MacLaurin Parade and the Hycorp development along the Pacific Highway. On completion together with the recent completion of apartments in Corona Avenue it will add additional residents from 404 apartments seeking access to the Pacific Highway.
With this new development it will be extremely difficult for accessibility to the Pacific Highway with the large construction traffic during construction and with increase in residents from a further additional 178 apartments with 285 parking spaces in 3 ten Storey apartments.
Further Pockley Avenue, Kings Avenue and Maclaurin Parade are not roads designed and constructed for heavy construction vehicles that cart large volumes and weights of construction spoils. This will damage the roads continually during construction and no amount of temporary repairs to the road will suffice, adding to the significant inconvenience this development is going to cause the residents living here.
I am not against new developments to increase housing, as I am fully aware of the housing crisis Sydney siders are facing due to the incompetence or inaction of previous governments of both persuasions and congratulate the Minns government of taking the bold decision to correct the housing crisis. But any development must be assessed in relation to the additional and /or new infrastructure required to support the development so that hardworking and rate paying Sydney siders are not inconvenienced. THIS IS NOT NYMBISM!

Objection to SSD 77825469
2,4,6,8,10,12,14,16 Pockley Avenue Roseville.
Having been resident in 9-15 Kings Avenue for one year I wish to object 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.
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.

This project has building heights that are too tall to be in keeping with the surrounding character of the area. With no or little setback this development will be a blight on the streetscape.
The extra traffic and lack of parking will be extremely problematic. The roads here are narrow and hilly with very limited access out of the isolated area, particularly onto Pacific Highway. This will be potentially catastrophic in the event of a bushfire in the adjacent Blue Gum forest area.
The 9-10 story height will obviously lead to significant overshadowing of adjacent properties.
Environmental concerns associated with this development include increased water runoff and I am concerned about the endangered micro bat population in the vicinity.

There is only one street out of the area into Pacific Highway. Even with current housing density, cars can take two or more traffic light changes to get into Pacific Highway. That is not counting the new buildings already in the process of being built. New street access to the area from Pacific Highway must be completed *BEFORE* these new development is approved or made conditional on the new access being available before construction starts (the construction itself will block the only street access).

This project has building heights that are too tall to be in keeping with the surrounding character of the area. With no or little setback this development will be a blight on the streetscape.
The extra traffic and lack of parking will be extremely problematic. The roads here are narrow and hilly with very limited access out of the isolated area, particularly onto Pacific Highway. This will be potentially catastrophic in the event of a bushfire in the adjacent Blue Gum forest area.
The 9-10 story height will obviously lead to significant overshadowing of adjacent properties.
Environmental concerns associated with this development include increased water runoff and I am concerned about the endangered micro bat population in the vicinity.

I am opposed to the proposed development as it is unclear on what the proposed buildings will look like, it exceeds guidelines, it seeks 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 the visual impact on adjoining properties in Maclauren Pde, Pockley Lane and Kings Ave.

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

See the attachment for details supporting my objection.

- I used to live in this area with my wife and have since moved out but am well aware of the traffic congestions and bushfire risks, as we lived here during the 1994 bushfire. Water pressure was low and we had to use buckets to fend off embers, we packed the whole house up and had to be evacuated. Since 1994 there are around 240 more cars in this residential area, you are proposing to add a further 435 cars in two developments on Pockley Ave. Narrow streets, extras existing cars will cause utter chaos and will cause death if developers, Council and NSW Government are not careful *and hence litigation. proper evacuation and upgrade of exits need to be done before any further development.
-Developers are ignoring bushfire and cumulative traffic risk assessments as required under Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021.
- South West Roseville area – Larkin St, Larkin Lane, Pockley Av, Maclaurin Pde, Alexander Pde, Corona Ave, Kings Ave and Findlay Ave – Is a bushfire prone precinct. It is has limited evacuation routes, increasing residential density and constrained emergency services access and is also landlocked. If further development is allowed NSW Government and developers will be open to legal action. We could not evacuate properly in 1994 as firetrucks and parked cars on the roads meant no assess for residents to exit. Add another 686 car spaces proposed, my daughter and her family who still live here, will die as they wont be able to get out!
- Excess height for the area, no apartments around are this high.
- Ugly street scape
- Environmental concerns – topography of land is not fit for further development. my daughter has a creek which runs along the back of her Alexander pde property. Water flow into this creek will increase and her yard will slowly be eroded into the creek.
- did you know there is a threatened species in the area? – the endangered micro bat in the development vicinity. There are also Powerful Owls and other unique and threatened species.
- also, your "affordable housing" is a joke - only for 15 years....why not for life of unit? wrong, you get 3 extra stories by saying you have accounted for affordable housing, yet you only hold this to be true for 15 years!

- I used to live in this area and have since moved out but am well aware of the traffic congestions and bushfire risks, as we lived here during the 1994 bushfire.
-Developers are ignoring bushfire and cumulative traffic risk assessments as required under Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021.
- South West Roseville area – Larkin St, Larkin Lane, Pockley Av, Maclaurin Pde, Alexander Pde, Corona Ave, Kings Ave and Findlay Ave – Is a bushfire prone precinct. It is has limited evacuation routes, increasing residential density and constrained emergency services access and is also landlocked. If further development is allowed NSW Government and developers will be open to legal action. We could not evacuate properly in 1994 as firetrucks and parked cars on the roads meant no assess for residents to exit. Add another 686 car spaces proposed, my family who still live here, will die as they wont be able to get out!
- Excess height for the area, no apartments around are this high.
- Ugly street scape
- Environmental concerns – topography of land is not fit for further development. my daughter has a creek which runs along the back of her Alexander pde property. Water flow into this creek will increase and her yard will slowly be eroded into the creek.
- did you know there is a threatened species in the area? – the endangered micro bat in the development vicinity. There are also Powerful Owls and other unique and threatened species.

- Developers are ignoring bushfire and cumulative traffic risk assessments as required under Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021.
- South West Roseville area – Larkin St, Larkin Lane, Pockley Av, Maclaurin Pde, Alexander Pde, Corona Ave, Kings Ave and Findlay Ave – Is a bushfire prone precinct. It has limited evacuation routes, increasing residential density and constrained emergency services access and is also landlocked. If further development is allowed NSW Government and developers will be open to legal action, the area already exceeds safe evacuation thresholds as per Cova 2005 study that concludes a precinct which has 3 roads exiting, should accommodate only 301-600 households to ensure safe evacuation. We currently have 766 homes planned and existing homes – well above the threshold.
- Excess height in our area causing traffic issues and evacuation issues as noted above
- Excess height causing overshadowing
- Ugly street scape
- Environmental concerns – topography of land is not fit for further development. Water runoff will increase due to reduced natural land for water to be absorbed. This will impact further down the hill in the creek between Alexander Pde and Shirley Road and will see potential land erosion to residents who’s properties back onto this creek. Legal action will take place if residents properties are eroded due to excessive runoff caused by upstream / up hill developments.
- There is a threatened species in the area – the endangered micro bat in the development vicinity.

This South West Roseville area – Larkin St, Larkin Lane, Pockley Av, Maclaurin Pde, Alexander Pde, Corona Ave, Kings Ave and Findlay Ave – Is a bushfire prone precinct which is landlocked. It has limited evacuation routes, increasing residential density and constrained emergency services access. If further development is allowed NSW Government and developers will be open to legal action – do you want another LA bushfire to happen in Roseville?? The area already exceeds safe evacuation thresholds.

This area was exposed to extreme bushfire risk in 1994, when houses were lost in this area. Adding an additional 427 dwellings through SSD and Council DAs and more than double vehicle volume in the area, will significantly hinder safe and timely evacuations during bushfire emergencies.

Approving further developments in South West Roseville without addressing bushfire evacuation risk is negligent and has life-threatening consequences. Increases in traffic (and housing developments) must be matched by increases in exit capacity.

Developers are ignoring bushfire and cumulative traffic risk assessments as required under Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021.

Other points as to why I am against this development:
- Excess height in our area causing traffic issues and evacuation issues as noted above
- Excess height causing overshadowing
- Ugly street scape
- Environmental concerns – topography of land is not fit for further development. Water runoff will increase due to reduced natural land for water to be absorbed. This will impact further down the hill in the creek between Alexander Pde and Shirley Road and will see potential land erosion to residents who’s properties back onto this creek. Legal action will take place if residents properties are eroded due to excessive runoff caused by upstream / up hill developments.
- There is a threatened species in the area – the endangered micro bat in the development vicinity.

I am a long-term resident of Nola road, having lived here for over 10 years. One of the main reasons I cherish this area is the surrounding natural environment, including the Blue Gum High Forest and the native wildlife it supports.

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

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

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

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

Conclusion
I strongly urge the planning committee to Immediately pause all development approvals in the West-Roseville precinct until
evacuation capacity is independently reviewed and addressed. Approving them without major upgrades to local traffic infrastructure and a detailed bushfire evacuation strategy would put the local community at unacceptable risk. While I understand the need for housing, developments of this scale must be sustainable and responsible. Without clear plans to address environmental impacts, traffic congestion, and bushfire safety, these proposals are detrimental and irreversible.

I respectfully request that the committee deny the current applications and require the developer to submit a revised proposal with a more appropriate number of units and a comprehensive plan to mitigate the impacts on local infrastructure and the environment.

I object to the proposal, as there is simply too much construction going on in this very small suburban pocket, with up to 4 new developments in a very small section of streets. Pockley and Larkin are already completely over-run with huge trucks, vehicles, obstructing these small streets which are the entry and exit points for residents to/from the Pacific Highway. The delays that exist already are impacting the daily life of all the local residents. There is shocking pollution, both noise and other that impacts anyone working from home, and also those traveling to/from work each day. It is unfair that this very small 'pocket' is being inundated with these 9-10 story developments, without consultation of the local residents. It is having a big impact on how local residents can live quietly and easily within this suburb and everyone on Findlay Avenue and Kings Avenue seem greatly opposed to the overwhelming number of developments which are being proposed. It is already a huge inconvenience and I don't know how the area is going to sustain that many apartments and residents. Traffic flow is impossible, pollution is unacceptable, the noise is impossible. I am very much opposed to the suggested development.

I am a long-term resident of Kings Avenue, having lived here for over 15 years. One of the main reasons I cherish this area is the surrounding natural environment, including the Blue Gum High Forest and the native wildlife it supports.

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

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

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

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

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

I respectfully request that the committee deny the current applications and require the developer to submit a revised proposal with a more appropriate number of units and a comprehensive plan to mitigate the impacts on local infrastructure and the environment.

I am a long-term resident of Corona Avenue, having lived here for over 15 years. One of the main reasons I cherish this area is the surrounding natural environment, including the Blue Gum High Forest and the native wildlife it supports.

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

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

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

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

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

I respectfully request that the committee deny the current applications and require the developer to submit a revised proposal with a more appropriate number of units and a comprehensive plan to mitigate the impacts on local infrastructure and the environment.

This project is extremely large, and does not fit with the character of the neighbourhood.
At present, we are heavily impacted when attempting to access the Pacific Highway (particularly making a right hand turn) by the construction taking place by HyeCorp on the corner of Maclaurin Parade and the Pacific Highway. The site is in the same area as the proposed development.
While construction will have a major impact on amenity and traffic, the addition of a large number of cars attempting to access the
highway in peak hours will make it virtually impossible to make a right hand turn to the Pacific Highway from Maclaurin Parade.
There is no alternative route, as turning left onto the highway and attempting to use Shirley Road as access to the highway will not be possible either, due to the scale of the proposed development in that area.
While residents in this area (Findlay Ave, Alexander Parade, Maclaurin Pde, Kings Ave and Corona Ave) may try to access the highway from the top of Findlay Ave, this is extremely dangerous, and virtually impossible due to the large volume of traffic on the Pacific Highway, and the lack of traffic lights.
There are also questions about the capacity of the rail network to be able to handle the proposed larger volume of passengers, questions about the ability of local schools to meet increased demand, and also our infrastructure in this area is old and under stress already.

I am a long-term resident of Corona Avenue, having lived here for over 15 years. One of the main reasons I cherish this area is the surrounding natural environment, including the Blue Gum High Forest and the native wildlife it supports.

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

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

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

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

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

I respectfully request that the committee deny the current applications and require the developer to submit a revised proposal with a more appropriate number of units and a comprehensive plan to mitigate the impacts on local infrastructure and the environment.

I have lived in Findlay Avenue for 25 years, and over the past years it has been increasingly difficult to turn right into MacLaurin Parade from the Pacific Highway, and always impossible to get onto the Pacific Highway at the lights. It can sometimes take 2 or 3 traffic light changes, just to get out from MacLaurin Parade onto the Pacific Highway. The traffic congestion is already terrible and I'm not sure how it's going to be with 4 huge new developments within the same block. With the new development that is currently under construction on MacLaurin Parade, the noise, damage and traffic conjestion has gone to a whole new level. I don't know how the small quiet suburban area is going to sustain having another 3 big developments at the same time. I can see people leaving the area in droves and many houses are going up for sale, because it's going to change the whole feel of the suburb. To have these 2 new developments proposed for 9-10 stories high is just ridiculous and the infrastructure and traffic conditions will simply not sustain that massive influx of people and cars. Also the huge trucks, noise and air pollution and inconvenience this is going to cause for the next 3-4 years is simply unacceptable. I am very much opposed to this development, and feel we have a right as members of the community to have our voices heard, as we know what it is like to actually live in the conditions that exist at the moment, for only ONE development. It has not been throught through adequately and we are strongly opposed to it.

I am a long-term resident of Corona Avenue, having lived here for over 15 years. One of the main reasons I cherish this area is the surrounding natural environment, including the Blue Gum High Forest and the native wildlife it supports.

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

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

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

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

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

I respectfully request that the committee deny the current applications and require the developer to submit a revised proposal with a more appropriate number of units and a comprehensive plan to mitigate the impacts on local infrastructure and the environment.

There are too many high rise building built or is building, there is no way to turn to south on Pacific highway . so no more building in a heritage listed street.