OBJECTION to SSD-87925706 - Demolition of existing structures and construction of 3 X RFBs at 300 Burns Bay Road, Lane Cove
And
OBJECTION to rezoning proposal Amendment to the Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009, including amendments to: Change the maximum building height from 21m to 54.5m; and Change the floor space ratio from 2:1 to 3.22:1.

I am an owner at “The Towers” 300A Burns Bay Road, Lane Cove
I am writing to object to the construction of the new proposed 7-15 story unit development at 300 Burns Bay Road, Lane Cove for the following and the rezoning: -
1. Height of this complex is not within the restrictions of Lane Cove Suburb/Council, 7 stories I think is acceptable but is still high- the main office at 300 is 4 stories from ground and was built as far to the East so it did not completely impede on the units that sit behind or the units at 300A, so they were able to still maintain their views. The surrounding units have 7 stories. The population explosion will affect water, sewage, traffic and privacy

2. Sunlight my unit enjoys the summer and winter morning sun for a time- with the 15-story height this will be gone.

3. Clotheslines on roof tops of the towers will be impacted for drying

4. Value of our properties surrounding or blocked by this monster size of 15 stories will be severely diminished due to total obstruction of their once beautiful views of Linley Point. Lane Cove is beautiful and full of tress surrounding especially this part of Lane Cove – across the bay and down to Burns Bay Park up towards Riverview. This complex will lower the value of our units

5. Noise and Dust we will not be able to avoid the constant noise and dust this will create for how many years until construction is complete.

6. Traffic, Burns Bay Road & Waterview drive both leading to the traffic lights is already congested, I have had close calls of accidents from people living at the top of Burns Bay road near the traffic lights or from units behind 300 Burns Bay Road at the roundabout racing to get around the roundabout then up to the lights, the traffic at peak times has had cars- small trucks, larger moving trucks unable to move from the roundabout not to mention the garbage trucks struggling. Then to add the new complex of cars, Utes and bikes to the mix is an accident waiting to happen. The road to the traffic lights was extened to 3 lanes, these lights cause significant delays on Burns bay Road, leading to Lane Cove village or Epping road and to Gladesville Bridge and ramps on and off from Hunters Hill.

7. Parking We have minimal visitor parking and not even enough for 1 ½ cars per household- I’ve watched tradie cars and normal cars scouring for car parking from the unit dwellers along Waterview and the corner units looking for spots down the hill which is for our visitors and owners and tenants to park not the adjoining units. Hughs Park is often used by all units, but council parking inspectors are good at fining people all the time to keep in the 3-hour restriction.
My car space is used often by tradies doing their jobs as they cant find anything close on the hill or Hughes Park to use. I do not trust that people living in the new units will not go looking for any park they can find including our visitor parks or blatantly just taking your own parking spot, it happens many times a day or week over the years.

8. The bird life in this immediate area is abundant with Kookaburra, Cockatoos, eastern rosellas, Butcher birds, Currawongs, brush turkeys, Frogmouths, Plovers, Pelicans, pigeons, Corella’s, Rainbow lorikeets to name a few- I have a few of these wonderful visitors each day and afternoon on my balcony – how many trees will be affected by this large scale development including bee colonies

9. This beautiful area of Lane Cove is not a good fit for high rise that you see at Rhodes for example.

10. Please consider reducing the ridiculous height to something respectable so everyone can live harmoniously and still maintain some value and live in this beautiful bushland area

11. Finally has the planning person Gabriel Kim and everyone associated with this development besides the developer and their people come to look our 300A address and the current 300, I think it would be advisable to.

Kind regards
Owner at 300A The Towers

Application No SSD-87925706
Location 300 Burns Bay Road, Lane Cove

Description of proposal:
Demolition of existing structures and construction of a new residential flat building comprising:
 Three residential towers, ranging from 7 – 15 storeys.
 225 residential units (including 34 affordable housing units).
 2 basement levels containing 237 carparking spaces.
 Rooftop communal and private open spaces.

Description of concurrent rezoning proposal:
Amendment to the Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009, including amendments to:
 Change the maximum building height from 21m to 54.5m; and
 Change the floor space ratio from 2:1 to 3.22:1.

I strongly object to this proposed development. While increased housing (including affordable housing) is important, it should not be achieved at the detriment of the nearby residents and the existing community.

The proposed development is dramatically different to any surrounding properties - including other high density unit blocks in the immediate area. More than doubling the current maximum building height (from 21m to 54.5m), as well as increasing the FSR, will result in a development completely out of character for the neighbourhood. I am not against additional higher density housing, but it should be in line with those already existing adjacent to the subject site, i.e. 6-7 storeys.

A development of this scale is not suitable for the proposed location - it is not walking distance to any transport hub or shopping precinct, being about 3km away from the Lane Cove bus interchange and the Lane Cove town centre. Buildings of this height don’t even exist in or around the town centre. Developments of this scale should remain limited to the Pacific Highway and more fitting suburbs which have a wide range of frequently needed goods and services, frequent public transport, and infrastructure, to support such significant increases in the local population.

A number of new issues will be created, and existing issues exacerbated, were this development to be approved. Including:

1. Increased pressure on already strained public transport. With the exception of limited 251 bus services during weekday peak, there is no direct bus service from this part of Lane Cove to the CBD (there used to be the 252 service via the Pacific Highway, but it now terminates at North Sydney). This necessitates changing over to get another bus at the interchange which can have extensive wait times (in some cases, watching multiple buses come and go before reaching the front of the line). Or, you need to go out of your way, away from the freeway, to connect to other areas up or down the Pacific Highway in order to change over to a train or metro.

2. No school bus services exist in this pocket of Lane Cove. The school bus to Lane Cove West Public School does not come this far down Burns Bay Road. To get to the school bus in the morning, kids in this pocket must walk halfway to school in order to reach the closest stop. Additionally, this would require them to cross an extremely busy main road, and walk uphill most of the way on the side of the busy main road. This is clearly unreasonable and has safety concerns for primary school aged children.

3. Traffic congestion is already an issue in this pocket of Lane Cove. Burns Bay Road is a main thoroughfare, and because of the shape of the waterways, everyone in this pocket must use this road exclusively to get in and out, with no alternative routes available. Additionally, Burns Bay Road is only 2 lanes each way, unlike much wider main roads like the Pacific Highway, so it gets congested very easily.

4. Lane Cove has a lot of adjacent bush land. Following a search of 300 Burns Bay Road, Lane Cove, the NSW Rural Fire Service's bush fire prone land search tool states "The parcel of land you have selected is within a designated bush fire prone area." While I understand that a bushfire assessment forms part of the DA, fire safety concerns around the proposed development's location need to be considered in the wider context of the traffic issues plus the access and exit limitations noted in point 3 above - in the event of a fire, there is only one way out in an already congested area.

5. Other community infrastructure is lacking in this area to service a significantly increased population. There is only one daycare centre and no substantial shops.

6. Unreasonable impacts to neighbouring properties will occur. Given the proposed height, significant overshadowing and excessive loss of privacy are key concerns.

Approval of this development will set a detrimental precedent for our area and will permanently alter our neighbourhood, causing long-term damage to our community on multiple fronts.

I request that the decision makers assess this development from a realistic viewpoint, giving the needs and rights of both the existing and the potential future residents the weight they deserve. While the NSW Government’s goal to provide more housing (including affordable housing) is necessary for our state, it is imperative that this is achieved in a meaningful way that actually results in the outcomes that the SSD pathway is designed for. While the proposed development might appear to tick some of the Government’s desired boxes when viewed in isolation, when viewed in the full context, with crucial practicalities in mind, the long-term negative consequences considerably outweigh the perceived benefits.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

I request that our names be withheld from the list of submitters that is published on the NSW planning portal.

We are writing to formally object to the above development application. We are owner-occupiers at Emerant Lane, 280–288 Burns Bay Road, Lane Cove — the residential building directly adjacent to the proposed development site at 300 Burns Bay Road. Our building shares a boundary with this site. We have a direct and material interest in this application.
We have been following this proposal since a community information webinar held by the developer in November 2025, and we have grown increasingly concerned about the scale and impact of what is being proposed.

1. Concern About Exhibition Timing
This application was placed on public exhibition during the Easter school holiday period in April 2026. Many residents of this area were away or otherwise unable to engage with the materials during this window. While we acknowledge the minimum statutory exhibition period has been met, placing a major application of this significance during school holidays does not meet the spirit of genuine community consultation. We ask that this concern be noted on the record.

2. The Proposal Requires the Planning Framework to be Rewritten to Permit It
Based on community information distributed to residents in this precinct, the proposed development significantly exceeds the current height limit applying to this site, which community materials describe as a 6-storey limit. The developer is seeking to build towers of up to 15 storeys — more than twice the currently permitted height. This is not a development application within the existing rules. It is a request to change the rules to permit something that would otherwise be refused.
We want to be direct about what this means: the planning controls that exist today were put in place to protect residents like us. They reflect considered community and council decisions about what is appropriate for this precinct. Dismantling those controls to accommodate a single developer's commercial project, using a state-level fast-track pathway that bypasses local assessment entirely, is not something we accept as appropriate in these circumstances.
Under the planning principle established in Tenacity Consulting v Warringah Council [2004] NSWLEC 140, a development that fails to comply with existing planning controls is assessed as less reasonable when evaluating its impacts on surrounding properties, including view loss. This application cannot proceed at all without first amending those controls. That is a significant factor weighing against approval.

3. Total and Irreversible Loss of Our Views
Our unit directly faces the proposed development site. From our balcony and our master bedroom, we currently have unobstructed water views across Lane Cove, green bushland views, and an open western sky that gives us sunset views each evening. These are not background views — they are direct, unobstructed views that form a central part of what we purchased and what we live with every day. Our daughter grows up looking out at this landscape. It is part of the home we have made here.
The proposed towers, rising immediately to our east, would sit directly between our building and the water. The loss would not be partial. It would be total and permanent.
The NSW Land and Environment Court's established planning principle in Tenacity Consulting v Warringah Council [2004] NSWLEC 140 sets out a four-step framework for assessing view impacts. Applying that framework to our situation:

Step 1: The views affected are water views — the category the Court has consistently recognised as the most highly valued in the NSW context.
Step 2: The views are obtained from our balcony and master bedroom — primary living and sleeping areas, which the Court treats as the most significant locations from which view loss is assessed.
Step 3: The impact would be total. The proposed towers rise directly between our property and the water. The water views, the green canopy, and the evening sunset we look out onto every day would all be permanently erased. Photographs of the current views from our balcony, living room, and master bedroom are attached to this submission, and we request that they be formally considered as evidence of what would be lost.
Step 4: A development that cannot proceed without first amending the height controls is, by definition, not reasonable under existing planning standards. Step 4 of Tenacity makes compliance with existing controls directly relevant to whether the impact can be considered acceptable. This proposal fails that test.

The more recent decision in Furlong v Northern Beaches Council [2022] NSWLEC 1208 further affirmed that where views are of high value and the impact is significant, the burden falls on the applicant to justify that impact. The applicant has not, in our view, discharged that burden.

4. Privacy and Overlooking
The proposed towers would rise immediately to the east of our building, at a height that would place dozens of apartments with direct sightlines into our balcony, our master bedroom, and our main living areas. This is not a minor or theoretical concern — it is an inevitable consequence of building towers of this scale immediately adjacent to an existing residential building.
When our building was approved and when we purchased our home, no planning instrument contemplated that a 15-storey development would be built on the boundary next door. The privacy that we currently enjoy on our balcony, and in the rooms that face toward the development site, would be fundamentally compromised. Our daughter would grow up in a home that is directly overlooked from towers we had no say in, and no ability to foresee when we chose to live here.
The Lane Cove DCP 2009 includes specific provisions requiring developments to demonstrate acceptable privacy outcomes for neighbouring properties. We submit that this application cannot satisfy those provisions. A development built to the boundary at 15 storeys, directly overlooking an existing residential building, represents exactly the kind of outcome the DCP's privacy controls exist to prevent. We request that the consent authority assess the overlooking impacts on Emerant Lane rigorously and independently, and not simply accept the applicant's own assessment.

5. Character of the Precinct
Burns Bay Road in this stretch is characterised by low- to mid-rise residential and mixed-use buildings. Towers of 15 storeys in this location would permanently transform the character of the street and the precinct. The Greater Sydney Commission's North District Plan requires new development to be contextually appropriate. Nothing about this proposal is contextually appropriate for this location.

6. Financial Loss, Psychological Harm, and the Destruction of Our Family's Amenity
This is the section we feel most strongly about, and we want to be direct.
We did not buy a home at Emerant Lane by accident. We chose this home deliberately — because of the water views, the green outlook, the evening sunset, the sense of space and light, and the quiet confidence that the planning framework protecting this precinct would hold. We are raising our daughter here. This is not an investment to us. It is our family's home.
If this development proceeds, every one of those things will be gone. Permanently. The water views from our balcony, our living room, and our master bedroom will be replaced by a wall of towers. The evening sunset we watch from our balcony will be blocked. The green canopy our daughter looks out onto will be gone. And we will have dozens of apartments looking directly into our home, every day, from now on.
The financial consequences are real and severe. Property valuers are clear that direct water views command a premium in Sydney, and that the total loss of those views to an immediately adjacent development of this scale causes a material and demonstrable reduction in property value. We purchased in good faith, relying on the planning controls that governed this site. Those controls are now proposed to be discarded to accommodate a single developer. That is a direct financial harm to our family.
But what concerns us most goes beyond money. The Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 requires consideration of social impacts, and the concept of "amenity" in NSW planning law includes psychological and emotional wellbeing — not just physical impacts. We are genuinely distressed by this proposal. The prospect of losing our views, our privacy, and the quality of life we have built in this home — the home in which we are raising our daughter — carries a real and lasting psychological and emotional cost that we are asking this consent authority to take seriously.
We did not choose to live next to a 15-storey development. No one in our building did. We chose to live here because this is the kind of neighbourhood it was — and this proposal would change that irreversibly, at our expense and at the expense of our family's future.

7. Traffic
Community materials distributed to residents in this precinct indicate the development would generate approximately 300 new car spaces and a significant increase in vehicle movements. Burns Bay Road already experiences congestion. We request that an independent traffic impact assessment be made publicly available and that residents be given an opportunity to respond to it.

Conclusion
We are fully and unequivocally opposed to this development in its current form. It would erase our views permanently, tower over our home from directly adjacent, destroy our family's privacy, cause us serious financial and psychological harm, and do irreversible damage to the character of a precinct that many families have chosen to live in precisely because it is not like this.