Residential development with in-fill affordable housing - 11-23 Rangers Avenue, Mosman

I was shocked and disappointed when I reviewed the plans for this development. The proposal is completely out of character with the heritage area it sits adjacent to, and it fails to respect the established architectural rhythm and scale of the Holt Avenue Conservation Area.
Appendix M – Design Report 1, Section 1.3, clearly outlines the local architectural character of this neighbourhood and the apartment buildings in the surrounding streets. None of the buildings referenced in Section 1.8 are located within or immediately adjoining the conservation area. As such, they do not currently impose any negative impact on the heritage significance or visual integrity of Holt Avenue. This development, however, would.
In addition to the heritage concerns, the traffic implications are extremely troubling. Traffic in this area is already at gridlock most days of the week — from approximately 7:30–10:00am and 3:00–5:00pm on weekdays. On weekends, depending on weather, traffic flow slows significantly from around 9:00am–6:00pm.
Due to the topography of the site, with a cliff on one side, all vehicles must funnel along Rangers Avenue before reaching any feeder road. This development will inevitably worsen congestion, creating further bottlenecks and delays for existing residents.
There is also no indication that additional public transport services will be provided to support the increased population density. Buses and ferries are already at capacity, and it is often extremely difficult to board services during peak periods. Without commitments to expanded routes, increased frequency, or new services, this development will place unsustainable pressure on already overstretched public transport infrastructure.
For these reasons — heritage incompatibility, traffic impacts, and inadequate transport planning — I strongly oppose the development in its current form.

Submission Objecting to State Significant Development
Residential Development at 11–23 Rangers Avenue, Mosman NSW

Submitted by:
Residents of Mosman NSW

Introduction
We are residents of Mosman living in close proximity to the proposed development and formally object to the State Significant Development at 11–23 Rangers Avenue.
We recognise the importance of increasing housing supply across New South Wales and are not opposed in principle to higher-density housing, having lived in apartment buildings for the majority of our adult lives. However, after carefully reviewing the application documentation, we are concerned that this proposal applies broad, state-wide planning settings to a site with very specific local constraints. In doing so, it introduces impacts that are out of proportion to the public benefit offered and that would permanently alter the character of this part of Mosman.
Approval of this proposal would also set a benchmark for future redevelopment in surrounding streets, regardless of cumulative impacts, infrastructure capacity or the area’s established character.

Height, Scale and Clause 4.6 Variations
The proposed scale of the development depends heavily on variations to both building height and wall height controls. These departures are not peripheral refinements but are necessary to achieve the building envelope, massing and yield proposed.
The justification for these variations relies largely on broad housing objectives and asserted strategic benefits, rather than on environmental planning grounds that arise from the specific attributes of this site. In particular, it is not evident why a site that is elevated, highly visible and adjacent to lower-scale and heritage-sensitive areas warrants additional height rather than a more conservative approach.
Height and wall height controls play an important role in managing visual impact and neighbourhood scale, especially on a ridgeline site. Treating these controls as flexible in order to maximise development yield risks undermining their purpose. The documentation does not adequately demonstrate that a compliant scheme could not deliver a reasonable outcome with fewer impacts.

Bulk, Visibility and Ridgeline Impacts
It is acknowledged throughout the application material that the site sits on a ridgeline and that the proposed development will be visible from a broad surrounding area. Despite this, the implications of that visibility are consistently minimised.
Visual impact assessments place significant weight on assumptions about how the area may evolve over time under Low- and Mid-Rise planning policies. At the same time, those assessments accept that the proposal will be significantly larger than surrounding development for many years to come. From a practical perspective, this means the impacts will be immediate and long-lasting, rather than transitional.
Established planning principles caution against justifying excessive scale on the basis of speculative future character, particularly where impacts involve skyline interruption and visual dominance. The proposal’s height, mass and ridgeline position create impacts that are permanent in nature and not capable of being moderated through incremental future change.

Heritage Context and Local Character
The site forms part of the visual setting of nearby heritage conservation areas, including the Holt Avenue and Spencer Street precincts.
The Heritage Impact Statement adopts a constrained methodology that places emphasis on whether the site itself is within a conservation area, rather than assessing how the proposal affects heritage significance at a precinct scale. Mitigation measures focus largely on architectural articulation and material selection, without addressing the primary driver of impact, namely excessive height and bulk in a visually sensitive location.
A building of this scale on an elevated site will function as a dominant backdrop to nearby heritage streetscapes. This alters the established relationship between built form, topography and heritage character in a manner that cannot be meaningfully mitigated and has not been satisfactorily addressed in the assessment.

Traffic, Construction and Infrastructure
Traffic and construction impacts are addressed largely through high-level modelling assumptions, generic mitigation measures and deferred management plans.
Operational traffic assessments focus on average conditions and do not adequately address localised peak-stress periods or existing choke points within the surrounding road network. Construction traffic and haulage management remain preliminary, with critical matters such as timing, staging, enforcement and interaction with existing congestion deferred.
Given the constrained geometry and existing traffic pressures on Rangers Avenue, Spofforth Street and surrounding residential streets, the level of uncertainty accepted in the documentation is disproportionate to the scale and duration of the proposed works.

Cumulative Impacts and Deferred Resolution
Across multiple technical reports, impacts are assessed individually rather than as part of a combined picture. Mitigation is frequently deferred to future management plans covering matters such as construction impacts, vibration, waste servicing, stormwater and accessibility.
While some level of deferral may be appropriate for minor technical detail, the extent of reliance on future detail in this case suggests that important issues remain unresolved at the approval stage. The Environmental Impact Statement largely aggregates consultant conclusions without a critical examination of whether, when considered cumulatively, the residual impacts remain acceptable.
This approach leaves the consent authority reliant on future resolution of matters that go to the core acceptability of the proposal.

Public Benefit and Proportionality
The public benefit cited in support of the proposal, including the affordable housing component, is limited relative to the scale of non-compliance and the permanent impacts created. The affordable housing provision relies on time-limited management arrangements rather than securing a durable public outcome.
The permanent consequences of increased height, bulk, visual dominance and infrastructure demand are not matched by a commensurate or enduring public benefit. This imbalance is particularly relevant where significant departures from development standards are relied upon.

Transparency, Consultation and Exhibition Period
A central concern is the lack of transparency in the pathway by which proposals reach public exhibition. It has become increasingly common for large development sites to be assembled and planned privately well in advance of formal exhibition, at times involving confidentiality arrangements. The practical effect is that affected communities often become aware of major proposals only once they are formally lodged, at which point opportunities for early understanding or input have already passed.
When this approach is combined with a 14-day public exhibition period, a clear imbalance arises between proponents, who may have spent months or years developing proposals, and residents, who are expected to rapidly absorb extensive technical documentation and assess long-term impacts. This timeframe is objectively insufficient for a development of this scale and complexity and does not support informed or meaningful community participation.
Regardless of the specific arrangements associated with this site, the broader reliance on shortened exhibition periods for large, complex developments undermines confidence in the consultation process. A minimum 28-day exhibition period would provide a more reasonable opportunity for residents to understand proposals, engage constructively and contribute to a transparent and well-considered assessment process.

Conclusion
This proposal represents a substantial intensification of development on a prominent and sensitive site. It relies on significant departures from established controls, understates cumulative impacts and leaves many important matters to be resolved after approval.
Combined with limited transparency and an unreasonably short exhibition period, this raises serious concerns about whether the proposal has been appropriately tested against local conditions and long-term outcomes.
For these reasons, consent should be refused. At a minimum, the proposal would require substantial redesign to reduce height and bulk, respond more appropriately to its ridgeline and heritage context, address infrastructure and construction impacts with greater certainty, and allow for a more robust and participatory assessment process.

Yours sincerely,
Residents of Mosman

The following reasons are why I object to this project.

Traffic congestion
The surrounding streets (Holt Avenue, Rangers Avenue and connecting roads) are already heavily congested, especially during school and peak periods. A 91-car basement will substantially increase vehicle movements in an area with limited road capacity.

Pedestrian and cyclist safety risks
These streets are narrow, steep and used frequently by pedestrians, schoolchildren and cyclists. The proposed vehicle volumes intensify collision risks and worsen existing safety issues.

Significant view loss for Holt Avenue residents
The proposed height and bulk would remove long-established city skyline and Harbour Bridge views from numerous homes, replacing them with the facade and mass of a seven-storey apartment block.

Overdevelopment and neighbourhood impact
The scale is inconsistent with the surrounding low-rise residential character, resulting in overshadowing, loss of privacy, and a sense of enclosure for nearby properties.

Local infrastructure constraints
The cumulative strain goes beyond traffic, with limited public transport, insufficient street parking, constrained pedestrian pathways, sewage and water concerns and no capacity in the immediate area to absorb a development of this scale.

Inadequate visual, view-loss and heritage assessments
The Visual Impact Assessment omits any analysis from Holt Avenue and the Holt Estate Heritage Conservation Area, even though these sit directly north of the site. The Department requested a detailed view-loss and view-sharing assessment, which has not been provided. As a result, impacts on Sydney Harbour views, natural landform and the heritage character of the streetscape have not been properly evaluated.

No built-form transition to protected C4 and scenic areas
The development proposes maximum height and bulk directly beside C4 Environmental Living land and areas within the Scenic Protection Area. These zones were intentionally excluded from LMR due to their scenic and environmental value, yet the design provides no meaningful transition in scale.

Misalignment with SSD policy intent
Although labelled as an “affordable housing” SSD, the project primarily delivers luxury apartments, with the affordable component serving to unlock the SSD pathway rather than meeting genuine affordable-housing need.

Just as a further addition to submission already made I would like to add that in addition to our concern regarding vibrational weakening of supports to raised / elevated carport of Heritage-listed 36A Park Avenue, we would also like to raise the concern of vibrational damage to the cliff itself that this building is built into (the potential for weakening of the rock face immediately behind our building and dislodgement, causing rock fall or landslide).
This of course would not only affect our building, but multiple other homes on Park Avenue, also (32 Park Avenue, 34-36 Park Avenue and 38 Park Avenue) whose homes are also in front of the development zone.
We do not believe that potentially years of heavy demolition & construction literally two lanes across the road from this cliff would not cause referred / vibrational damage to this cliff, and we want our concerns formally recorded well ahead of any future calamity caused by the proposed development.

It's absurd that the Government allows luxury multi-million dollar harbourview apartments in our backyards while claiming to help people. All it's doing is lining the pockets of developers while destroying our neighbourhood, our heritage, our privacy, our peace and quiet, our light, our views and our ability to move on un-congested roads.

Please find attached my objection email that was submitted earlier.

SSD-96272465 11-23 Rangers Ave Mosman 2088
I have considered the plans and documents for the above proposal. I am a Mosman resident and have been so for many years including 10 years living at 13 Holt Avenue, so I do know the area of the proposed development very well.
The visual and traffic aspects of the development will adversely affect me. The development is out of character for the part of Mosman in which it is to be located. While more housing is needed in Sydney, several developments are already proposed for the Mosman Council area and the required increase in housing numbers will be easily achieved by other developments. Many of the other developments are better located and will have less traffic and visual amenity impacts. In addition there are other parts of Mosman that are nearer to transport, shops and where the scale of proposed development would be more in keeping with the surrounding development. These areas are where multi apartment developments should be located.
Visual Impact
The proposed development will be among the very largest buildings in Mosman being more than 70 metres wide and more than 27 metres high (above Rangers Avenue at the eastern end of the site). The façade presents as an area of approximately 1900m2 – one and half Olympic Swimming Pools tipped on their side! The building will appear overbearing when approaching from either direction along Rangers Avenue and will dwarf its neighbours which are single or double storey and mostly detached dwellings. This is illustrated in the photomontages included with the EIS. There is no other building of comparable scale within 500m of the site.
Sydney Harbour is our city’s jewel in the crown and views from the harbour are particularly important in keeping it that way. Wherever possible the views should be of vegetation, sandstone outcrops and sky. The photomontage view from Mosman Bay illustrates how the proposed development will unacceptably impose itself on this view. Also, the white sandstone and blond brick materials chosen will accentuate the building’s visual intrusion.
Traffic Impact
With 90 car bays and 11 visitor spaces if each car is used every second day with 2 movements per car (i.e. in and out) 100 car movements can be expected per day. The traffic count taken for the TIA indicates negligible traffic between 12am and 4am, so average movements per hour is 5, but peak hour usage is likely to be twice that and off peak less. So reasonable to assume 10 movements/ hour in peak hour, considerably more than the 3 or 4 per hour estimated in the TIA. The Transport for NSW Guide to Transport Impact Assessment (GTIA) document recommended vehicular trip rates for high density residential developments are not appropriate for a development that is aimed at a high socio-economic demographic. The major impact on traffic flows is due to west-bound vehicles turning right into the building entry. During high traffic times they will wait a considerable time to find a gap between east bound vehicles thus causing delays to all following west-bound vehicles. Traffic will back up and block the Park Street roundabout and likely the Avenue Road roundabout as well.
Weekend traffic along Rangers is often worse than weekday peak hour traffic. This is particularly the case on Saturday mornings driven by children’s sport plus trips to Mosman’s attractions. Sunday afternoons can also be bad as people leave beaches and zoo etc. It is not uncommon to see traffic at a crawl and backed up a long way eiter side of the 2 Avenue Road roundabouts. No further increase to this traffic should be tolerated.
Traffic during construction will cause considerable chaos. We have a current example of a smaller multi-unit development under construction in Redan Street north of Raglan Street. Redan Street is the same width as Rangers Avenue (approx. 8.5m). Traffic is often stopped to allow safe loading and unloading of materials. Sometimes this is in both directions, sometimes single lane traffic is possible with appropriate traffic control. Redan Street is not heavily trafficked and there are easy alternatives. This will not be the case with the Rangers development. If approved a condition of consent should require an unloading area for delivery vehicles to be developed totally within the site.
In Mosman there is a significant drop off in traffic during public and private school holidays. The traffic counts used in the TIA were taken in September. To be of any use they need to have been taken before the holidays at the end of Term 3 commenced.

I wish to lodge an objection to the proposed development at 11–23 Rangers Avenue.

I recognise the broader policy objectives around housing supply and density. However, those objectives do not remove the obligation under section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act to ensure that development is suitable for its specific site and does not cause unreasonable impacts on surrounding residents or infrastructure.

In my view, this proposal is overly intensive for its location and raises serious concerns in relation to traffic impacts, the scale and depth of excavation and the loss of residential amenity, particularly views and privacy.

2. Traffic impacts and local road network capacity

2.1 Impact on already congested intersections and roundabouts
While Rangers Avenue is capable of accommodating some additional traffic, the more pressing issue is not the immediate site frontage but the downstream effects on nearby intersections and roundabouts, particularly:
Rangers Avenue / Park Avenue, and Rangers Avenue / Avenue Road.

These roundabouts already experience congestion during peak periods and operate under constrained conditions. The proposal will introduce a substantial increase in vehicle movements, including residents, visitors, servicing vehicles and deliveries.

The Traffic Impact Assessment appears to focus on the site in isolation and does not adequately address how additional traffic will be absorbed by these already pressured junctions, particularly during peak times, nor does it convincingly assess the cumulative impact of this development together with other current and foreshadowed developments along Rangers Avenue.

In my view, the analysis underestimates the likelihood of congestion, queuing and indirect traffic redistribution through surrounding residential streets.

2.2 Construction traffic has not been realistically assessed

The scale of excavation proposed for this development will require a prolonged period of heavy vehicle movements, including excavation trucks, concrete agitators, crane components and large delivery vehicles.

The Traffic Impact Assessment relies heavily on average traffic assumptions and does not sufficiently demonstrate how sustained construction traffic of this nature can be safely and efficiently accommodated on Rangers Avenue and the surrounding road network, particularly during peak periods.

This is not a short-term or minor inconvenience. It will be months of intensive construction activity with real impacts on safety, congestion and daily life for surrounding residents.

3. Depth of excavation and geotechnical risk

3.1 Excavation scale is excessive for this site
The proposal involves excavation to a depth of approximately 10 metres to accommodate multiple basement levels. While deep basements may be achievable on some sites, the suitability of such excavation must be assessed in the context of local conditions.
This site is constrained by:
- sloping topography
- sandstone and rock formations typical of Mosman
- the close proximity of neighbouring residential properties.
The excavation will occur very close to adjoining land, leaving little margin for error.

3.2 Risk to surrounding structures and long-term stability
I am concerned that the documentation does not provide sufficient confidence that risks associated with:
- ground movement,
- vibration,
- changes to groundwater conditions, and
-long-term stability of rock faces and retaining structures
can be adequately managed.

Experience across Sydney shows that deep excavation on constrained sites can lead to cracking of neighbouring buildings, destabilisation of rock faces and long-term structural issues. Once such damage occurs, it is often irreversible and extremely difficult to remedy.
Given the cumulative development pressure along Rangers Avenue, these risks should be treated with particular caution.

4. Loss of residential amenity: views and privacy

4.1 Loss of valued views
The proposed building will result in the loss or significant reduction of established views from surrounding homes, including views towards Mosman Bay, the harbour and the broader scenic landscape.

These views are not incidental. They form an important part of the amenity and character of the area and are a key reason why many residents have invested in and maintained their homes over long periods.

Under established NSW planning principles, including those outlined in Tenacity v Warringah Council, view loss must be assessed having regard to the value of the view, the extent of the impact and whether the outcome is reasonable in the circumstances.
In my view, the bulk and height of the proposed development exceed what can reasonably be accommodated on this site without causing undue harm to surrounding properties.

4.2 Loss of privacy and visual dominance
The height, scale and proximity of the proposed building will also lead to increased overlooking of neighbouring dwellings and private open spaces.

Despite proposed setbacks and screening, the elevated nature of the site and the number of apartments proposed will fundamentally change the outlook and sense of privacy currently enjoyed by surrounding residents. The resulting built form will be visually dominant and out of keeping with the established residential character of the area.

5. Cumulative and precedent impacts

This proposal should not be assessed in isolation. Rangers Avenue is already experiencing significant development pressure, with multiple sites under consideration or investigation.

Approving a development of this scale and intensity on a constrained site would set a precedent for similar proposals along the street, compounding traffic, excavation and amenity impacts in a way that was not contemplated when the existing residential neighbourhood was established.

6. Conclusion
For the reasons outlined above, I submit that the proposed development at 11–23 Rangers Avenue:
- does not adequately address traffic impacts on the surrounding road network,
- involves excavation of a scale and depth that presents unacceptable risk given the site constraints, and
- will result in unreasonable loss of views, privacy and residential amenity for surrounding properties.

I respectfully request that the consent authority refuse the application, or at the very least require a substantial redesign to reduce height, bulk, excavation depth and traffic impacts to a level that is genuinely compatible with the site and its surroundings.

I object to this project and raise the following concerns:
• Increased Traffic congestion
The surrounding streets (Holt Avenue, Rangers Avenue and connecting roads) are already heavily congested, especially during school and peak periods. A 91-car basement will substantially increase vehicle movements in an area with limited road capacity.
• Pedestrian and cyclist safety risks
Rangers Avenue is narrow, steep and used frequently by pedestrians, schoolchildren and cyclists. The proposed vehicle volumes intensify collision risks and worsen existing safety issues.
• Significant view loss for Holt Avenue residents and possibly Spencer Road residents
The proposed height and bulk would remove long-established city skyline and Harbour Bridge views from numerous homes, replacing them with the facade and mass of a seven-storey apartment block.
• Overdevelopment and neighbourhood impact
The scale is inconsistent with the surrounding low-rise residential character, resulting in overshadowing, loss of privacy, and a sense of enclosure for nearby properties.
• Local infrastructure constraints
The cumulative strain goes beyond traffic, with limited public transport, insufficient street parking, constrained pedestrian pathways and no capacity in the immediate area to absorb a development of this scale.
• Inadequate visual, view-loss and heritage assessments
The Visual Impact Assessment omits any analysis from Holt Avenue and the Holt Estate Heritage Conservation Area, even though these sit directly north of the site. The Department requested a detailed view-loss and view-sharing assessment, which has not been provided. As a result, impacts on Sydney Harbour views, natural landform and the heritage character of the streetscape have not been properly evaluated.
• No built-form transition to protected C4 and scenic areas
The development proposes maximum height and bulk directly beside C4 Environmental Living land and areas within the Scenic Protection Area. These zones were intentionally excluded from LMR due to their scenic and environmental value, yet the design provides no meaningful transition in scale.
• Misalignment with SSD policy intent
Although labelled as an “affordable housing” SSD, the project primarily delivers luxury apartments, with the affordable component serving to unlock the SSD pathway rather than meeting genuine affordable-housing need.

To Whom It May Concern,
Attached please find my objection letter opposing SSD 96272465 and labeled:
BHolt SSD-96272465 objection.pdf
In addition to my submission, you will also find the following attachments:
APPENDIX A: McLaren Traffic Engineering Letter of Advice 16 Dec2025 (F).pdf
APPENDIX B: Spofforth St Accident Report.pdf
APPENDIX C: 11-23 Rangers Avenue-Mosman Survey Report Dec42025.pdf
APPENDIX D: Objection Submission to SSD 96272465.pdf

Please confirm receipt of all documents listed above.

Kind regards

I am writing to object to SSD-96272465 (11-23 Rangers Avenue, Mosman) specifically as it concerns my property but also more generally because the EIS (and many of its supporting documents) contain substantial errors, omissions and misleading statements.

Reasons for this include but are not limited to:
• Site Isolation and reasonable development potential of 9 & 9A Rangers
• The applicant has failed to demonstrate that 9 & 9A Rangers Ave (or 9 alone) can achieve a future development of appropriate urban form and with an acceptable level of amenity.
• The EIS offers up alleged precedents, but closer examination shows they are not actually comparable.
• Arguments to support the proposed development height variation are based on inaccurate information, are incoherent, and unpersuasive.
• The EIS does not clearly demonstrate that at least 15% Gross Floor Area (GFA) is allocated to affordable accommodation.
• There are solutions not requiring height variation that would reduce the isolation of my property
• Errors and omissions call the conclusions of the EIS into question.
• The proposal places all affordable housing in one building on a separate strata plan, but uses affordable housing to justify a height on a completely different strata development
• Waste Management, as proposed, is fundamentally flawed.
• Restricted height access together with waste collection realities are likely to materially impact pedestrians and traffic on Rangers Avenue.
• Vibration Risk Assessment is Inadequate
• The Traffic Study is not fit for purpose
• Defects of Survey submitted as part of the EIS
• Inadequate Visitor & Neighbour Parking Provision
• Affordable Housing deficiencies

Substantial Overshadowing of my property would result from approval of this proposal.

The front setback should align with current setbacks on 9 & 9A in the minimum.

The proposed development has, nearest to my property, a front street setback of three (3) metres. I contend the streetscape should have continuity with existing street setbacks that apply to both 9 and 9A Rangers Avenue, Mosman at the Eastern end of the development. Both 9 and 9A Rangers align such that the front wall (including covered verandahs) are in a straight line. This setback of 9 & 9A Rangers from the front boundary, calculated on the basis above, is approximately four (4) metres. This again impacts reasonable development potential and creates site isolation.

The proposed setback to Bloxsome Lane at the rear is around 6 metres. The eastern boundary is only 28.83 metres long and the rear setback to the lane is double the front setback.

The information presented in the EIS and various supporting documents is contradictory. In some it alleges a front setback of 3 metres in others 3.5 metres is proffered. I suspect the difference arises because in some calculations a solid nib at the south eastern corner is included and in others it is not. This nib would likely be around 500mm square and extends the entire length of the building height. As such, its nearest point of projection to the front boundary should define the front setback.
The alleged side setback is not to the nearest point of projection of the actual building. The building is curved and the 3 metre measurement is taken from the furthest projection of the eastern wall not the closest. Clearly, the closest point of projection of the eastern wall to the boundary should be the relevant calculation. In any event, the side setbacks need to be considered in the context of Karavellas outlined above.

The assertion of Deep Soil in the north eastern corner of the proposed development is nonsense. The sandstone ledge at the is, at best, RL 51. 13. Elsewhere in the EIS document there is a proposal for “planter boxes” that would house a 15 metre tall tree. Such a tree would present a substantial hazard to my garage in the event it became dislodged during an extreme weather event. Hence this is a reasonably foreseeable safety risk and should be assessed accordingly.

The lift well located adjacent to the common boundary with the development further restricts future development potential as outlined above.
The Wall height variation sought should be rejected. The alleged “Ground Level” at the eastern end of the development is actually Level 1 for reasons explained above. Therefore, the building at the eastern projection is actually 8 storeys high. The step back does not occur after the 4th storey, as required, but after the 7th storey.

This EIS, in its current form, should neither have been submitted nor exhibited. The exhibition period of fourteen (14) days that ends eight (8) days before Christmas calls into question the procedural fairness of the process.

I object strongly to the proposed State Significant Development at 11-23 Rangers Avenue, based on significant non-compliance, inaccurate assessment documents, unacceptable bulk and scale, and irreversible impacts on local character, heritage, and public safety.
My objection is based on the following areas:

Misleading representations by the Applicant
Page 33 of the Engagement outcomes report of the EIS of the application states that the developer distributed a near neighbour letter which provided an overview of the SSDA and outlined how residents could make enquiries and provide feedback via the 1800 number and project email address. Page 51 appendix B within Appendix P is a map demonstrating which houses this included. Our house is within this are and yet we did not receive such letter representing a false statement by the applicant. Our requests for an in person briefing was denied and then we were offered a zoom meeting by Urbis after the lodgement of a SSDA by the developer. In essence we denied an opportunity to provide feedback during the early stages of the planning process as described by the developer in their documents.

Inappropriate Location and Non-Compliance with LMR Policy
The application relies on accessing Local Medium Density Residential (LMR) planning controls that permit greater density. However, the properties at 11-23 Rangers Avenue are not within the LMR Outer Area (i.e., not within 800m walking distance of the Cremorne Town Centre),.
• The walking route proposed by the applicant ( Appendix GG), which crosses Spofforth Street at the intersection with Holt Avenue, is not safe due to heavy traffic volumes, especially during peak hours, and known pedestrian safety concerns. Everyone who lives in the area knows this and I personally experience this on a daily basis.
• There have been at least 30 reported traffic accidents at the junction of Holt & Spofforth since 2018 indicating this is not a safe pedestrian pathway.
• If safe walking routes utilizing existing traffic lights (Spofforth-Military Road) or pedestrian crossings (Spofforth-Rangers Avenue intersection) are measured, the properties fall outside the LMR Outer Area.
• The Department should deny the application on the basis that no evidence has been provided to support that the applicant's proposed route meets the definition of ‘walking distance’ in the State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing) 2021 (Housing SEPP).

Excessive Bulk, Scale, and Failure of Design Transition
The proposed development constitutes overdevelopment that is highly inappropriate for this specific location.
• The development fails to provide a necessary built form transition to the adjacent C4 Environmental zones on Holt Avenue, Spencer & Cowles Roads which are excluded from LMR policy due to their intrinsic environmental and scenic values,. The design seeks to maximize and even exceed permitted building height and scale under the LMR policy, disrespecting the adjoining C4 zone to the north (Holt Avenue/Spencer Road).
• The applicant’s Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) claims the transition is managed "in a contextually responsive way". This is contradicted by the proposal's clear intent to maximize vertical massing, including substantial built elements like lift shafts and rooftop plant that contribute materially to perceived bulk despite being excluded from the Gross Floor Area (GFA) calculation,.
• The Land and Environment Court (LEC) recognizes that numerical compliance with Floor Space Ratio (FSR) does not guarantee acceptable planning merit if the bulk, scale, and dominance are inappropriate in context,. The proposal, especially situated on an already high ledge, will be an enormous, hulking eyesore visible from surrounding streets.

Misleading Visual Impact and View Loss Assessments
The applicant has failed to provide adequate assessments, which directly impacts my rights to reasonable view sharing and the preservation of the local scenic character.
• The Visual Impact Assessment (VIA) is misleading as it incorrectly claims only part of the site is within the Scenic Protection Area (SPA) when the entire lots of 11-23 Rangers Avenue are within the SPA - Scenic Protection Map Sheet SCP_002 within Mosman Local Environmental Plan 2012
• The VIA fails to consider the adjacent Holt Estate Heritage Conservation Area immediately to the north. The applicant has failed to provide any visual analysis from the north (e.g., from Holt Avenue, Spencer Road or Cowles Road), where the visual impact will be high.
• The proposed height and bulk, located on a sloping ridgeline where the Holt Estate HCA is at a higher elevation, will significantly and adversely change the existing natural landscape and landform, violating the Mosman Local Environmental Plan 2012
• The applicant has not demonstrated any measures to minimize the visual impact on views to Sydney Harbour or the CBD, which is required under Mosman Local Enviroment Plan 2012 . I request the Department require the applicant provide the detailed view loss and sharing assessment having regard to the LEC principles for view loss.

Significant Impact on Heritage Character and Items
The development will inflict permanent damage on one of Mosman’s most aesthetic and iconic areas.
• The proposal will become a permanent backdrop to the historic Holt Estate Heritage Conservation Area. This area includes homes identified as "contributory" to heritage character, yet the applicant’s Heritage Impact Statement (HIS) downplays its significance.
• The HIS failed to list Heritage Item I380, the Holt Avenue street trees, which are categorized as “rare” and noted as one of Mosman’s finest avenues of street trees.
• The claim in the HIS that architectural design follows the existing topography and mitigates impacts is misleading, if not completely false.

Construction Risks and Traffic Impacts
The required construction methodology poses an unacceptable risk to surrounding properties and local infrastructure.
• The two-level basement carpark requires extensive excavation to cut the structure into the sandstone across most of the land, extending under Bloxsome Lane and Rangers Avenue.
• Excavation near the cliff face opposite Rangers Avenue poses a significant threat of rockfall, progressive landslip, and destabilization of Rangers Avenue and neighboring properties. The Geotechnical survey supplied by the applicant clearly demonstrates Rangers Avenue sits on a cliff face at this site and the applicant can make no guarantees that major structural damage will not occur to the road or neighbouring & downslope properties.
• The location is historically a natural path for water (suggested by a former waterfall nearby), and excavation into the porous sandstone increases the risk of flooding, landslides, and structural instability. There does not appear to be a comprehensive assessment of the flooding impact on the properties north of the development site.
• The noise and vibration from weeks or months of massive rock breaking will inevitably damage the structural integrity of nearby heritage houses.
• The garage exit onto Rangers Avenue will magnify the already chaotic traffic issues that occur frequently on that street, placing increased strain on offstreet parking and making access to public transport difficult for existing residents.
• Rangers avenue has a 3 ton weight limit for vehicles. The applicant has not adequately explained how a development of this size can be undertaken given this constraint. The rear Bloxsome Lane is not suitable for access by heavy vehicles.

In summary, I request the Department denies this application on the basis that the proposed design represents overdevelopment that breaches core planning principles relating to safety, heritage preservation, scenic protection, and contextual bulk/scale.

Submission of Objection — Proposed Residential Development at 11–23 Ranges Avenue, Mosman
1. Introduction
I lodge this objection to the development application for a 7–8 storey residential building at 11–24 Ranges Avenue, Mosman. My objection is made on planning grounds including incompatibility with statutory controls, impacts to heritage and local character, and adverse traffic and amenity effects.

2. Statutory Planning Grounds of Objection
2.1 Inconsistency with Mosman LEP 2012 — Height, Bulk and Scale
The intent of the Mosman Local Environmental Plan 2012 is to ensure development respects the existing residential amenity and character of Mosman, including its visual qualities and heritage values. Objectives include:
• protecting neighbourhood character and existing residential amenity;
• conserving heritage; and
• ensuring development is compatible with the built form of the area.

Although the LEP sets numeric height and floor space ratio standards (via the Height of Buildings, Wall Height and FSR maps and clauses), the objectives make clear that compliance is not the only test — the proposal must also satisfy the underlying planning intent. The subject proposal’s height and massing are not reflective of the surrounding townscape, which is primarily low-rise (one to two storeys). There is no meaningful transitional design response on the interface with adjacent low-rise development.

2.2 DCP Controls — Site Siting and Scale
The Mosman Residential DCP emphasises that the siting and scale of buildings should maintain a ‘satisfactory relationship with neighbouring properties and the wider street context.’ It also notes that building height and bulk should reflect the existing or future desired townscape scale and contribute positively to neighbourhood character.

Key control objectives that the proposal fails to satisfy include:
• Scale inconsistent with existing townscape character — the building’s sheer verticality, lack of stepping down, and excessive mass is not in keeping with predominant 1–2 storey forms;
• Lack of contextual response — there is no graduation of height or modulation to respect adjoining low-rise residential buildings; and
• Failure to demonstrate how new built form will ‘sit comfortably’ in context as required by DCP guidance.

These siting and scale outcomes are not merely aesthetic preferences — they are embedded in the statutory planning instruments to ensure neighbourhood amenity and character are conserved.

2.3 Heritage Considerations
The LEP and DCP frameworks both require consideration of heritage significance where relevant. Mosman contains numerous heritage items and conservation areas identified in the LEP, and the DCP requires new development to consider heritage context in design — particularly where adjacent to heritage items or precincts.

The proposal’s height, massing and visual prominence will significantly detract from the setting of nearby heritage precincts and buildings, undermining heritage conservation objectives. The proposal also fails to articulate a heritage impact assessment that satisfactorily demonstrates minimal visual or contextual harm.

3. Amenity and Traffic Impacts
3.1 Traffic and Road Safety
The proposed development will introduce a substantial increase in traffic generation and turning movements on an already busy Ranges Avenue. The entry/exit point’s location presents conflict with existing traffic flows, pedestrian movement and sightlines. Increased congestion, waiting times and potentially crash risk are legitimate planning and safety concerns — particularly where existing road design does not provide adequate capacity or separation of movement types.

Traffic and access impacts that cannot be satisfactorily mitigated are a valid basis for objection under general amenity and environmental impact considerations provided in the standard Environmental Planning and Assessment Act assessment framework.

3.2 Privacy, Overshadowing and Amenity
Given the building’s height and massing, overshadowing of neighbouring properties, loss of privacy and increased overlooking towards adjacent residential yards and living rooms will be significant. These effects materially degrade residential amenity and conflict with DCP objectives that seek to protect solar access and privacy.

4. Precedent and Strategic Implications
Approving a development of this scale here would establish a precedent for other large, out-of-context developments along ridgelines and near heritage precincts, incrementally eroding Mosman’s townscape character and heritage values. This would be inconsistent with strategic planning priorities set by Council and reflected in both the LEP and DCP frameworks.

5. Summary of Grounds of Objection
Primary grounds include:
1. Incompatible bulk and scale inconsistent with Mosman LEP/DCP character objectives.
2. Lack of meaningful height transition to adjacent low-rise buildings.
3. Adverse visual prominence given the site’s ridgeline position.
4. Inadequate response to heritage context and impact on nearby heritage precinct.
5. Traffic safety and congestion impacts.
6. Loss of residential amenity (overshadowing, privacy).

6. Conclusion and Requested Outcome
For the reasons above, I respectfully request that the application be refused or substantially redesigned to properly address statutory controls, context, heritage impacts, traffic and amenity concerns.

I write to formally object to the above State Significant Development Application currently on public exhibition. My objection is based on significant planning, amenity, traffic, safety, and character impacts arising from the proposed development.

The proposed seven-storey apartment development is fundamentally inconsistent with the established low-density residential character of the street and surrounding locality. The street is characterised predominantly by detached dwellings and heritage-style homes, generally of one to two storeys.
The introduction of a building of this scale and intensity would be visually incongruous, dominating the streetscape and eroding the established character that defines the area. This form of development is more appropriately located within designated higher-density zones or activity centres, not within a predominantly residential street.
Approval of this proposal would set an undesirable planning precedent, opening the door to further high-rise apartment development in streets that have historically and strategically been planned for low-rise residential use.

The proposal will significantly worsen an already constrained traffic environment.
• Street congestion is currently severe, particularly during school zone operating hours, where traffic frequently becomes standstill.
• The additional vehicle movements generated by a development of this scale will exacerbate congestion, delays, and safety risks.
Of particular concern is vehicle access from Bloxsome Lane, including:
• The removal of six existing crossovers
• Increased reliance on an extremely narrow laneway that is not designed to accommodate high traffic volumes
The laneway:
• Is too narrow for two-way vehicle movement
• Has no safe pull-over areas, resulting in vehicles needing to reverse long distances to allow passing
• Is already operationally unsafe and will be further compromised by increased use

The development will result in significant amenity impacts, including:
• Overshadowing
• Loss of privacy
• Increased noise and activity
• Visual bulk and dominance
These impacts will negatively affect the livability of surrounding homes, many of which have been occupied long-term by residents who reasonably expected the area to remain low-rise and residential in nature.

The proposal is likely to result in devaluation of surrounding properties due to:
• Loss of character and amenity
• Increased congestion and safety concerns
• Overshadowing and visual intrusion

While the proposal is framed under the banner of “affordable housing”, it does not meaningfully address the housing crisis in a way that justifies its scale and impacts.
• The number of genuinely affordable dwellings is limited
• The proposal does not provide a proportionate public benefit to offset its significant negative impacts
• Affordable housing objectives should not override fundamental planning principles relating to character, safety, and infrastructure capacity

Bloxsome Lane is used regularly by school-aged children walking to and from school. Increasing vehicle volumes and turning movements within this confined space presents a clear and unacceptable safety risk.
The proposal fails to adequately address:
• Pedestrian–vehicle conflict
• Safe sightlines
• Child safety in a high-use pedestrian environment
These risks are particularly concerning given the narrowness of the laneway and the lack of refuge or footpath separation.

The existing road network, laneways, and local infrastructure were not designed to accommodate development of this scale. The proposal places additional strain on:
• Roads and intersections
• Pedestrian routes
• Parking availability
• Local services
There is insufficient evidence that the surrounding infrastructure can safely or effectively absorb this level of intensification.

In summary, the proposed development is:
• Incompatible with the established residential and heritage character of the area
• Excessive in height, scale, and intensity
• Detrimental to traffic flow and pedestrian safety
• Particularly dangerous given the narrowness of Bloxsome Lane
• Likely to reduce amenity, property values, and neighbourhood cohesion
• Not justified by its limited contribution to affordable housing outcomes
• Negatively impacts the local well established environment and landscape with the removal of 21 trees

For these reasons, I respectfully request that the application be refused, or at minimum substantially reduced in height, scale, and intensity to align with the existing character and capacity of the area.

Re: Objection to Proposed Development at 11–23 Rangers Avenue, Mosman

To Whom It May Concern,

I am an owner-occupier of a semi-detached dwelling within Holt Avenue, a Heritage Conservation Area in Mosman. I am writing to object to the proposed seven-story residential development at 11–23 Rangers Avenue, which includes approximately 91 car parking spaces and will directly impact adjoining residential streets, including my own.

My concerns are outlined below and are based on day-to-day lived experience, local safety considerations, and the importance of protecting the character and amenity of this established neighbourhood.


Traffic, Safety and Construction Impacts

Local streets in this area already experience high traffic volumes, particularly during peak commuting periods. The construction of a development of this size will introduce extended disruption through heavy vehicle movements, site access, and deliveries, significantly affecting traffic flow and safety for residents.

Once completed, the scale of the development and the associated increase in vehicle movements will place additional pressure on a road network that is constrained by narrow streets, limited visibility, and existing congestion. These impacts will extend beyond Rangers Avenue and affect surrounding residential streets that were not designed to accommodate this level of activity.


Pedestrian Safety and Walking Distance Concerns

I personally need to cross Spofforth Street at the intersection with Holt Avenue as part of my daily movements within the neighbourhood. This intersection is widely recognised by local residents as unsafe. I regularly witness car accidents here, and traffic volumes are particularly heavy during peak hours.

Due to safety concerns, I choose to walk further uphill to Military Road in order to cross Spofforth Street at a safer, signalised location. This lived experience highlights that the route proposed by the applicant cannot reasonably be considered a safe or practical walking connection.

The applicant’s Traffic Impact Assessment does not adequately address traffic flows, driver behaviour, or the well-documented safety issues at the Holt and Spofforth intersection. No clear evidence has been provided to demonstrate that this route meets the intent or definition of a safe “walking distance” under the Housing SEPP. On this basis, the site should not be considered compliant with the LMR Outer Area criteria.


Public Transport Limitations and Military Road Congestion

While Military Road is often cited as a public transport corridor, it already operates under significant congestion, particularly during peak periods. Bus reliability is frequently affected by traffic delays, resulting in inconsistent travel times and reduced practicality for daily commuting.

Beyond Military Road, public transport options servicing Rangers Avenue and the surrounding streets are limited. Access to frequent, reliable services requires walking longer distances along steep gradients and navigating busy intersections, which is not suitable for all residents.

As a result, residents in this area remain heavily reliant on private vehicles for daily travel. This existing car dependency means that additional density in a location with constrained road capacity and limited effective public transport access will inevitably increase traffic congestion and parking demand, rather than reduce it.


Parking Constraints and Safety Implications

Parking availability is already limited in this area. Importantly, as a resident of a Heritage Conservation Area, I am not permitted to add a carport or additional off-street parking due to council heritage controls and minimum frontage requirements. Many of my neighbours face the same constraints.

As a result, many existing households are reliant on on-street parking, not by choice but due to planning constraints designed to preserve the heritage character of the area. Any additional parking demand generated by this development—whether from residents, visitors, service providers, or trades—will place further strain on already limited on-street parking.

This increased pressure will not only reduce amenity but also create safety concerns, including reduced sightlines, narrower effective road widths, and compromised access for emergency and service vehicles.


Impact on Heritage Character

The Holt Estate Heritage Conservation Area and surrounding streets are highly valued for their cohesive Federation-era character and historic significance.

The demolition of existing Federation homes and their replacement with a seven-storey development will permanently alter the setting and visual integrity of this heritage precinct. The height, scale, and bulk of the proposal are inconsistent with the established character of the area and undermine long-standing planning objectives intended to protect Mosman’s heritage identity.

Appropriateness of the Development Pathway
While housing provision is important, it is difficult to reconcile the use of the State Significant Development pathway for a proposal that appears primarily oriented toward high-end residential outcomes.

The inclusion of affordable housing, while noted, appears to facilitate a larger luxury apartment development positioned to maximise views and market value. This raises concerns about whether the proposal genuinely aligns with the intent of state planning policies and whether this site is appropriate for such intensity of development.


Conclusion

The concerns outlined above reflect both personal experience and broader community impacts. The proposal raises serious issues relating to pedestrian safety, traffic congestion, parking constraints, and irreversible harm to heritage character.

For these reasons, I respectfully request that the application for 11–23 Rangers Avenue, Mosman be refused.

Thank you for considering this submission.

Yours sincerely,
Lauren Evans
Owner-Occupier
93 Holt Avenue
Mosman NSW
December 17, 2025

I make this submission as a formal and unequivocal objection to State Significant Development Application SSD-96272465 for 11–23 Rangers Avenue, Mosman. This proposal represents an extreme, opportunistic and fundamentally flawed overdevelopment that breaches multiple provisions of NSW planning law and policy. The application should be refused or, at minimum, substantially redesigned to address its critical deficiencies. My reasons are detailed in the attached letter. Angeline Collings

Roslyn Bastian
6/9-11 Park Avenue
Mosman 2088

Re: Application No SSD-96272465


I am a resident of Park Avenue Mosman, the street leading off Rangers Avenue virtually opposite the site of the proposed development, Application No SSD-96272465, at 11-23 Rangers Avenue Mosman.

I am a long term resident of Mosman, purchasing my first home in Holt Avenue in 1983 and then living in Prince Albert Street for over thirty years. I have resided at 9-11 Park Avenue for five years.

I am completely opposed to the development of 11-23 Rangers Avenue Mosman of three seven storey buildings of 44 apartments and 91 car parking spots for the following reasons:

1. The development is completely out of character with the surrounding area and, indeed, the residential streets of Mosman. In particular, the site is adjacent to the original ‘Holt Estate’ subdivided by Thomas Holt in 1861 which contains many traditional houses typical of the Mosman Council area and which contribute to the architectural character of the suburb. This area has been nominated by Mosman Council as a conservation area being a complete early subdivision containing a great many buildings from its original development. Three seven story buildings will be entirely out of character with the surrounding area.

1. On a long term basis the addition of 91 car parking spots with access via Rangers Avenue will exasperate further the already over used Rangers Avenue. Although designated a council road, Rangers Avenue acts as an important through Road from North Sydney, Kirribille, Neutral Bay and Cremorne. Rangers Avenue is busy at all times of the day while being at capacity during the weekday morning and evening peak school and awork periods. Mid-morning on weekends Rangers Road is often at a standstill with traffic banked up beyond Avenue Road to the east and Oswald Street to the west. It is virtually impossible to turn right from Park Avenue into Rangers Avenue during these periods due to the traffic density and congestion. This also applies to the traffic build up at the Spofforth and Ranges Avenue roundabout with traffic constantly backed up from the roundabout back to Oswald Street. The addition of 91 further cars using the road will cause even further traffic chaos.

2. It is unclear as to how the 91 cars will access and exit the complex. If cars can turn right into the complex from the west bound lane this will cause a significant blockage of traffic back through the Park Avenue roundabout and further into Avenue Road. If cars are restricted to exiting the car park only to the left, in an easterly direction, then numerous vehicles will use the already small and dangerous Park Avenue roundabout to do a U-turn. This roundabout, due to its small size and difficult configuration, is already a significant safety concern and additional cars will result in further crashes and blockages.

3. Currently residents of five of the houses to be demolished access their property via Bloxsome Lane and hence the total additional traffic entering and exiting rangers avenue is even greater than just the potential 91 cars intended by the development proposal.

4. Large developments such as is proposed attract more cars than the available parking in situ. Currently Rangers Avenue is fully parked out in the afternoons and evenings and hence it is likely that additional parking will be sought in Park Avenue, an Avenue already close to capacity and one which has only one entry and exit, which is via the tight and difficult roundabout in Rangers Avenue at the top of Park Avenue. This will further increase the likelihood of accidents at this roundabout.

In respect to the construction of the three seven storey buildings, I was unable to find any details in respect to the duration of construction. Therefore I have assumed a period of 5 years based on the construction period of the residential development at the corner of Avenue Road and Carney Lane (near Military road). Whatever the timeframe the construction will cause significant issues, including:

1. The numerous movement of trucks on and off site will impact heavily on the other vehicles on Rangers Avenue.

2. As stated in the Transport Impact Statement, there will be limited parking for construction workers and hence the surrounding streets will be overused by construction vehicles. While the Transport Impact Statement suggests that construction workers will utilise public transport, this is far from practical for trades persons as well as workers from distant locations who will be required to arrive by 7am.

3. There is only one footpath on Rangers Avenue at the site, on the north side. Construction activity will severely restrict the availability of this footpath, forcing pedestrians onto the road on a very busy and relatively narrow street.

4. The removal of parking along Rangers Avenue will result in cars being parked in nearby streets, including Park Avenue, an avenue already fully utilised. Parking in the streets around this area is already at capacity as most of these houses were built prior to people owning one car, let alone two plus, as is now mostly the case with Mosman residents and hence residents park their additional cars on the streets. There is nowhere for tradespeople to park their cars in the surrounding streets.

5. Suggesting that trucks will not loiter in the area is nonsense. Delays from trucks arriving and stopping will be significant and will further cause considerable traffic blockages and chaos. The development site proposed is entirely inappropriate for a development of this size as Rangers Avenue is clearly incapable of carrying any further traffic. This size development needs to. Be on a major thoroughfare, not sited on a council road which is viewed as a thoroughfare to many of Mosman’s attractions eg: Taronga Zoo, Balmoral Beach, Clifton Gardens, the Middle Head precinct and various schools in the Mosman area. Rangers Avenue also provides vehicular access to Mosman Bay ferry. This is already a significantly busy road which is already at over capacity at various times of the day, weekdays and weekends.

In summary, I oppose the development of three, seven story buildings at 11-23 Rangers Avenue Mosman due to:

A Construction trucks impeding traffic movement on Rangers Avenue
B Construction workers parking clogging surrounding streets
C The removal of parking along Rangers Avenue will impact on parking in surrounding streets
D The closure of the only footpath on Rangers Avenue will endanger pedestrians
E The additional traffic due to 91 additional cars on the site when finished will make the already dangerous intersection at Park Avenue even worse.
The additional traffic, due to 91 additional cars on the site when finished, will further exasperate traffic movement along Rangers Avenue.

Our family has lived in Spencer Road since 2004.
We object to this project proposed at 11 Rangers, Mosman (“Project”) due to the following:
- The Project is currently defined as In-fill Affordable Housing. Can some rental guides be provided for the apartments so that affordability can be properly assessed as part of this EIS based on current rental values. If it is only needing to be 10% below the cost of similar luxury apartments in the area does this really constitute affordable housing? Given the significant bulk allowance gained to increase the size of the building due to this affordable housing status we would like a far greater percentage ( perhaps in line with the FSAR percentage bonus that the developer is gaining) of affordable housing needing to be allocated to this Project for a longer period than 15 years or alternatively a far greater discount given so that affordable housing really can be achieved.
- The bulk and scale of this project is enormous compared to the surrounding properties. We are in the C4 zone which was a zoning change put in place in May 2022 by Mosman Council with the objectives of this zone outlined below. Could you please reply outlining what consideration was given to the impact that this Project on R3 zoned land which directly joins this C4 zoning would have against each of the eight objectives put in place for that C4 Zoning.
Zone C4 Environmental Living
1 Objectives of zone
• To provide for low-impact residential development in areas with special
ecological, scientific or aesthetic values.
• To ensure that residential development does not have an adverse effect
on those values.
• To retain the single dwelling character of the environmentally sensitive
residential areas of Mosman.
• To maintain the general dominance of landscape over built form,
particularly on harbour foreshores.
• To ensure that sites are of sufficient size to provide for buildings,
vehicular and pedestrian access and landscaping and to retain natural
topographical features.
• To ensure that development is of a height and scale that achieves the
desired future character of the area.
• To encourage residential development that maintains or enhances local
amenity and, in particular, public and private views.
• To minimise the adverse effects of bulk and scale of buildings.

- We will look directly into the middle of this proposed project and it will significantly impact our view corridor as outlined in the photographs attached taken from the second level of our home.

- We walk past this proposed project area almost daily to exercise our dog at the off lease area of Reid Park before and after work. Crossing Rangers Road is already difficult as a very busy road to cross during the day , especially during school drop off and pick up times. The various stages of escavation, construction and occupation of the project will increase this traffic. There are already blind spots for vehicles using the roundabout nearby that services Park Avenue which is quite small and many already many vans, Utes and larger cars drive over it . Can you please provide a report form NSW Roads outline that this road and roundabout can handle the 10m plus vehicles that will be entering and existing the site during the demolition, escavation and construction phrase.
- Using a smart watch and walking we have tried many ways to walk to Cremorne junction in less than 800m . Can you please provide a plan showing the route the 800m is achieved for a pedestrian to get from the proposed project to Cremorne Junction.
- . Cremorne Junction is not much more than a medial centre, bakery, chemist and small superrette with extremely limited car parking and existing morning and after traffic issues associated with traffic coming to and from from Military Road into Spofforth Roads and the feeder road of Rangers, Holt, and Spencer from both sides of Spofforth. Cremorne Junction also does not seem to be a significant transport hub, essentially a bus stop which is not frequented by services such as the B-line.
- . It has been outlined that should the project be approved that local residents will be made aware of potential mitigants for noise and traffic control. An this instead be provided prior to approval as the local residents will have no powers of enforcement post the development bing approved. the local haven't been able to clearly see the traffic and noise impact statement for the escvalation works for the proposed project. given I understand the site is proposing the 2.5 levels of basement car parking and it is on a cliff face this will create significant noise, heavy vehicle traffic and air pollution. My two eldest children are asthmatics and both on daily preventative medication. The amount of escalation work is of serious health concern. Will air pollution monitors - vibration. monitors and noises monitors be provided at the developers cost to neighbouring properties to ensure noise, air and vibration levels are not breached?
- Water running from this stone wall of this project is already obvious when we have rainfall which suggests it already is a natural path for rain water. There are concerns that a development of this significance going down 2 and half basement levels could potentially lead to a risk of flooding and land instability. Will there be a compensation fund set up by the developers or from NSW Government in the event of destabilisation on existing properties near to the project?
- Local residents already juggle parking issues for the existing homes on Streets such as Rangers, Holt, and Spencer. Where are the significant amount of workers ( and their associated cars, utes, vans etc) proposing to park? If no arrangements are made for site workers and therefore local streets are to absorb the parking, consideration should be given for local nearby streets to have two hour parking signage installed and monitored.

We look forward to your reply in particular in regards to outlining pricing on the affordable housing component.

Thank you

i object to the proposed SSD at 11-23 rangers Ave principally due to its scale. A development consisting of 54 units and 91 car spaces is completely excessive in the location in which it is envisaged because:
- local infrastructure - roads, pathways, parking are already at capacaity especially, but not only, at morning and afternoon peak periods
- proximity to schools - adding more vehicles to areas adjacent to schools represents pedestian danger
- there are other locations more befitting a development of this scale eg along Military Rd where existing low rise buildings are ripe for redevelopment
- the proposed building is out of character with the existing residential areas of Mosman and Cremorne - plonking an eyesore in the middle of suburbia would be a travesty!

The scale of the development is inconsistent with the surrounding low-rise residential heritage character.
There is limited public transport in this area, insufficient street parking, constrained pedestrian pathways and no capacity in the immediate area to absorb a development of this scale
The development will significantly increase traffic on what are already narrow, steep streets.
The proposed vehicle volumes intensify collision risks and worsen existing safety issues, particularly for pedestrian schoolchildren, seniors and cyclists.

Dear Planning Authority,

I am writing as a local resident to formally object to the State Significant Development Application for the proposed residential flat buildings at 11–23 Rangers Avenue, Mosman.

As someone who lives nearby and frequently walks down Holt Avenue and around the local area, I am deeply concerned about the impact this major development would have on the overall enjoyment and character of our area. Holt Avenue and its surrounds are renowned for their heritage-listed streetscape and unique atmosphere, which would be fundamentally altered by a large-scale, high-rise development.

Key concerns include:
• Loss of Heritage and Streetscape Character: The proposed development is not in keeping with the established low-rise, heritage-listed character of Holt Avenue. The scale, bulk, and height of the buildings would dominate the landscape and disrupt the cohesive roofscape and intimate residential feel that defines our neighbourhood.

• Visual and Amenity Impacts: The development would significantly impact the Mosman skyline, with an increased sense of enclosure and diminished privacy for existing residents. The proposed building mass and minimal setbacks are inconsistent with local planning controls and the objectives of the Mosman LEP and Housing SEPP.

• Road Safety and Traffic Concerns: Holt Avenue and Spofforth Street are already dangerous, with a well documented history of accidents at the intersection. I recently witnessed a serious two car accident here, which highlights the risks posed by increased traffic and pedestrian activity. The proposed development would exacerbate these safety issues, especially given the lack of proper pedestrian crossings and the anticipated increase in vehicle movements.

• Inadequate Infrastructure: The area lacks sufficient public transport, parking, and local infrastructure to support a development of this size. Overflow parking and increased traffic would place further strain on surrounding streets.

• Environmental and Construction Impacts: Extensive excavation and prolonged construction would create noise, dust, and disruption for residents and those enjoying the local area.

In summary, while I support the need for well-designed, appropriately located housing, this proposal does not respect the unique character, safety, or amenity of our neighbourhood. I urge the consent authority to refuse the application in its current form and to prioritize developments that genuinely enhance, rather than undermine the heritage and liveability of Mosman.

Thank you for considering my objection.