I write to formally object to the above State Significant Development (SSD) application on the basis that it fails to adequately address critical traffic, access, and safety impacts and represents an overdevelopment of an already constrained local environment.
The Traffic Impact Assessment refers to the road leading uphill to the roundabout which serves as the access point to the delelopment, as a local road with one lane in each direction. This characterisation is inaccurate.
This local road serves as the entry and exit point for the residential apartment buildings at 302, 300A, 300B and 300C Burns Bay Road, comprising approximately 240 dwellings, in addition to serving access to Hughes Park.
In reality, this road is predominantly single lane in function, with only two limited sections where two vehicles can safely pass. The majority of the corridor does not support two-way flow and is constrained by its width, geometry, and sight distance limitations.
The additional traffic generation associated with the proposal is likely to significantly increase congestion at the roundabout, with resulting queueing and spillback extending back along this access road. This creates a foreseeable risk of gridlock conditions, particularly during peak periods or peak demand events e.g when there are events at the park or trucks needing to access the residences downhill.
Such spillback would have serious safety implications, as the constrained single-lane sections do not allow vehicles to safely pass or manoeuvre. This increases the likelihood of vehicle conflict, reversing movements, and blocked access for residents and emergency services.
There are also significant pedestrian safety concerns associated with the existing arrangement. Pedestrian movement to and from the waterfront reserve is already constrained, with pedestrians required to share the narrow access roadway with vehicles.
The route contains multiple blind spots, lacks dedicated pedestrian footpaths or separation, and funnels pedestrian traffic through a private driveway environment not designed for shared pedestrian–vehicle interaction. Increased traffic volumes will materially exacerbate these risks. Not to mention the extra pedestrian traffic that will continue to come through the private property of the buildings below.
Since the development of Waterview Drive, the apartments below have seen more traffic, both pedestrian traffic coming through our property for access to the reserve, and visitors looking for parking as the neighbouring buildings have little and there is no on street parking beyond the council carpark at Hughes Park. This will only increase if this development goes ahead. Your note of a contribution to a 'new pedestrian link' from Burns Bay to the reserve has no detail re the location and therefore no reason to believe this would divert the existing pedestrian traffic from Waterview Drive and the new development from using the road to access the reserve.
I'd also like to add my concerns that the proposed height of the building is out of character with the existing neighbourhood, would overshadow our neighbours, completely obliterate the views of many and lead to a loss of privacy for the neighbouring buildings. The development proposal acknowledges that the building will result in overshadowing and reduced solar access to surrounding residential properties. This will adversely affect residential amenity, particularly access to natural light and sunlight to private open space and living areas.
In addition, reduced solar access may limit the ability of neighbouring properties to install or effectively utilise solar energy systems in the future, further impacting long-term household energy efficiency and sustainability outcomes.
All in all it is unsuitable for the area already suffering from overdevelopment, not in character with the existing developments- and would negatively impact all residents in its surrounds. I have no objection to developing the site for residential use- but the scale of this development is unsuitable to this area and will negatively impact many of the existing surrounding residents.

Objection to Overdevelopment at 300 Burns Bay Road, Lane Cove (SSD-87925706)
Personal Submission – Resident of 290 Burns Bay Road
As a resident of 290 Burns Bay Road, I strongly object to the proposed development at 300 Burns Bay Road due to the significant and direct impacts it will have on my home, lifestyle, and safety. I am not alone, see the LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY - ePetition - Stop Overdevelopment at 300 Burns Bay Road Lane which has over 620 signatures. https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/la/Pages/ePetition-details.aspx?q=zaJGLfy_3n8hw3mp3OgUKg

My concerns are:

1. Excessive Height, Bulk and Overdevelopment
• The proposal seeks to increase the maximum building height from 21 metres to up to 54.5 metres, more than doubling the permitted limit.
• The floor space ratio is proposed to increase from 2:1 to 3.22:1, representing a substantial intensification of the site.
• The development consists of 7–15 storeys with 225 apartments, far exceeding the scale of surrounding buildings.
• The proposed bulk, scale and density are inconsistent with both the existing and desired future character of the area, and the building form lacks sufficient setbacks and articulation to reduce its dominance.
This level of overdevelopment will overwhelm my property and fundamentally change the character of the area. From my home, what is currently an open and balanced streetscape will be replaced by a large, imposing structure that dominates the outlook and diminishes the sense of space and liveability that attracted me to this location.

2. Devastating Loss of Views
• The proposed height significantly exceeds planning controls, leading to unreasonable and avoidable view loss.
• Existing views currently available from surrounding properties, including water and district views, will be obstructed.
• The development has not demonstrated appropriate view sharing or minimisation of impacts.
This development will result in a substantial loss of my current outlook, replacing it with a high-density built form. My views are a key component of my home’s amenity, and their loss represents a permanent and significant reduction in both liveability and property value.

3. Overshadowing and Loss of Natural Light
• The development will cause severe overshadowing, particularly during winter.
• Many neighbouring apartments rely on north-facing windows for their only source of direct sunlight.
• Many these apartments will experience complete loss of mid-winter solar access, with additional impacts during equinox periods.
• Approximately 19% of the proposed apartments themselves receive no solar access, highlighting poor design outcomes.
Reduced sunlight into my apartment will directly affect daily living conditions, making the space darker, colder, and less comfortable. Natural light is essential for wellbeing, and this proposal will significantly diminish it, impacting both my quality of life and energy usage.

4. Privacy and Visual Intrusion
• The proposal does not meet required building separation distances, particularly for buildings above 25 metres.
• Upper-level apartments will directly overlook neighbouring properties.
• The design lacks adequate privacy measures such as sufficient setbacks or screening.
This will result in a clear loss of privacy within my home, with direct overlooking into living areas and private outdoor spaces. The ability to enjoy my home without feeling exposed or overlooked will be significantly compromised.

5. Traffic, Congestion and Safety Risks
• The development includes approximately 237 car parking spaces, significantly increasing local traffic volumes.
• No upgrades to surrounding road infrastructure are proposed.
• Nearby intersections already operate at poor levels of service, particularly during peak periods.
• Traffic queues on Burns Bay Road can extend up to 2 kilometres during peak hour.
This increase in traffic will worsen already difficult driving conditions, making daily travel more stressful and time-consuming. Accessing and exiting my property will become more challenging and potentially unsafe, and the additional construction traffic will further disrupt the area for an extended period.

6. Inadequate Planning and Missing Information
• Key supporting documentation is incomplete or insufficient, including:
o Detailed and accurate view impact assessments
o Comprehensive solar and overshadowing analysis
o Adequate traffic and transport studies
• Visual assessments provided do not reflect realistic viewpoints from affected properties.
Without this critical information, the true extent of the impacts on my home cannot be properly understood or assessed. This lack of transparency creates uncertainty and raises serious concerns about the validity of the proposal.

7. Environmental and Bushfire Concerns
• The site is identified as bushfire-prone land, increasing risk in emergency situations.
• Higher population density will increase the number of people requiring evacuation without corresponding infrastructure improvements.
• The development proposes removal of 11 trees of medium to high value.
• There are additional concerns regarding groundwater impacts, contamination, and construction-related environmental risks.
These factors increase safety risks for residents, including myself, particularly in the event of a bushfire. The loss of established trees and greenery will also reduce the environmental quality and natural character of the area that is highly valued by residents.

8. Poor Design Outcomes
• The tallest building elements are located at the front of the site, maximising impacts on neighbouring properties.
• Green space is positioned at the rear, limiting its accessibility and usefulness to the broader community.
• The design does not adequately respond to site conditions or the surrounding built environment.
This approach places the greatest burden on existing residents while offering minimal benefit to the community. From my perspective, the design prioritises development yield over liveability, resulting in avoidable impacts on neighbouring properties.

9. Lack of Genuine Community Consultation
• Only one online consultation session was held, with limited opportunity for meaningful engagement ie a Zoom meeting with all microphones turned off!
• The public consultation period was just two weeks, including school holidays.
This process has not allowed sufficient opportunity for residents like me to properly review and respond to the proposal. It gives the impression that community input has not been genuinely considered.

10. Reasonable Alternative
I am not opposed to development on this site; however, it must be appropriate in scale and design.
A more suitable outcome would include:
• Development within existing planning controls
• A reduced height of approximately 6–7 storeys
• Increased setbacks and improved landscaping
• A design that respects neighbouring amenity and environmental constraints
Such an approach would still deliver additional housing while maintaining a reasonable balance with the surrounding community and protecting the amenity of existing residents.

Conclusion
This proposal represents a clear overdevelopment of the site and will have unacceptable impacts on my home at 290 Burns Bay Road. The combination of excessive height, loss of views, reduced sunlight, privacy impacts, increased traffic, and environmental concerns will significantly diminish my quality of life.
The development is inconsistent with planning controls and fails to achieve a reasonable balance between growth and residential amenity.
I respectfully request that this application be refused in its current form.

I am writing to formally object to the proposed development by Level 33 at 300 Burns Bay Road, Lane Cove West.

My objection is based on several significant concerns regarding the scale, impact, and assessment process of this proposal.

Firstly, the development proposes 225 apartments (including 15% designated as affordable housing) across three buildings ranging from 7 to 15 storeys. This represents a substantial intensification of the site that is out of character with the surrounding area. The proposed maximum height of 54.5 metres is more than double the বর্ত current planning limit of 21 metres. Such an increase sets an undesirable precedent and undermines the integrity of existing planning controls designed to maintain the scale and amenity of the locality. Similarly, the near doubling of the floor space ratio further indicates overdevelopment of the site.

Secondly, the proposal is being assessed under the State Significant Development (SSD) pathway rather than by Lane Cove Council. This removes meaningful local input and oversight, despite the fact that the impacts—particularly traffic, infrastructure strain, and neighbourhood character—will be borne primarily by the local community. Residents should have a stronger voice in decisions that directly affect their area.

The height of the proposed development will significantly impact the existing environment of Burns Bay Reserve. Currently, the reserve provides a private recreational space with no buildings dominating the landscape or overshadowing the playing fields. The proposed development would result in a loss of natural light, particularly during winter, reducing sunlight to an important community space.

Traffic and congestion are also major concerns. Burns Bay Road is already heavily congested, particularly during peak hours. The developer’s traffic assessment claims that no road upgrades are required; however, this conclusion does not reflect the lived experience of residents who regularly encounter delays and bottlenecks. Adding a development of this scale will inevitably exacerbate congestion, increase travel times, and potentially compromise road safety.

In addition to traffic impacts, the proposal raises broader concerns regarding infrastructure capacity, including public transport, schools, and local services, which are already under pressure. Without clear and enforceable commitments to upgrade supporting infrastructure, the development risks placing unsustainable strain on the area.

In summary, the proposal represents an overdevelopment of the site, exceeds established planning controls by a significant margin, bypasses appropriate local assessment, and fails to adequately address traffic and infrastructure impacts. For these reasons, I strongly object to the development in its current form.

I respectfully request that this proposal be either refused or substantially amended to better align with existing planning controls, community expectations, and infrastructure capacity.

Regards
John Russell

This project has insufficient visitor parking for the amount of apartments it is building. Many two bedroom units will have two people and two cars. There is already a shortage of visitor spots in existing developments as shown by looking for parking on weekends and at night. 14 extra spots is frankly ridiculous for approximately 500 bedroom and resident population from anywhere between 300-600 people. There are no side streets or roads on the immediate vicinity do adequate visitor parking is essential.
Further, the current round about and traffic congestion needs to be reconsidered and carefully looked at considering the size of the development.

As a long-term resident of 25 Best Street, Lane Cove, I am writing to formally record my strong objection to the proposed State Significant Development at 300 Burns Bay Road. While I acknowledge the need for diverse housing in Sydney, this specific proposal is an inappropriate and unsustainable overdevelopment of a constrained site. My objection is based on the project's significant non-compliance with local height and density controls, the lack of supporting infrastructure for the increasing family population, and the fundamental inability of the Lane Cove West precinct to sustain a high-density development of this magnitude.

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 frequently during weekday peak periods and do not run on weekends. The claim of "every 15 minutes" is unrealistic and incomparable to the 5-10 minute intervals offered near Victoria Road or the Lane Cove Interchange. Services like the 252, 253, and 254 are infrequent, unreliable, and frequently cancelled. Furthermore, the 530 service is often over-full with school children, limiting options for commuters. There is no nearby train or metro station providing consistent access to the Sydney CBD.
As a resident, my door-to-door commute to Ultimo currently takes well over an hour despite being only ~10 km from the CBD. This is comparable to commute times for colleagues living 50 km away in more affordable areas. The most efficient route often requires three forms of transport (walking, bus, and train/metro). Unless I drive to Gladesville to catch a single bus, I am forced into a multi-bus commute due to overcrowded peak-hour services. Additionally, the designated cycle paths toward Gladesville and the Epping Road cycleway are inadequate, disconnected, and unsafe given heavy traffic and parking constraints. The proposal’s reliance on a “Green Travel Plan” is unrealistic. Increased density without corresponding investment will exacerbate congestion on Burns Bay Road, increase car dependency, and place further strain on unreliable bus services.
Request: Any approval should be conditional on a significant reduction in scale to match medium-density standards. I request a Green Travel Plan that includes developer-funded bus stop upgrades or a dedicated shuttle to the Lane Cove Interchange, a commitment to future rapid transit, and substantial improvements to 7-day bus frequency. Furthermore, I request improved bike paths and accessible boardwalks via Tannery Creek to reduce car dependency and align with "15-minute city" concepts.

2. Overshadowing, Biodiversity, and Impact on Community Open Space
I object to the impact of this development on Burns Bay Reserve. This reserve is already poorly drained, often muddy, and a mosquito haven. It is devoid of adequate play equipment yet remains a vital asset for community recreation and children’s sport. The proposed 15-storey height will significantly increase overshadowing, further reducing sunlight and usability, particularly in winter months when light is already scarce in the valley.
Critically, this overshadowing and the massive building footprint will compromise local biodiversity. The reduction in sunlight and the deep-scale basement excavation (which eliminates deep-soil zones) will degrade the health of the existing vegetation and disrupt the local ecosystem that supports native birdlife and fauna. By replacing natural absorbent earth with concrete and casting permanent shadows over the park, the development threatens the survival of the sensitive bushland interface. High-density proposals must be held to the standard of the Waterview development, which provided Hughes Park as a genuine ecological and community asset. Furthermore, the proposal will irreversibly compromise local biodiversity. According to the Lane Cove Bushland Fauna Surveys and the 2023 Frog and Freshwater Fish Survey, the Burns Bay and Tannery Creek catchment supports vulnerable and endangered species, including the Powerful Owl and Eastern Bent-wing Bat. The massive 15-storey building footprint and the deep-scale basement excavation will destroy vital 'deep-soil' zones and increase light and noise pollution, disrupting the flight paths and habitat of these species. By casting permanent shadows over the sensitive sandstone gully and mangroves, the development will degrade the delicate ecosystem of Burns Bay Reserve—a remnant bushland pocket already under immense urban pressure. I argue that this development fails the requirements of the SEPP (Biodiversity and Conservation) 2021, as it prioritises density over the survival of native fauna and the integrity of a critical wildlife corridor. Lastly, as Category-2 bushfire-prone land, this scale presents a severe evacuation risk.
Request: I demand a comprehensive, independent biodiversity and overshadowing assessment specifically addressing Burns Bay Reserve, with building modifications to eliminate any additional shade. Any approval must be tied to funded upgrades for the reserve’s drainage and the development of public green spaces that prioritise native canopy and habitat restoration, equivalent to those at Hughes Park.

3. Burden on Strained Local Schools
Local public schools are at capacity. Catchment changes are already proposed for 2027 to redirect students further away. As families are forced into apartments due to the housing crisis, statistics show that families with children represent roughly 40% of apartment occupation in Lane Cove—far exceeding the 25% Greater Sydney average. Lane Cove Council has publicly criticised the failure to align school infrastructure with rapid apartment growth. The area simply cannot sustain the pressure of high-density housing.
Request: Approval should be deferred until the NSW Department of Education completes necessary infrastructure upgrades for the precinct. I request a School Infrastructure Contribution earmarked specifically for Lane Cove West Public, Hunters Hill High, and local childcare.

4. Insufficient Public-Works Infrastructure and Utility Strain
This area frequently experiences power blackouts and waterworks disruptions. With the addition of the proposed Hyperscale Data Centres in Lane Cove West, there is already a significant load on local utility infrastructure with no proposed mitigation by the developers. Furthermore, deep-scale basement excavation reduces the capacity for “deep soil” planting. This will exacerbate the Urban Heat Island Effect and place immense strain on stormwater systems during heavy rain.
Request: Approval should be deferred until Sydney Water completes necessary infrastructure upgrades. A "Condition of Consent" must require the developer to fund an independent "Network Capacity Augmentation Study" to ensure existing residents do not experience a drop in water pressure or power stability. I also demand a minimum "Deep Soil Zone" percentage that exceeds the standard (usually 7-10%) to ensure a genuine tree canopy.

Conclusion
I strongly urge that this application be refused or deferred until the proposal is significantly modified to align with the existing medium-density standards of Lane Cove West. This project is not an isolated building; it is part of an alarming trend requiring a comprehensive, Precinct-wide Infrastructure Plan rather than piecemeal, developer-led interventions.
As it stands, the project represents a significant departure from established planning controls while proposing zero additional public green space or amenities. Even if the scale were reduced, the liveability of Lane Cove West remains under threat without transparent investment in transport and utilities. The proponent has failed to demonstrate a clear nexus between this high-density population surge and supporting social infrastructure. I request that the application be refused or deferred until the scale, infrastructure, and amenity concerns raised are fully addressed.

Hello,
My partner and I moved to this area 2 months ago now and chose to make our home here after carefully considering many different suburbs. We were not simply looking for a property—we were searching for a place that felt peaceful and connected to nature. When we found our current apartment along Burns Bay Road, we fell in love with its unique character: being surrounded by trees, with a sense of openness and calm that is increasingly rare with so many new developments arising.

Even though the property stretched beyond what we had initially planned to spend, we chose it because of the environment and lifestyle it offered. In fact, we knowingly paid above market value because we believed deeply in the long-term value of the area—both financially and in terms of quality of life. We trusted that the character of the neighbourhood would be preserved, and that our investment reflected not just a property purchase, but a commitment to a certain way of living.

Every morning before work, I look out the window while waiting for the elevator and see the forest next door. That simple moment brings a sense of calm and clarity before the day begins. It is not just a view—it is a part of my daily wellbeing. The proposed development would fundamentally alter this, replacing greenery and openness with density and overshadowing.

Both my partner and I work two jobs each to afford a lifestyle that prioritises peace and mental wellbeing. It is deeply disheartening to think that the very qualities we sacrificed for could be taken away. Beyond the emotional impact, we are also concerned that such a drastic change in scale and character will negatively affect property values in the area, undermining the significant financial commitment we made in good faith.

We chose Burns Bay Road over the adjacent street Waterview Drive, which was selling for a lot less, specifically because it had fewer high-density developments. We valued the lower scale of buildings and the sense of community that comes with it. The proposed 15-storey development is significantly out of character with the existing streetscape and would erode the very identity of the area.

Additionally, at the time of purchase, we were advised that there would be no further major developments in the immediate vicinity. While we understand that circumstances can change, this proposal represents a significant and unexpected departure from both community expectations and previously established planning controls.

We acknowledge the broader need for increased housing supply. However, we strongly believe that development should be balanced with respect for existing community character and planning consistency. A development that aligns with the current 6-storey limit would be far more appropriate and would maintain the visual harmony, amenity, and liveability of the area.

If this proposal is approved, it raises a concerning precedent. What safeguards will prevent further developments from further exceeding established limits? Over time, this could lead to a gradual but irreversible transformation of the area into one that no longer reflects the qualities that residents were drawn to.

We respectfully urge the planning authority to reject the proposed 15-storey development and instead support developments that are consistent with the existing 6-storey framework, preserving the character, amenity, and wellbeing of the community.

My wife and I own and live with our young child in a building next door to 300 Burns Bay Road. Our unit and our outdoor living area (our veranda) are parallel to 300 Burns Bay Road. We strongly object to the scale, density, and environmental consequences of this proposed development.
The proposal represents a complete disregard for the established planning controls that the community relies upon for certainty.
The sheer scale of this proposal represents a gross violation of the Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009. By seeking a height of 54.5 metres where only 21 metres is permitted, the developer is attempting to force a 159% increase in height upon a community that relies on these controls for environmental certainty. This is not a request for a minor variation but a wholesale abandonment of the planning framework. The resulting massing will create a visual "wall" that dominates the skyline, fundamentally altering the natural topography of the area and destroying the green, leafy vista that currently defines our boundary.
Regarding the environmental impact, I am deeply concerned by the developer’s request to waive the Biodiversity Development Assessment Report. This site is part of a sensitive ecological transition zone leading toward the Lane Cove River. Replacing this porous, living landscape with a massive concrete basement and three towering structures will exacerbate the Urban Heat Island effect and lead to the irreversible loss of local biodiversity. The removal of mature native vegetation cannot be "offset" by potted plants on a balcony; it is a permanent strike against the local ecosystem.
Furthermore, the environmental consequences extend to the hydrology of the area. The subject site is on a significant slope, and the proposed deep excavation for underground parking will inevitably disrupt existing groundwater patterns and natural runoff. As a direct neighbour, I am concerned about the long-term structural integrity of my property and the increased risk of drainage failure once the natural absorption of the soil is replaced by an impervious concrete footprint. The environmental impact statement fails to provide adequate assurance that my property will not suffer from moisture ingress or soil instability as a result of these works.
The traffic implications of this development are equally alarming and have been significantly understated in the provided studies. Burns Bay Road is a severely congested arterial link, particularly during peak hours and school drop-off periods. The addition of 225 high-density units and 237 car spaces will inject hundreds of additional vehicle movements daily into a network that is already operating at capacity. The traffic report’s claim of "ample spare capacity" is disconnected from the reality of daily life in Lane Cove. The cumulative impact of this traffic will lead to dangerous bottlenecks at the intersection of Penrose Street and create significant safety risks for pedestrians, including the many young families and toddlers who live in the immediate vicinity. From a safety perspective, the increased volume of heavy vehicle movements during the construction phase and the subsequent influx of residential traffic will make entering and exiting my own driveway a hazardous task. The proposal offers no meaningful upgrades to the road infrastructure to accommodate this sudden surge in density, effectively forcing the existing community to bear the cost of the developer’s overreach in the form of increased travel times and diminished road safety.
The impact on light and solar access is perhaps the most immediate threat to my home’s liveability. My family relies on the natural light and the open sky currently visible behind the tree line for our physical and mental well-being. The existing structure is circled on the attached photograph. Significant amounts of light come through the trees. The proposed towers will destroy our outlook and cast long, deep shadows over our outdoor spaces and around our living spaces for significant portions of the day. This loss of solar access is not a mere inconvenience; it is a permanent degradation of our property's amenity that will increase our energy costs. The construction phase itself presents an unacceptable environmental and health risk. The requirement for extensive rock-breaking and excavation in sandstone will create a persistent acoustic assault and generate significant amounts of dust and particulate pollution which will create a corridor of dust along the axis of where the attached photograph was taken, covering each verandah and garden in our building in dust. As an immediate neighbour, my family will be forced to live in a state of constant disturbance for years, with no ability to mitigate the noise or the fine dust that will inevitably settle on our property. This pollution poses a direct threat to our respiratory health and our right to the quiet enjoyment of our home.
In conclusion, this proposal is a clear case of overdevelopment that prioritizes profit over the environment and the safety of the Lane Cove community. It fails to meet the basic tests of design excellence and environmental responsibility. I respectfully urge the Department to refuse this application and protect the integrity of our neighbourhood from such an intrusive and poorly conceived project.

Submission Objecting to SSD-87925706
300 Burns Bay Road, Lane Cove NSW

I am an owner at 290 Burns Bay Road and wish to formally object to the proposed development at 300 Burns Bay Road (SSD-87925706).

The proposed 7 to 15 storey residential development comprising 225 dwellings represents a scale and density that is entirely inconsistent with the established character, infrastructure capacity, and environmental context of this part of Lane Cove. I request that the proposal be refused or substantially redesigned to a significantly reduced height and scale.

The most immediate concern is the excessive height and bulk of the proposal. Buildings of up to 15 storeys are far beyond the prevailing scale of development in this precinct, which is generally around 6 to 7 storeys. The proposal will dominate the surrounding landscape and create a visually intrusive built form that is out of character with the area, particularly given the site’s proximity to bushland and the Burns Bay corridor. The development would introduce a large concrete visual presence in a location that currently benefits from openness and a strong natural setting.

The proposal will also result in significant loss of views for neighbouring properties. Views down Burns Bay form an important part of the amenity of surrounding dwellings and were a factor in my own decision to purchase at 290 Burns Bay Road. While my own views will be affected to some extent, residents within my building and the neighbouring building at 288 Burns Bay Road are likely to experience substantial view loss. These views are a defining feature of the area and contribute strongly to its character and residential value.

Overshadowing impacts are also a major concern. A development of this height and scale will inevitably cast extensive shadow over neighbouring properties and adjacent open space areas, including Hughes Park. Hughes Park is already heavily used and is an important recreational resource for local residents. Increased overshadowing combined with the significant population increase proposed will further reduce its usability and amenity.

The proposal represents a very large increase in density for this site. Lane Cove has already experienced substantial population growth in recent years and continues to contribute strongly to housing supply within the region. A development of this magnitude risks placing additional strain on local infrastructure that is already under pressure, including roads, parking availability, and public open space.

Traffic and parking impacts are a particular concern. The area already experiences congestion and limited on-street parking availability. Visitor parking in surrounding residential areas is frequently difficult to access, including near Hughes Park. The addition of more than 200 dwellings will significantly increase traffic movements and parking demand without corresponding upgrades to local infrastructure.

The scale of this proposal also contrasts strongly with recent nearby development outcomes. For example, redevelopment at the former motorcycle dealership at the intersection of Centennial Avenue and Epping Road resulted in a building of only around three storeys despite being located on a major road with direct access to transport infrastructure and adjacent commercial uses. In contrast, the Burns Bay Road site is in a far more sensitive landscape setting adjoining bushland and established residential buildings, yet a dramatically larger outcome is proposed.

The proposal appears to rely on the State Significant Development pathway to pursue a scale of development that exceeds what would normally be expected under local planning controls. This raises concerns about whether the resulting built form appropriately reflects the intended planning character of the precinct.

More broadly, the proposal will permanently alter the visual character of this section of Burns Bay Road. The existing streetscape benefits from a balance between residential development and natural landscape elements. A development of this height and density would fundamentally change that character and introduce an overbearing built form inconsistent with the surrounding environment.

For these reasons I strongly object to the proposal. I request that the application be refused, or alternatively redesigned to a substantially lower height and reduced density that is consistent with the existing scale of development and the infrastructure capacity of the area.

I appreciate the opportunity to make this submission.

I believe this project will add significant conjestion to an already struggling area. The services, parking, amenities, public transport and general traffic levels are not coping with current levels. A further significant amount of people and vehicles will add a significant amount of extra pressure on an area not designed for this level. This will also create an over supply of units thereby de valuing current neighbouring units / apartments. I feel strongly that this development is not in the interests of the area.