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

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

1. Inadequate Transport Infrastructure and Unsustainable Density
The scale of this development—225 apartments across buildings of up to 15 storeys—represents a significant increase in both height and density, far exceeding the current planning controls (21m height limit). However, this uplift is not supported by adequate public transport infrastructure. While the Environmental Impact Statement suggests the site is well-serviced by “high-frequency” public transport, this does not reflect the lived reality for residents.
Bus services such as the 251 only operate frequently during weekday peak periods and do not run on weekends. The claim of "every 15 minutes" is unrealistic and incomparable to the 5-10 minute intervals offered near Victoria Road or the Lane Cove Interchange. Services like the 252, 253, and 254 are infrequent, unreliable, and frequently cancelled. Furthermore, the 530 service is often over-full with school children, limiting options for commuters. There is no nearby train or metro station providing consistent access to the Sydney CBD.
As a resident, my door-to-door commute to Ultimo currently takes well over an hour despite being only ~10 km from the CBD. This is comparable to commute times for colleagues living 50 km away in more affordable areas. The most efficient route often requires three forms of transport (walking, bus, and train/metro). Unless I drive to Gladesville to catch a single bus, I am forced into a multi-bus commute due to overcrowded peak-hour services. Additionally, the designated cycle paths toward Gladesville and the Epping Road cycleway are inadequate, disconnected, and unsafe given heavy traffic and parking constraints. The proposal’s reliance on a “Green Travel Plan” is unrealistic. Increased density without corresponding investment will exacerbate congestion on Burns Bay Road, increase car dependency, and place further strain on unreliable bus services.
Request: Any approval should be conditional on a significant reduction in scale to match medium-density standards. I request a Green Travel Plan that includes developer-funded bus stop upgrades or a dedicated shuttle to the Lane Cove Interchange, a commitment to future rapid transit, and substantial improvements to 7-day bus frequency. Furthermore, I request improved bike paths and accessible boardwalks via Tannery Creek to reduce car dependency and align with "15-minute city" concepts.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I appreciate the opportunity to make this submission.

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

I am opposed to this development. It is not clear why this project at this location has been deemed a state significant project. The affordable housing component is NOT a significant percentage of units and is simply a method used to increase the height of the building to double the height of surrounding buildings and increase the number of non affordable units with non affordable sweeping water views. There is no proposed benefits, improvements or enhancements to the area at all to cope with the increased foot/car traffic. There are not even enough parking spaces in the proposed building to cover each unit which again will impact an area that is already impacted with parking issues from the previous waterview drive developments. The requirement that affordable housing be supported for 10 years means the affordable housing units will simply disappear and i do not see how a 10yr plan benefits the community or the housing crisis.
Specific items of note:
View and visual impact assessment - this final document has not considered ANY visual impact to the 300A/B/C buildings. Building A in particular will be impacted by shadows and no natural light including the shadowing of the top floor clothes drying area. The windows facing the proposed development will completely lose any privacy.

The Green Travel Plan
General note that no actual data from the site or survey of the site was performed to create this document. The target public transport percentages are simply not achievable without a specific action plan. The action plan included is a simple reused template focusing on printing handouts and talking to occupants after they move in - there is no obvious reason or incentive to switch to public transport.
Section 3.2 - local speed limits for burns bay and waterview drive are not 50km/h zones. It does not mention hughs park or the parking located within the 300 A/B/C strata.
Section 3.4.1 - bicycle paths. Burns bay road footpaths are not suitable for ANY shared bicycle/pedestrian use as they are too narrow. Residents in this area do not use bicycles as it is too dangerous and the hills are too steep for an average rider.
Figure 3.5 - footpaths. The footpaths to hughs park and to the water via the 300A/B/C strata are not documented or mentioned. Unless the proposal/developer is going to install a large gate stopping their residents visiting the park or water then these details must be included.

Construction plan
There is a suggestion that during the initial phase of construction there will be zero parking available to builders/workers and that they will have a
Drop off zone. The reality is all the workers will park in ANY available space including hughs park and any visiter parking spaces in the area.

Proposed landscape plans
The landscaping proposal does not fall in line with the surrounding areas and parks in lane cove.

If this proposal was truely significant and truly supporting an increase in affordable housing the local residents would support it but unfortunately it doesn’t. This proposal has a devastating impact to a number of residents including significant loss of value for those where water views are taken away by this development. This proposal may add 30 affordable housing units to the area but it also absolutely makes hundreds of existing units unaffordable - those who have a long term mortgage or have invested in rental units will never be able to break even and will be paying mortgages that are hundreds of thousands more than the value of their units.

To Whom It May Concern,
I am a resident of Lane Cove, currently living at 290 Burns Bay Road, and I wish to lodge a formal objection to the proposed development at 300 Burns Bay Road (SSD-87925706).
As a nearby resident, I am directly affected by this proposal and have significant concerns regarding its scale, density, and broader impacts on the local area.
The proposed development appears excessive in scale and density for this site and is inconsistent with the established character of Lane Cove. The height, bulk, and intensity of the development are out of proportion with surrounding buildings and risk setting an undesirable precedent for overdevelopment in the area.
Traffic and congestion are already ongoing issues along Burns Bay Road, particularly during peak hours. The addition of a development of this magnitude will inevitably increase vehicle movements, placing further strain on an already constrained road network. This is likely to result in longer travel times, reduced road safety, and increased pressure on local intersections and parking availability.
I am also concerned about the direct impact on residential amenity. Given the close proximity of my residence to the proposed site, the development is likely to result in increased noise levels, both during construction and ongoing occupation. Of particular concern is the potential for overshadowing and loss of natural sunlight. My property currently receives important daylight, especially during the winter months, and a development of this height and scale may significantly reduce sunlight access, negatively affecting both living conditions and energy efficiency. In addition, there are concerns regarding loss of privacy due to overlooking from upper-level windows and balconies, which would further diminish the quality of living for nearby residents.
The proposal also threatens the established character of Lane Cove, which is valued for its balance of medium-density living, green spaces, and community-focused environment. A development of this intensity risks eroding these qualities and altering the character of the area in a way that is not in keeping with community expectations.
Furthermore, I have concerns regarding the use of the State Significant Development (SSD) and Housing Development Authority (HDA) pathways for this proposal. This approach appears to override local planning controls and limits the ability for meaningful community input and council oversight, which are critical in ensuring appropriate and context-sensitive development outcomes.
It is also important to note that Lane Cove has already made a substantial contribution to housing supply in recent years. Further intensification should be carefully balanced with infrastructure capacity, environmental considerations, and the preservation of local amenity.
I am concerned that community views are not being adequately considered in this process. Genuine engagement with residents is essential, and submissions such as this should be given proper weight in the assessment of the proposal.
Given the above concerns, I respectfully request that this proposal be either refused or significantly revised to reduce its scale, density, and impact on the surrounding community. Any future design should be more closely aligned with local planning controls, infrastructure capacity, and the expectations of Lane Cove residents.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide this submission. I trust that these concerns will be carefully considered as part of the assessment process.

Yours sincerely,
Rita Kwok

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 development at 300 Burns Bay Road Lane Cove.
The grounds on which I object include:
1. Overshadowing impact on 300A, 300B and 300C Burns Bay Road resulting in loss of daylight and winter solar heating.
I live on level 7 of 300A Burns Bay Road and solar access is through my north facing windows located in my kitchen (open plan to the living area), bathroom and bedroom. The proposed development at 300 Burns Bay Road will completely block all northern due to the height of the development and breadth and orientation across the site.
My only other source of daylight is a small south facing balcony (1.5 x 2.5m). My unit will become quite dark and cold, particularly in winter when the sun is lower in the northern sky.
Most building levels of 300A Burns Bay Road benefit from direct sunlight and the current proposed development will create extremely dark, cold residences. The impact on residents will be complex, including reduction in quality of life due to loss of sunlight, increase need for heating and associated electricity costs (the unit does not have solar power, nor does it have gas).
2. Privacy being adversely affected, both visual privacy and acoustic privacy due to the number of proposed buildings and size of buildings.
The proposed development results in buildings that tower over the existing buildings in the immediate vicinity. The windows and common areas in the proposed development will provide direct and unimpeded views into 300A and 300B Burns Bay Road resulting in loss of privacy and acoustic impacts.
A development this size and with the proposed occupancy density will generate noise that exceeds the acoustic levels of existing developments and adversely impact residents through sound pollution.
3. Density of the development have adverse effects on resident wellbeing in both development of 300 Burns Bay Road and more broadly on residents in surrounding stratas of 280-288 Burns Bay Road, 290 Burns Bay Road, 292-298 Burns Bay Road, 300A, 300B and 300C Burns Bay Road, and 302 Burns Bay Road.
The proposed development exceeds the current legislated building height and has been designed with minimal setback from neighbouring properties. This presents as a 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.
The resultant density of the proposed physical development does not contribute to the enjoyment of living in the area for either current or future residents.
The proposed increased density of occupancy of the proposed development creates additional density of use of the site, contributing further to the lack of amenity and quiet enjoyment.
4. Traffic and car parking impact on current residents and wider community in the Lane Cove area.
The size and density of this development including 225 residential dwellings and 237 car parking spaces will have a significant unwanted impact on traffic in the immediate area and surrounding streets. 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.
5. Public Transport impact and inadequacy of current infrastructure to support development.
Public transport servicing this area is not adequate for the current demand and will struggle further with the proposed development and increase in resident numbers.
The only available form of public transport from this location is bus and all bus routes travel through Lane Cove on routes to Chatswood, North Sydney or City Express (partial service workdays only from Cope Street). It takes at least 30 minutes to travel from this location to either Chatswood Interchange or St Leonards train/Metro.
Buses in the other direction travel toward Hunters Hill, Gladesville and Burwood. Due to the distances these buses travel, the need to use the Pacific Highway and congested Lane Cove shops, there are lengthy delays and timetables are adversely affected.
The current public transport system does not provide the amenity or reliability to resident in a development this size. This emphasises the fact that most residents will rely on private cars to commute to work and for weekly shopping and family sporting and recreational activities.
It is unrealistic to expect residents to cycle to work as there are no dedicated cycle paths and the traffic density makes it unsafe to travel on the main road.
6. Loss of amenity and overcrowding of existing public spaces.
The public amenity associated with this location includes Hughes Park and Burns Bay Reserve. Hughes Park services the nominated strata schemes and multiple blocks of units along Waterview Drive. The Waterview Community space is heavily booked and not available for residents to hold community gatherings.
Hughes Park and Burns Bay Reserve are well frequented by current residents of the surrounding units and their pets and the impact of residents from an additional 225 dwellings will be significant.
There is no capacity to provide additional public spaces within the area.
7. Loss of native bushland and habitat associated with development of this size.
The proposed development will require the removal of a number of established trees and native scrub. This is not ideal for the environment as we reduce the amount of carbon dioxide that can be removed from the atmosphere by these trees.
The proposed development does not allow for any type of native canopy or greenery to moderate the effect of the sun on the building.
The density of the proposed building will generate a significant heat bank and result in the microclimate being hotter. Again, this is not good for the environment and will impact on the safety and commodity of the building. It will also result in greater use of electricity to power air conditioning units to manage internal climates, resulting in increased greenhouse gases.
In summary, I object to the proposed development based on the limited number of reasons listed above. I am part of a group of stratas that has also lodged a joint objection that is more comprehensive.