All recent comments on applications from NSW Sydney and Regional Planning Panels, NSW

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.

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

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.

Say no to destroying 65 Glendale Drive, Glendale.

This area does not need the proposed development.
Nearby existing residential housing can be redeveloped into higher density housing instead, with shops or offices on lower floors to provide employment and supplies. 
Rehabilitate the bushland to remove the weeds, plant natives and keep the area as natural as possible so wildlife can continue to enjoy the benefits of living near Winding Creek.

I agree with the above comments. Penrith has been flooded with Units/Highrise and yes it is not Parramatta. Penrith is being ruined by all the congestion, and our roundabouts are now classed as "inadequate" and "dangerous" due to the unnecessary volumes of traffic. There is not enough parking, footpaths and facilities to cater for these highrise dwellings people and vehicles. Do we really want to look like CHINA as this is what is happening and Penrith will end up a getto. I have to say I am opposed to the dwelling. SV

Does this development include traffic lights installed at the large roundabout on Jamison/York road to allow for the ridiculous amount of traffic this will create. I don’t believe Penrith doesn’t need that amount of appartments built we are not parramatta and don’t want to be.

I strongly oppose this proposal, because it is a drastic underdevelopment for the area. We need a lot more retirement living than the slight uplift offered, especially here by the beach where people desperately want to retire but aren't permitted to. We also need more Aged Care beds, but this proposal takes all of them away. The two storey restriction should be revised by the council for the purposes of retirement living - the Council should negoitate with the proponent to triple the heights allowed here to foster more of what the community needs. Losing beds is a disaster. Retirees don't add to traffic, and the flood study has came back positive - time for a revisit of the planning settings here for the purposes of addressing our extreme, harmful shortage of aged care and retirement living.

Although the DA can’t be viewed, the sketch shows a huge area of mature forest being removed. This is a disaster for the area and its amenity and essentially destroys that patch of surviving turpentine forest, an important ecological remnant. No info on how high the apartments are either (and of course the existing housing stock is all one or two storey, mostly one), so unsuited as well.

I would like to submit our objection to the proposed Solar Farm 1000 Burkes Creek Rd, The Rock
DA 24/0452, Ref: PPSSTH-469. Firstly, to approve this DA, then WWCC are assisting in the destruction of
prime agricultural and grazing land. The area proposed has a reliance on agriculture due to its topography,
soil type and rainfall. It will impact on property values now and in the future. We are concerned about the impact on the eco-system of Burkes Creek, on native habitat, birdlife, salinity, & destroyed vegetation.
We object to productive farmland becoming a barren glass and metal eyesore.
Wagga Wagga already has an industrial hub at Bomen and surely this area would be more suitable for a
development like this. We are also currently opposing the proposed development of a Solar Farm at Maxwell, which is adjacent to our property. What will be the future plans when it is time to decommission and dispose of these solar panels and comply with Environmental Act 1999. We have many other objections, but are saddened by a few people succumbing to this type of proposal without considering their farming neighbours.

The current road system cannot handle the traffic and now they want to add 301 units to a Devlopment which only has a light rail nearby. The government needs to fast track a proper train line to Eastwood/Epping if this goes ahead plus improved roads in the area

Yet another horror show for our once lovely suburb. Parramatta Council and any other planning authority are a disgrace. 'The New Heart of Carlingford' - please don't call it that as we have endured years of over development and it is obvious Carlingford will be nothing but high rise apartments in the future (a large number of which continue to be unoccupied). How are these people going to access this area from an already struggling road system? The turn from Evans Road onto Pennant Hills Road is already a death trap - with no traffic lights. Parked out local streets making it difficult for residents throughout the area. How many more changes are going to be applied to this development?

Botany is a residential suburb.I object to this application to demolish and extend .
We currently are exposed to a lot of noise from Kelloggs after hours,as well at the Wharf.
This facility needs to move out west, Cutting down 22 trees deplorable.

This is a terrible idea and proposal. As a person who lives in the area, I can say that this part of the Eastern Suburbs is far too congested. As previous comments have mentioned, adding another 50 homes to the street will only further exacerbate traffic and parking issues that are already a problem.

Getting from this area to Bondi Junction in the morning can easily take 30 - 50 minutes. Considering that's a 3km journey, it's already a crazy amount of time for such a short journey. Adding another 50 homes will only add further strain to an already congested route.

Finally, having a 6-story development, where 3 stories are currently the norm, means this will stick out like a sore thumb and will set a precedence for further developments with the same invasive heights. This is a residential area that has character and is not a city with skyscrapers.

Whilst I understand the need for more accommodation, Waverley council need to do better planning, especially in relation to infrastructure, as the two roads into this area cannot accommodate the increased density. It is also important to maintain the beauty of this area, so it does not take on the feel and look of Waterloo and the dense skyscrapers.

To summarise, I am very much against this proposed development and urge the planning committee to strongly reconsider the need for such developments.

I think this is a terrible idea and proposal. As a previous resident of The Avenue (and current resident of one street away), that area is far too congested already. As previous comments have mentioned, parking is a nightmare for current residents that aren't fortunate to have car spaces, so adding another 50 homes to the street will only further exacerbate that issue.

Again following from another commenter, getting from this area to Bondi Junction in the morning can easily take 30 minutes. Considering that's a 3km journey, it's already a crazy amount of time for such a short journey. Adding another 50 homes will add further strain to an already congested route.

Finally, having a 6 story development where 3 story is currently the norm mean this will stick out like an eyesore and be inconsistent with the look and feel of the direct neighbouring areas. I acknowledge that further down old south head there are taller buildings, but that is not a direct neighbour

To summarise, I am very much against this proposed development and urge the planning committee to strongly consider the need for such development

This is again a complete overdevelopment in an inappropriate location. The corner itself is already now quite dangerous for cars parking and pulling out into the semi blind corner. Both The Avenue and William Street have restricted access to Old South Head Road (OSHRd) requiring traffic to use the narrow roads leading back to Stewart Street. There is already inadequate street parking with cars from the present number of units in these streets parking in Newcastle Street and beyond. The original bakery building will be demolished removing another unique and somewhat heritage design of its era as per Beaumont Building further along OSHRd. There is no mention of keeping the facade and a five-story complex will certainly add to the boring street frontage of OSHRd. The concept of affordable "new" housing in Rose Bay / Bondi (taking in the demolition and construction costs) does not exist and is a poor excuse to demolish a reasonably modern building described "with 18 bedrooms and 18 bathrooms and 14 car spaces" that could be realistically renovated - even into affordable housing if the will is there. Tearing down a modest three-story apartment block to build a 50-apartment block will possibly only benefit the developer and will be in most respects detrimental to the local community. Waverley is saturated and totally congested with an overloaded infrastructure. The last thing we need is more apartments and cars.

This is a joke. Waverley Council need to start fighting these greedy developers who are trying to destroy the area. These streets cannot cope with such developments. Where is everyone going to park? At the moment residents of The Avenue are having to find parking on neighbouring streets. What is going to happen when the residents of the new complex have more than 1 car? Most households do have more than 1 car.

Old South Head is always grid locked. It can take 30 min just to drive up to Bondi Junction. When is all of this building going to stop? Most of these developers aren't even from the area. They just build their monstrosities, cash their pay cheques and move on.

This application of 50 residential units is a preposterous undertaking. The Avenue is an already over populated and highly congested parking area. There are already residential blocks with insufficient parking and then there are homes with families of 4 plus members who have only 1 parking spot. Please don’t allow for this high rise block to be built on this road. The area can not cope as it is.

This cannot be allowed. This developer has no regard for the people that reside next to this development. We have already lost our privacy and our beautiful morning Sun .
This rooftop pool will take away our peace. Swimming pools are fun where people like to party and play music. This building too close to residents for this to be allowed.
I bought my apartment hoping to enjoy my retirement years out In Peace.
The Council must be on the side of the residence, we are rate payers and our lifestyle should matter .
Regards
Marie

This building is blocking the view for residents of 300 Oxford street and now they want to create lots of noise on the rooftop of their building. The people will hang out on the roof and our building will loose all peace and privacy. We already lost our view, peace, morning sun and now these people disappoint us even more!!!!

Hopefully there will be a pedestrian crossing traffic light at the Kissing Point Rd & Victoria Rd Intersection, as I have seen so many near misses & heard the same thing from many neighbours, & also family & friends in the immediate vicinity, of seeing the same thing. It would be such a shame if it were to take a death, or even worse - multiple deaths, to instigate installing a pedestrian crossing traffic light.

St Leonards is a very vibrant and still attractive area for a lot of residents. Unfortunately it is becoming too overshadowed by tall constructions continually approved by the council without any regard for the existing infrastructure and residents. Please do not allow any more buildings to be added to the area, it is going to overcrowd the streets with additional traffic, both cars and people, it will add to the temperature rise by adding so much more concrete and hundreds air conditioning units whilst more and more applications for tree removal are being submitted. Please think of the future of everyone in this area and do not allow additional development of this scale.

As an Owner Occupier in this vibrant and community orientated area, the is a limit to what can be absorbed. The already approved, not yet built, developments (including the 3-building plan for over the metro) increase the population significantly and this will most likely result in a tipping the area and it's available resources current and planned over the edge. Where will the kids go to school? Where will we be able to get medical treatment? Royal North Shore, a key hospital not just for the area, but for all Sydney will be completely overwhelmed. Where will we be able to take a breath, or see the sky? How will this proposed building be constructed to ensure the temperature of the area does not increase further? Where will these new residents, workers and visitors park?- According to the description there is less than 1 car space for 7.5 residential bedrooms, and that doesn't even factor in any for the retail or commercial floors, the Arts Centre, or any visitors. While it is lovely to think there will be less cars, we live in a city where the transport systems are so very far from being properly connected when trying to use public transport and is still a very large and spread-out country. Just down our street we contend with residents that have filled their allocated space(s) and so park extra cars, trailers, RVs etc on the very few street spots available and across pathways and driveways showing how this issue is already impacting the area.

This suburb is getting over populated by the minute! Please stop! We are losing more trees, green space! It feels like living in Hong Kong! Too crowded!

Too high and already overpopulated in this area. We’ve experienced so much more traffic gridlock in this area, it’s no longer pleasant to live in the area. We need more park and open space. Please do not approve and expand the high rising towers towards crows nest.