2-8 Finlayson Street Lane Cove 2066,10 Finlayson Street Lane Cove 2066, NSW

We like to know the following.
1) On what basis that you only choose to inform 352 people of the planning application?

2) Is this number randomly picked from somewhere? What the percentage is it representing the population under Lane Cove Council, or doesn't it matter whatever the number it is in your opinion?

3) Do you only consider the feedback and/or comments from those 352 people on your email list?

4) What are the ages range of those 352 people?
For this, I reckon the majority (say 90%, if not all) of the people on the council's email notification list should be in the age range of 21 and 51, who are intellectually mature in normal case and will be most affected in their life times by all proposed plans.

Unless the council is to make its unilateral decisions without the need to include public's opinions, we wish Lane Cove Council to consider our comment to the planning application for 2-8 Finlayson Street.

We object to the building height with the reasons below.

1) Any building taller than 5-storeys definitely will block off natural daylight to its neighbours and minify viewing the sky.  This plan will worsen the effects as the site is at the high side of the street.

2) Lane Cove Council should stick to the stipulated rule that has been exercising for years: All buildings are not higher than 5 storeys above its street level.

Besides, the plan should be disapproved if either the council or the planner fails to design how not to worsen the already congested traffic during  rushing hours from all directions to the roundabout in front of Canopy's carpark entrance, as well as that on Finlayson Street with the frequent traffic directed from Tambourine Bay Road.

Totally agree with above. The building will block the nature light and make the traffic worse. Definitely should be disapproved

Re: Objection to DA 152/2024 – 2-10 Finlayson Street, Lane Cove

Dear Lane Cove Council,

While I acknowledge the desire to improve community facilities on the site, I strongly object to the proposed development at 2-10 Finlayson Street due to its excessive height, overshadowing, traffic congestion, and parking impact. The developer’s justification for exceeding the 18m height limit does not meet the requirements of Clause 4.6 of the Lane Cove LEP 2009, and the proposal fails to comply with key planning regulations.

This application seeks a 49% height variation, which is an unprecedented and unjustified breach of the zoning limit. The developer claims this is necessary, but their own documents fail to prove that a compliant design is unworkable. The extra height is not essential for public benefit. It is primarily for additional private residential apartments, including penthouses (Design Verification Statement, p. 4). Approving this would set a dangerous precedent for developers to ignore established planning controls for profit-driven motives.

The Design Verification Statement (p. 3) claims that the proposed 26.9m building is “compatible” with its surroundings. This is misleading. The proposed building is significantly taller than all nearby structures, which are capped at 18m. The existing apartment buildings on Finlayson Street and near The Canopy are 5-6 storeys, while this project pushes to 8 storeys. The added height creates excessive visual bulk, impacting The Canopy playground, the car park entrance, and adjacent apartments. The developer cites speculative future planning reforms (Design Verification Statement, p. 4) as justification, yet these have not been adopted, and even if they were, they would only allow 22m, not 26.9m. A Clause 4.6 variation cannot be approved based on speculative planning changes.

The proposal does not comply with Clause 4.6(3)(a) of the LEP, which requires proving that strict compliance is unreasonable or unnecessary (Clause 4.6 Variation Report, p. 5). The developer has not met this requirement, and the height variation should be rejected. The Design Verification Statement (p. 4) admits that the eighth storey consists of penthouse apartments, added due to a Voluntary Planning Agreement (VPA) GFA transfer. This confirms that the height exceedance is primarily for private residential profit, not for community use. Clause 4.6 variations under the Lane Cove LEP cannot be granted purely for financial reasons (Clause 4.6 Variation Report, p. 6). Yet, this proposal violates that principle by requesting a height increase to accommodate luxury residential units rather than public benefit.

The Lane Cove DCP (Part B6, Clause 6.1) requires that public spaces receive at least two hours of sunlight between 11am and 2pm. However, the developer has not provided a specific shadow analysis for The Canopy playground (Clause 4.6 Variation Report, p. 7). The Canopy playground is not just an open space, but a key community facility used for after-school activities, with peak usage in the afternoon. Without an analysis demonstrating compliance, there remains significant uncertainty as to whether the development's 26.9m height and westward position will result in prolonged afternoon shading, blocking sunlight when children are most actively using the space. Given the scale of the proposal, it is reasonable to expect that The Canopy playground will experience increased afternoon overshadowing, diminishing its use as a sunlit community space. The additional height will also lead to greater visual bulk at this key public space, further reducing its open character.

The shadow diagrams in Clause 4.6 Variation Report (p. 7) confirm that 12 Finlayson Street will be overshadowed during the morning, but the developer does not provide proof that the required two hours of sunlight will still be met. Without such proof, the height exceedance remains unjustified.

The Traffic Impact Assessment (p. 19) claims that public transport availability will minimize traffic impact. This is unsupported and unrealistic. Local news reports, including In the Cove, have repeatedly reported that congestion at The Canopy roundabout and Longueville Road is worsening, particularly during peak hours. The developer claims only 32 additional peak-hour trips, but this ignores event-based surges from the 418-seat auditorium, residents, and retail activity (Traffic Impact Assessment, p. 15). The report also fails to consider Coxs Lane as an increasing bypass route, worsening pedestrian safety issues. Lane Cove Council has already acknowledged the need for better traffic control at The Canopy entrance, yet this development adds hundreds of vehicle movements without mitigation measures. Additionally, the Traffic Impact Assessment incorrectly assumes that the church’s increased capacity will not significantly affect traffic. This contradicts their own data, which shows that weekend and evening events will introduce additional demand at already congested times (Traffic Impact Assessment, p. 16). The proposal also does not align with Transport for NSW’s traffic impact assessment standards for high-capacity venues, as it fails to properly assess congestion risks and lacks necessary mitigation measures to comply with NSW planning requirements.

This DA ignores planning controls, underestimates traffic congestion, and prioritizes private financial gain over the well-being of Lane Cove residents. The height exceedance is not justified, and the failure to properly assess overshadowing and congestion further highlights why this proposal should be rejected. Lane Cove Council must uphold its own planning regulations and reject this application to protect community amenity and the integrity of local planning controls.