Even though I understand the need for more affordable housing, as a bus driver based at North Sydney depot, I’m not sure how the roads will cope with these types of new developments. Being at the coal face I know that Military Rd is at capacity due to the hours per day I spend in the bus not moving. I’m constantly handing in late running slips to my supervisor & I fear for the commuters of Mosman Neutral Bay & Cremorne if more units are approved without an alternative (such as a Northern Beaches Tunnel).

This project is not in the spirit of affordable housing. It is a money grab from developers looking to capitalise on Harbour views next to a conservation area! It is outside the 800m zone, it is completely out of character of the area and all it is doing is making a developer very wealthy without consideration of the local area, the conservation area and the community.
I completely object to this project and urge the assessor’s to consider the dangerous precedent and irreversible impact of this to the local area. It is not affordable housing, it is a developer ruining the homes and community of families.

REFER TO ATTACHMENT FOR FULL SUBMISSION

REFER TO ATTACHMENT FOR FULL SUBMISSION
This constitutes a formal objection to the proposed Residential Flat Building (RFB) (SSD-96272465) at 11-23 Rangers Avenue, Mosman, on the basis that the proposal fails both the statutory legal test and the planning merit test of the New South Wales planning framework.
Our review confirms that the project suffers from critical, measurable, and non-mitigable non-compliance points which render the current design unacceptable and potentially unlawful on the following grounds:
1. Failure of Upfront and Ongoing Community Engagement: Deliberate failure to adhere to the mandatory requirements for upfront and ongoing engagement as stipulated by the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure’s (DPHI) guidelines, thereby compromising the integrity of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) prior to public exhibition.
2. Pedestrian Safety: Lack of a provision of a safe, legal, and publicly approved pedestrian pathway.
3. Site Isolation and Unorderly Development of Land: The narrow, irregular shape of 9/9A, combined with the mandatory visual privacy separation setbacks (ADG 3F) from the newly constructed 11-23 building, would squeeze any potential new structure on 9/9A into an unviable building envelope. Furthermore, The DPHI must also consider the "orderly and progressive development of land" (a key public interest test), given the existence of a State-agreed Mosman Masterplan process.
4. Measurable Amenity Failure: The proposed design systematically fails to meet the Apartment Design Guide (ADG) mandatory minimums, evidenced by the 3.0-metre setback being grossly non-compliant with the required separation distance for habitable interfaces or Deep Soil Zones.
5. Unacceptable Structural Risk: The required deep excavation of ~10m on the boundary, is physically unfeasible, occurring within 30 centimetres of the existing Federation dwelling at 25 Rangers Avenue, immediately activating the onerous protection mandates of Clause 98E of the EP&A Regulation 2000. This constraint makes the site unsuitable for the proposed density.
6. Unlawful Scale and Bulk: The project’s reliance on the State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing) 2021 (Housing SEPP) density bonus is invalid, as the presence and intended alteration of the Local Heritage Item I438 triggers the policy’s explicit exclusion criteria. The resultant height (6–7 storeys) is therefore non-compliant with base Mosman LEP controls.
7. Affordable Housing: The rent achievable under the Affordable Housing Scheme is far lower than the Proponent has taken into consideration. Chapter 2, Part 1 of the Housing SEPP: “households that have a gross income … of the median household income for Greater Sydney or the Rest of NSW….. pays no more than 30% of the gross income in rent”. The rent will be significantly below an economic rent.
We formally confirm our intention to retain 25 Rangers Avenue as our long-term residential home, maximizing our legal standing as existing occupants resisting the erosion of established amenity. We require the Department of Planning to seek either refusal of the application or a deferral to address these fundamental statutory and physical constraints.

This submission is made in good faith and solely to assist the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure (DPHI) in its statutory assessment of State Significant Development Application SSD-96272465. Our concerns regarding the proponent’s conduct (concealment, misrepresentation) are based on factual contradictions found within the publicly available EIS documents, along with email correspondence and are necessary to ensure the integrity of the SSD process. We rely on the statutory protections afforded to submissions made to a consent authority in the course of its planning duties. Furthermore, while we confirm our immediate intention to retain 25 Rangers Avenue as our long-term residential home, we hereby expressly reserve all future rights to develop our property in accordance with any applicable planning controls, including the Low and Mid-Rise Housing Policy.

Dear Panel
I am concerned that the proposed location for bin collection on Rangers Road would result in the trucks blocking thoroughfare on Rangers Road twice (general rubbish and paper/bottles) on garbage collection days for extended periods given the number of bins to be collected (the bins for 44 residences plus common area bins) . Green bin collection once a month will also involve a truck blocking Rangers Road for extended periods. The developer anticipates that teh truck will park near the kerb, which is unrealistic as teh drivers always park on teh thoroughfare so they can make a quick and easy exit without having to wait for cars to pass when they are ready to leave. Similarly, all deliveries and uber/cab puck ups and drop offs at the Rangers road entrance will potentially block traffic. With 44 apartments there will most likely be numerous deliveries, pick ups and drop offs. Query where removalist vans and service van (electricians, plumbers and the like will park if their vehicle is over height for the driveway.
I am concerned that excavation may cause land slide and collapse of the rock wall which will place pedestrians and cars/cyclists passing by in a potentially hazardous situation.
Properties to the North of the development, which are in a heritage conservation zone will have their views and aspect impacted by a modern structure which is inconsistent with the character of the conservation area and surrounds. I note that the developer will overcome the loss of the heritage assets by taking photos and having them preserved. This is an inadequate replacement see article at this link:https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/why-heritage-interpretation-mitigation-measure-kylie-christian-ek9zc
7 properties to the North will lose their view which is only supportable in teh context of the LMR, if the project is found to not come under SEPP 5 (LMR) then teh Coastal Protection Act protection come into play with the development no longer being supportable at all despite the zoning (R3).
I do not agree that the site is a 10 min walk from Military Road.
I do not agree that the pedestrian access along Rangers Ave in front of 39 Rangers Avenue through to the development site as the path is quite narrow in places including that there is a steel vertical bollard along the front of 39 and passing by is very difficult (a pram could not pass at this point) and the path in other places is only wide enough for one person to pass and walking along teh path involves walking very close to the roadway where cars speed by. I personally do not walk along the pathway as I feel quite anxious when walking so close to the roadway.
11 visitor spaces is insufficient for 44 units. There is no other off street parking of note. There is parking only on one side of teh road and it is always fully parked out particularly on weekends and on the evenings. The owners will have visitors and cleaners coming through regularly, I do not agree that 11 spaces will be sufficient.
Query how will the construction vehicles enter the site before any excavation takes place? again there is insufficient on street parking for construction vehicles along Rangers Avenue.
The visual impacts across the district including from the harbour will not be appealing and will be incongruous to the current landscape. The negative impact on the landscape cannot be justified with a statement to the effect that the there will be 7 storey buildings throughout the district one day. This is a prediction only, there is no master plan for the area that the planners can ensure. the proposed development may be an outlier for many years. Proper planning should take this into consideration and any approval for a development, if the panel is minded to allow it should be more in keeping with the surrounds and the district therefore the current zoning (R3), the Coastal Protection Act and the DCP and LEP should prescribe the limit of what can be developed on the land.
Thank you for considering my submissions.
Patricia

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.

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.

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!