I support the project, I believe it will significantly improve housing affordability and availability in the area.

I would however, like to see the number of units and storeys significantly increased as well as housing set aside for essential workers.

Please refer to the attached documents.

To whom it may concern, Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure.
Objection to Proposed Development at 806–812 Windsor Road, Rouse Hill

I am writing to formally object to elements of the proposed development at 806–812 Windsor Road, Rouse Hill. After reviewing the available documentation and assessing the likely impacts on the surrounding community, I hold significant concerns regarding traffic capacity, infrastructure strain, building height impacts, and lack of alignment with broader planning objectives for the Rouse Hill and North-West Growth Area.
1. Traffic Impacts on Surrounding Residential Streets
Satellite imagery of the area clearly shows that the surrounding road network—particularly Adonis Avenue, Vangelis Road, Demeter Street, Amytis Street, and Eustace Street are residential in nature, and already operating near capacity during peak periods. These streets were never designed to absorb overflow traffic from a major mixed use development.
The proposed development will funnel additional vehicles into these streets due to limited direct access points on Windsor Road. This will create:
Increased congestion and queueing
Reduced safety for pedestrians and school‑aged children
Higher noise and pollution levels
Significant delays for residents entering and exiting their homes
The traffic modelling provided does not adequately reflect current traffic conditions, nor does it account for the cumulative impact of nearby developments.
2. Building Height – Request to Maintain the 12‑Metre Limit
The proposal seeks to increase the permissible height from 12 metres to 31 metres, which is inconsistent with the established character of the area and the existing LEP controls.
Maintaining the 12‑metre height limit is essential because:
A 31‑metre structure will overshadow surrounding homes and public spaces.
It will create a visual bulk entirely out of scale with the low‑rise residential environment.
It sets a precedent for further height creep along Windsor Road.
The local road network and public transport system cannot support the population density associated with such height increases.
There is no demonstrated strategic justification for tripling the height limit.
3. Incomplete Traffic Assessment – Omission of Major New Complexes
The traffic report (including Figure 2) fails to account for several major developments in the adjacent streets that are now completed or planned to commence including:
As per the proposed traffic plan these complexes will be required to share small and narrow roads to support an additional 700 units with half roads as part of the plan it has significant risk to the local resident's safety particularly children.
1 - Verset apartments - completed
2 - Babylon apartments - completed
3 -The Collection (approximately 300 new apartments land being cleared for construction
4 - New Rouse Hill hospital - under construction
5 - Land for sale future development - for sale
These omissions significantly understate future traffic volumes and intersection delays. Any modelling that excludes these
developments cannot be considered accurate or reliable.

4. Existing Congestion and Travel Times
Current travel times from the Windsor Road / Old Windsor Road intersection to Commercial Road, Rouse Hill regularly exceed 30 minutes during peak periods. This is before the additional load from the proposed development and other nearby projects.
The road network is already failing to meet demand.
5. Public Transport Capacity – Metro Already at Capacity
The Sydney Metro Northwest is already heavily congested. Trains departing Tallawong Station during morning peak hours are frequently full before reaching Rouse Hill Station, leaving limited capacity for additional residents from new high‑density developments.
Relying on the Metro as justification for increased density is not realistic given current load levels.
6. Lack of Adequate Road Infrastructure – Terry Road Connection
Another solution has been the extension of Terry Road through to Scholfield's Road, which would provide an essential alternative route and relieve pressure on proposed access.
The absence of this connection in the planning for this development raises concerns about long‑term traffic management and infrastructure planning.
7. Alignment With Broader Planning and Community Needs
The proposal does not appear to align with:
The previous apartment planning heights are realistic the Windsor Road development is not located that much closer to the Metro to justify a change in height.
The needs of the new hospital being constructed opposite the proposed site and emergency service accessibility
Future developments adding additional pressure
High‑density development in this location must be supported by appropriate transport, health, community and road infrastructure. At present, this alignment is not evident.
8. Summary of Key Concerns
Surrounding residential streets cannot absorb additional traffic. Pre and post building.
Height increase from 12m to 31m is unjustified and inappropriate.
Traffic modelling excludes major nearby developments.
Existing congestion already results in 30‑minute travel times for short distances.
Metro capacity is insufficient for further population increases.
Terry Road remains unopened to Scholfield's Road, limiting traffic dispersal.
Conclusion
For the reasons outlined above, I strongly object to the proposed development at 806–812 Windsor Road as it currently stands.
I request that the proposal in its current form and request a revised submission that
Maintains the 12‑metre height limit
Includes accurate, cumulative traffic modelling
Demonstrates alignment with infrastructure capacity and strategic planning
Addresses road network deficiencies before increasing density
Thank you for considering this submission.

This development will be next to the Nadgee Nature Reserve. Disaster Bay is a beautifully pristine marine environment. This development will potentially compromise the values of the only declared coastal wilderness in NSW.
- The scale of the enterprise is enormous and far too large for such a sensitive location.
- Disaster Bay has extremely rough waters. The kelp farm’s infrastructure is at risk of coming adrift during storms and east coast lows. Plastic debris from the kelp farm would entangle and injure animals and birds, and potentially be deposited along the shore and estuary.
- The offshore infrastructure will release microplastics into the water. The proponent's argument that the amount of microplastics would be less than commercial fishing does not justify their proposed impact, which will degrade water quality and enter the food chain.
- The longline infrastructure will risk entanglement of both seabirds and marine wildlife.
- Disaster Bay is on a whale migration route. Whale numbers have returned to healthy populations following near extinction due to the history of whaling in the 1800s. Whale populations consider this a trusted, safe environment. Noise pollution below the waterline, from sea vessels, the harvesting process and infrastructure friction in turbulent seas, is known to detrimentally affect sea mammals (and other marine life). Increased sea vessel traffic and associated pollution will add to the negative impact.
- The impact of the 1km x 2km area of floats and ropes on wave action and subsequent changes to forces which currently shape Nadgee’s beaches, rocky shores, and estuaries is unknown.
- Insufficient consideration has been given to the impact of this development on ecotourism ventures which do not degrade the marine and coastal environment.
- The environmental impacts of this enterprise, at this scale, are irreversible.
- Community consultation is inadequately reported in the EES documents.
- There needs to be consideration of the impact of the onshore developments on Aboriginal cultural heritage values, including consultation with local Aboriginal and heritage knowledge holders.
This development should not proceed at this scale and in this location

My view of the proposal is that it does not reflect the significance of Nadgee Nature Reserve, which is the reserve adjacent to the proposal. The Reserve is the jewel in the crown of the coastal protected areas of NSW. It is the only wilderness coastal reserve. It is of international importance and a huge and enduring natural asset to NSW and Australia. The proposed industrial scale development in Disaster Bay will cast a shadow over the Reserve, it will spoil one of the greatest features of the Reserve - its maritime border. While Nadgee Nature Reserve is mentioned many times in the EIS, there is little sense of why the Reserve is so special. As a consequence, the EIS does not imagine how it might impact of the pristine environment of the reserve, its locality where there is little development and the fact that so much of the value of the area lies in the fact that it is located in a near-pristine ocean setting at its eastern edge, including Disaster Bay.

As a reseacher, I have spent over 50 years working in the Reserve. I have spent more than a year living in the Reserve studying the wildlife. I have co-authored an ecological history of Nadgee Nature Reserve, which is an attachment. The opening paragraph points to the sharp contrast with the UK. I am of the view that we have a rare gem in this Reserve that needs to be protected, including from a major industry immediately adjacent and one that diminishes both the borders of the reserve and its maritime setting.