Objection to SSD-87925706 due to Significant Loss of Solar Access, Privacy and Residential Amenity

I am writing to object to the proposed development at 300 Burns Bay Road (SSD-87925706) due to its excessive height of 54.5 metres, more than twice the height of surrounding apartment buildings, which will completely overshadow my north-facing apartment and the apartments of hundreds of other residents within our complex.
The applicant’s own shadow diagrams clearly show that on 21 June at 12pm (mid-winter), the proposed buildings cast shadow across 300A and 300B Burns Bay Road. As a resident of a north-facing apartment, this means I will lose direct midday winter sunlight, which is the most important period for natural light and warmth.
Currently, my apartment receives winter sunlight throughout the day. Under this proposal, that will change significantly. In my specific case, the loss of sunlight will occur through six windows and affect multiple areas of my home, including two bedrooms, a bathroom, the kitchen, living room, and laundry. This represents a substantial reduction in natural light and will negatively impact my family’s day-to-day living conditions, including thermal comfort and overall wellbeing.
The shadow report does not provide any detailed or quantitative assessment of solar access impacts on neighbouring apartments. There is no analysis of how many hours of sunlight will be lost, nor any confirmation that affected apartments will continue to meet accepted solar access expectations. Despite this, the applicant’s own diagrams clearly demonstrate a substantial and concerning impact.
I am just one of many residents affected by the overshadowing from this oversized proposal, which is more than twice the height of our existing buildings. The diagrams indicate that this impact extends across at least two buildings within our complex, as well as other nearby apartment buildings outside our complex, affecting hundreds of apartments. This is not an isolated impact, but a broad and significant loss of residential amenity across the precinct.
2. I am also very concerned about the lack of information regarding construction impacts, particularly vibration from excavation works so close to our complex’s boundaries. A detailed engineering assessment should be required to ensure the structural integrity of our buildings is not compromised. The proposed development is to be constructed on a narrow block of land, tightly sandwiched between our apartment complex along the southern boundary and other apartments along the northern boundary. Our line of garages is approximately 3 metres from where excavation will occur, and our three residential towers are only around 10 metres from what will be a very large excavation site. How will these excavation vibrations affect our buildings? This has not been adequately addressed, and an engineering report should be required.
3. The proposed building is also so close to our boundary that I will lose all privacy. Apartments in the new development will be located less than 10 metres from my unit and will be able to look directly into all six of my north-facing windows.
4. The applicant’s traffic study concludes that no road upgrades are required on Burns Bay Road, which is already heavily congested. This does not reflect reality. Currently, attempting to access Burns Bay Road via Waterview Drive during peak times, whether taking children to school or commuting to work, is extremely difficult. How will the area cope with the additional traffic generated by over 200 new vehicle movements?
5. The applicant does not provide sufficient visitor parking. This will inevitably result in overflow parking into our complex, which is already under pressure from existing demands including visitors, couriers, and tradespeople.
It does not seem right or appropriate to address housing demand by significantly diminishing the living conditions of hundreds of existing residents. We are not large landowners, we are apartment dwellers, just like the future residents of this proposed development. Increasing density to this extent, without regard for existing amenity, is not sustainable and risks creating poor living conditions for everyone.
Given the clear loss of solar access, the scale of impact on existing residents, and the lack of adequate assessment of these issues, I respectfully request that this proposal not be approved in its current form. I urge that any future design be reconsidered to reduce its height and bulk, and to better protect the amenity and wellbeing of the many hundreds of residents in this precinct.
Thank you for your time and consideration.

I am writing to formally object to the proposed development of the units in our area.

My concerns reflect a number of significant issues that have been consistently raised within the community.

Firstly, the proposed height of the development is excessive and out of character with the surrounding area. This will result in substantial overshadowing of neighbouring properties, reducing natural light and negatively impacting residents’ quality of life. In addition, the development will compromise existing views, which are an important aspect of the amenity currently enjoyed by the community.

Traffic congestion is already a serious concern in the area, and this development will only exacerbate these issues. The increase in vehicle movements will place additional strain on already busy roads, leading to longer travel times and reduced accessibility.

Road safety is another critical issue. The current roundabout is already under pressure and does not function effectively during peak periods. Adding further traffic will increase the risk of accidents. Furthermore, pedestrian safety is a major concern, particularly for children, elderly residents, and those with mobility challenges, as increased traffic will make the area more hazardous.

Parking is already a significant and ongoing problem in the area. Existing residents frequently experience difficulty finding available parking spaces, and the proposed development does not appear to provide adequate parking to meet the needs of additional residents and visitors. This will likely lead to further congestion, illegal parking, and increased frustration for both current and future residents.

The impacts during the construction phase have also not been adequately addressed. These include potential contamination, increased dust levels, construction traffic, reduced parking availability, noise pollution, and waste management issues. Such disruptions will significantly affect the daily lives and wellbeing of nearby residents.

There are also serious concerns about local infrastructure and its ability to accommodate additional demand. Local shops, public transport services, open spaces, schools, and road networks are already operating near capacity. The increased population resulting from this development will place further strain on these essential services.

The proposed increase in population density is not appropriate for the area and risks fundamentally altering the character of the neighbourhood.

Finally, there is concern about the potential negative impact on property values. Developments of this scale and nature can reduce the desirability of the area, affecting the financial security of existing homeowners.

For these reasons, I strongly object to the proposed development and urge the relevant authorities to reconsider or reject the application

The area can not support more traffic and more housing. It currently takes 40 mins to travel 5km down to the m8. There are not enough buses to support the residents now. We can not even get out of our driveway in peak times. Placeing more people into an area that can not support the current population is irresponsible. Providing one car park for one unit is not enough. In addition where are the cars over the parking spots going to park. Place housing in areas where people, parking and transport are supported

To Whom It May Concern,

As a local resident at 290 Burns Bay Road, I'm making a submission to state my objection to the proposed development at 300 Burns Bay Road, Lane Cove, NSW - In particular the scale and volume of the proposed development that where 225 residential units would be built - I'm totally not against something being built in the proposed area as I recognise that there's a need for additional dwellings throughout NSW, however, the current proposal is way too excessive - This is an opinion shared by many in the area will have a direct impact on living standards and the overall health and wellbeing for the residents in the precinct.

All new residential apartment complexes in the precinct (From 2013 onwards where the old Lane Cove Bowling Club used to be) are around 6-7 stories high. This proposal far exceeds that and will impact the existing character of the area from an aesthetic standpoint - This complex would literally tower over my living space, blocking sunlight, increasing noise and reducing privacy.

The practical reality of this proposal would see a significant increase of traffic entering in and out of the precinct with limited road access already in place - In particular in relation to the traffic lights on the corner of Waterview Drive and Burns Bay Rd. These roads already experience high traffic demands during peak hour periods - The possibility of adding another potential 300 vehicles would cause further gridlock and chaos to an area that has limited public transport routes (There's the 530 & 536 Bus Services between Burwood/Gladesville - Chatswood and the 252 between Hunters Hill and North Sydney - That's already a limited service in the evenings). There's also the concern of parking - There's already limited places to park to access Waterview Drive. I can't imagine that this would improve the situation if it were to go ahead.

There would be limited road access in and out of the area during the construction stage - Especially for the scale of the proposed building. I've seen first hand the scale of construction works and experienced the impact (dust, noise, road closures) with smaller developments along Waterview Drive over the past 10-11 years - This would far exceed that and in a smaller precinct (and unlike those other developments, this would literally be right outside my bedroom window too).

Something that should also be taken into consideration is that there have been significant impact to services such as electricity and water/sewerage in the precinct in recent years - A full scale development of this magnitude would further impact an area that has demonstrated limited capacity to handle current requirements, let alone future requirements.

I do hope that you take in consideration my concerns regarding this matter - I'm happy to discuss further should I be afforded the opportunity. I get the intent of why something like this might need to happen, however, the practical realities don't support that notion in this instance - The proposed development doesn't fit the precinct on a number of levels and it will adversely affect local residents who have lived in the area for a considerable amount of time more than it will benefit the people that this proposal is intended to assist (and even they would be impacted by the limited services and infrastructure in the area if it were to go ahead).

Regards,

Clinton Witt

I am a current resident/homeowner in Waterview Drive and wish to object to the proposed development at the SAS site on 300 Burns Bay Road. I appreciate the opportunity to provide feedback during the public comment phase and strongly oppose the proposal in its current form due to its scale, intensity, and the significant negative impacts it will have on the surrounding community.
This submission outlines my key concerns, which relate to excessive building height, overdevelopment, traffic and infrastructure strain, loss of amenity, and the broader impact on the character and liveability of the area.
1. Excessive Height and Scale
The proposed development includes buildings of up to 15 storeys, which is significantly out of character with the existing built environment.
• The current planning controls in the area generally limit buildings to around 6 storeys.
• A development more than double this height represents a dramatic and inappropriate escalation.
• Such height will dominate the skyline and overshadow surrounding residential buildings, including those on Waterview Drive.
This scale is excessive.
2. Overdevelopment and Density
The proposal includes over 220 new dwellings within a relatively confined site.
• This represents a substantial increase in density in an already busy and growing area.
• The scale of the development appears driven by maximising yield rather than appropriate urban planning.
This level of overdevelopment risks placing unsustainable pressure on local services, roads, and community facilities.
3. Traffic and Infrastructure Impacts
Traffic congestion is already a major issue in the Burns Bay Road corridor and surrounding streets.
• The proposal includes approximately 300 new car spaces, which will inevitably increase vehicle movements.
• There is no indication of meaningful road upgrades to accommodate this increase.
• Waterview Drive and nearby streets may experience overflow traffic, rat-running, and increased congestion.
This will negatively affect:
• Daily commute times
• Road safety for residents and pedestrians
• Access for emergency services
• Street Parking
The lack of supporting infrastructure upgrades is a serious concern.
4. Loss of Residential Amenity
As a resident of Waterview Drive, I am particularly concerned about the direct impacts it will have.
These include:
a. Loss of Privacy
• The height and proximity of the towers will result in overlooking into nearby apartments and homes.
• Residents will experience a significant reduction in privacy.
b. Overshadowing
• Taller buildings will cast longer shadows, reducing natural sunlight to surrounding properties.
• This will affect living conditions, particularly in winter and summer months and considering my unit is all windows one side – this is a major issue.
c. Visual Impact
• The development will create a sense of overbearing bulk and enclosed.
• It will fundamentally change the outlook for many residents.
These impacts will significantly reduce the quality of life for existing residents.
5. Property Value Concerns
The scale and nature of this development may negatively affect property values in the surrounding area.
• Loss of views, privacy, and sunlight can reduce desirability.
• Increased congestion and density may further deter potential buyers.
• Long-term residents may experience financial disadvantage as a result.
This is a serious concern for us as homeowners who have invested in the area based on its current character and planning controls.
6. Built Form and Boundary Concerns
The proposal appears to push development very close to site boundaries.
• Reduced setbacks lead to diminished light, ventilation, and privacy.
• The “built to the edge” approach is inconsistent with good urban design principles.
• It creates a cramped and overdeveloped feel.
Adequate spacing between buildings is essential for maintaining liveability.
7. Impact on Local Character
Lane Cove, and particularly the Waterview Drive area, is valued for its balance of greenery, residential scale, and community feel.
• A 15-storey development is inconsistent with this character.
• It introduces a high-density, urban form that is out of place in this setting.
• The cumulative effect risks transforming the area into something unrecognisable.
Once this character is lost, it cannot be easily restored.
8. Precedent for Future Development
Approval of this project could set a dangerous precedent.
• Other developers may seek similar height and density concessions.
• This could lead to widespread overdevelopment across the area.
• Incremental changes could permanently alter the character of Lane Cove.
This proposal should be considered not just in isolation, but in terms of its long-term implications.
Conclusion
In summary, I strongly object to the proposed development due to how this will affect me personally and the area:
• Excessive height and scale
• Overdevelopment and density
• Significant traffic and infrastructure impacts
• Loss of privacy, sunlight, and amenity
• Negative effects on property values including my own unit.
• Poor integration with the existing character of the area
• Lack of adequate local consultation
• Increased traffic and difficulty accessing my home
• Reduced privacy due to overlooking
• A more congested and less peaceful living environment
• Loss of on-street parking.
• This will add to the Public transport congestion in an already highly congested area.
As a resident of Waterview Drive, this proposal directly affects my day-to-day life. These are not abstract planning concerns—they are real, tangible impacts on us as residents’ and our quality of life. I urge the decision-makers to reject this proposal in its current form and instead request that the development align with existing planning controls, respects the local community, and delivers a more appropriate scale and design.
Thank you for considering my submission. I respectfully request that my concerns be taken into account in the assessment of this proposal.

I am writing to object to this proposed development as I am deeply concerned about the permanent and negative impact it will have on my home, my quality of life, and the overall character of our neighbourhood.

Excessive Height and Out of Scale
The proposed building is approximately twice the height of surrounding buildings, including my own. This is completely out of proportion with the established scale of the area. Our neighbourhood is made up of lower‑rise buildings that sit comfortably within the streetscape, and the proposed development would tower over them in a way that feels overwhelming and inappropriate.
From my perspective as a resident, the size and bulk of the building would dominate the area and fundamentally change the look and feel of the neighbourhood we have chosen to live in.

Loss of Views and Amenity
One of the reasons I value my home is the sense of space and outlook it currently provides. The proposed development will significantly block existing views, replacing openness with a solid wall of apartments. This loss will be permanent and will directly reduce my enjoyment of my home on a daily basis.

Overshadowing and Loss of Sunlight
Due to its height and proximity, the development will cast substantial shadows over neighbouring properties, including my own. This will reduce natural light to indoor living areas and outdoor spaces that are currently well‑used and enjoyed. Loss of sunlight will negatively affect comfort, wellbeing, and the livability of surrounding homes.

Loss of Privacy
I am particularly concerned about the loss of privacy that will result from the proposed apartments being so close and so high. Residents in the new building will have clear lines of sight into nearby homes and private outdoor areas. This level of overlooking is intrusive and unacceptable in an established residential area and will significantly reduce our sense of privacy and security.

Poor Design and Lack of Landscaping
The development appears poorly designed, with no meaningful setbacks or articulation to reduce its visual impact. It runs right to the boundary with no softening features such as trees, landscaping, or green buffers. Instead, neighbours are faced with what feels like a continuous wall of apartments.
This lack of greenery is stark and completely at odds with the existing character of the neighbourhood, which includes vegetation that provides visual relief, shade, and a sense of openness. The proposal makes no effort to integrate with or respect its surroundings.

Permanent Impact on Neighbourhood Character
Taken as a whole, this development will permanently alter the character of the neighbourhood. The excessive height, bulk, lack of setbacks, absence of landscaping, and disregard for surrounding residents’ amenity make it feel like an overdevelopment driven by scale rather than thoughtful planning.
Once built, these impacts cannot be undone. Residents will be left to live with the consequences long after the development is completed.

Conclusion
As someone who lives here and will be directly affected, I strongly believe this proposal is not suitable for this location. It does not respect the existing neighbourhood, nor does it adequately protect the amenity of surrounding residents.

I respectfully request that this application be refused, or require significant redesign to reduce height, improve setbacks, address privacy and overshadowing, and include appropriate landscaping that better reflects the character of the area.

I wish to formally object to the current development proposal on the following grounds:

Inconsistency with Existing Character and Landscape
• The proposed development is not in keeping with the established character of the surrounding neighbourhood.
• No existing buildings in the immediate area exceed the current zoning height limits.
• The existing zoning controls are in place to protect the suburb from overdevelopment of this nature.
• The scale of the proposal would result in a visually intrusive structure, impacting views across the Burns Bay area, including vantage points from across the bay and along the Lane Cove River.
• The development would disrupt the predominantly green and open landscape surrounding Hartmann Hill Reserve and Burns Bay Reserve.
• The visual representations provided by the applicant (Appendix W) do not accurately depict the development’s impact from surrounding viewpoints.
• I strongly encourage the planning authority to conduct a site inspection to fully appreciate the visual and environmental implications of the proposal.

Traffic and Parking Impacts
• The development would exacerbate congestion on the already heavily trafficked side road connecting 300 Burns Bay Road through the roundabout to the Burns Bay Road signals.
• The applicant’s own traffic report indicates that the minor legs currently operates at Level of Service (LOS) E during peak morning and evening periods.
• There is an existing shortage of parking in the vicinity of Hughes Park, and the proposed parking provision is insufficient to accommodate approximately 225 dwellings.
• Public transport options in the area are limited and do not adequately support a development of this scale, regardless of the assumptions presented by the applicant. It is unrealistic to expect a significant modal shift away from private vehicle use under current conditions.
• The access road from Burns Bay Road to the site is unsuitable for construction traffic. It is shared with residents of 292–298 Burns Bay Road and is used by schoolchildren. The road’s narrow configuration presents safety risks and is not capable of accommodating large construction vehicles alongside regular traffic.

Overshadowing and Privacy Impacts
• The proposed development would result in significant overshadowing of nearby public open spaces, including Burns Bay Reserve and Hughes Park.
• A substantial number of neighbouring residential properties would also be adversely affected by increased overshadowing.
• The proposal does not appear to provide adequate setbacks, leading to unacceptable privacy impacts and visual intrusion for residents at 292–298 Burns Bay Road.

Planning and Reasonableness Concerns
• It is unreasonable to alter established planning controls for this development when surrounding properties have been constructed in accordance with existing regulations.
• Many residents have made significant financial commitments based on the current planning framework, with a reasonable expectation of consistency and certainty.
• Modifying these controls in this instance appears to be a short-term response to broader housing challenges rather than a considered, long-term planning strategy.
• Greater emphasis should be placed on infrastructure development and strategic urban expansion to accommodate population growth sustainably.
• Consideration must be given to the long-term character and liveability of the area.
• Retaining low-rise housing is important to preserve amenity, including access to sunlight and open space for residents.

For the reasons outlined above, I respectfully request that this development proposal be refused or substantially revised to better align with existing planning controls, infrastructure capacity, and the established character of the area.

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