The proposed development at 300 Burns Bay Road Lane Cove is a concerning attempt to revise existing planning requirements. The amenity of the Burns Bay Reserve and Tannery Creek precinct is a fine balance between medium density housing, residential properties (in Riverview) and a relatively pristine border bushland and natural features.
The Burns Bay precinct is already utilised beyond what would be considered sensible levels, with weekend sport and weekday sporting activity (particularly during winter) compromising the quality of life in the area. The proposed bulk and scale, including floor space ratio increases and likely overshadowing, will fundamentally change the lifestyle, flora and fauna of this precinct. It is concerning that existing residents appear to have been ignored in terms of concerns, and classifying this development as state significant feeds the perception of development beyond all else.
Anybody who lives in the precinct will tell you that the availability of public transport is severely lacking, with access to the city difficult and oversubscribed at the best of times. There is no bus service to or from the city from Riverview (Burns Bay Reserve) on Sunday at all. Public Transport services will need to be increased by some frequency to service the development. A previous meeting to discuss the development resulted in the traffic planners advising that residents will need to consider riding motorbikes and pushbikes for a workable solution. This is a laughable and unsustainable response. If this is meant to be the option to occupants requiring motor vehicles, the proposal is already wide of the mark. In terms of motor vehicles, the ratio of occupancy to parking spaces is grossly underspecified, which will result in occupants attempting to park in surrounding streets. The issue with this is that there is no additional parking close to the precinct, with existing residents in the developed area already parking on the eastern side of Burns Bay Reserve (and competing with sporting crowds and boat ramp users). The parking facility is of significant concern and needs to be addressed to ensure 2 vehicle spaces (minimum) per residence prior to any further consideration of the development. In considering the finished price point of the finished apartments, and the likely rental rates, it is extremely unlikely that each apartment will have a single occupant and therefore a single vehicle attached. This shortfall of parking will push potentially circa 200 vehicles onto surrounding streets, where parking is already limited during the week, and oversubscribed on weekends due to the load of sporting participants placed on Burns Bay Reserve (soccer Saturday and Sunday in winter, cricket Saturday and Sunday in Summer) and the parking of boats and trailers at the Burns Bay boat ramp all year round.
In terms of traffic, current access to the 300 Burns Bay Rd precinct is via a service road controlled by traffic lights, which already results in compromised access. Increasing traffic volume will exacerbate this issue with vehicle stacking likely to impact traffic on Burns Bay Rd which is already heavily impacted during peak periods, resulting in significant delays both Northbound and Southbound, along with significant delays westbound on Penrose Street on weeknights and all weekend. The infrastructure surrounding the development is not sufficient to support the density of this development.
It goes without saying overshadowing and overlooking from the proposed development will significantly impact the precinct and forever change the ecological balance of Burns Bay forever. The new buildings will exceed tree-line height along the ridge by some margin, causing an eyesore and overshadowing to residents in Riverview. Additionally, ambient occupant noise will spill into the reserve and valley beyond Tannery Creek, resulting in the increase of ambient noise levels across the northwest of Riverview, particularly those residences along Kooyong Road and Riverview St. Such loss of visual and ambient amenity is a contradiction to the reasons residents historically chose to buy in the quiet precinct.
This development is inappropriate in terms of size and scale and should not be approved as it does not comply with existing planning guidelines.

My home at at 300B Burns Bay Road, along with neighbouring properties at 300A and 300C, sits directly downhill and immediately adjacent to this site. Because of the steep topography, carving into this hillside is the single most dangerous phase of development for the residents living right below it.
I am deeply concerned that the proponent is attempting to sever demolition and heavy excavation from the main building application. Permitting destructive, irreversible works on our hillside while the final design of the actual development remains unapproved is an unacceptable risk to our community and our homes.

1. Premature Hillside Destruction and Environmental Devaluation
It is public knowledge that the Department has heavily criticized the developer's main building proposal as an overdevelopment that requires substantial redesign. Despite this, the developer is trying to clear-fell the site, remove 32 mature trees, and begin deep excavation. If this early works application is approved, our neighbourhood will be forced to endure catastrophic environmental loss and a heavily destabilized hillside, even if the main building application is ultimately rejected or radically altered. No trees should be cleared, and no soil should be turned, until a final, scaled-down design has been fully approved by the Department.

2. Immediate Physical and Structural Risks to Downhill Homes
The proposed early works require deep, industrial excavation into a sloping landform directly above older, established residential strata buildings, creating severe and unassessed physical risks to our properties. Bulk excavation and the associated pumping of groundwater threaten to alter the local water table, which can easily cause the soil beneath our older foundations downslope to drop or settle unevenly. Furthermore, the heavy machinery required for demolition and shoring will send violent vibrations directly down the hill into homes built in a different era that simply weren’t designed to withstand months of constant ground shaking. Carving out the hillside directly above us also introduces a distinct risk of landslip or slope failure during heavy rain events. I ask that the Department refuse to rely solely on the developer’s self-funded studies, and instead mandate an independent structural and geotechnical assessment with strict, continuous monitoring thresholds during construction.

3. Critical Lack of Oversight and the Need for Financial Protection
It is a well-documented reality in NSW that corporate developer entities can dissolve long after structural cracks or foundational damage become apparent to neighbours. The Department must require independent, non-developer-commissioned structural and geotechnical monitoring with legally binding, enforceable shutdown thresholds during excavation. Furthermore, any approval must be conditioned on a developer-funded bank guarantee or compensation bond held by the state to ensure that if our homes are structurally compromised, we are not left financially ruined.

4. Severe Downhill Drainage and Stormwater Management Risks
Stripping 32 trees and exposing a massive, open excavation site on a steep hill creates an immediate flooding and sediment hazard for the properties directly below. During the demolition and earthworks phase, erosion controls are notoriously vulnerable to failure. As the immediate downhill neighbour, my property is directly in the path of any mud, debris, and high-velocity stormwater runoff resulting from an exposed, broken hillside. The current application does not provide adequate, binding guarantees to prevent stormwater nuisance or flooding to 300A, 300B, and 300C.

5. Excessive Liveability Impacts (Dust, Noise, and Vibration)
The physical reality of living directly beneath a major demolition and bulk excavation site means that all heavy noise, toxic dust, and exhaust pollution will inevitably drift down into our backyards, balconies, and living spaces. For an extended period, our daily lives will be severely disrupted. We require strictly enforceable, reduced construction hours, real-time dust monitoring, and an independent complaints liaison mechanism with immediate stop-work consequences for breaches—not just aspirational promises from the developer.

Conclusion
Approving the demolition and excavation of a complex hillside site while the actual future layout of the project is up in the air is irresponsible planning. For the safety of our homes, the preservation of our local canopy, and the protection of downhill residents, I urge the Department to refuse this Early Works application. Demolition and bulk excavation should only ever be assessed and permitted as part of a final, fully resolved, and drastically scaled-down comprehensive application.
Thank you for considering the serious impact this excavation will have on our lives and homes.

To the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure,

I live on Level 7 of Tower B at 300A Burns Bay Road, the residential strata scheme immediately adjoining the application site. My apartment looks directly onto the building proposed for demolition. I object to this Early Works application, and before the specific impacts, my objection comes down to one point: there is no approved development for this demolition to make way for.

𝗧𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗹𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗶𝘀 𝗽𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗮𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲

The principal development for this site, SSD-87925706, has not been determined. It is still under assessment, and it drew substantial community objection during its own exhibition. This Early Works application asks the Department to approve demolition of the existing building, removal of trees, bulk earthworks and land remediation 𝗯𝗲𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗲 anyone knows whether, or in what form, the replacement development will ever be approved.

That sequence makes no sense. If the principal application is refused, scaled back or delayed, all of which are live possibilities, we are left with a demolished, excavated and possibly contaminated vacant lot directly opposite hundreds of residents, for an open-ended period, with no replacement underway and no certainty one is coming. Demolition and site clearing are irreversible. The orderly course is for any demolition to be assessed and conditioned as part of the principal development consent, not run ahead of it on a separate track.

I ask that this application be refused, or at the very least that no demolition or ground disturbance be permitted to commence until SSD-87925706 is determined and consent is granted.

If the Department is nonetheless minded to consider it, the following impacts weigh against approval.

𝗡𝗼𝗶𝘀𝗲

Demolition and earthworks of this scale mean sustained, high-impact noise: excavators, rock breaking, concrete sawing and truck movements over an extended period. My neighbours and I sit directly opposite and well above the site, with an unobstructed line of sight; the noise will carry straight across and up. Imposing months of this on surrounding residents before there is even an approved project to deliver is not a reasonable impost.

𝗗𝘂𝘀𝘁, 𝗮𝗶𝗿 𝗾𝘂𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗵𝗮𝘇𝗮𝗿𝗱𝗼𝘂𝘀 𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗮𝗹

A commercial and warehouse building of this age, demolished a short distance from occupied residential towers, raises real concerns about airborne dust and hazardous material, including asbestos. The application scope expressly includes "remediation of land," which signals known contamination that must be managed. Disturbing and remediating contaminated ground directly opposite homes, where many of us keep windows and balconies open and rely on natural ventilation, is exactly the kind of work that should not begin until it is part of a fully assessed, approved and properly conditioned project.

𝗧𝗿𝗮𝗳𝗳𝗶𝗰 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗽𝗲𝗱𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗮𝗻 𝘀𝗮𝗳𝗲𝘁𝘆

Burns Bay Road is already heavily congested at peak times, which is acknowledged in the principal application's own traffic assessment. Demolition and earthworks add heavy vehicle movements (spoil and demolition trucks entering, queuing and reversing) on a narrow road with effectively no spare on-street capacity, alongside residential driveways used by elderly residents and families with young children. That is a genuine safety hazard, and again it is being proposed for a project that is not yet approved.

𝗟𝗼𝘀𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝗺𝗮𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗿𝗲𝗲𝘀

Early tree removal is irreversible. Lane Cove's character is tied to its canopy and bushland setting. Clearing established trees before the replacement scheme is even approved risks losing them permanently for a development that may change or never proceed.

𝗩𝘂𝗹𝗻𝗲𝗿𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘀

The adjoining strata schemes are home to many elderly residents and young children. The combined burden of noise, dust, poor air quality and construction traffic falls hardest on the people least able to avoid it.

𝗜𝗺𝗽𝗮𝗰𝘁 𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗮𝗱𝗷𝗼𝗶𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗮𝗹 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗺𝘂𝗻𝗶𝘁𝘆 (𝗿𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗼𝘄𝗻𝗲𝗿𝘀)

Our building is roughly half owner-occupied and half tenanted, with a number of long-term renters who have made it their home. A drawn-out demolition followed by an idle, cleared site, which is the real risk if the principal development is not approved or stalls, directly undermines the stability of that community. Existing tenants living opposite months of noise, dust and an empty wasteland have every reason to leave, and prospective tenants have every reason to look elsewhere. The predictable chain is rising vacancies and downward pressure on rents across 300A Burns Bay Road, with the flow-on effect of eroding values for the owners who live here and those who have invested here.

I raise this not as a private financial complaint but as a socio-economic harm to an established, occupied residential community, and it is a direct consequence of approving demolition ahead of an approved development. There is a real irony in a housing-supply pathway being used to authorise the clearing of a site, with no certain replacement, in a way that destabilises and displaces residents in the occupied housing immediately next door. Whatever weight is given to delivering future housing should also account for the harm done to existing housing, and the people living in it, while the site sits empty.

𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗜 𝗮𝗺 𝗮𝘀𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗳𝗼𝗿

I ask that SSD-100293708 be refused. In the alternative, I ask that no demolition, tree removal, earthworks or ground disturbance be permitted to commence until the principal development application (SSD-87925706) has been determined and development consent granted, so that any demolition is assessed and conditioned together with the development it is meant to enable.

I have attached photos from my apartment looking directly over the proposed site.

Thank you for considering this submission.

Dean Moon
Tower B, 300A Burns Bay Road, Lane Cove NSW 2066

Letter of objection RE: SSD-87925706 SSD-100293708 for 300 BURNS BAY ROAD, LANE COVE
from Meredith Freeman, owner unit 30/300A Burns Bay, Road Lane Cove

I write to object to the proposed early works to facilitate development at 300 Burns Bay Road Lane Cove.
The grounds on which I object include:
1. Loss of native bushland and habitat associated with early works to develop this site.
The proposed early works includes the removal of a number of established trees and native scrub. The development application has not been approved and early works to remove these trees sets an unreasonable approval of loss of bushland which may not be required in the final approved development plans
Tree removal will remove the native canopy affecting the microclimate and impact the neighbouring buildings through increased heat. This is not good for the environment and will impact on the safety and commodity of the immediate site and surrounding buildings.
2. Noise and disruption associated with early works.
The proposed early works will generate significant noise and disruption to the peaceful enjoyment of the area due to dust and dirt generated by the demolition, and acoustic impacts will be significant.
The proposed early works will result in all buildings in the immediate vicinity being adversely affected by the noise and dirt associated with the demolition works. The residents of buildings at 290 Burns Bay Road, 292-298 Burns Bay Road, 300A, 300B and 300C Burns Bay Road will be directly impacted as their windows and common areas face the proposed development site.
3. Impact of pre-emptive early works and resultant vacant lot on resident wellbeing.
The early works will generate a vacant lot of land that will be subject to weather and potential vandalism.
The impacts on the neighbouring buildings include ongoing dust and dirt from the vacant site travelling to buildings and affecting the health and wellbeing of residents.
The site will also act as a heat sink with the proposed tree removal affecting the climate and contributing to an unhealthy climate in this area.
4. Density of the development will be supported by early works.
The early works aim to prepare for the approval of a state significant development and will include significant drilling and excavating of the rock layer to prepare the foundations.
The final development application has not been approved and there is significant concern that the early works will facilitate and in fact support the proposed overdevelopment of this site. The community has presented its objection to the original bulky and dense development that provides little to no public spaces for residents and impinges on the boundaries of neighbouring properties in an architecturally aggressive manner.
Early works should not be allowed without an approved final development application in place.
5. Traffic impact on current residents and wider community in the Lane Cove area.
The early works will have a significant unwanted impact on traffic in the immediate area and surrounding streets. The use of heavy equipment needed for early works will negatively impact the local traffic.
There are already significant delays to traffic along Burns Bay Road from the intersection with Centennial Ave to the Waterview Drive intersection. High traffic flow along Penrose Street means lengthy delays occur along the majority of that street to the intersection with Burns Bay Road, which then feeds into the congestion from that intersection to Waterview Drive.
The single roundabout at Burns Bay Road and Waterview Drive presents problems when giving way to traffic entering from 292-298 Burns Bay Road and the proposed development at 300 Burns Bay Road due to lack of sightline. The road is situated behind the driver’s right-hand side and if drivers are travelling at speed has led to near misses.
The angles of the roads entering this roundabout are acute and there are ongoing issues with the garbage collection trucks and delivery trucks navigating the roundabout and road access to 300ABC Burns Bay Road and 302 Burns Bay Road.

In summary, I object to the proposed early works to facilitate the development based on the reasons listed above.
I consider the early works an act of stealth to position the developer to further push the overdevelopment of the site.
The proposed early works will impact and detract from the right of residents to the peaceful enjoyment of living in this area.

I strongly object to the approval of the Early Works application before Development Application SSD-87925706 has been fully assessed and determined.
As an immediate neighbour, I will be directly affected by any works undertaken and as such have a major interest in ensuring that the planning process is completed before any irreversible changes occur.
There have been major unresolved issues with the main development application identified and significant revisions have been requested. I believe it is premature and inappropriate to allow works that could permanently alter the site before a final decision has been made.
My greatest concern is that demolition, tree removal and site clearing are irreversible. If the main proposal is ultimately reduced in scale, redesigned, delayed, or refused, the environmental and community impacts of these works will already have occurred.
The existing trees and vegetation are important not only to the character of the local area but also as habitat for native wildlife. Kookaburras and other bird species have their home amongst the trees and surrounding vegetation. Removing this habitat before the principal application has been determined would result in an irreversible loss of biodiversity and environmental value.
As an immediate neighbour, the trees and vegetation contribute to my outlook, privacy and enjoyment of my property. Their removal would permanently alter the character of the area and diminish the park like feel of the area currently enjoyed by nearby residents.
I suffer from asthma and am worried about how early demolition, vegetation removal and site disturbance may affect air quality in the surrounding area whilst the neighbourhood waits. The last extended build in the area meant almost two years of dust, closed windows, no use of outdoor balcony and use of inhalers daily. The documentation does not provide sufficient reassurance about how neighbouring residents, especially those with existing respiratory conditions, will be protected from dust generated by the works. Dust can have serious health implications, and I believe these risks must be fully considered before any approval is granted.
I am also concerned that if the site is cleared before a final decision is made on SSD-87925706, the community could be left with a vacant and unsightly site for an extended period. Rather than improving the area, premature demolition and clearing may create an eyesore that detracts from the appearance and character of the neighbourhood.
Approving Early Works in these circumstances effectively creates a "proceed first, decide later" outcome, allowing works to proceed before a final decision has been reached. It would allow permanent environmental and visual impacts to occur before
the planning process has been completed and before the community has certainty about what will ultimately be approved on the site.
For these reasons, I respectfully request that the Early Works application not be approved until SSD-87925706 has been fully assessed and determined.
If approval is nevertheless granted, I request that strict conditions be imposed, including:
· Strict adherence to work hours, with the last development trucks were idling from before 5am each morning outside apartment bedroom windows, workmen smoking and shouting to each other well before work start time
· No removal of trees or wildlife habitat.
· No removal of soil. No earthworks beyond those strictly required for demolition safety.
· Retention of lower slabs and hard surfaces to minimise dust impacts on neighbouring properties.
· Appropriate erosion, sediment and stormwater controls.
· Approval of all environmental, traffic, noise and waste management plans before any works commence.
· Ongoing maintenance of the site to ensure it does not become a visual eyesore on the community if development is delayed.
I ask that due consideration is given to protect the local residents, native wildlife and the existing character of the area by ensuring the site remains substantially unchanged until a final determination has been made on SSD-87925706.

I have been an owner/ resident in Lane Cove for 38 years .I have 2 daughters who have apartments which will be affect by the proposed development of 300 Burns Bay Road.
I formally object to this early works application being approved as it would be premature and the works irreversible to the principal SSD being determined. Tree removal, demolition ,excavation and heavy vehicle movement/dust air quality issues should not commence until the main development has been assessed. at the moment there is insufficient information

Submission on SSD-100293708 – Early Works at 300 Burns Bay Road, Lane Cove

I object to this Early Works application in its current form.

I am an owner-occupier at 280–288 Burns Bay Road, immediately adjoining the proposed redevelopment site. I purchased my apartment intending it to be my long-term home, and the outlook and established landscape surrounding the site were important considerations in that decision.

I am not opposed to redevelopment of 300 Burns Bay Road in principle. I understand that the site will eventually be redeveloped in some form. My concern is that this application seeks approval for irreversible works before the principal redevelopment application has been determined.

This application includes demolition of the existing buildings, removal of trees, bulk excavation and associated site preparation works. Once these works have taken place, they cannot realistically be reversed, regardless of whether the principal redevelopment proceeds as currently proposed, is modified or is delayed.

My greatest concern is the possibility that neighbouring residents could be left living beside a demolished and extensively excavated site for an extended period if the principal redevelopment does not proceed immediately after the early works. This would expose surrounding residents to prolonged construction impacts including demolition and excavation noise, dust, heavy vehicle movements, visual impacts and the general disruption associated with a major construction site.

Burns Bay Road is already a busy local road, particularly during peak periods. The demolition and excavation phase will inevitably generate significant heavy vehicle traffic, placing additional pressure on an already constrained road network and further affecting the amenity of neighbouring residents.

I have attached photographs taken from my apartment to show my existing outlook. While I recognise that redevelopment will inevitably change the area over time, the current landscape setting contributes significantly to the amenity enjoyed by neighbouring properties. I do not believe irreversible changes to the site should occur before the Department has completed its assessment of the principal redevelopment proposal.

For these reasons, I respectfully request that the Department refuse the Early Works application in its current form.

If the Department is nevertheless minded to grant consent, I respectfully request that any approval be subject to conditions that minimise irreversible impacts before the principal redevelopment has been determined. In particular, I ask that only those works necessary to safely secure and maintain the site be permitted, with bulk excavation and other irreversible site works deferred until the principal redevelopment has received approval. Appropriate dust suppression, environmental controls, site maintenance and construction management measures should also be required throughout any interim period to minimise impacts on neighbouring residents.

Thank you for considering my submission.