To whom it may concern,

I am writing to lodge a formal objection to the proposed development at 300 Burns Bay Road, Lane Cove. While I acknowledge the urgent need for increased and more affordable housing, I strongly believe that developments of this scale must be supported by appropriate infrastructure and carefully consider the impact on existing residents.

My primary concern relates to the current infrastructure in the area. The surrounding roads are already narrow and constrained, and are not designed to accommodate the significant increase in traffic that a development of this size would generate. Increased vehicle movement will likely result in congestion, reduced safety for pedestrians, and limited accessibility for emergency services. In addition, I am concerned that existing sewage and water systems may not have the capacity to support the substantial increase in population. Public transport options in this area are also limited, which will further compound traffic issues. These essential infrastructure considerations must be addressed either by the developer prior to construction or through state-supported upgrades.

As a resident living in the adjacent block, I am also deeply concerned about the impact of the construction phase on air quality and local safety. The proposed design appears to extend very close to the boundaries of the site, which increases the likelihood that dust, debris, and construction-related pollutants will directly affect neighbouring properties. This is particularly concerning for me as a single mother and as a carer for my father, who has Multiple Sclerosis. The potential health impacts on vulnerable individuals, including children and those with existing medical conditions, must be carefully considered and mitigated.

Furthermore, the proposed height of the buildings is excessive in the context of the surrounding area. A development of up to 15 storeys will significantly impact sunlight access for neighbouring properties, affecting both living conditions and overall wellbeing. Overshadowing at this scale is not consistent with the current character of the area and represents a substantial change to the local environment.

In summary, while I support the broader goal of increasing housing supply, I believe this proposal does not adequately address the critical issues of infrastructure capacity, construction impacts, and environmental considerations such as sunlight access. I respectfully request that these concerns be thoroughly reviewed and addressed before any approval is granted.

From a personal perspective, this development will directly impact my family’s daily life and wellbeing. I am a single mother of a 6 year old daughter who attends the local school, and our home provides her with stability, routine, and a sense of safety. The prospect of prolonged construction, increased dust, noise, and reduced air quality raises serious concerns about her health, her ability to rest and learn, and her overall sense of security in her own home.

In addition, I am a carer for my father, who has Multiple Sclerosis, and is particularly vulnerable to environmental stressors and health risks. The combination of construction impacts, reduced sunlight, and increased congestion would significantly affect both of them, as well as my ability to care for my family safely and effectively. These are not abstract concerns, but immediate and deeply personal realities that must be considered in any planning decision.

Thank you for considering my submission.

Kind regards,

Jacqueline McCann

1/300A Burns Bay rd Lane Cove

Firstly, about me. I’ve been living in Lane Cove since 2016. I’ve lived in 300a Burns Bay Rd for 3 years and 290 Burns Bay Rd for 5 years. Both of these buildings surround the new development proposal. I’m also a middle management professional in corporate forced to take public transport mandatory 3 days a week to Sydney’s CBD using Lane Cove West’s public transport network.

As I’m very much in favour of new development in Sydney to solve the housing crisis, I’m deeply frustrated. I’m frustrated at the fact that of all of the areas in Sydney to choose from, it has chosen THE MOST under-resourced location for infrastructure and public transport to add 200+ units. Here are some of the challenges I face each day living in the area:

- Bus frequency and schedules during peak times - between the times of 7:15am - 8:15am I’m kept waiting at times over 20 mins at times (no joke) for buses that just don’t appear ever since the route became privatised. I’m frequently needing to apologise to my work for turning up late to meetings. To overcome this I have since caught the bus before 7am to make sure I make 8:30 meetings on time. I either turn up to work far too early or too late

- Buses completely full during peak times - Because of the bus delays, or no show buses we get a backlog of people intending to catch the prior bus which never showed. I catch the 251 at the bus stop where it starts its journey and the bus can be frequently full before it even travels up Burns Bay Rd. I see the frustration of commuters when the bus driver doesn’t stop for them due to the bus being full. At times this can be just 3 stops after the very first stop, and while there are still another 4 stops to go. Imagine then adding 215 households. I would need to get special exemption from my work to leave outside of peak hours to come into work. The thought of this is just so disappointing to people who are mandated to go to the office each week.

Bus alternatives to the city - I’ve caught alternative routes to the city and have faced even further disappointment. All non 251 buses are packed with school kids and these buses more frequently don’t stop due to the buses being full already by the time they’ve reached my stop. If I head through Drummoyne I’m also met with a similar scenario. There’s just no good solution for commuters heading to the city during peak hour.

Alternative bus times outside of peak hour - the bus can at times have 25 min+ waits outside of peak hour. This just isn’t feasible especially when you just miss another connection and can expect to commute for an hour and a half for a bus journey that should take 30 mins.

The Warringah Express Freeway - When excessive work is going on it can take an hour and a half during peak hour to get to work via the 251. IMAGINE all of the people who miss the bus because the bus is too full. Do they just not get to work that day?

The roundabout - because I live in 288 my driveway is right next to the roundabout. During peak hour I can sometimes be stuck just after the roundabout waiting to cross the traffic lights. THEN due to the congestion on Burns Bay Rd, I sometimes see cars and buses backed up just past the traffic light on Burns Bay Rd. Any more congestion in this pocket and it would be chaos. I would assume that adding 215 units, I wouldn’t be able to leave my driveway during peak hour to make doctors appointments, psychology appointments, physio etc. Unfortunately all of these appointments are also only available for professionals like myself just before 9am and during peak hour. I would have to change ALL of my health physicians and choose them purely based on availability, or I would need special consideration from work. Unfortunately working as a middle manager in corporate, not every job is flexible or lenient.

If the development were to go ahead, I would need to chat with my wife whether we it’s worth changing our whole lives just to make it to work as professionals on time. She’s also a senior Finance professional very career focused. As 2 career focused professionals, Lane Cove West would not be the option for us and we would say goodbye after 10 beautiful years in our community. This is heartbreaking.

If this development goes through, you have genuinely destroyed a whole community based on poor research, planning and preparation. Lane Cove won’t be voted best suburb in Sydney for long.

Your sincerely,

Lane Cove West Local

Dear Sir/Madam,
This site is completely unsuitable for a 16-storey development. The traffic problems in this area are already at dangerous levels. It will block light and views for the surrounding buildings and there is insufficient infrastructure to support such a development. Hughes Park where we take our children play will be ruined, as will Burns Bay Reserve. There are no good public transport links nearby - the bus stop on Burns Bay Road is completely insufficient.
The Soviet-style towers on the plans will be an eyesore. This area will turn into a ghetto if the proposal is allowed to proceed in its current form.
Yours sincerely

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing to strongly object to the proposed demolition and redevelopment of 300 Burns Bay Road into three 15-storey towers comprising approximately 225 dwellings.

This proposal represents a significant intensification of density in an area that is already constrained, and raises serious concerns as to whether the surrounding infrastructure, transport network, and services have the capacity to support a development of this scale.

1. Traffic Congestion, Road Capacity and Public Safety

Burns Bay Road is already a heavily congested arterial route, particularly during peak hours. The addition of approximately 225 dwellings will introduce a substantial number of additional vehicles into an already overburdened road network.

The surrounding street network is constrained and relies on limited access points, which will likely result in significant congestion, traffic bottlenecks, and longer travel times.

This increase in traffic volume, combined with higher pedestrian activity, raises serious public safety concerns. The likelihood of traffic incidents will increase, and the overall road environment will become more hazardous for both drivers and pedestrians.



2. Emergency Access and Response Risks

The constrained road network and increased congestion may significantly impact emergency response capability. Delays to ambulances, fire services, and other emergency responders pose a serious risk to residents and the broader community.

In emergency situations, including evacuations, the limited accessibility of the area may compromise safety outcomes.



3. Inadequate Infrastructure and Local Amenities

The existing infrastructure in the area is insufficient to support a development of this magnitude. Essential services such as local amenities, childcare, local schools, healthcare, recreational facilities, and community spaces are already limited.

There is no clear evidence that necessary infrastructure upgrades will be delivered alongside this development. Without this, the proposal risks placing unsustainable pressure on existing services and reducing the quality of life for current residents.



4. Public Transport Limitations

Public transport options in the area are limited and already under pressure during peak periods. Existing bus services may not have the capacity or frequency required to support a large increase in population.

Without substantial improvements to public transport, it is highly likely that additional residents will rely on private vehicles, further exacerbating congestion.



5. Parking Impact on Surrounding Streets

Given the scale of the development, there is a high likelihood that on-site parking provision will be insufficient. This may lead to overflow parking into surrounding residential streets, increasing congestion and negatively impacting accessibility for existing residents.



6. Construction Impacts

The construction of three high-rise towers is expected to take several years and will result in prolonged disruption, including noise, dust, and increased heavy vehicle movements.

This will place additional strain on local roads and significantly affect the daily lives of nearby residents.



7. Overdevelopment and Site Suitability

The proposed scale of three 15-storey towers is excessive and inconsistent with the existing low to medium density character of the surrounding area.

This raises serious concerns regarding overdevelopment and whether the site is appropriate for a project of this intensity.


In its current form, this proposal represents an overdevelopment of the site and fails to adequately address the significant impacts on traffic, infrastructure capacity, public safety, and overall community livability.

A development of this scale should not proceed without substantial, clearly defined, and committed upgrades to transport and supporting infrastructure.

This site is not suitable for a development of this intensity without prior and significant infrastructure investment.

I strongly urge the relevant authorities to reject this proposal.

Thank you for your consideration.

This is too high-density for the zone it is in. It seems the negative effects of traffic, construction, parking, and transportation have not been well-researched. This will make the already lacking public transport system in this area even worse, with severe effects on especially the elderly population. Please consider researching how this will affect residents and the surrounding neighborhoods, before trying to go ahead with what is already way more than the current zone of 6-storey residences. Nearby streets are already very congested without enough parking. This would only make the problems so much worse.

Submission – Objection to SSD-87925706 and Concurrent Rezoning Proposal

300 Burns Bay Road, Lane Cove

Position: OBJECT

I object to State Significant Development Application SSD-87925706 and the associated concurrent rezoning proposal for 300 Burns Bay Road, Lane Cove. The proposal seeks to facilitate three residential towers ranging from 7 to 15 storeys, comprising 225 dwellings, through a significant increase in planning controls from 21 metres to up to 54.5 metres in height and an increase in floor space ratio from 2:1 to 3.22:1 under the Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009. This represents a substantial and unjustified departure from the established planning framework and is not supported on strategic, site-specific, or public interest grounds.

While the site is located within an R4 High Density Residential zone and in proximity to public transport and local centres, these factors alone do not justify the extreme uplift proposed. The reliance on bus access, proximity to centres, and broad housing supply objectives is insufficient to support a development of this height, bulk, and density. NSW planning practice consistently requires that intensification of this scale be supported by strong strategic planning justification and demonstrated capacity within local infrastructure and context, which is not evident here.

The proposal significantly exceeds the built form envisaged under the current planning controls and is inconsistent with the established and desired future character of Lane Cove. Surrounding development is generally within the range of 5 to 8 storeys, with the proposed 15-storey maximum towers representing a visually dominant and incongruous form. The introduction of this scale of development would fundamentally alter the local streetscape and bushland interface and would result in an overdevelopment of a constrained site.

The applicant’s reliance on strategic policy, including the Greater Sydney Region Plan, North District Plan, and housing targets under the National Housing Accord, does not justify the extent of the proposed rezoning. These high-level policies are not a mandate for site-specific overdevelopment and must be balanced against local environmental, amenity, and infrastructure considerations. While increasing housing supply is a relevant objective, NSW planning decisions consistently confirm that housing delivery does not override the need for appropriate built form outcomes or justify excessive departures from local planning controls.

The proposal also fails to demonstrate adequate regard for site-specific constraints. The site is irregular in shape, burdened by multiple easements, affected by slope, and partially constrained by bushfire-prone land and proximity to environmentally sensitive areas including the Lane Cove River corridor. Rather than responding conservatively to these constraints, the proposal increases height and density, effectively transferring development intensity vertically. This results in an overdevelopment of the site and an inappropriate concentration of bulk in the remaining developable areas.

The applicant’s justification that the proposal is consistent with the LSPS and Local Housing Strategy is overstated. While these documents identify areas along Burns Bay Road for increased housing, they do not support the scale of development proposed. Importantly, the Local Housing Strategy concludes that additional upzoning is not required to meet housing targets, and identifies environmental constraints that should limit intensification in sensitive areas. The proposal selectively interprets these documents while disregarding their clear caution regarding environmental and bushfire-prone land.

The claimed public benefits, including 225 dwellings, 34 affordable housing units, landscaping, and a pedestrian link contribution, do not outweigh the significant and permanent adverse impacts of the proposal. The affordable housing component is limited in scale and time (15 years), while the built form impacts—including overshadowing, loss of privacy, visual dominance, increased traffic, and infrastructure pressure—are permanent. These impacts are well-recognised in NSW planning decisions as valid grounds for refusal where they are not adequately mitigated.

Traffic and infrastructure impacts are also insufficiently addressed. The scale of residential intensification is likely to increase congestion along Burns Bay Road and surrounding local streets, with limited evidence that existing transport infrastructure can support the increased demand. Reliance on bus services does not adequately offset the traffic generation and parking demand associated with a development of this magnitude.

The alternatives analysis provided by the applicant is not a genuine or balanced assessment. It dismisses development under existing controls primarily on the basis of reduced yield, rather than planning merit. This demonstrates that the proposal is driven by maximising development potential rather than achieving an appropriate planning outcome. NSW planning principles require that alternatives be assessed on suitability, not yield optimisation.

The strategic justification for the rezoning is also overstated. While reference is made to housing crisis conditions and recent State housing targets, these do not override the need for orderly and sustainable planning. The proposal represents a site-specific, developer-led rezoning that is not supported by a broader strategic precinct plan. Approval would undermine the integrity of the plan-led system and set a concerning precedent for further ad hoc upzoning in similar locations.

In conclusion, the proposal should be refused as it is inconsistent with the Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009, does not demonstrate sufficient strategic or site-specific merit, and would result in unacceptable environmental, visual, and amenity impacts. The cumulative impacts of height, bulk, density, traffic, and infrastructure strain significantly outweigh the limited and time-restricted benefits offered. Approval would represent poor planning outcome and undermine confidence in the established planning framework.

I wish to submit my objection to the proposed redevelopment of the old SAS building site at 300 Burns Bay Road.
The submission details are in the attached Objection Letter.
I ask that my concerns be given full weight in the SSDA assessment and that affected residents be afforded meaningful consultation and sufficient time to review any amended proposal.

I strenuously object to this project on the following grounds:
- The project is of an unreasonable size and scale. It is proposed to be more than double the height that is allowable at present.
- Because of the unreasonable size of the building it will have the following physical effects on the surrounding buildings, people and landscape,
-The project is not acceptable in this area. It is far to tall and takes up too much ground. It is the type of building that should only be built in the city or Parramatta. It is totally out of place an not anywhere near in keeping with the area.
- The sunlight will be drastically reduced and in a lot of cases be totally blocked out. This includes views of the sky. My property will be adversely affected and with that I fear for my mental and physical health. Taking 80% of our light is NOT REASONABLE.
- Views of natural landscapes will be replaced by walls and windows. I paid much more than market value for my property because we have a serene vista and uninterrupted water view of Burns Bay. This proposed building will devalue my property very substantially and the financial benefit will be taken from me and handed to the developers and agents that are already circling like vultures.
- The roads and traffic are going to be negatively impacted. Safety is already a concern in the immediate and feeder roads. If this proposal goes ahead without major infrastructure up grades I'm afraid there will be an uplift in vehicle and pedestrian accidents. Some of the roads are so narrow that they are less than 2 cars wide which means cars are required to reverse in pedestrian areas to let oncoming traffic pass. additionally, there is no spare street parking and with this amount of new apartments, this is madness and has been thought through. If the traffic plan has been thought through, then it's at best reckless and i think safety is being overlooked.
- The distance between u18 balcony and the proposed building is very minimal and again UNREASONABLE. We don't want to be looking into the proposed buildings windows, balconies and doors. This again will have great negative impact on our mental and physical health.
I'm sure there will be many more reasons why this building should not go ahead. You will justify this monstrosity by saying "but we have a housing crisis" or "we need properties for essential workers". Ask yourself how crushing this injustice would be if it was forced upon you.
I have worked all my life since the age of 15, paid my taxes, raised a family; all for what, to be made to take the brunt of bad decisions made by governments in my old age.
Considering I'm now 65 years old and this property, my home, is where I'll retire. I would ask that you reconsider the building proposal. It's not fair to me and my family!
Tony Hatton - 18 / 292-298 Burns Bay Rd Lane Cove