Here’s a polished, formal submission you can use for a government planning board. I’ve written it in a tone that fits typical planning objections: clear, evidence‑based, and firm without being antagonistic. You can adjust the level of detail depending on the specific council or authority.

---

Submission Objecting to Proposed Development Application

To the Members of the Planning Board,

I am writing to formally object to the proposed development currently under consideration for 300 Burns Bay Road, Lane Cove NSW 2066.

While I support thoughtful growth in our community and welcome the inclusion of affordable housing within new developments, I have significant concerns about the scale and form of this particular proposal.

1. Excessive Building Height and Inappropriate Density

The proposed high‑rise residential towers are out of character with the existing built environment. The surrounding area is predominantly low‑rise, and the introduction of high‑rise structures would fundamentally alter the neighbourhood’s visual identity, overshadow existing homes, and create a sense of overdevelopment.

A low‑rise alternative—one that delivers housing without dramatically exceeding the prevailing height profile—would be far more appropriate and better aligned with the community’s expectations. I am not opposed to additional housing, including affordable housing, but the number of residences proposed is excessive for the site and should be reduced by at least half to ensure a more balanced and sustainable outcome.

2. Insufficient Local Infrastructure to Support Population Increase

The scale of the development raises serious concerns about the capacity of existing infrastructure. The locality is already experiencing strain in several key areas:

• Transport: Public transport services are limited, and road congestion is already significant during peak periods. A high‑rise development of this size would exacerbate these issues.
• Schools and childcare: Local educational facilities are at or near capacity, with long waiting lists in some cases.
• Healthcare and community services: There is no clear plan for how local medical, recreational, and community services will accommodate a substantial influx of new residents.
• Utilities: Water, sewage, and waste management systems have not been demonstrated to be capable of supporting the proposed density.


Without a comprehensive and credible infrastructure plan, the development risks placing an unsustainable burden on the community.

3. Support for Affordable Housing—But Not at This Scale or Height

I wish to emphasise that I support the inclusion of affordable housing in new developments. However, this objective should not be used to justify inappropriate building height or excessive density. A more modest, low‑rise development with a reduced number of dwellings would still deliver meaningful affordable housing outcomes while maintaining the character and liveability of the area.

---

Conclusion

For these reasons, I respectfully request that the planning board reject the proposal in its current form. I urge the board to require a revised design that is low‑rise, significantly reduced in scale, and supported by a clear and realistic infrastructure strategy.

Thank you for considering my submission.

Dear Sir/Madam,, Having reviewed the available documentation, including the Secretary’s Environmental Assessment Requirements (SEARs) and supporting materials, I submit that the proposal, in its current form, does not adequately demonstrate compliance with key State Significant Development (SSD) assessment criteria, particularly in relation to built form, infrastructure capacity, and the broader public interest. Please find the details of my objection in the document attached.

ISSUE 1 – TRANSPORT

The local bus routes around 300 Burns Bay Road only service Chatswood, North Sydney, Burwood and Gladesville. This is not sufficient for the diverse places of work of residents in the area as listed in the developers plans. Furthermore, these bus routes do not provide high frequency public transport at regular 10-15 minute intervals throughout the day. This is only provided in peak periods, which leaves shift workers, casual workers and young families using public transport during a cost of living crisis at the expense of unreliable transport options. The alternative is that people will continue to drive cars instead (despite the cost of living), having a greater impact on traffic, which has already been underestimated by the developer.



ISSUE 2 – TRAFFIC

Traffic along Burns Bay Road is already near capacity during peak periods, creating delays to the school and work commute on a daily basis. While the TIA stated the existing road network has “ample spare capacity”, this is based on limited modelling that does not reflect actual real-world delays. Further modelling needs to be done to properly understand the impact of this large-scale development.

A large-scale development like this also places implications on pedestrian safety. With the number of apartment buildings around 300 Burns Bay Road, pedestrian safety has not been prioritised. There are no safety islands or pedestrian crossings. Burns Bay Road down to Burns Bay Road Reserve and waterfront has no foot path at all. Families with prams and dogs have only one option but to walk on the road. Families attending the Montessori Day Care Centre at 2 Waterview Drive must navigate an unsafe and congested round-about at drop off and pick up times, which correspond with the AM and PM traffic peaks. Speeding is already a common issue for residents throughout the Burns Bay Road/Waterview Drive precinct.

ISSUE 3 – PARKING

The 223 parking spaces for residents across 225 apartments does not reflect the real world number of cars per apartment. Families often have more than one vehicle. Rental properties of 2+ bedrooms are also highly likely to have more than one car per apartment. The developers plans have not included sufficient resident parking. 14 visitor parking spots is also not enough for 225 apartments. This will ultimately lead to people parking cars illegal along the street in no stopping/no parking zones. This already occurs on a regular basis within the Waterview Drive precinct, which impacts on traffic flow and pedestrian safety.

ISSUE 4 – BUILDING HEIGHT

The building height is excessive and unreasonable for the surrounding area. It is more than double the height of current limits. This will impact on people’s privacy, impact local flora and fauna in a bushland setting and have negative environmental impacts with high density living. The increased height will impact on neighbouring apartments, significantly devaluing them. Allowing buildings of this height will set a precedent for further development in an area that already can’t cope without significant infrastructure change.

ISSUE 5 – OTHER LOCAL INFRASTRUCTURE

The most local shopping area with supermarkets is located at Lane Cove with a Coles, Woolworths, Aldi and Harris Farm Market. Despite multiple car parks around these shops, these are at capacity on weekends and near capacity during weekdays. Without another “town centre” in Lane Cove, the additional large scale development will add further stress to shops and roads around Lane Cove. Plans to develop Lane Cove West would give many residents around the Burns Bay Road/Waterview Drive precinct and Lane Cove West the opportunity to shop more locally. This would relieve pressure on major roads all around Lane Cove.

Objection to Development Proposal

Height & Scale
The proposed building height significantly exceeds the established 6–7 storey character of the precinct. Such a tall structure disrupts the visual harmony and scale typical of our neighbourhood, leading to an overwhelming presence that feels out of place.

State Significant Development Pathway
Earlier lower-scale proposals were not supported by the local community, yet the current 15-storey scheme is now being pursued through a State planning pathway. This process bypasses typical local Council controls and allows a considerably larger development outcome than what the area can reasonably accommodate.

Density
The planned number of dwellings constitutes a substantial increase for a site of this size. This density does not appear compatible with the infrastructure and community capacity of the surrounding area, which may lead to overcrowding and strain on local amenities.

Setbacks & Building Footprint
The development extends close to the site boundaries, reducing the usual separation between buildings. This limits opportunities for landscaping and green spaces, which are vital for environmental quality and residents' well-being.

Privacy, Light & Views
Residents are likely to experience reduced sunlight in their homes, increased overlooking from the new building, and loss of established views, all of which contribute to a diminished quality of life.

Traffic & Parking
The addition of numerous dwellings and parking spaces will place further pressure on already congested roads. On-street parking is limited, and increased traffic volumes will negatively impact safety and amenity for current residents.

Infrastructure
Existing public transport services and essential community infrastructure are already operating near capacity. Without significant upgrades, the proposed population increase will exacerbate service strain and reduce accessibility.

Construction Impacts
An extended construction period involving noise, dust, and heavy vehicle movements will have a detrimental effect on the daily life of residents, including those working from home, families with young children, and elderly neighbours.

Environment
The development threatens to reduce tree canopy, green spaces, and may impact local waterways. These environmental features are important for biodiversity, temperature regulation, and community enjoyment.

Character of the Area
The scale and design of this proposal will permanently alter the character and amenity of the precinct, undermining the qualities that make it a desirable place to live.

As an owner of an apartment in this community, I am deeply concerned about how this development will affect my daily life and the neighbourhood I cherish. The disproportionate height and density will overshadow my apartment, blocking natural light and disrupting the peaceful environment I have enjoyed for years. Increased traffic and limited parking already cause daily frustration, and this development will only worsen the situation, making it harder to visit friends, access public transport, and safely walk in the area. The loss of green space and trees will diminish the beauty and livability of our streets, and the long construction period will bring constant noise and disruption to my family’s routine. I urge decision-makers to consider the real impact on residents like me and uphold the character and wellbeing of our community.

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing to formally lodge my objection to the proposed development at 300 Burns Bay Road. As a resident of 300B Burns Bay Road, my home is directly adjacent to the site, and I am deeply concerned about how this project will impact my property and the surrounding community.

While I understand the need for new housing in NSW, the scale of this specific proposal is far too large for this location. My objection is based on the following key issues:

1. Severe Loss of Sunlight and Amenity
My unit is on a lower level of a building recessed into the hillside. Because the ground level of the proposed site is much higher than my own, even the "shortest" 11-level building would effectively be as tall as a 17 or 18-level building from my perspective.
- Overshadowing: This project would completely block the limited winter sun my unit currently receives. Sunlight is a finite and vital resource for my property; the current proposal would essentially put my home in a permanent shadow, stripping away the few hours of natural warmth and afternoon light we rely on.
- Health and Quality of Life: A total loss of natural light will lead to significant dampness and mould issues, which are already a risk for units recessed into the hill. It will also mean a drastic increase in heating costs and a lower quality of life for my household. Even our cats would lose their favourite pastime of enjoying the sun for the short window it shines into our unit.

2. Excessive Scale and Height
We were originally led to believe this development would be around 7 to 8 levels, which would have been much more tolerable. Jumping to 11-15 levels is a massive change that will dominate the skyline and block water views for properties further up the hill. The sheer bulk of the building is simply out of character with the existing streetscape and the natural slope of the land.

3. Impact on the Local Area
I am also concerned that a project of this scale will negatively affect property values across the area by removing key features like sunlight and bay views. Furthermore, the local infrastructure and traffic on Burns Bay Road cannot easily accommodate such a massive increase in residents.

I ask the Council to please consider a much smaller-scale project that respects the topography of the site. The current plans will have a huge negative impact on the hundreds of residents who already live in the immediate surroundings.

Kind Regards,
Balazs Meszaros

To: The Assessing Officer
NSW Planning Portal – SSD-87925706
Date: 16/04/2026
Subject: Objection to proposed development at 300 Burns Bay Road, Lane Cove
We are the residents of Emerant Lane, 288 Burns Bay Road, Lane Cove. We purchased our apartment off the plan in 2012 and moved in October 2013. We have poured our life savings into this home with a long term view to retire here. Emerant Lane is our dream home—its thoughtful floor plan, proximity to Lane Cove village, and the surrounding bushland and river have made it a place we deeply cherish.
We have lived in Lane Cove for a total of 24 years. Although we moved away in the early 2000s, we chose to return after a decade because of our strong connection to this suburb. When we came back, Emerant Lane was the development we fell in love with. It has allowed us to enjoy the best of Lane Cove: local parks, the river, shops, the Aquatic Centre, gyms, restaurants and the library—all within easy reach.
We strongly object to the proposed development at 300 Burns Bay Road for the following reasons.
1. Excessive height and loss of local character
The existing precinct currently accommodates approximately 857 residential units, two thirds of which have been built since 2012. All these buildings comply with Lane Cove Council’s building and zoning controls, including a height limit of 21 metres (around 6–7 storeys).
In stark contrast, the proposal for 300 Burns Bay Road includes 14 storey buildings with a height of approximately 51.5 metres and more than 220 apartments. This represents a drastic and inconsistent departure from the established planning controls and built form in the area.
Such a significant increase in height and bulk will:
• Disrupt the established character of the precinct, which is currently defined by mid rise buildings integrated with open space and bushland.
• Permanently alter the leafy outlook that is a defining feature of this part of Lane Cove.
• Set a precedent for further over development that undermines the intent of existing height and zoning controls.
We chose this area, and invested our life savings here, on the understanding that the Council’s planning controls would be respected and that future development would be consistent with the existing built form.
2. Traffic, parking and road network constraints
The proposed development includes around 300 car spaces. Given the existing road layout and constraints at this end of Burns Bay Road, this scale of additional traffic and parking demand is deeply concerning.
Our concerns include:
• Increased congestion on Burns Bay Road and surrounding streets, particularly during peak hours.
• Overflow street parking, as visitors and potentially residents seek additional parking on already pressured local streets.
• Safety risks for pedestrians, cyclists and existing residents due to higher traffic volumes and more vehicle movements in and out of the site.
The current road network was not designed to support such a large additional development. Without substantial and clearly demonstrated upgrades and traffic management measures, the proposal will significantly worsen local traffic and parking conditions.
3. Bushfire and emergency access concerns
This end of Burns Bay Road is part of a Lane Cove bushfire prone area. Introducing a development of this scale raises serious questions about bushfire safety and emergency response.
We are particularly concerned about:
• Adequacy of bushfire planning for a high density, 14 storey development in this location.
• Emergency vehicle access, including whether multiple fire trucks can safely and efficiently manoeuvre around the new development in an emergency.
• Evacuation procedures for a large number of residents in the event of a bushfire or building fire, given the constrained road network.
Before any such development could reasonably be considered, there must be clear, detailed and independently reviewed plans demonstrating that bushfire risk, building fire safety and emergency access have been fully addressed and can be managed to an acceptable standard.
4. Cumulative impact on existing community
Since 2012, this precinct has already absorbed substantial residential growth, with two thirds of the current 857 units built in that time. Residents have accepted this growth on the basis that it complied with Council’s planning framework and maintained a balance between density, amenity and the natural environment.
This proposal goes far beyond that balance. The cumulative impact of:
• Excessive height and bulk
• Additional traffic and parking pressure
• Increased bushfire and emergency management complexity
would significantly erode the amenity, safety and character that make this part of Lane Cove so special.
Conclusion
We respectfully request that Council refuse the proposed development at 300 Burns Bay Road in its current form. It is inconsistent with existing planning controls, out of scale with the surrounding precinct, and raises serious concerns about traffic, parking, bushfire risk and emergency access.
We ask that any future development on this site:
• Align with the established 21 metre height limit and surrounding built form;
• Demonstrate that traffic, parking and road safety impacts can be properly managed; and
• Provide robust, transparent bushfire and emergency access planning appropriate to this location.
Thank you for considering our submission. We would welcome the opportunity to provide further information or speak at any relevant meeting or hearing.

Subject: Formal Objection to SSD-87925706 / 300 Burns Bay Road, Lane Cove

To the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure,
As a resident of the adjacent building (300B Burns Bay Road), we are writing to formally object to the proposed redevelopment. While we acknowledge the need for housing, the current scale - specifically the request to exceed the LEP height plane by over 20% - results in an unacceptable loss of solar access and environmental amenity for both residents and the broader community.

1. Direct Admission of Non Compliant Impact (Red Hatched Areas)

The Architectural Shadow Drawings (DA620, DA621, DA630, DA631) provide undeniable evidence of the building’s excessive scale. The large areas of red hatching represent Additional shadows above LEP +20% height plane. This is a clear admission that if the building were compliant with local height controls, the overshadowing would be significantly reduced. Specifically, on June 21 at 2:00 to 3:00 PM, this "extra" shadow - caused solely by the non compliant height - completely engulfs the North-East facing windows of 300B. This is not a "minor" variation, it is a deliberate stripping of solar access to existing homes to maximize developer yield.

2. Failure to Meet Apartment Design Guide (ADG) Standards

My daughter’s bedroom relies on a single North East facing window for all its natural light and thermal heating.
• Thermal Comfort: The loss of afternoon sun in winter will turn this room into a cold cell, significantly increasing our energy consumption and reliance on artificial heating.
• ADG Compliance: The ADG requires that developments minimize impacts on the solar access of neighbouring properties. This proposal does the opposite by casting deep shadows during the most critical hours of the winter solstice.

3. Degradation of Community Assets: Gardens, Playground, and Reserve

This precinct is home to many families who rely on the shared outdoor spaces. The 2:00 PM and 3:00 PM Winter Solstice diagrams show the shadow extending across the Hughes Park playground, the community gardens, and the Burns Bay Reserve.
• The Playground: By 3:00 PM - peak time for school aged children, the playground is cast into shade, reducing the window for outdoor play in a safe, sunny environment.
• Community Gardens: These gardens are a vital social hub. Overshadowing them during winter directly threatens the viability of the produce grown there and the mental health benefits these gardens provide to local retirees and families.
• According to Sheet DA620, the non-compliant height (red hatched area) significantly overshadows Hughes Park and the Community Gardens as early as 10:00 AM on June 21. When combined with the 3:00 PM shadows shown on DA621, it is clear this proposal creates a double hit to the community - losing sun for almost the entire day in winter.

4. Ecological Impact on Native Wildlife

The Burns Bay corridor is a sensitive ecosystem. Our local birdlife and native fauna (including King Parrots, Rosellas, Kookaburras, Tawny Frogmouths etc) rely on the existing light and heat patterns of the reserve.
• Constant afternoon shading alters the microclimate of the soil and vegetation.
• The proposed wall of non compliant height disrupts the natural light cycles that the local wildlife depends on for nesting and foraging.

Conclusion
The "Public Benefit" of this State Significant Development is negated by the permanent damage it causes to the local environment and community health. I request that the Department:

1. Enforce the LEP height limits to eliminate the "red hatched" additional shadowing.
2. Mandate a North East facade setback to ensure existing units at 300B retain at least 3 hours of solar access in mid winter.
3. Protect the Community Areas from any overshadowing between 9 am and 3 pm.

I urge the Department to prioritize the long term liveability of Lane Cove over the short term density targets of this specific proposal.

Sincerely,
Momoko H and Paulus VDK

Development Application Objection
Proposal: 300 Burns Bay Road, Lane Cove West (225 apartments, up to 15 storeys)

I am a local resident of 25 Best Street, Lane Cove, at Unit 56 and I wish to formally object to the proposed development at 300 Burns Bay Road.

1. Inadequate Transport Infrastructure and Unsustainable Density

The scale of this development—225 apartments across buildings of up to 15 storeys—represents a significant increase in both height and density, far exceeding the current planning controls (21m height limit). However, this uplift is not supported by adequate public transport infrastructure.

While the Environmental Impact Statement suggests the site is well-serviced by “high-frequency” public transport, this does not reflect the lived reality for residents:
-Bus services such as the 251 only operate every 15-20 minutes during weekday peak periods and do not run on weekends. This needs to be increased to every 5-10 minutes.
-The 252 service is unreliable and frequently cancelled.
-There is no nearby train or metro station providing consistent, high-frequency access to the Sydney CBD.

As a resident, my current door-to-door commute to the city takes approximately over 65 minutes, despite being only ~10 km from the CBD. This is more than commute times for colleagues living 40-50 km away in significantly lower-density areas and much more affordable housing. This clearly demonstrates that existing transport infrastructure is already insufficient.

The proposal’s reliance on a “Green Travel Plan” is unrealistic given these constraints. Increased density without corresponding investment in transport will:
-Exacerbate already congested road conditions along Burns Bay Road
-Increase car dependency
-Place further strain on unreliable bus services

Request:
Any approval of this development should be conditional on significant, concurrent investment in transport infrastructure that is completed at the same time as housing is released to new residents, including:
-A commitment to a future metro or rapid transit connection servicing Lane Cove West
-Substantial improvements to bus frequency, reliability, and 7-day service coverage that runs every 5-10 minutes
Without these, the proposal represents overdevelopment unsupported by infrastructure.


2. Overshadowing and Impact on Community Open Space (Burns Bay Reserve)

While overshadowing impacts to private residences are a concern, my primary objection relates to the impact on Burns Bay Reserve, a key local community asset.
This reserve is already:
-Poorly drained and often muddy
-Heavily shaded and is a mosquito haven
-Widely used for community recreation, including children’s sport (soccer and cricket)
The proposed building height (up to 15 storeys / 54.5m) will significantly increase overshadowing of this space, further reducing sunlight access and usability—particularly in winter months when sunlight is critical.

This directly undermines the value and function of one of the area’s few accessible green spaces, especially in the context of increasing population density.
Additionally, while there have been long-standing discussions about upgrading the reserve, no meaningful improvements have been delivered. Increasing local population without first improving this infrastructure will further degrade community amenity.

Request:
A comprehensive and transparent overshadowing assessment specifically addressing impacts on Burns Bay, with an improvement plan that factors in a more conservative building height.

Reserve
A requirement that any development approval be tied to funded and delivered upgrades to the reserve, including drainage, usability, and sunlight access considerations.

Conclusion
This proposal represents a significant departure from existing planning controls in both height and density. Without corresponding investment in transport and community infrastructure, it risks setting a precedent for unsustainable overdevelopment in Lane Cove West.
I strongly urge that the application be refused or significantly amended unless these critical infrastructure and amenity concerns are addressed.