This project will create many issue to people living in Burns bay road and Waterview drive. First of all these streets are narrow and also there is no parking in any of the streets around which will impact traffic badly. This will create huge traffic on Burns bay road which is our only access to the city and is already congested area. Secondly it will totally block our building from light and green space. I totally disagree with having more buildings unless there is a new road also built to access these buildings apart from Burns Bay road and Waterview drive. These two roads are already congested and there is no room for more cars. In the worst case scenario if we can’t stop this project at least the building should not block our building and should have a different path from ours. Appreciate your consideration. Thanks

I live in this lovely area. The local council has a 6 storey limit. Why has the state government overridden this to suit the development.
If it were 6 storeys, I wouldn’t have an objection.
The immediate area would become more congested with traffic at lights, and there would be a line up of cars trying to get onto Burns Bay Road during peak hours in the morning and again approaching intersection in the afternoon.
This area wasn’t planned as a high density area.
I am concerned that the impact of this high rise would create darkness and less sunlight impacting the surrounds and residency.
This area of Lane Cove needs to remain at the 6 storey limit to maintain the aesthetic integrity of the area.

A redevelopment of a site provides planners with the opportunity to improve facilities for the benefit of all existing and future residents.
Unfortunately this project does not adequate parking facilities.
The inadequate parking provided will simply lead to anxiety,aggravation, anger and associated metal health issues for all future residents and visitors.
The number of resident/disabled/visitor parking spaces is inadequate.
The requirements for Emergency vehicles (Ambulance, Fire Brigade, Police), delivery vans, tradesman vehicles, removalist vans and garbage vehicles appear to have been ignored. These are essential requirements to ensure a safe and health environment.
The project requires an additional level of parking facilities to improve the parking provision.
There is no on street parking in this area and all parking required for the project must be located within the development site.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project.

It is irresponsible to the existing community to not upgrade the existing infrastructure before trying to push through such projects as this. Whilst it is commendable to supply additional housing, the current infrastructure is already stretched to its limit. Congestion is high on Burns Bay Rd already, bus services limited. Also bear in mind the burden on our local environment. Being so close to bushland and waterways, there are many local fauna that will be severely impacted by any such large works.

I am vehemently against this project going through at this time.

I strongly object to the development proposal due to the scale and bulk of what is proposed. The proposed development is significantly larger then anything in the area, it will overshadow neighboring complexes and block views. A development of the size proposed will also have a significant environmental impact on the delicate bushland ecosystem that surrounds the area due to increased traffic on a road that is currently hardly used and by generating light pollution from the large number of lots being proposed on the site. More specific details to my objection are described in the attachment provided with this submission.

As a long-term resident living in close proximity to the proposed development, I object to it in the strongest possible terms.
My primary concern is safety and wellbeing - through the construction process and beyond completion. The precinct is already constrained, and the impacts on residents and visitors are already being felt every day. Burns Bay Road is heavily congested, traffic frequently stalls throughout the day, and the area around the Waterview Drive intersection is already under serious pressure. Large trucks, stop-start traffic and prolonged queuing already generate substantial noise pollution in this corridor. That is not simply an inconvenience. It is currently a health, safety and wellbeing issue for the people who live nearby. School children already feel vulnerable crossing this major road, and pedestrians are exposed to an environment that feels unsafe and overburdened. Even with a more sympathetic form of development, these existing issues would remain and would still require very serious consideration.

The same is true of the broader strain on the precinct. Existing residents are already dealing with pressure on parking, public transport, sewerage, water, electricity and communications. These are not hypothetical future concerns. They are existing conditions. Existing residents should not be expected to absorb more disruption, more congestion, more noise and more risk in a precinct that is already functioning under pressure.

The current proposal, however, goes far beyond anything that could reasonably be described as sympathetic to its surroundings. The existing buildings in this area are generally 6 to 7 storeys and were constructed in compliance with Lane Cove Council’s development controls, including a height limit of about 21 metres. Those controls are adequate and, if applied in this case, would allow for a development that blends into the area without excessive impact on current residents. Instead, what is now proposed is a building of up to 15 storeys, with approximately 225 dwellings, about 226 car spaces, and a rezoning request to permit a height of 51.5 metres. In my view, that scale is plainly excessive. It is unwarranted, unjustifiable and entirely out of character with the surrounding residential landscape. It would disrupt the established streetscape and diminish the visual harmony and aesthetic appeal of the area.

The consequences for existing residents would be severe. A development of this height and intensity would create significant privacy impacts through overlooking from new windows and balconies, including into neighbouring bedrooms and living spaces. It would reduce sunlight to nearby homes, interfere with existing views, and materially diminish the quiet enjoyment of surrounding properties. It would also bring substantially more vehicle movements into a road network that is already struggling, further worsening congestion, delay and road safety risks for residents, pedestrians and school children. In an area already affected by noise pollution, heavy traffic and overstretched infrastructure, the addition of approximately 225 new dwellings is simply incomprehensible.

These concerns are supported by the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW), which includes the promotion of community welfare, amenity, health and safety, orderly development, meaningful community participation, and the requirement that decision-makers consider the likely impacts of a proposal, public submissions and the public interest.

In those circumstances, approving this proposal in its current form would represent a serious failure to give proper weight to the existing conditions affecting this precinct and to the welfare, safety and wellbeing of the residents who already live here. Existing residents are entitled to expect that they will not be subjected to further unreasonable harm through a development of this magnitude. This is not simply a question of built form. It is a question of whether an already burdened community can fairly be expected to endure materially worse traffic, greater noise, heightened safety risks, reduced privacy and a significant loss of amenity for the benefit of an oversized and unjustified proposal.

For those reasons, I urge the consent authority to reject this proposal outright. At the very least, it should not proceed unless it is substantially reduced and redesigned so that it reflects the prevailing character and scale of the precinct and properly protects the safety, health, amenity and wellbeing of existing residents.

I am a resident of this area.
Even now, this place is quite crowded due to the large number of residents living here. The mornings and afternoons are like hell, and the increased number of residents and previous construction will make it even more chaotic.
Even if the environment cannot be better than it is now, I hope it does not become more complicated or chaotic. The people who actually live here are likely all similar.
my family and other families will also not be exposed to chaotic environments with their children.
I hope for a positive response.
Thank you.

To the NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure,

I am a resident of Lane Cove. I write in support of the proposed development at 300 Burns Bay Road, Lane Cove (SSD-87925706), and offer the following constructive recommendations to strengthen the proposal before consent is granted.

WE NEED MORE HOUSING — AND THIS SITE IS READY

The site at 300 Burns Bay Road currently hosts a four-storey commercial office and warehouse building that contributes very little to the daily life of our neighbourhood. Replacing it with 225 new homes — including affordable housing units managed by Bridge Housing — is exactly the kind of change our suburb needs. Housing costs in Lane Cove have climbed to levels that are out of reach for young families, key workers, and older residents looking to downsize. Underutilised commercial land in well-connected suburbs like ours should be doing more to house our growing city.

RECOMMENDED CHANGE 1: BEDROOM MIX MUST REFLECT FAMILY NEEDS

My most significant concern is the likely over-representation of one and two-bedroom apartments in the proposed mix. Across Sydney, large residential developments have repeatedly delivered a glut of investor-oriented studio and one-bedroom units while failing to provide homes that families can actually live in long-term.

I would strongly recommend the Department condition the bedroom mix as follows:

- No more than 15% studios or one-bedroom apartments
- At least 40% two-bedroom apartments
- At least 30% three-bedroom apartments with separate living and dining areas
- A minimum of 5% four-bedroom apartments or large three-bedroom dwellings suitable for extended families

Lane Cove is a family suburb with strong demand for larger dwellings near good schools. A development that skews heavily toward small apartments will underperform for the community it claims to serve. Three-bedroom apartments also tend to attract owner-occupiers rather than short-term investors, which builds a more stable and engaged residential community.

RECOMMENDED CHANGE 2: SETBACKS NEED STRENGTHENING — PARTICULARLY TO THE NORTH AND EAST

While the applicant has addressed southern boundary setbacks, I am not satisfied that the northern and eastern boundary setbacks are adequate given the scale of the tallest building at 15 storeys. I would ask the Department to consider the following:

- Northern boundary setback: A minimum of 12 metres at levels above 7 storeys to protect solar access and private outlooks of adjoining residential properties
- Eastern boundary setback: A minimum of 8 metres at all levels above the podium, with no blank fire walls presented to the street
- Burns Bay Road street setback: The podium should be set back at least 5 metres from the street boundary to allow for deep soil planting, canopy trees, and an activated pedestrian edge — not just a hardscaped forecourt
- Inter-building separation: The three residential flat buildings should maintain a minimum 18-metre separation between habitable room windows to ensure privacy and daylight access for residents within the development itself

These setback requirements are consistent with the NSW Apartment Design Guide and should be treated as non-negotiable conditions of consent.

RECOMMENDED CHANGE 3: ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN SHOULD AVOID A MONOLITHIC APPEARANCE

The stepped height profile of 7 to 15 storeys is a welcome improvement over earlier iterations, but I would ask the Department to require further facade articulation so that the buildings do not read as three uniform towers. Specifically, I recommend conditioning:

- Varied facade materials across the lower podium, mid-section, and upper levels — for example, brick or textured masonry at street level transitioning to lighter materials at height
- Recessed balconies rather than cantilevered projections on the southern and western faces, to reduce visual bulk and provide genuine weather protection for residents
- Horizontal banding or architectural breaks at approximately the 7th and 10th floor levels to visually reduce the apparent height of the 15-storey building
- Activated ground floor edges along Burns Bay Road, including deep awnings, resident mail and parcel facilities, and bicycle parking that is visible and accessible — not hidden in a basement

A development of this prominence on Burns Bay Road will define the character of this part of Lane Cove for decades. It should be genuinely attractive, not merely functional.

RECOMMENDED CHANGE 4: COMMUNAL SPACE QUALITY OVER QUANTITY

The EIS references communal open space, but I would encourage the Department to go beyond simply requiring a minimum area. I recommend conditioning:

- A communal garden or planted terrace on the podium roof level, accessible to all residents and not reserved for premium apartments
- Seating, shade, and landscaping designed to a high standard, with a landscape architect retained through construction to ensure delivery matches the approved design

RECOMMENDED CHANGE 5: AFFORDABLE HOUSING TENURE AND MIX

The affordable units managed by Bridge Housing are welcome, but I ask the Department to ensure:

- The affordable units are distributed across all three buildings and across multiple floor levels — not clustered on lower floors or in a single building
- The affordable dwellings include a genuine proportion of two and three-bedroom units, so families on lower incomes can also benefit

SUSTAINABILITY SHOULD BE CONDITIONS, NOT ASPIRATIONS

With an $85.8 million development cost, the applicant has the capacity to deliver all-electric buildings with no gas infrastructure, EV charging for at least 50% of car spaces with conduit for the remainder, rooftop solar on all three buildings, and BASIX commitments exceeding minimum requirements — particularly for water efficiency and thermal comfort.

I support this development and want to see it built. With the right conditions attached, 300 Burns Bay Road can become a genuinely exemplary addition to our suburb.

300 Burns Bay Proposed Residential Development


I am writing to express my concerns regarding the updated proposed multi-storey residential development adjacent to my property. While I appreciate the need for thoughtful growth in our community, several significant issues must be addressed to ensure that any development is appropriate for the area and respects the rights and quality of life of existing residents.

I understand the proposal now involves the construction of a residential development over 15 levels (lower ground, ground and levels 1–13) which includes:

* Two levels of basement car parking and lower ground parking, providing approximately 320 spaces.
* A mix of one, two and three-bedroom apartments, totalling approximately 225 dwellings, of which approximately 26 will be dedicated affordable housing.

Given the scale of the proposed development, a building twice the size of any of the surrounding buildings, the following concerns are of particular importance:


Increased Traffic and Transport Impacts

The addition of over 320 vehicles is likely to exacerbate existing traffic congestion in our area. Has a traffic study been undertaken? If so, I would appreciate access to the SIDRA analysis or equivalent data to confirm the anticipated impact on intersection performance, particularly at the already-congested traffic lights on Burns Bay Road during peak hours. Presently it can take several changes of lights to be able to leave the area and further vehicles will just add to the issues surrounding traffic on Centennial Road.

In addition to congestion, I am concerned about increased noise, air pollution, and light intrusion from vehicles entering and exiting the development - especially in areas adjacent to existing bedrooms and private open spaces of the neighbouring properties.

If increased reliance on public transport is proposed as part of the solution, I note that current services are already under pressure. Recent changes have reduced the number of direct services to the city, making routes more crowded and less convenient. Has consultation occurred with Transport for NSW regarding increasing capacity or improving routes to accommodate this development?

Furthermore, with approximately 1.45 parking spaces per dwelling, it is evident that private vehicle usage will remain a dominant transport mode, which contradicts efforts to reduce car dependency in urban areas.


Privacy, Overshadowing, and Amenity Impacts

The height and proximity of the proposed building raise serious concerns regarding privacy and overshadowing for neighbouring properties. Many of the units in our building - particularly those facing the development - feature floor-to-ceiling glass walls in both bedrooms and living areas. The proposal creates significant potential for direct sightlines into our private balconies and living spaces, leading to an unacceptable loss of privacy.

Overshadowing is also a major issue. Our building has already lost approximately 20% of afternoon sunlight due to a prior development. The current proposal, being significantly closer, may result in the complete loss of morning sun for many apartments. Has a comprehensive overshadowing and solar access study been conducted to assess the impact across different seasons and times of day?

The sheer number of units and the building’s scale will greatly reduce the liveability and comfort of existing homes in our block and others directly adjacent.


Tree Preservation and Environmental Impacts

The site includes mature trees that provide essential habitat for native birds and other wildlife. The removal or degradation of these trees would result in permanent harm to the local ecosystem.

I urge that any development must be designed to preserve existing trees, and clear commitments should be made to ensure their protection throughout construction. This includes provisions that all trees be healthy and intact prior to the issue of any Occupation Certificate. Previous developments have failed in this regard, and it is vital that accountability measures are established and enforced.

Light Pollution

Given the proposed building’s height and density, there is potential for increased light pollution affecting nearby residents. I recommend that strong conditions be included in any development approval, such as the use of downward-facing lighting fixtures, limits on illuminated signage, and shielding of communal lighting to reduce spillover into neighbouring properties.


Thank you for considering my feedback. I trust that these concerns will be taken seriously, and I hope to see a development that is carefully considered in its impact on traffic, amenity, the environment, and the well-being of the existing community.