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

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

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

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

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

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

My principal concern is about the implications for exiting and entering my neighborhood to the Pacific Highway by car, since:
1. the only way to enter and exit the neighbhourhood is via the Pacific Highway, and the only streets that connect to the Pacific Highway are MacLaurin Pde, Corona Ave, and Findlay Ave,
2. there is no right-hand turn allowed into Findlay Ave from the Pacific Highway southbound,
3. there is no right-hand turn allowed into Corona Ave from the Pacific Highway southbound,
4. right-hand turns from the Pacific Highway southbound into MacLaurin Pde at the traffic lights are not protected, and
5. the only traffic-light controlled access to exit the neighbourhood headed southbound on the Pacific Highway is at MacLaurin Pde.

To summarize, it is already difficult to exit and enter the neighbhourhood by vehicle, including for both residents and emergency vehicles. The neighbourhood is adjacent to bushland to the West and, in the event of a fire, the difficulty in exiting the neighbourhood would pose serious safety concerns. The proposed connection between Pockley and Shirley does nothing to solve the access problems that I face.

Furthermore, there are three multi-story developments already under construction in the neighbourhood, and I understand that multiple other properties have been bought by a developer or developers with the intention of building high-density developments. Even the existing developments will add significant numbers of cars to the neighborhood, all vying for the limited exit and entry access to the neighbourhood. Additional significant development under Kuringgai Council's preferred scenario or any other high density buildouts will further exacerbate this already difficult situation. The implications for vehicular access have not been evaluated systematically for cumulative effects.

I urge you to consider the vehicular access implications for our neighbourhood of imposing so much concentrated development where there is unsatisfactory traffic-light controlled access to the neighbourhood. I urge you to delay further high-density developments in and nearby to our neighbourhood until the longstanding problems with the Pacific Highway are solved.
It has been clear for decades that the Pacific Highway from at least the Gore Hill Freeway to Mona Vale Road has been inadequate for the traffic demands on it. In my opinion, the Pacific Highway needs to be bypassed and this should be accomplished before even more traffic is added to the Pacific Highway from high density developments in Roseville, Lindfield, Killara, and Gordon.

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

Please see attached submission.

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

I am horrified at the proposed size of this development and I attach my reasons below

Sydney is in the midst of a housing crisis, it is in the best interests of the taxpayers of this state for this project to be approved. More housing supply is a key way of alleviating the strain on housing prices. The vested interests of local residents must not be grounds for the rejection of this project, and they must not be able to prevent the people of NSW from living in such desirable locations

This development is close to Roseville train station, local shops and residential amenities, and the suburb has incredibly high house prices. It is common in this area for kids who grew up in this area to not be able to afford housing, and as a result have to move away from family. The provision of more affordable housing will ensure efficient use of existing transport infrastructure which is currently under-utilised, especially considering the recent opening of the Sydney metro, and will boost local business activity. Higher densities also have environmental and economic benefits, by reducing the burden of housing supply on greenfield developments which require land clearing and vast amounts of new infrastructure, which is an inefficient use of taxpayers money and existing infrastructure. This project must be considered against the EPI's that were applicable when it was submitted.

Dear Sir or Madam,

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

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

2. Excessive Floor Space Ratio and Building Height
The proposed FSR of 3.175 and building height of 33.3 metres are vastly greater than the area's proposed planning controls, which permit an FSR 2.34 (30% bonus after base 1.8). Such a scale would severely impact the surrounding area by disrupting solar access, diminishing sunlight, and altering the established character of nearby properties—raising significant transition concerns.

3. Inadequate Deep Soil Provision
The proposal includes only 11.7% deep soil, far below the required 50% for council's high-density development requirement. This shortfall undermines essential urban design principles including tree canopy retention, biodiversity support, and effective stormwater infiltration.

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

Thank you for considering my submission.

Don’t do this and ruin Roseville

This project will place too much demand on the roads and existing infrastructure. They claim the development will only increase the traffic by 18 cars per hour.
However they didn't mention that they are also building a similar sized project across the road at 1,3 and 5 pockley ave and Larkin lane.
There are also 3 more Major developments taking place at 7,9 and 11 pockley ave as well as a soon to be completed development on Maclaurin pde Opposite the pockley ave development. There is also the apartments on Pacific hwy on the corner of Maclaurin pde.

Each planning submission only takes into account the traffic increase for their on development and does not consider the other developments taking place.

Therefore the increased traffic on the exit on Maclaurin pde to the Pacific hwy will be more like and extra 50 plus cars per hour

This intersection is already at capacity in peak times from 7 to 9am. There is only one way to turn right onto Pacific hwy at Maclaurin pde and currently it only lets 4 or 5 cars through per traffic light change which is every 2 minutes
At times no Cars can exit onto Pacific hwy as the traffic cues across the intersection blocking any cars
The line of cars waiting to exit onto Pacific hwy can be as long as 12 cars currently and sometimes more

With these new developments it is gauranteed that the wait times to exit onto Pacific hwy could be 30min or more.
The roads are also narrow with cars parked on the side of the road effectively creating a one lane road

The current infrastructure around Pockley ave, Maclaurin pde and Larkin lane cannot support this type of development now or in the future.
This could create very dangerous traffic conditions and pose a major safety risk for emergency services needing to exit or enter.

Please look at the total number of new developments in this area and add up the total congestion created by all of them and not just one development site

This side of the Pacific hwy in Roseville is full and will not support these types of massive projects

The development in pockley ave will also create a lot of loss of sunlight for the neighbouring properties

10 stories is too high. The maximum allowable was set at 6 stories. How are they possibly allowed to build this high

I would be happy to endorse development on a much smaller scale like 4 or 5 stories

Adding over 450 apartments to this small area with only 1 exit turning right onto Pacific hwy will and an increase of 50 plus cars per hour as well as narrow roads will only be a complete disaster

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

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

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

Firstly I would like to say that my husband and I support the overall intention to provide increased development and housing in our suburb. However we do not support the very large scale of this proposed development, especially as it accompanies a neighbouring proposed development by the same company : SSD-77829461. This development is for 178 apartments, and the neighbouring one is for 111 apartments, a total of 289 apartments of 10 and 9-10 stories. This is a huge number in a small area with currently one neighbouring access road to the Pacific Highway - already a bottleneck.
Our major objection is that this development, and the neighbouring one, will be significantly out of keeping with the Ku-Ring-Gai Council’s alternative preferred proposal to the original TOD scheme for this area, which we support. It allows for development in this area but a lesser density in terms of height and FSR, far more in keeping with the local area and surrounding single level housing. The Council’s preferred proposal places far less demands on local infrastructure and much less severe transitions between adjoining properties.
We would happily support development across this site in keeping with Ku-Ring-Gai Council’s preferred proposal ,
but not the excessive scale of this SSD application.