I object to this early works happening until the final DA approval for the development has been approved.
If there is a long period between excavation and construction then there is a serious risk that we residence so close to the site be subject to unnecessary dust. There are children and elderly people so close, like within a few meters living close to the excavation site. Prior to SAS being there the site was a tannery. There has been no report to show any soil contamination that might be dug up when they dig up to 10 meters below the ground surface. How do we know we wont be breathing contaminated dust from the chemicals in the previous tannery? We need a dust management plan and environmental report on the ground been excavated.
Also, given that this development will be only meteres away from hundreds of resdidences, I think there should be restrictions on the number of excavation hours per day. The noise for 26 weeks approx all day from 7am to 6pm should not be allowed. It should be limited to 4 hrs per day excavation.
I understand this development is inevitable but it should take into account that it is done in a small space amongst hundreds of people's homes.

The proposed development is expected to have a significant adverse impact on the surrounding environment. The removal of existing trees would result in the loss of important habitat for local wildlife, potentially disrupting established ecological communities and reducing biodiversity within the area. These impacts should be carefully considered when assessing the environmental merits of the proposal.
Furthermore, the proposed development is expected to generate a significant increase in traffic movements within what is predominantly a residential area. The additional vehicle movements have the potential to adversely affect the amenity, safety, and functionality of the local road network. In our view, these impacts have not been adequately assessed or addressed in the submitted Traffic Impact Assessment, and further justification and analysis are required to demonstrate that the proposal will not result in unacceptable traffic impacts on the surrounding neighbourhood.

he early works should not be considered separately from the full development. Demolition and site disturbance will trigger the impacts of a much larger project before the full environmental, traffic, and amenity impacts have been assessed or resolved. This also creates a real risk that the site will be left as a barren “dust bowl” for an extended period if the full development is not approved, which would negatively affect nearby residents’ health and air quality.
Noise, dust, and vibration impacts will be significant. Demolition and excavation works involve heavy machinery, truck movements, and continuous ground disturbance, all of which will cause disruption to surrounding residents and potentially impact the structural integrity of nearby properties.
The site’s former use as a tannery raises serious contamination concerns. Disturbing soil and undertaking remediation works on historically industrial land may expose or mobilise contaminants. This poses potential health and environmental risks if not managed with full transparency and strict oversight.
Traffic and safety impacts are also a major concern. Additional construction vehicles and heavy truck movements will place further pressure on Burns Bay Road and surrounding streets, which are already constrained. Increased congestion and reduced road safety will affect residents, pedestrians, and local businesses.
For these reasons, the early works should not proceed independently of the full development assessment, and the impacts must be considered holistically rather than in isolation.

The demolition on 300 Burns Bay Road, which is surrounded by a number of apartments with families, elderly and young children will lead to big noise and environmental pollution hazards with dust, excavation noise and vibrations along with traffic jam and safety issues. Without proper thoughts put into this or not considering the safety and health of so many surrounding residents, this should not be approved to go ahead.
The full development has still not been approved and demolishing the building will just leave it in a dusty and polluted state for as long as a final decision is made on the full development. It’s not good for the health of those living close by to have a dusty and possibly contaminated work site left like that with no final approvals in place for further development. The demolition should not be separate from the full development and shouldn’t put neighbouring residents at risk for the interests of the developers.
This site being close to the reserve, all the excavations, tree removal and possible contamination of the environment can have serious health impacts on residents, including elderly, young children and the vulnerable as well as wild life, birds, pets etc.
Considering this has every kind of bad impact on those already residing there - including traffic impacts, noise and vibration issues, contamination and pollution issues, and safety issues, I strongly object to this as a neighbouring resident living with family including children suffering from dust allergies and asthma. We chose a home close to reserves and nature, thinking it’ll be good for our health and peace, but it’s just proving otherwise with this lingering fear of this site development.
Those already calling this place a home has every right to have safe and peaceful life and a site as close to multiple apartments with numerous residents should not have been chosen for this kind of redevelopment. The number of people affected are too many for this to be ignored.

Please consider all this and trust this is taken in all its seriousness while making a decision.

To the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure,
I wish to lodge my objection to the Early Works application for 300 Burns Bay Road, Lane Cove.
This objection is made in the context of the broader redevelopment proposal for the site, being the demolition of existing structures and construction of three residential flat buildings. The proposed early works cannot reasonably be considered separately from the ultimate development outcome, as they represent the commencement of significant physical changes to the site and may result in irreversible impacts occurring before the full impacts of the proposed development have been properly assessed and resolved.
The concerns previously raised by residents, Lane Cove Council, government agencies and technical reviewers regarding the scale, intensity, environmental impacts, traffic generation, parking, residential amenity, bushland protection and compliance with relevant planning principles remain unresolved and continue to be directly relevant to this application.
Please see attached document for the reasons to which I state my objection.

The original DA for this site has been rejected but the developer has submitted a separate DA to try to circumvent the original decision. How is this appropriate, let alone legal? Surely the developer cannot be allowed to proceed with any works if the original DA has been rejected?
I disagree with this second DA because:
- it appears to be trying to circumvent the original DA rejection
- there are 32 trees planned to be removed- this is disgraceful; the bush character of this part of Lane Cove will be irreparably damaged
- the oversize / overdevelopment of the site - which was rejected in the original DA rejection- has not been addressed at all

I feel this developer is just trying to do works whether they’re approved or not. Please reject this second DA (& any future attempts) as well.

I object to the proposed Early Works application for 300 Burns Bay Road. As the application includes demolition, site clearing and associated works, I believe these activities should not proceed before the principal development application has been finally determined.

My primary concern is that the principal development application for the site has not yet been finally determined. Allowing the proposed Early Works to proceed before the overall development has been determined would result in irreversible changes to the site and risks prejudicing the planning process. Decisions regarding demolition should form part of the overall assessment of the proposal, rather than being considered in isolation.

If the principal development application is ultimately refused, substantially amended, or delayed, the community would be left with a cleared and vacant site for an unknown period of time. This would diminish the character and visual amenity of the area without any corresponding public benefit.

The existing vegetation and mature trees contribute to the character of Burns Bay Road and the surrounding neighbourhood, which is well known for its established greenery and proximity to bushland. Premature clearing of this vegetation would unnecessarily reduce the area's visual appeal and environmental character before it has been established that the proposed redevelopment is appropriate.

Approving Early Works ahead of the principal application also creates a practical risk that the existence of a cleared site could place pressure on future decision-makers to approve redevelopment simply to avoid a long-term vacant lot. Regardless of whether this is the applicant's intention, the planning process should remain impartial and should not be influenced by irreversible works undertaken before the merits of the development have been fully assessed.

The Early Works application should therefore not be considered independently of the principal development application. If the redevelopment is ultimately approved, demolition and clearing can proceed as part of that approval. Until that time, there is no compelling planning justification for allowing irreversible changes to the site.

For these reasons, I respectfully request that the Early Works application be refused. At a minimum, it should be deferred until the principal development application has been finally determined, ensuring that irreversible works do not precede a final planning decision.