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.

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.

- 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!