Subject: Submission Objecting to SSD-119133490 – Residential Development at 40–56 Ourimbah Road, Mosman

To the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure,

I am writing to formally object to the proposed development at 40–56 Ourimbah Road, Mosman (SSD-119133490).

I am the owner and resident of 37 Bond Street, Mosman, and my property directly faces the proposed development site. As one of the closest neighbouring residents, I will be significantly affected if this project proceeds.

My concerns are as follows:

1. Building Height and Scale

The proposed 8–9 storey building is excessive for this location and is inconsistent with the established low-rise residential character of this part of Mosman. Such a large building will dominate the surrounding streetscape and fundamentally alter the neighbourhood.

2. Loss of Privacy

Because my property directly faces the proposed development, residents of the new apartments will overlook my home and outdoor living areas. This will result in a significant loss of privacy for my family.

3. Overshadowing and Loss of Amenity

I am concerned that the height and bulk of the building will reduce natural sunlight to neighbouring properties, particularly during the winter months. The project will also reduce the open outlook currently enjoyed by nearby residents.

4. Increased Traffic and Parking Pressure

The development proposes 63 apartments and 92 parking spaces, which will inevitably generate additional vehicle movements. Bond Street and surrounding local roads are already busy during peak periods. Increased traffic will reduce safety for pedestrians, cyclists, and local residents.

5. Construction Impacts

The demolition, excavation of two basement levels, and construction over several years will create significant noise, dust, vibration, and disruption. As a resident living directly opposite the site, I will experience these impacts on a daily basis.

6. Impact on Property Value and Residential Enjoyment

The scale of this development will negatively affect the enjoyment of my property and may also adversely impact its value due to increased overlooking, traffic, noise, and the loss of neighbourhood character.

Request

I respectfully request that the Department carefully consider the impacts on neighbouring residents before making a determination.

If approval is considered, I strongly request that the Department require substantial reductions in the building height and bulk, stronger privacy protections, improved setbacks, enhanced landscaping, and stricter construction management measures to minimise impacts on surrounding properties.

Thank you for considering my submission.

Yours faithfully,

Evan Zhu
37 Bond Street
Mosman NSW 2088

I write to strongly object to the proposed redevelopment of the site involving the demolition of nine existing dwellings and the construction of a part eight-, part nine-storey residential building comprising 63 apartments, including 12 affordable housing units, two basement levels and parking for 92 vehicles.
I live directly opposite the proposed development in a heritage home and have serious concerns about the significant and lasting impacts this proposal would have on my property, my family's amenity and the surrounding neighbourhood. While I recognise the need for additional housing and support the provision of affordable housing in appropriate locations, this proposal represents an excessive overdevelopment of the site. It substantially exceeds the applicable planning controls, is inconsistent with Mosman Council's preferred strategic vision for the area, and would permanently alter the character of an established low-scale residential neighbourhood while delivering only a modest and temporary affordable housing benefit.
Excessive height, bulk and scale
The proposed building would reach approximately 31.6 metres, substantially exceeding the underlying 22-metre height control.
While the Affordable Housing provisions permit a maximum 30% height bonus, increasing the allowable height to approximately 28.6 metres, this proposal still exceeds that increased limit by around three metres.
This is particularly concerning because the proposal has already utilised the maximum planning incentive available. A development that cannot comply even after receiving the greatest bonus available demonstrates that the proposal is simply too large for the site.
The building would also include walls reaching approximately 29.42 metres, compared with the 7.2-metre wall-height standard under the Mosman Local Environmental Plan. Walls more than four times the applicable planning standard cannot reasonably be described as minor departures and fundamentally change the scale of development envisaged for this locality.
Planning controls exist to provide certainty for residents, developers and the wider community. Allowing a proposal to exceed even the maximum incentivised height would undermine confidence in the planning framework and set an undesirable precedent for future development.
Contrary to Council's preferred Masterplan
Although the site sits within the area identified by Mosman Council's endorsed preferred Masterplan, that Masterplan envisages development of approximately six storeys along this section of Ourimbah Road.
This proposal instead seeks approval for a building of eight to nine storeys—around two to three storeys higher than Council's preferred outcome.
Approving a development that significantly exceeds Council's strategic vision would undermine the purpose of the Masterplan and create an undesirable precedent for future developments within the precinct.
Heritage impacts
The proposal raises serious concerns regarding its impact on the adjoining heritage-listed building at 60 Ourimbah Road, the nearby Lang Street and Killarney Estate Heritage Conservation Areas, and the heritage semis opposite on Bond Street.
The applicant's own heritage assessment acknowledges that introducing a building of this size into an area currently characterised by one- and two-storey dwellings will inevitably affect the existing character.
Rather than providing a genuine transition between old and new, the proposal appears to rely primarily on setbacks and contemporary architectural treatment. These design responses do not adequately reduce the overwhelming difference in height, bulk and proportions between the proposed building and the neighbouring heritage item.
Of particular concern is the way the proposal effectively wraps around No. 60 Ourimbah Road, potentially isolating the heritage building and compromising both its setting and its long-term viability. The suggestion that the adjoining property may one day be redeveloped does not justify creating an unacceptable planning outcome today.
Heritage Conservation Areas
The heritage assessment also appears to underestimate impacts on the nearby Heritage Conservation Areas by focusing largely on the absence of direct view corridors.
The issue is not simply whether the building can be seen from particular viewpoints. The Department should consider how a building of this scale would alter the skyline, visual setting and established character of these important heritage precincts.
The submitted visual material does not appear to include verified photomontages from within the Lang Street or Killarney Estate Heritage Conservation Areas. These should be provided so residents and decision-makers can properly understand how the upper levels of the building would appear as a backdrop to these low-scale heritage neighbourhoods.
Similarly, reliance on existing vegetation to reduce visual impacts is not an appropriate planning response. Trees are not permanent structures; they change over time, may be removed or damaged, and cannot permanently screen a building of this height.
Residential amenity
An eight- to nine-storey building overlooking surrounding two-storey homes will inevitably reduce residential amenity.
Nearby residents face increased overlooking, loss of privacy, reduced sunlight and a diminished sense of openness. The Department should require detailed, property-specific assessments of overlooking, solar access and overshadowing rather than focusing only on the additional impacts arising from the proposed height exceedance.
Excavation and construction impacts
As a resident living directly opposite the site in a heritage home, I am particularly concerned about the extensive excavation required to construct two basement levels.
Given the scale of the excavation, I fear that vibration, ground movement and changes in soil conditions could damage the foundations and structural integrity of my home. Heritage buildings are particularly vulnerable to movement, and repairs can be both technically difficult and detrimental to their historic fabric.
The Department should require comprehensive independent geotechnical investigations, pre-construction structural and dilapidation reports for surrounding properties, continuous monitoring of vibration and ground movement, clearly defined stop-work thresholds, and legally enforceable requirements that the developer promptly rectify any damage caused by the works.
Construction will also bring prolonged noise, dust, heavy vehicle movements, rock excavation and disruption to neighbouring residents. These impacts should be given significant weight when determining whether the proposal is appropriate for this location.
Traffic and pedestrian safety
The proposal includes basement access serving 92 parking spaces directly from Ourimbah Road, a classified road carrying significant traffic and bus services.
Given the site's proximity to an existing bus stop, there are legitimate concerns regarding vehicle movements, pedestrian safety, sightlines and construction access. The cumulative traffic impacts of this development, together with other major projects proposed around Spit Junction, should also be carefully assessed before any approval is granted.
Affordable housing does not justify the scale
While I support the delivery of affordable housing, the public benefit offered by this proposal is relatively modest.
Only 12 of the proposed 63 apartments would be affordable housing, and those dwellings would only be required to remain affordable for the minimum 15-year period.
In contrast, the additional height, floor space, visual impacts and neighbourhood consequences would remain permanently.
It is difficult to conclude that a temporary affordable housing benefit justifies a permanent departure from planning controls of this magnitude. If additional development rights are granted in exchange for affordable housing, the public benefit should be proportionate and enduring.
Conclusion
This proposal exceeds the applicable planning controls, exceeds even the maximum affordable housing bonus, exceeds the scale contemplated by Mosman Council's preferred Masterplan, fails to appropriately respond to adjoining heritage buildings and conservation areas, and would permanently alter the established character of this part of Mosman.
As someone who lives directly opposite the site in a heritage home, I am deeply concerned about the lasting impacts this development would have on my property, including the risk of structural damage from excavation, increased traffic, prolonged construction impacts, loss of privacy, reduced amenity and the dramatic change to the streetscape.
The cumulative impacts arising from the proposal's excessive height, bulk, wall dimensions, heritage impacts, excavation, traffic generation and reduced residential amenity significantly outweigh the limited and temporary public benefit provided through affordable housing.
For these reasons, I respectfully request that the Department refuse this Development Application or require it to be substantially redesigned so that any future proposal complies with the planning framework established for this precinct.
Thank you for considering my submission.

I object to this submission on the following grounds...
* Wall Height - it breaches the R3 standard by ~300% (7.2m limit vs up to 29.42) on an invalid Clause 4.6 justification.
* Building height - exceeds the 28.6m limit (31.64m), ~44% above the 22m base, after already taking the maximum 30% bonus.
* Storeys - 8 to 9 storeys where the Housing SEPP advises 6 storeys or less.
* Heritage - isolates and fails to respect the listed heritage building on the corner of Ourimbah Rd and Rosebery St. ( Number 60).
Scale & Local Controls - this development is out of scale with the R3 zone and with Mosman's new draft Residential DCP (Section 5.5B) and Masterplan: it visually dominates the HCA.
* Misleading Studies - visual and shadow studies judge the tower against an imaginary 'future' street and the visual report is mislabelled as another project (3-5 Yeo St Neutral Bay).
Marginal, temporary bonus - 15.2% affordable vs 15% need and affordability last only 15 years. If the bonus fails then the building must shrink.
* Cumulative impact - a concurrent ~ 100 apartment block on Military Road SSD was omitted from the assessment.
* Vehicle access onto a classified road raise real safety concerns - The buildings only vehicular access is a basement driveway with spaces for 92 cars, directly on Ourimbah Rd., a classified regional road (Route 2036) and on a bus route.
The Transport SEPP (cl 2.119) directs access to be taken from a non-classified road where a practical, safe alternative exists. The obvious alternative -the local side street, Bond St, is dismissed as ' not practicable' only because of a ~4m level difference (east to west), created by the applicants own 2 level basement design.
Entry to the carpark will be by left turn only - this is an admission t of the adverse traffic conditions on Ourimbah Road and will result in accidents as motorists/residents turn right in to the driveway - it is naive to think that this will not happen. For those who will turn left, it means using surrounding streets to access the driveway. The is a bus stop close to the driveway. Line of sight will be no existent for motorists turning left from the driveway if a bus is picking up/dropping off passengers.
Deep excavation of the site (for garages) will result in heavy trucks using narrow street adjacent to the site for an extended period of time.

Submission – Objection to State Significant Development Application
40–56 Ourimbah Road, Mosman
I write to object to the proposed State Significant Development application for the residential development at 40–56 Ourimbah Road, Mosman.
I acknowledge the importance of increasing housing supply, including the provision of affordable housing. However, new development should be appropriately designed and located so that it achieves these objectives while minimising adverse impacts on neighbouring properties and the surrounding residential environment. In my view, the current proposal does not achieve an appropriate balance and should not be approved in its current form.
1. Excessive Height, Bulk and Overshadowing
The proposed building, at eight to nine storeys, represents an excessive height and bulk for its immediate context and will have significant adverse impacts on adjoining residential properties. Furthermore, the proposal exceeds the applicable building height of 22 metres for this location.
Of particular concern is the impact on the property at 24 Bond Street, Mosman. The scale and massing of the proposed building will result in substantial overshadowing of this property, particularly during the winter months. Based on the proposal, it is anticipated that the rear yard and principal private open space of 24 Bond Street will receive no direct sunlight during winter.
Access to direct sunlight is an important component of residential amenity, contributing to the usability of private open space, thermal comfort, and the overall quality of life for residents. The loss of winter solar access represents a significant and unreasonable impact that should not be imposed on neighbouring properties.
The Department should carefully review the applicant's solar access assessment to ensure it accurately reflects the extent and duration of overshadowing. If the assessment confirms the loss of direct winter sunlight to neighbouring properties, this should weigh heavily against approval unless the building's height, setbacks and overall bulk are substantially reduced.
Please note, the shadow diagrams mentioned in the SEARs Request letter (appendix 2) were not attached to the SEARs request letter. We request access to these shadow diagrams, as the residents most impacted by overshadowing.
2. Loss of Privacy
The proposal will also create unacceptable privacy impacts for neighbouring residents.
The upper-level apartments and associated balconies will overlook the rear yard, swimming pool, deck and outdoor living areas of 24 Bond Street, resulting in a significant loss of privacy. These spaces are currently used as private recreational areas, and the proposal will introduce direct and elevated views into them.
While architectural treatments such as privacy screens and landscaping may assist in reducing some overlooking, they are unlikely to adequately mitigate the impacts created by a building of this scale and height. The proposed development should be redesigned to increase setbacks, reduce overlooking opportunities and better protect the reasonable expectation of privacy enjoyed by neighbouring residents.
3. Traffic and Vehicle Access
The proposed vehicle access from Ourimbah Road raises significant traffic concerns.
Ourimbah Road already experiences considerable congestion during weekday peak periods. The proposed basement entry and exit will require vehicles travelling northbound on Ourimbah Road to slow, queue and turn right across opposing traffic to enter the site. This movement has the potential to interrupt traffic flow, create delays and increase the risk of vehicle conflicts, particularly during morning and afternoon peak periods.
Similarly, vehicles exiting the site may experience difficulty entering the traffic stream, leading to queuing within the development and additional congestion on the surrounding road network.
I request that the Department critically review the Traffic Impact Assessment to ensure that:
the traffic modelling reflects existing peak-hour congestion rather than ideal operating conditions;
right-turn movements into the site have been fully assessed from both traffic efficiency and road safety perspectives;
cumulative impacts of existing and approved developments in the locality have been considered; and
any approval is contingent upon appropriate traffic management measures if these impacts cannot be satisfactorily mitigated.
I also request that the Department reviews the peak hour estimation of 19 vehicle trips from the development, provided in the development application. With over 100 residents, many of whom will be taking children to school and travelling daily to work, 19 peak hour vehicle movements seem excessively low.
4. Pedestrian Safety
The proposal also raises significant concerns regarding pedestrian safety on Ourimbah Road.
Ourimbah Road forms part of a well-used pedestrian route for children walking to and from Middle Harbour Public School. During school drop-off and pick-up periods, there is increased pedestrian activity, including young children crossing side streets and using the footpaths along Ourimbah Road.
The proposed increase in vehicle movements associated with a 63-apartment development, particularly vehicles entering and exiting the basement car park, will increase the potential for conflict between vehicles and pedestrians. This is of particular concern where drivers may be focused on finding gaps in traffic or negotiating right-turn movements into the site, reducing their awareness of pedestrians using the footpath.
The Department should ensure that the Traffic Impact Assessment adequately considers pedestrian movements during school peak periods and assesses the cumulative impact of additional vehicle movements on pedestrian safety. Particular attention should be given to:
the interaction between vehicles entering and exiting the site and pedestrians using the footpath;
the safety of school children walking to and from Middle Harbour Public School;
sight distances at the proposed driveway access;
the need for additional pedestrian safety measures, such as improved warning signage, traffic-calming measures or changes to the proposed access arrangement.
In the absence of a robust assessment demonstrating that pedestrian safety will not be adversely affected, the proposal should not be approved in its current form.
Community engagement
The stated community engagement activities in the engagement outcomes report have not been undertaken. As the resident of 24 Bond Street (for 10+ years), the immediate neighbour and most impacted property, we were not provided with a copy of the community flyer, that has apparently been distributed to immediate neighbours. Nor were we made aware of the community drop-in sessions in May. I respectfully request the developer is required to undertake a more thorough and genuine community engagement program, and would appreciate evidence that they undertook a minimum of three genuine attempts to contact us, as is industry best practise for community engagement.
Conclusion
While the provision of additional housing and affordable housing is an important planning objective, these benefits should not come at the expense of unreasonable impacts on neighbouring residents.
The proposed development, in its current form, results in excessive height and bulk exceeding the allowable building height of 22 metres, unacceptable overshadowing of adjoining properties, significant loss of privacy for neighbouring residents, increased traffic impacts, and unresolved pedestrian safety concerns associated with vehicle access from Ourimbah Road.
For these reasons, I respectfully request that the Department refuse the application unless the proposal is substantially redesigned to:
reduce the overall height and bulk of the building;
minimise overshadowing of neighbouring properties, particularly 24 Bond Street, and provide the required shadow modelling in the SSDA exhibition documents.
protect the privacy of adjoining residents through increased setbacks and improved building design;
address the traffic and road safety issues associated with vehicle access to and from Ourimbah Road; and
demonstrate, through a comprehensive and independent assessment, that the proposal will not adversely affect pedestrian safety, particularly for school children walking to and from Middle Harbour Public School.
Most importantly, the developer needs to undertake genuine community engagement and ensure that they are complying with the community consultation requirements of a state significant development application. To date, I do not believe this has occurred.
Thank you for considering this submission.

I write to formally object to the proposed development at 40-56 Ourimbah Road, Mosman.
While I acknowledge the need for additional housing within Sydney, including affordable housing, this proposal raises significant concerns regarding compliance, heritage impacts, neighbourhood character, amenity, traffic safety, and the overall suitability of the development within its surrounding context.
1. Excessive Building Height and Non-Compliance
The proposed development exceeds the maximum permissible building height, even when the affordable housing bonus provisions are taken into account.
The application proposes a height of 31.6 metres, which exceeds the applicable bonus height limit of 28.6 metres. This represents a substantial departure from the planning controls and undermines the purpose of established height limits, which are intended to protect neighbourhood character, amenity, sunlight access, and visual impacts.
Allowing a development that exceeds even the bonus height provisions would set an inappropriate precedent for future development in the area and further erode confidence in the consistency and integrity of the planning framework.
2. Affordable Housing Benefits Are Limited and Inadequate
A key justification for the proposal appears to be the provision of affordable housing. However, the public benefit is questionable for several reasons.
Firstly, affordable housing should be secured in perpetuity, ensuring a lasting social benefit to the community. The proposal appears to provide affordable housing for only 15 years, after which the dwellings may revert to market rates. This temporary arrangement does not justify the extent of planning concessions being sought.
Secondly, there is significant concern that the dwellings will not be genuinely affordable in practical terms. Given the high median rental prices within Mosman and surrounding areas, the proposed housing is unlikely to be accessible to many key workers, lower-income households, or those most in need of affordable accommodation.
It is unreasonable for a development to seek substantial height and density bonuses where the affordable housing outcomes are limited in duration and unlikely to deliver meaningful long-term affordability.
3. Adverse Impact on Heritage Significance
The proposal is located adjacent to the heritage-listed property at 60 Ourimbah Road and opposite a number of heritage homes along Bond Street.
The excessive scale, bulk, height, and visual dominance of the proposed building would compromise the setting and significance of these heritage assets. Heritage conservation extends beyond protecting individual buildings and includes maintaining the character, streetscape, and visual context in which heritage items are experienced.
A development of this magnitude risks overwhelming nearby heritage properties and diminishing the historic character that contributes significantly to Mosman's identity and attractiveness.
4. Overshadowing, Loss of Privacy and Neighbourhood Character
The development is significantly out of scale with the surrounding residential environment, which is predominantly characterised by single-storey and two-storey dwellings.
The proposed building will create substantial impacts including:

Increased overshadowing of neighbouring properties.
Reduced access to natural sunlight for surrounding homes and private open spaces.
Increased overlooking and consequent loss of privacy.
Visual bulk and dominance inconsistent with the existing character of the area.
A substantial reduction in residential amenity for existing residents.
There also appears to be minimal improvements proposed to neighbourhood amenity such as planting additional trees to improve green space and environmental impacts.
The scale of the proposal is incompatible with the established built form and will fundamentally alter the character of the neighbourhood.
5. Construction Noise, Pollution and Community Disruption
The Mosman community is already experiencing significant levels of construction activity. Approval of a project of this scale would result in prolonged construction impacts, including:

Excessive construction noise.
Dust and air pollution.
Heavy vehicle movements.
Vibration impacts.
General disruption to nearby residents and businesses.

Given the size and complexity of the proposal, these impacts would likely continue for an extended period, placing an unreasonable burden on neighbouring residents and further contributing to construction fatigue already being experienced in the area.
6. Traffic Congestion and Pedestrian Safety Concerns
The proposal will generate significant additional traffic in an area that already experiences congestion and high vehicle activity.
Particular concern exists regarding the impact on Bond Street, where increased vehicle movements associated with the development will create additional safety risks for pedestrians.
These concerns are heightened by the presence of a day-care centre located only metres from the site, resulting in regular use of the area by young children, parents with prams, and caregivers. Increased traffic, construction vehicles, delivery vehicles, and resident vehicle movements will exacerbate existing congestion and create unnecessary safety risks.
The scale of the development is likely to overwhelm the capacity of local roads and negatively affect the safety and accessibility of the surrounding area.
Conclusion
For the reasons outlined above, I strongly object to the proposed development at 40-56 Ourimbah Road, Mosman.
The proposal:

Exceeds the maximum permissible height even with affordable housing bonus provisions.
Relies on affordable housing outcomes that are temporary and unlikely to deliver genuine affordability.
Adversely impacts nearby heritage-listed properties and heritage streetscapes.
Is excessively large and out of character with the surrounding neighbourhood.
Does not contribute to the amenity of the neighbourhood by planting additional trees.
Will result in unacceptable overshadowing, privacy loss and reduced residential amenity.
Will generate substantial construction impacts in an area already under significant pressure.
Creates serious traffic and pedestrian safety concerns, particularly given its proximity to a day-care centre.

I respectfully request that the consent authority refuse this application or require substantial modifications to address these significant concerns before any approval is considered.

This proposed development exceeds all allowable heights situated beside a heritage listed property at 60 Ourimbah Rd. Wall heights of 29.42m . Not only will this cause overlooking of surrounding low scale properties but also cause lack of morning sun.
Ourimbah Rd is a busy classified Rd and bus route. The underground car parking for 96 cars will need to access Ourimbah Rd. Traffic flow most of the day is very heavy making access very difficult along Ourimbah Rd.
A building of this bulk and scale does not fit with the local area.

4 August 2026

Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure
Submitted online via the NSW Planning Portal - Major Projects Hub

SUBMISSION - OBJECTION TO STATE SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION
Application Number: SSD-119133490
Residential Flat Building with Infill Affordable Housing, 40-56 Ourimbah Road, Mosman

I am the owner of a property in Rosebery Street, Mosman, a few lots to the south-west of the site (not immediately adjoining it). I OBJECT to SSD-119133490 in its current form.

1. Height significantly exceeds planning controls
The site is in the LMR inner area under Chapter 6 of SEPP (Housing) 2021. The base height limit is 22m, and s175 provides that consent must not be granted for a building up to 22m unless it will have 6 storeys or fewer. With the maximum 30% affordable-housing bonus (for 15%+ affordable housing), the maximum permissible height is 28.6m. The EIS confirms the proposed height is 31.64m - a variation of 3.04m (10.6%) beyond even the bonus-inflated limit - requiring a Clause 4.6 variation request (Appendix 4), plus a second, separate Clause 4.6 variation for non-compliance with the maximum wall height standard (Appendix 5). The built form is part 8-storey (eastern wing) and part 9-storey (western wing) - 2 to 3 storeys beyond the 6-storey benchmark s175 identifies as appropriate for this height and housing type.

Mosman Council itself raised "rooftop and height exceedances" as a concern during consultation; the applicant's documented response was "No change to development - Refer to Clause 4.6 Variation Request." Community consultation feedback also identified building height, scale and visual character as the single most consistently raised issue among neighbours and residents.

NSW case law (Wehbe v Pittwater Council; Initial Action v Woollahra Council; RebelMH Neutral Bay v North Sydney Council) establishes that a consent authority must be actively satisfied that a Clause 4.6 request adequately demonstrates both that compliance with the standard is unreasonable or unnecessary, and that sufficient environmental planning grounds justify the contravention - not merely that the request purports to address these matters. This ground has real precedent: on 20 November 2025 the Sydney North Planning Panel refused DA245/2025 (7 & 9 Selwyn Street, Wollstonecraft, Panel ref PSSNH-710) partly because the applicant's Clause 4.6 height variation request failed this exact test.

2. Overbearing visual impact on the adjoining heritage item
The site adjoins the locally-listed heritage item at 60 Ourimbah Road (Item I200 - Shops and Flats, MLEP 2012), a 2-storey building. The EIS's own Statement of Heritage Impact and Visual Impact Analysis identify Rosebery Street, looking east, as one of the primary public view corridors toward this heritage item, and describe the proposed 8-9 storey building as forming part of its "backdrop." I submit that an additional 6 to 7 storeys of built form directly behind and towering over a small, 2-storey heritage shop building is not a neutral backdrop - it is an overbearing visual imposition that will dominate and diminish the heritage item's prominence and setting, regardless of the increased side setback provided. I request an independent heritage impact review addressing this visual dominance, rather than reliance solely on the applicant's own conclusion that heritage significance will be "retained."

3. Loss of solar access, particularly in winter
The EIS's solar access assessment concedes that the single property immediately adjoining the site to the south will experience "significant overshadowing... for much of the day" during the winter solstice - a substantial admitted impact demonstrating that the height and bulk of this development causes material solar loss at close range. Having reviewed Figure 35 of the EIS ("Shadow diagrams 21st June Winter Solstice - existing surrounding context," Doroch Architects, page 73), which extends to cover the surrounding property lots including my own, I observe that on 21 June the majority of my dwelling remains in shadow until approximately 11am, and my rear yard remains in shadow until approximately 12:30pm - nearly half of the assessed 9am-3pm winter solstice window. The EIS's narrative discussion does not separately quantify solar impacts at my property's distance from the site. I request the consent authority require the applicant to provide a specific, itemised shadow and solar access assessment for properties affected in Rosebery Street confirming or correcting this observation.

4. Unresolved water and sewer infrastructure capacity
The EIS's own Integrated Water Management Plan and Sydney Water Serviceability Option letter reveal: an existing DN225 sewer main dated 1916 traverses the site with no registered easement; the nearest potable water mains are DN100, dated 1895 and 1930, less than half the DN200-250 size the Water Supply Code of Australia requires for a 9-storey building; Sydney Water "may permit" connection to the undersized mains only "subject to confirmation of capacity" through a future Section 73 Application that has not yet been made or approved; and the applicant's preferred sewer deviation option involves approximately 178m of new sewer main along Ourimbah Road, Bond Street and Rosebery Street - meaning direct construction works and disruption on my own street, the extent of which has not been disclosed at exhibition.

This is not a hypothetical concern. On 20 November 2025 the Sydney North Planning Panel refused DA245/2025 (7 & 9 Selwyn Street, Wollstonecraft, ref PSSNH-710) partly because there was insufficient information to confirm a Sydney Water compliance certificate could be obtained without significant basement redesign, and the Panel considered it unreasonable to approve subject to a later condition. I submit the same reasoning applies here, and that this development should not be determined until Sydney Water has formally confirmed adequate capacity and the scope of any Rosebery Street works has been disclosed.

5. Groundwater and construction traffic
The 2-level basement will require approximately 12 months of construction dewatering, followed by permanent, indefinite operational seepage (approximately 1.33ML/year). Groundwater flow is stated to generally follow the site's topography towards the west and north-west; my property lies to the south-west, and the EIS does not indicate whether its conclusion of "localised and minor" settlement impact - based on the applicant's own modelling - extends to properties in that direction. I request an independent review clarifying this, with pre-construction dilapidation reports where warranted.

Separately, construction-phase traffic - haulage routes, truck numbers, spoil removal, and worker parking - is not quantified anywhere in the EIS and is deferred entirely to a Construction Traffic Management Plan to be prepared after approval, leaving affected residents no opportunity to review construction impacts on Rosebery Street before consent is granted. I request this plan be publicly exhibited and specifically assessed for Rosebery Street impacts before determination.

Requested outcome
I request that the consent authority:
- Refuse consent to SSD-119133490 in its current form; or, alternatively,
- Require the building height to be amended to comply with 28.6m (or, preferably, the base 22m/6-storey standard), removing the part 9-storey component;
- Require an independent heritage impact review addressing the visual dominance over the heritage item at 60 Ourimbah Road, as viewed from Rosebery Street;
- Require a specific, itemised shadow and solar access assessment for properties affected in Rosebery Street;
- Require formal confirmation from Sydney Water of adequate infrastructure capacity and full disclosure of any Rosebery Street works, before determination - consistent with the Sydney North Planning Panel's approach in DA245/2025;
- Require independent clarification of which properties the groundwater and settlement modelling covers, with pre-construction dilapidation reports where needed; and
- Require a detailed, publicly exhibited Construction Traffic Management Plan addressing haulage routes, truck numbers and worker parking on Rosebery Street, before determination.

I am generally supportive of well-designed and affordable housing in Mosman, and accept the site is appropriately zoned for medium-density redevelopment. My objection concerns the scale of the height exceedance, which is contested even by Council; its overbearing visual impact on the adjoining heritage item; the consequential loss of my solar access; and infrastructure and traffic matters that should be resolved before, not after, any determination is made.

Thank you for considering this submission.

We are 27year residents of 66 Muston St Mosman. While 40-56 Ourimbah Rd does not directly impact us, we already face the same overdevelopment risk in Muston Street. We therefore object in the strongest possible terms.

Well exceeds the affordable-housing bonus height -
Developer/s have utilised very mechanism available and applied these in unison to compound the height & bulk
- The low and mid-rise SEPP - with increased height & density
- 30% bonus height increase with affordable housing incentive
- The SSD pathway - removing the DA from local council assessment

Solar access
Overhsadowing - due to the proposed height and bulk, surrounding traditional properties are at best overshadowed, at worst lose all meaningful sunlight. Acces to sunlight remains fundamental to health and well being, especially for those remaining single level dwellings to the south, west & east of the proposal.

Privacy
Owners/residents of the proposed development will have unobstructed vision of existing housing, severely removing any sense of privacy. Building set-backs, landscaping etc does not resolve this issue.

Traffic, Transport, Parking
With no Metro or Rail system, Mosman, surrounding suburbs and the greater Northern Beaches, rely almost totally on cars, and bus services. Ourimbah Road, is already subject to heavy morning and night peak traffic.
As NSW Govt has stopped development of the Northern Beaches Tunnel this an all high density development only multiply the congested nature of traffic. There is no NSW plan to address this.

Affordable Housing
Like so many of the other SSD applications, affordable housing is almost an afterthought, with a "poor door" layout too often being applied for those renting the affordable content. In this case only 12 of the 63 apartments are allocated to affordable housing, remaining affordable for a minimum of only 15-years.
The very temporary 15-year public benefit cannot be the flawed basis that justifies a developments additional excess height.


Closing comment
We fully support the need for a diverse range of low-medium-high levels of affordable housing, yet with this and too many other SDD's, the LMR is a calculated add-on to optimise the high end outcome.
With developers already purchasing apartments & houses of a certain age in Mosman, there is already a gross and net loss of low-medium housing.

The Panel should refuse this application as the very broad negative impacts are not offset by the affordable housing content, which is for only 15-years, minimal in scale and segregated.

The proposal should be refused,

Simon and Margaret Bath

I support the project