- 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.

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.