I have reviewed the SSD for this project. What is being proposed is enormous and will be a jarring change to this area of Mosman. The impact of adding 100 apartments over 10 storeys will be significant. There is nothing like this scale anywhere near this proposed development. I read the Heritage Assessment closely and the authors also note this fact. They then, somehow, go onto conclude it will still be ok. The logic appears to be that there needs to a transition between the one storey residential homes in the surrounds and the built up military Road area, and once this is built, this will therefore represent the transition zone. How is this a legitimate assessment of the impact. It is circular in logic and is neglectful in its duty to properly account for the impact of this development. This building will tower over all adjacent buildings, dominating and significantly changing the area. There is nothing remotely resembling this building anywhere nearby. I could imagine 5 storeys (which is still enormous) perhaps being considered, but it seems inconceivable that 10 storeys could be approved by anyone properly taking the impacts into account.
I am also seriously concerned about traffic and parking impacts. Lang St is already experiencing congestion and parking problems. This development will have a material impact on Lang Street and the surrounding local network. Residents can reasonably expect increased “rat‑running” as drivers use side streets to approach and depart the single basement access point, added pressure on already constrained on‑street parking, and extended periods of construction traffic and disruption associated with deep excavation and spoil removal. In practical terms, Lang Street and adjoining local streets will absorb much of the indirect traffic and amenity impact of a development that is formally accessed from Military Road, and this has not been adequately acknowledged or mitigated in the current proposal.

I write in reference to the Shop-Top housing at 494-500 & 516 Military Rd, Mosman.
I object to this development for the following reasons:
1. It is a significantly excessive over-development of the site and inconsistent with the existing residential amenity of the local area, including a retirement village and single-storey Federation residential dwellings.
2. A 10 storey residential tower is inconsistent with the current Mosman Local Environment Plan for the local area.
3. The proposed 3 basement levels for parking is excessively deep.
4. Excavation to create these parking levels may adversely impact the structural integrity of the existing Federation homes in the local area which are over 120 years old.
5. The Federation homes in Erith Street suffered significant adverse vibrations during the construction of The Manors of Mosman retirement village, and during the extraction of underground fuel tanks from the old Caltex petrol station site at 494-500 Military Road where the plant nursery Honeysuckle Garden now stands.
6. Further deep excavation is likely to cause adverse structural and vibrational damage to homes that are over 120 years old.
7. The access to parking for the site should be from Mackie Lane, not Hale Road.
8. Hale Road is a busy pedestrian thoroughfare for school children attending Middle Harbour Public School and elderly residents of both The Manors of Mosman retirement village and local residential dwellings.
9. Erith Street and Hale Road are busy conduits for traffic, including buses and other heavy vehicles, heading towards Military Road from Macpherson Street. The traffic load increases significantly during peak hour.
10. Due to the existing geography of the intersection of Erith Street and Hale Road, the location of the driveway for the site on Hale Road is likely to cause traffic accidents and confusion for motorists.
11. Relocating the driveway to Mackie Lane would ensure safe ingress and egress to and from the site for motor vehicles.
12. The accommodation of such a large number of residents would put a significant strain on already congested roads, congested on-street parking, congested public transport, and the congested local hospital.
13. The NSW Government has no plans to alleviate the congestion on local roads, provide parking solutions, reduce congestion on public transport, and reduce congestion in the local hospital.
14. The site may contain contaminants from many years of it being used as a petrol station and hosting mechanic/car maintenance businesses.

I strongly object to SSD-93787211 & request refusal of the application & concurrent rezoning. I support appropriately located & genuinely affordable housing, but this proposal places far too much development on a constrained 3,170 m² site (EIS section 2.2). Its excessive height, bulk & density would permanently remove sunlight & privacy, destroy community assets, intensify congestion & create serious environmental & construction risks. A State-significant pathway should justify approval where permanent harm is disproportionate to public benefit.

1. Permanent loss of sunlight

I live at 419–445 Military Road, directly opposite the site. Our building relies on westerly afternoon sun for light, warmth, ventilation & drying. Replacing a predominantly one-level site with a ten-storey, 33.8-metre building would permanently remove crucial sunlight from apartments, balconies, gardens & vegetation, making homes colder, darker & more vulnerable to damp & mould, which is already an issue. Sunlight is fundamental to healthy, habitable homes, not a luxury.

The winter-solstice diagrams (DA500–DA501) show additional shadow extending beyond Military Road onto its southern side from about 1 pm to 3 pm. This conflicts with EIS section 8.3, which dismisses most shadow as falling on the road and “opposite health practice” and calls the afternoon impact minor. The opposite site is not simply a road or medical practice, it also contains homes, balconies & communal areas.

From daily, firsthand observation, the exhibited diagrams do not correspond with how the sun actually travels in relation to my apartment building & appear to materially understate the impact. As viewed from my apartment, the afternoon sun travels directly behind the site & currently provides much-needed westerly light into my home. A ten-storey building along this path would obstruct it & fundamentally change the natural light, warmth & amenity received by my apartment & the wider building.
The plan-view diagrams do not quantify the actual loss of sunlight to individual apartments, windows, balconies or landscaped areas at 419–445 Military Road. An independent, address-specific assessment should use verified survey levels & three-dimensional modelling to compare existing & proposed sunlight at hourly intervals across relevant seasons. Until independently verified, the scheme should be refused or substantially reduced & set back to preserve afternoon sun.

EIS section 8.5.1 also admits 24% of new apartments would receive no direct mid-winter sunlight, exceeding the Apartment Design Guide maximum of 15%. The design fails future occupants & existing neighbours.

2. Excessive height, bulk, character & privacy impacts

The proposal increases the height control from 12 to about 33.8 metres & FSR from 2:1 to more than 3:1 (EIS sections 5.1 and 8.1). Across a 92-metre frontage, it would form a visually dominant wall & overwhelm lower-scale homes & the Lang Street Heritage Conservation Area. The Heritage Impact Assessment acknowledges it would be highly visible, alter the visual setting & contrast with the area’s modest scale. Façade treatment cannot neutralise this height.

The draft Mosman Masterplan is not approval for this scheme. Housing targets do not remove the need for proportionate design. This proposal would irreversibly change Mosman’s leafy, low-rise village character & establish a damaging precedent.
Apartments, balconies and rooftop areas would overlook surrounding homes. Residents should not have to close blinds or feel they live in a fishbowl. The assessment lacks view lines showing how apartments opposite would be protected. Screening cannot substitute for reducing height and mass.

3. Irreplaceable community assets

The proposal demolishes Honeysuckle Nursery—Mosman’s only dedicated nursery—and Mackie Lane Community Garden. These are not “underutilised land”. They provide horticultural knowledge, food growing, education, social connection, urban greening & biodiversity. The garden particularly benefits older residents, people without private gardens and Middle Harbour Public School.

No equivalent public replacement is proposed; new communal space would be residents-only. The Engagement Outcomes Report, section 4.2, leaves gardeners & Council to find another site. Council requested land providing at least the current garden offering, but this was not delivered. Generic retail is no substitute. Any redevelopment should secure an equivalent permanent public garden & nursery replacement before the existing facilities close.

4. Inadequate public benefit & affordable housing

Only three of 100 dwellings are affordable—3%—despite the extraordinary uplift. Although retained in perpetuity, Council’s formal advice considers this insufficient. Three dwellings do not justify almost tripling the height control & sacrificing sunlight, privacy, community space and character.

The EIS confirms there is no planning agreement (section 3.5) or material public benefit replacing lost assets. Any revised scheme should provide substantially more affordable homes of varied sizes & tangible local benefits.

5. Traffic, parking & infrastructure pressure

Military Road is already a congested city–Northern Beaches arterial route. Buses are crowded, side streets constrained, and Balmoral roads are gridlocked in summer. Multiple developments cannot be dismissed because each model predicts only a small increment.

All basement traffic would use Hale Road, funnelling residents, customers, deliveries & waste vehicles through a small street near schools, childcare & older residents. The Traffic and Parking Impact Assessment proposes 15 visitor spaces against the DCP guide of 25, and 10 retail spaces against a calculated 47.4. It partly justifies these shortfalls by relying on surrounding parking already needed by residents. Larger service vehicles would also rely on Hale Road street space.

Appendix K, section 5.1, estimates only seven additional AM-peak & four PM-peak vehicle movements using limited observation & standard rates. It does not convincingly represent school, weekend, summer beach traffic, incidents, bus capacity or cumulative development & should be independently tested. The EIS inconsistently states elsewhere that the increases would be 8 & 5 movements.

The EIS lists 172 parking spaces, while the plans & traffic assessment show 147. The project must be clear & material corrections require re-exhibition. Military road cannot handle +172 vehicles – the road/area is already at breaking point.
Construction would involve up to 30 trucks daily, no worker parking, a Hale Road works zone & lost street spaces (EIS section 8.7.4). Routes overlap buses & risk pedestrians & schoolchildren. A final independent transport plan must include school-peak exclusions & protect bus & emergency access.

6. Excavation, noise, groundwater & contamination

The basement requires 7–8.5 metres of excavation into sandstone & shoring near buildings. EIS section 8.11 confirms groundwater would be intercepted & parts are not self-supporting. The Noise & Vibration Impact Assessment predicts exceedance of the 75 dB(A) highly noise-affected level & says vibration working distances cannot always be maintained, yet mitigation is deferred.

The Detailed Site Investigation records petroleum hydrocarbons, benzene risks, asbestos, contaminated groundwater, possible off-site migration, vapour/seepage pathways and significant data gaps. It recommends further investigation, remediation & possibly long-term management (EIS section 8.12 and Appendix R).

Approval should not precede independent, publicly exhibited studies resolving contamination, dewatering, groundwater impacts and remediation. Protections must include pre-construction dilapidation surveys of all potentially affected buildings—including 419–445 Military Road—real-time noise, vibration, ground-movement & groundwater monitoring, stop-work triggers, and dust & contaminated-water controls. An applicant-funded process must promptly repair construction-related damage.
These effects cannot be dismissed as temporary. Prolonged noise, vibration, dust and traffic would affect residents’ ability to live, sleep, rest & work at home. Older, mobility-limited or housebound residents cannot readily leave for respite or keep windows closed for long periods. These health & social impacts require enforceable protections, respite & accessible complaints procedures.

7. Trees, cumulative impacts & unreliable documentation

The Arboricultural Impact Assessment recommends removing eight of twelve trees, including three Council street trees & one of medium retention value. About 8% deep soil & planting on structures cannot replace established vegetation, a nursery & working garden.

EIS section 3.4 lists numerous nearby housing proposals without adequately assessing combined pressure on roads, buses, schools, open space, services & amenity. This scheme represents 20% of Mosman’s five-year housing target, making cumulative assessment essential.

Core inconsistencies remain: FSR is stated as 3.17:1 & 3.34:1; consultation described five-to-nine storeys but the scheme reaches ten; the Heritage Impact Assessment identifies another SSD number; parking figures conflict; and the shadow narrative understates its diagrams. These concern core impacts & require correction & re-exhibition.

Conclusion

This scheme concentrates too much private development on too little land. Housing delivery must not cost healthy homes, community assets, safety & Mosman’s liveability.

I request refusal of SSD-93787211 & the concurrent rezoning. At minimum, it must be redesigned & re-exhibited with substantially reduced height & bulk; preserved afternoon sun & privacy; a permanent public garden & nursery-type use; more affordable housing; and completed independent solar, traffic, contamination, groundwater, geotechnical, noise & vibration assessments.

I support the redevelopment of this site. BUT I DO NOT SUPPORT the approval of this development in it current form. Especially the proposed HEIGHT, SCALE, SETBACKS and LANDSCAPING. And, in particular, the vehicular access and loading dock arrangements, showing all Entry and Exits to be funnelled into Hale Road - which is already traffic dense, having Middle Harbour Public School in the street, with capacity of up to 600 young pupils, with insufficient drop off and pick up points for parents dropping off and picking up their children.
There needs to a genuine assessment as to WHY there has not been an alternative arrangement towards the Lang Street side of the site, potentially utilising Mackie Lane in the Development Plan. (?) Mackie Lane is a very under utilized street. In fact, very few cars ever use. It would make sense to filter some traffic from this large development into a widened Mackie Lane (at the expense of the Developer).
The Plans submitted for this Development show that only 3 one-bedroom apartments of the 100 apartments are going to be "affordable". That is 3%. And those 3 apartments are all only 1 bedroom apartments confined to a very small area on Level 1 of Building A. The 3 "affordable" apartments together, occupy less than 220 square metres. So, this "affordable" housing is confined to a small area of one level of one building, rather than being distributed across different parts of the development, different levels - or even between the 2 buildings. This is questionable.
This raises questions of whether the affordable housing commitment has been met properly, and whether it justifies the Developer going another 30% in building height - which is definitely not in keeping with the character and heritage of Mosman. And unnecessary.

The broader question is, what housing and broader community benefit is being delivered by the Developer in return for a very substantial increase in the development capacity of the site?

The site is directly opposite The Manors of Mosman - one of Mosman's largest retirement living communities, with approximately 170-200 residents. Manors of Mosman has 3 driveways (entries and exits) into Hale Road, and its own pedestrian crossing for its elderly residents. It has constant traffic from residents, visitors, staff, service providers, delivery vehicles, removalists.
The significance of this combination - of two substantial community uses at opposite ends of the age spectrum - in that section of Hale Road, which is already carrying a substantial traffic burden from through traffic - should not be underestimated.
It is important to know that there is no Right Hand turn from Hale Road onto Military Road. All traffic must use Erith Street and then turn left onto Macpherson Street. There is always a back up of traffic. Another reason for Mackie Lane to be incorporated into the Developer's Plans as an option.
Additional housing in Mosman (and it is a comparatively modest target for Mosman) can easily be provided with a very different level of intensity than this proposed 10 storey Development .
The objective should be to achieve an appropriate and well-designed housing outcome that responds to the characteristics and constraints of the site - and makes a worthwhile contribution to Mosman's future housing supply.
10 storeys is too high - and unnecessary.
The impacts that will be generated by this major development have not been satisfactorily addressed. In particular, the scale, the form, the proposed housing mix - and especially its vehicular access, loading and servicing arrangements into Hale Road - and opposite a large primary school and a large retirement village.

I think that the Proposal requires further review and redesign before it should be considered for any approval.

Dear Sir/ Madam

I wish to object to the proposed development 494-500 and 516 Military Road, Mosman on the following grounds.

1. The site lies over 400 m from the designated town centre via lawful and Safe pedestrian routes. Therefore, S163 Low and mid rise housing outer area applies because the entire proposed site is NOT WITHIN 400m and therefore the 400m to 800m outer zone applies.
2. The 3 “affordable” homes within the 5-10 storey complex represent poor value for loss of environment and as such do not justify the height extension. It is less than the prescribed amount to allow an uplift under the infill provisions.
3. The price for these “affordable” homes will likely be well above the true affordable threshold of ~$600-700K that you might associate with providing an affordable home to a family. A rent subsidy from the government for 15 years will likely lock a family onto state support rather than enable them to own their own premises and generate wealth for themselves. As such this medium term policy will be an ongoing long-term failure to provide true affordable homes.
4. The premise will compromise the integrity of the Lang street conservation area and dwarf the surrounding 1-2 storey homes surround it. It is out of keeping with the surrounding premises. Some of the closest homes within the Lang Street conservation area would be threatened with ongoing survival as a direct result of this new development.
5. As a Lang Street resident and one with children at Middle Harbour in Hale road, I know how difficult it can be to turn onto Military road from Hale road. The plans for this site have all traffic entering and exiting Hale road. The traffic at this junction is fast flowing with buses and motorbikes shooting up the inside lane. The road will need to be modified to reduce the burden of fatalities and injuries at that intersection.
6. The height and scale of the building is excessive for such a small land area and removes both a useful garden centre and a community garden centre.
7. The current Midas tyre shop sits on the site of a petrol station from about 1920 and there will likely be extensive ground pollution at that site which will need to be remedied without disturbing the water table.
8. A building of such scale would negatively burden neighbours with loss of privacy and would hinder their right of light and constitute a significant loss of amenity.
9. The size of the proposal has increased significantly since the original proposal. This constitutes an underhand development tactic and should be rejected.
This a sub-optimal site to be developing and parking and traffic will be a significant problem resulting from this development.

To: NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure
Re: SSD-93787211 – Proposed development at 494–500 & 516 Military Road, Mosman
Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing to formally object to the proposed State Significant Development at 494–500 & 516 Military Road, Mosman (SSD-93787211).

While I recognise the importance of increasing housing supply, I strongly oppose this proposal in its current form because of the significant additional pressure it would place on an already heavily congested road network and an area where parking and traffic capacity are already seriously constrained.

1. Existing traffic congestion is already severe
Military Road is one of the principal arterial routes through Mosman and is already subject to significant congestion, particularly during morning and afternoon peak periods. Congestion is not confined to Military Road itself: surrounding streets are frequently used by motorists attempting to avoid delays, placing additional pressure on the local residential road network.
The proposal would introduce 100 new dwellings, together with substantial ground-floor retail activity. This inevitably means additional residents, visitors, deliveries, service vehicles, tradespeople and other vehicle movements.

The question for the Department should therefore not simply be whether the development can technically accommodate 172 vehicles within its basement. The more important question is whether the existing surrounding road network can safely and efficiently accommodate the additional traffic generated by the development.

In my view, it cannot.

2. Additional basement parking does not solve the traffic problem
The proposal includes 172 basement parking spaces. While this may appear to address parking within the development, it does not address the consequences of the additional vehicle movements generated by 100 apartments and the retail component.
Every vehicle entering or leaving the development must ultimately interact with the existing local road network. The basement therefore concentrates additional traffic onto roads which are already operating under considerable pressure.

Nor does basement parking provide additional capacity for visitors, tradespeople, delivery vehicles and other users of the surrounding area once the development is operational. Those demands will inevitably have consequences for surrounding streets and existing on-street parking.

3. Existing parking capacity is already inadequate
Parking in this part of Mosman is already heavily utilised. Existing residents, visitors, local businesses, tradespeople and customers compete for limited kerbside parking.
The addition of a major new residential and retail development will increase this pressure.

It is important that the assessment considers actual parking conditions in the surrounding streets, rather than simply counting the number of spaces proposed within the development. A development can technically provide substantial basement parking while still creating significant additional pressure on surrounding public parking.

The Department should require a robust assessment of existing parking occupancy and the likely cumulative impact of this proposal on surrounding streets before any approval is contemplated.

4. The development should be assessed in its cumulative context
I am particularly concerned that this proposal should not be assessed in isolation.
There are already a number of substantial residential developments either proposed, approved or under assessment in Mosman. The cumulative effect of these projects on Military Road, local intersections and surrounding streets must be considered.

The relevant question is not simply whether this particular development might be capable of operating within theoretical traffic thresholds. It is whether the combined effect of additional development in Mosman is sustainable given the existing limitations of the road network and public infrastructure.

A failure to consider cumulative impacts risks progressively degrading traffic conditions until the problem becomes substantially more difficult and expensive to resolve.

5. Infrastructure should precede, rather than follow, development
It is unreasonable to expect existing residents to absorb the consequences of substantial increases in population and vehicle movements without corresponding improvements to transport infrastructure.
Before approving a development of this scale, the NSW Government should demonstrate that the necessary transport infrastructure exists, or that funded and committed infrastructure will be delivered, to accommodate the additional demand.

In particular, the assessment should address:

existing and projected traffic volumes on Military Road and surrounding streets;
queue lengths and delays at affected intersections;
the impact during morning and afternoon peak periods;
traffic generated by the proposed retail component;
visitor, delivery and service vehicle movements;
existing and projected on-street parking occupancy;
pedestrian safety and interaction with increased vehicle movements; and
the cumulative effect of other significant developments in the Mosman area.
6. The scale of the proposal is particularly concerning
The proposal involves a substantial increase in the intensity of development on the site, including a proposed maximum building height of 33.8 metres compared with the existing 12 metre control.
This is not simply a modest increase in housing. It represents a significant intensification of the site and consequently a significant increase in demand on local infrastructure.

The proposed planning changes should therefore be considered very carefully rather than treated as an inevitable consequence of State housing policy.

Housing supply is important, but it should not come at the expense of creating an infrastructure problem that existing residents are then expected to live with for decades.

7. Request for refusal or substantial modification
I respectfully request that the Department give substantial weight to the existing traffic congestion and parking constraints in assessing SSD-93787211.
In its current form, I believe the proposal represents an inappropriate level of intensification for an area whose transport infrastructure is already under significant pressure.

I therefore request that the application be refused, or alternatively that it be substantially reduced and redesigned so that its scale and traffic generation are demonstrably compatible with the capacity of the surrounding road network.

At a minimum, I ask that no approval be granted unless the Department is satisfied, on the basis of independently verified evidence, that the development will not materially worsen existing congestion, parking pressure and road safety in Military Road and the surrounding streets.

The residents of Mosman should not be required to accept a substantial increase in traffic and parking pressure without a corresponding increase in infrastructure capacity.

Thank you for considering my objection.

Kind regards.

Objection to Proposed Development: SSD-93787211
Location: 494–500 & 516 Military Road, Mosman NSW 2088
Proposal: Shop-Top Housing – Part 5-storey, part 10-storey development containing 100 apartments, ground-floor retail, and 3 basement levels.
Attn: Director – Housing and Infrastructure Assessments
Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure
GPO Box 39, Sydney NSW 2001
Dear Sir/Madam,
I am writing to formally object to the State Significant Development application (SSD-93787211) for the proposed shop-top housing development at 494–500 and 516 Military Road, Mosman. While I acknowledge the need for well-planned housing growth in Sydney, this specific proposal represents gross overdevelopment that fails to deliver proportional community benefits while imposing severe negative impacts on the local area.
My objections are based on the following key planning and environmental concerns:
1. Excessive Height, Bulk, and Scale
• Breach of Local Planning: The proposed maximum height of 33.8 metres (reaching up to 10 storeys) represents an unacceptable escalation from the area's established character.
• Unjustified Growth: The proposal has ballooned from an initial 8-storey, 29-metre design to a 10-storey scheme, showing a blatant disregard for local visual amenity and density limits.
2. Severe Traffic and Public Safety Impacts on Hale Road
• Funnelled Traffic: Because Transport for NSW does not support direct vehicle access from busy Military Road, all entry, exit, and loading docks are forced onto Hale Road.
• School Zone Risk: Hale Road is a primary thoroughfare used daily by young families and children attending Middle Harbour Public School. Introducing traffic from 100 residential apartments, retail customers, and heavy service vehicles creates an immediate pedestrian safety hazard.
• Deficient On-Site Parking: The provision of only 15 visitor parking spaces falls significantly short of the 25 bays required by Mosman Council guidelines, ensuring that overflow parking will jam local residential streets.
3. Incompatible Heritage Impact
• Aesthetic Clashing: The 10-storey tower element sits directly across Mackie Lane from the low-rise, low-density Lang Street Heritage Conservation Area.
• Visual Encroachment: This extreme difference in scale will visually dominate and irreversibly compromise the historic character and context of adjacent heritage-protected homes.
4. Loss of Vital Community Assets and Green Space
• Destruction of Local Icons: The development will fully demolish Honeysuckle Nursery—Mosman’s only dedicated garden centre—alongside the cherished Mackie Lane Community Garden.
• No Public Replacement: The developer has offered no equivalent public replacement for these green assets, draining the area of social, historical, and environmental infrastructure.
5. Inadequate Affordable Housing Provisions
• Tokenistic Public Benefit: Despite utilizing density provisions meant to stimulate affordable housing, only 3 out of the 100 proposed apartments are designated as affordable housing units.
• Luxury vs. Need: This minimal 3% allocation fails to justify the massive height bonuses requested, rendering it a luxury development that exploits public policy for private profit.
6. Environmental and Amenity Concerns
• Severe Overshadowing: The architectural plans show that 24 of the 100 units will receive zero direct sunlight between 9:00 am and 3:00 pm on the winter solstice. This violates the minimum solar access baselines mandated by the state's Apartment Design Guide.
• Excavation & Contamination Risks: The site formerly operated as both a Mobil and Caltex petrol station, leaving the soil heavily contaminated with asbestos, hydrocarbons, and benzene. The deep 3-level basement excavation risks disturbing these hazardous materials and threatening the local groundwater table.
Conclusion
The proposed development represents a major overdevelopment of the site that puts corporate profit above community safety, heritage conservation, and environmental responsibility. I strongly urge the Department to reject this application in its current form and require a heavily scaled-back proposal that respects Mosman’s character and protects school children on Hale Road.
Thank you for considering this submission.

To whom it may concern as a resident of the Manors of Mosman we have loved living there including the community gardens and quiet residential area with all the little school kids and elderly and its a concern with the huge unit blocks. These unit blocks will cause major traffic which is exactly what we do not need in this area as it will be a hazard to the children and elderly. Additionally with this information I object to this hideous proposal for sake of these children and elderly.

Submission – SSD-93787211

Shop-Top Housing at 494–500 & 516 Military Road, Mosman

Application: SSD-93787211
Applicant: Aurora Blue Pty Ltd
Proposal: Shop-top housing at 494–500 & 516 Military Road, Mosman

Position: OBJECT

I wish to make a submission objecting to the proposed development in its current form, specifically the proposed 10-storey building height.

I want to make clear that my objection is not to increased housing, shop-top housing or appropriate higher-density development along Military Road. I recognise the significant need for additional housing in Sydney, including affordable housing, and I support well-designed higher-density development in locations that are suitable for it.

My concern is that the proposed 10-storey height is excessive in the context of the existing streetscape and would create an undesirable precedent for the scale of future development along Military Road and in the surrounding area.

1. The proposed 10-storey height is out of keeping with the existing streetscape

Military Road is an appropriate location for increased density compared with many of the surrounding residential streets. However, increased density does not necessarily require an increase in building height beyond the established scale of the locality.

The existing built form along this section of Military Road is generally lower in scale, with the tallest buildings currently being approximately eight storeys. A 10-storey building would therefore represent a significant increase in height and visual bulk.

I am particularly concerned that the additional two storeys are not simply a minor variation. Once constructed, a 10-storey building would materially change the visual scale of this part of Military Road.

The planning system should recognise the importance of integrating new development with the existing built environment. Housing targets should not result in individual sites being developed to a scale that is substantially greater than the established streetscape where a lower-height development could achieve a substantial housing outcome.

2. The original eight-storey concept for the project demonstrates that additional height is not necessarily required.

The Department’s earlier scoping material for this project described an eight-storey shop-top housing development at the site.

The current proposal now provides for a building of up to 10 storeys.

This raises an important question as to whether the additional height is necessary to achieve the project’s legitimate housing objectives, or whether it primarily enables additional development yield.

If the site can accommodate a substantial number of dwellings in a building of approximately eight storeys, I believe that this lower height should be preferred because it would better balance housing delivery with the existing character and environmental amenity of the locality.

3. Concern about the cumulative planning effect of approving 10 storeys

I am concerned about the longer-term consequences of approving a building that is materially taller than the established built form.

I appreciate that an individual development approval does not automatically establish a legal precedent for other developments. Nevertheless, the practical planning effect of approving a 10-storey building in this location is that future applicants may point to it as evidence that buildings of this scale are now compatible with the Military Road streetscape.

Over time, this could result in a gradual escalation of building heights along the corridor, with each successive proposal relying upon the height of previously approved developments to justify further increases.

The result could be a significant cumulative change to the character of Military Road that was never considered as part of a coordinated height strategy.

For this reason, the assessment of this application should consider not only whether a 10-storey building can technically be accommodated on this individual site, but also whether that height represents an appropriate long-term outcome for the broader streetscape.

4. Solar access and overshadowing

I am also concerned about the impact of the additional building height on solar access to surrounding apartments and residential properties.

An additional two storeys will increase the height and extent of the building’s shadow and may reduce the amount of direct sunlight received by surrounding dwellings and private open spaces.

Access to natural sunlight is an important component of residential amenity and should not be treated as a secondary consideration simply because the development is intended to increase housing supply.

I therefore ask that the Department carefully scrutinise the submitted solar access and overshadowing analysis, including the impacts on neighbouring apartments and private open spaces at relevant times of the year.

The assessment should consider whether the additional two storeys create materially greater impacts than an eight-storey alternative and, if so, whether those impacts are justified by the relatively modest additional housing yield obtained from the increased height.

5. Housing and affordable housing objectives should be achieved without unnecessary additional height

I support the objectives of increasing housing supply and providing affordable housing.

However, those objectives should be balanced against the established planning principles of appropriate scale, residential amenity, environmental impacts and compatibility with the surrounding built form.

The fact that a development provides housing should not, in itself, justify the maximum possible height or density on every site.

In my view, this site can make a valuable contribution to housing supply while still respecting the established scale of Military Road.

A well-designed development of approximately eight storeys could provide substantial additional housing while reducing visual bulk, preserving a more compatible streetscape and reducing overshadowing impacts on surrounding properties.

6. A reasonable alternative

I therefore request that the Department does not reject the principle of development on this site, but instead requires the proposal to be redesigned to achieve an appropriate balance between housing delivery and local amenity.

In particular, I request that:

• the maximum building height be reduced from 10 storeys to eight storeys;
• the applicant demonstrate whether the proposed housing yield can be substantially retained through improved building design, floorplate efficiency and site planning rather than additional height;
• the Department carefully assess the difference in solar access and overshadowing between the proposed 10-storey scheme and an eight-storey alternative;
• the visual impact of the development on the existing Military Road streetscape be carefully considered; and
• the cumulative implications of establishing a 10-storey building in this location be taken into account when determining the appropriate height.

Conclusion

I support the provision of additional housing in Mosman and recognise that Military Road is an appropriate location for increased density and well-designed shop-top housing.

My objection is therefore not an objection to housing or to higher-density development generally. It is an objection to the proposed 10-storey height because I consider it unnecessary and excessive in the context of the existing streetscape and potentially detrimental to the solar access and amenity of surrounding residential properties.

I believe an eight-storey development would provide a much better balance between the State’s legitimate housing objectives and the need to protect the established character, environmental amenity and long-term planning integrity of this part of Military Road.

I respectfully request that the 10-storey proposal be refused or redesigned so that the maximum height is reduced to eight storeys.

I declare that this submission represents my own views and acknowledge the Department’s requirements concerning the publication of submissions and declarations.

Objection to the Proposed Residential Development at 494–500 and 516 Military Road, Mosman

I wish to formally object to the proposed development at 494–500 and 516 Military Road, Mosman.

As a mother of school-aged children living less than 50 metres from the proposed site, I am deeply concerned and outraged about the significant impact this development will have on my family, our neighbours, and the wider Mosman community. While I understand the need for additional housing, it must be delivered in a way that respects existing residents, protects local amenity, and provides genuine public benefit. I do not believe this proposal achieves that balance in any way.

My concerns are many including:
- the impact on the safety of children attending Middle Harbour Public School or children venturing off to attend other nearby schools. Hale Road and Erith Street are already extremely busy, especially during school drop-off and pick-up times, with hundreds of children, parents, cyclists and pedestrians using the street every day. Erith Street also acts as a rat run between Macpherson Street and Military Road. The proposal would funnel all resident, visitor, service and construction traffic through Hale Road and Erith Street as access from Military Road was rejected. Introducing traffic generated by 100 apartments, retail premises and years of construction activity into this already congested area creates an unacceptable risk for children, residents and local families and severely restricts the ability of residents to get in and out of their homes safely due to excessive traffic. There have already been half a dozen pedestrians hit by vechiles in the Erith Street vicinity due to traffic congestion.
- Living so close to the site, my family would also bear the full impact of what will be years of demolition, excavation and construction. The proposal involves demolition of the existing buildings, excavation for three basement levels and construction of a ten-storey building. This will inevitably generate continuous heavy vehicle movements, noise, dust, vibration and disruption. My children should not have to study, sleep and play in an environment dominated by construction for such an extended period. The cumulative impact on nearby families' physical and mental health, wellbeing and quality of life has not been adequately recognised.
- I am also concerned that the proposal has grown substantially since it was originally presented to the State Government. What began as an eight-storey, 29-metre development (which is still unreasonable) has increased to a ten-storey building reaching 33.8 metres with a higher floor space ratio. Such a significant increase in height and density should not simply be accepted, particularly given its impact on surrounding homes and the local streetscape.
- The scale of the building is also entirely out of character with the neighbouring Lang Street Heritage Conservation Area. A ten-storey building directly opposite low-scale Federation and Inter-War homes, separated only by the narrow Mackie Lane, represents an abrupt and overwhelming transition in height and bulk. The applicant acknowledges that the building will be highly visible from the conservation area, yet relies on a narrow laneway and future landscaping to soften its impact. Trees cannot disguise a ten-storey building, and future planting is no substitute for appropriate setbacks and a meaningful reduction in height.
- The proposal would also remove Honeysuckle Nursery, Mosman's only dedicated nursery. This is far more than a retail business. It is a valued local institution that supports gardeners, schools and community groups and contributes to Mosman's identity as a garden suburb. Its loss would diminish our community in a way that cannot be replaced by generic ground-floor retail – many which remain vacant in Mosman for extended periods due to unreasonable rents from greedy landlords.
- Equally disappointing is the loss of the Mackie Lane Community Garden. This space has provided residents with opportunities to grow food, learn sustainable gardening practices and build community connections for many years. As a parent, I value these shared green spaces where children can learn about nature and where neighbours come together. Removing it without providing an equivalent public space represents a significant loss for the community.
- The public benefits offered by the proposal are limited when compared with the scale of development being sought. Only three of the one hundred apartments would be affordable housing, there is no planning agreement to deliver additional community infrastructure, and the inadequate communal open spaces on the site would be available only to residents. Occupants on this site would be packed in like sardines surrounded by concrete and traffic congestion. In exchange, the community permanently loses a valued nursery, a community garden and local amenity. Gains traffic congestion, additional strain on roads, essential services like transport, schools, medical services.
- I am also concerned about the environmental impacts associated with the development. The site has a history of automotive and service station uses, with reports identifying potential contamination, underground fuel infrastructure and asbestos risks. Deep excavation may also intersect groundwater. Before any approval is granted, there should be comprehensive investigation, independent review and transparent remediation plans to ensure nearby residents are not exposed to unacceptable environmental risks or declined in totality due to reasonable public health risks.
- The proposal also raises concerns regarding overshadowing, solar access and loss of vegetation. The application should clearly demonstrate the extent of overshadowing on neighbouring properties and confirm compliance with apartment solar access requirements rather than relying on broad statements of general compliance. Likewise, the full extent of vegetation removal, including grouped plantings and established hedges, should be properly assessed, not simply the number of trees. Realistically the proposed build does not provide for adequate green space for the size of the building, or give any consideration to the shadow, heat, reflection and congestion it will bring to surrounding homes and streets given its size.
- Finally, this proposal cannot be considered in isolation. Spit Junction is already experiencing significant redevelopment pressure. The cumulative impacts of multiple ultra large developments—including increased traffic, parking demand, pressure on schools and public transport, construction activity and infrastructure demand—must be properly assessed before further developments of this scale are approved.

As someone raising young children within metres of this site, I ask the Department to carefully consider not only the planning controls but also the everyday realities this proposal would impose on neighbouring families long term. This development is substantially larger than originally proposed, provides limited public benefit, removes valued community assets, and places an unreasonable burden on local residents.
For these reasons, I respectfully request that the Department refuse the application in its current form or require significant reductions in its height, scale, traffic impacts and overall intensity before any approval is considered.