I believe the surveyor LTS that has submitted the Applicants walking distance assessment needs to be investigated for possible loss of license in NSW. After using waze and my own analysis it seems very clear the LMR outer Area is not within 800m of the created Cremorne Town Centre. I admit i am no expert but just based on looking at the rules and the development application it intentionally misleads to say its within 800 using safe walking path. The relevant State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing) 2021 (Housing SEPP) as “the shortest distance between 2 points measured along a route that may be safely walked by a pedestrian using, as far as reasonably practicable, public footpaths and pedestrian crossings.” the Department should deny the application on this basis alone .. go no further - these types of developments should be by town hall on military road etc..no evidence has been provided to support that the applicant’s proposed route meets the definition of ‘walking distance’ in the Housing SEPP. Ok the developer say people cross Spofforth Street at the intersection with Holt Avenue - anyone that cares about public knows that is not safe. Spofforth is so busy there cars cant even cross it easily and back up..now we have individuals crossing there ... this can not be used for safe walking distance. Imagine for a moment children crossing there rather that the light. We all know what would happen.

from here on ill refer This Development 11-23 Rangers av as the the star wars death star that has landed on Mosman Bay hill and has intentionally not provided an adequate visual impact assessment and anyone that has seen what this will look at from Mosman bay knows why. Additionally if you look it from The Mosman bay side the developer provides no meaningful transition between the C4 Environmental living zone and where this Star wars Death Star development has its footprint.

Once again lets be honest this project is a luxury Star wars death star type development and seems to anyone looking at it fairly knows its not alined with SSD policy intent making it massive by labelling it including affordable housing. Any honest assessment makes it clear the affordable component serves only to to unlock the SSD pathway rather than meeting genuine affordable-housing need. They do it for one reason to propose the maximum height and bulk possible. There is no way residents can trust government when they are encouraging such behaviour by developers and not holding them accountable.

The Developers excavation pan with shake in a earthquake like way and damage the historical homes on Holt Av. Without this massive excavation the development doesn't work and therefore should not be accpted.

I wish to object to the proposed development at 11-23 Rangers Avenue, Mosman. NSW 2088

The development is not within the LMR guidelines and in fact is non-compliant with the NSW Government low-and Mid-Rise (LMR) Housing Guidelines. I wish to make a formal submission objecting to the proposed Development at 11-23 Rangers Avenue, Mosman NSW 2088. The LMR is intended to provide walking distances to amenities - the closest hub bring Cremorne Town Centre (if you are walking on formal safe footpaths). This development is not within the LMR Outer Area (800m of Cremorne Town Centre). This development is clearly non-compliant and will cause considerable safely issues which I am deeply concerned about. The proposed development would change the community feel and heritage environment that exists now. If our heritage buildings are destroyed, they can never be rebuilt or regained which is a total mismanagement of our heritage buildings as they exist today. This would be a total disaster for Mosman, Sydney and Australia.

The development would change the landscape, overshadow existing building and residents. The proposals sheer bulk is not in keeping with the existing environment and will be visually obtrusive. I have serious traffic concerns for the residential areas and safety issues for children in particular. If you would like to speak to me on these and my other concerns, please reach out and I am happy to meet and elaborate further. Regards

I write to formally object to the proposed development currently under consideration, which has been submitted as a State Significant Development (SSD) on the basis of its classification as “affordable housing”. For the reasons outlined below, the proposal is inappropriate for the site, inconsistent with planning policy intent, and would result in unacceptable impacts on the local environment, heritage, amenity, and infrastructure.

1. Misalignment with SSD Policy Intent

Although the proposal is characterised as an “affordable housing” development, the predominant outcome is the delivery of high-end, luxury apartments. The affordable housing component appears to function primarily as a mechanism to access the SSD approval pathway, rather than as a genuine response to demonstrated local affordable housing need.

This approach undermines the intent of State planning policy, which is to facilitate meaningful and equitable housing outcomes, not to enable developments that would otherwise be inconsistent with local planning controls. The disproportionate scale and market positioning of the development is incompatible with the policy rationale underpinning the affordable housing provisions.

2. Traffic Congestion and Road Network Capacity

The surrounding street network—including Holt Avenue, Rangers Avenue and connecting roads—is already heavily congested, particularly during school drop-off and pick-up periods and weekday peak hours. These streets have limited capacity and function within an established residential setting not designed to accommodate intensified traffic volumes.

The provision of a 91-car basement will inevitably generate a substantial increase in vehicle movements, exacerbating existing congestion, reducing road safety, and adversely affecting residential amenity. The proposal fails to demonstrate that the local road network can safely or efficiently absorb this additional traffic load.

The cumulative infrastructure impacts of the proposal extend well beyond traffic considerations. The area is already constrained by limited public transport services, insufficient street parking, narrow and restricted pedestrian pathways, and a general lack of capacity to accommodate development of this scale.

The proposal fails to demonstrate how existing infrastructure will cope with the increased population and activity levels generated by the development, and no meaningful mitigation measures have been proposed.

3. Overdevelopment and Neighbourhood Impact

The proposed scale, height and bulk are fundamentally inconsistent with the surrounding low-rise residential character. The development will result in significant overshadowing, loss of privacy, and a sense of visual enclosure for nearby properties.

Notably, the developer seeks to build to the maximum permissible height available under the affordable housing provisions, despite the site being located on a ridge that is already more than a storey above surrounding street levels. Heights should be measured from street level to accurately reflect the true visual and physical impact of the building.

The proposal bears no relationship to the scale or height of surrounding development and will present as a dominant and intrusive structure. The only nearby buildings of comparable height are located within the gully along Avenue Road, where their siting ensures they do not visually dominate the streetscape. By contrast, the subject proposal will be highly prominent and constitutes an eyesore within the existing neighbourhood context.

4. Significant View Loss for Holt Avenue Residents

The excessive height and bulk of the proposal will result in the permanent loss of long-established views for numerous Holt Avenue residents, including views to the city skyline and the Sydney Harbour Bridge. These valued outlooks will be replaced by the façade and mass of a seven-storey apartment building.

Such view loss represents a substantial and unreasonable diminution of residential amenity and has not been adequately justified or mitigated in the proposal.

5. Inadequate Visual, View-Loss and Heritage Assessments

The Visual Impact Assessment submitted with the application is materially deficient. It omits any assessment from Holt Avenue and the Holt Estate Heritage Conservation Area, despite these areas being located directly north of the site and being clearly affected by the proposal.

The Department specifically requested a detailed view-loss and view-sharing assessment; however, this has not been provided. As a result, the impacts on Sydney Harbour views, the natural landform, and the heritage character of the streetscape have not been properly identified, assessed, or addressed. This represents a significant shortcoming in the supporting documentation and undermines the integrity of the assessment process.

6. Absence of Built-Form Transition to C4 and Scenic Protection Areas

The development proposes maximum height and bulk immediately adjacent to C4 Environmental Living land and areas within the Scenic Protection Area. These zones were deliberately excluded from higher-density zoning due to their scenic, environmental and landscape values.

Despite this, the proposal provides no meaningful transition in scale, height, or built form between the development site and these protected areas. In a locality such as Mosman, which is characterised by dense vegetation and a strong landscape setting, the introduction of a large, unrelieved wall of concrete will have severe visual impacts.

At a minimum, the development should be required to incorporate extensive tall and mature planting along both the northern and southern boundaries to soften its visual presence. Even with such measures, the scale of the proposal remains fundamentally inappropriate for its context.

Conclusion

For the reasons outlined above, the proposed development represents an overdevelopment of the site, is inconsistent with the intent of planning policy, and would result in unacceptable and irreversible impacts on traffic conditions, neighbourhood character, views, heritage values, and local infrastructure. Accordingly, I respectfully request that the application be refused or substantially redesigned to address these concerns in a manner consistent with the established character and capacity of the area.

I have attached my objection as a PDF. Thank you.

Sir,

With regards to the proposed development:
1. the building at 7 levels is very bulky and will tower over nearby houses
2. the Visual Impact Report just focuses on how the new building will be seen from the harbour (to the south of new development and some visuals from the western approach), but there are no reports on how the building will be seen from the northside eg Holt Avenue, Military Road, Cowles Road, Spencer Road, Avenue Road - the supplied documents need to be more expansive.
3. obviously views from the houses in Holt Avenue will be changed/limited but there are no (or limited reports) on this important point
4. the proposal includes affordable housing - in this development with main harbour views and high purchase cost, what is 'affordable' ?
Market rents would be typically $2,000+ per week, so at what level is affordable (say $1,500 pw which is $75,000 per annum) ?

State Planning Submission – Excavation, Traffic and Public Safety
Objector location: Spencer Road
Excavation scale and public safety risk
The proposed development includes a 2.5-level basement extending across most of the 3,594 sqm site, with excavation to an approximate depth of 10 metres. While the applicant has not quantified excavation volumes, a conservative estimate suggests up to 30,000 cubic metres of sandstone, rock and soil may be removed. This constitutes a substantial bulk excavation with material implications for structural stability, traffic impacts and public safety.
The application documentation does not disclose the scope limitations of Appendix S – Geotechnical Report, noting only that it was prepared under an agreed scope with the applicant. The report does not appear to assess:
Potential impacts to near-neighbour properties, including those on Spencer Road
The structural integrity of Rangers Avenue and Bloxsome Lane
The stability of the cliff face above residential properties on Park Avenue
These omissions undermine confidence that excavation risks have been adequately identified or mitigated.
Traffic impacts during excavation and construction
The traffic implications of bulk excavation are significant and appear understated. The EIS estimates 10–20 vehicles per day during construction (EIS p.74), but this does not appear to include excavation and site preparation traffic, which the EIS identifies as a separate phase (p.38). Given the scale of excavation, traffic volumes during this phase are likely to be materially higher.
Rangers Avenue is subject to a clearly signposted 3-tonne GVM limit, is narrow and winding, and includes blind corners with a posted 25 km/h speed limit. Despite this, the Construction Traffic Management Plan proposes the use of medium and heavy rigid vehicles. It is unclear how these vehicles can lawfully or safely access the site at sustained volumes.
If Rangers Avenue cannot accommodate excavation traffic, there is a high risk of traffic diversion onto surrounding residential streets, including Spencer Road, creating unacceptable safety, noise and amenity impacts.
Structural and geotechnical risks
The SSD documentation makes no reference to the cliff edge located directly opposite the site on Rangers Avenue, despite visible warning signage. The applicant has not demonstrated that excavation to 10 metres will not:
Destabilise the slope or cliff face
Cause rockfall or progressive landslip
Compromise Rangers Avenue
Endanger properties at the base of the cliff on Park Avenue
The removal of a large volume of supporting rock mass will require substantial retaining structures to address lateral earth pressures and surcharge loads, particularly given the land slopes down towards Rangers Avenue. These forces may adversely affect the foundations of properties along Spencer Road, Holt Avenue and Rangers Avenue.
Stormwater runoff and erosion during excavation
Bulk excavation at this scale presents heightened risks of sediment runoff, erosion and altered subsurface water flows, particularly during rainfall events. The application does not adequately demonstrate how stormwater and sediment will be managed during excavation to prevent impacts on surrounding roads and downhill residential properties, including those on Spencer Road.
Requested actions
Given the material safety and amenity risks identified, the Department should require:
A quantified estimate of excavation volumes, including associated vehicle movements and duration.
Clear demonstration that excavation and construction traffic can be managed lawfully within the 3-tonne GVM limit, without reliance on surrounding residential streets such as Spencer Road and minimal impact to Rangers Rd traffic.
A comprehensive assessment of slope, cliff and road stability, including Rangers Avenue and properties below the cliff on Park Avenue.
An independent, Department-commissioned geotechnical review addressing excavation feasibility, public safety, traffic impacts and stormwater management.

While I would identify as very pro development overall, this is not the place to do it. I’m not sure putting a 6/7 story apartment building on a busy narrow road along the top of a cliff will end well. Additionally, the building at 21 Rangers Ave is a smart old building, and it would be a wasted opportunity to not even save the facade. Ideally it should be incorporated into a design

I do not believe that a luxury Mosman project will provide any meaningfull affordable housing in the area. Even the Affordable Housing rent is discounted it will still be well out of reach for workers. This should not be approved based on a false pretence of affordable housing.
How will the excavation be performed? Bloxome lane is barely suitable for a single car, let alone hundreds of trucks.
A 7 story development is not suitable for the site. There is no close public transport and traffic already gets very congested. Close services are limited.
Why not built closer to military road where there is excelĺent access to public transport and amenities

I support the project