I am writing to strongly object to this proposal for the following reasons:
1. The 10 storey proposal is way out of proportion to the surrounding houses and streetscape. This is clearly way out of scale to the surrounding low rise structures and will overwhelm and dominate the area.
2. Concerns around the excavation that will be required by the development of 10 metres into sandstone. As has been seen in many other inner city development projects, this can cause ground movement, vibrations and damage to surrounding properties.
3. This development does not fit with the surrounding heritage homes – and will erode the community village aspect of the neighbourhood particularly the adjoining properties.
4. There will be a huge impact on traffic – especially along the narrow 4 metre wide Redan Lane. This lane has NO footpaths – is clearly very unsuitable for large vehicles which will be needed to service the proposed development – from construction phase through to normal rubbish collections, emergency vehicles (eg fire engines), and large vehicles which may need access to the development and the adjoining properties.
5. Infrastructure in the area is currently not meeting residents’ needs. Transport is overwhelmed; parking in the area is appalling now. Not to mention public and private schools which are at capacity in the district and adjoining districts.
6. A development of this proportion would create a precedent for further similar large-scale developments – with no careful review and consideration of an overall “town” plan to ensure that the integrity of the village feel and ambience of the suburb is considered.
7. So called affordable housing design and access concerns – including separate laneway access can hardly support affordable housing ideals given the location, and views that will be available in the development.
8. I understand that there has been limited exhibition and consultation undertaken for this development including any community consultation sessions and whether the development does indeed comply with the 400 metre “safe walking distance” under the LMR zoning.

The proposal is a complete disregard to the heritage listing of redan street. The style, height and appearance of the new building proposal (aside from destroying 5 beautiful houses) doesn’t take into consideration the surroundings and try and fit into the heritage of the area.
These new apartments will cause significant increase in road traffic in an area and suburb which already lacks public transport and has traffic issues. The risk to pedestrians and children walking around will increase immensely.
The “affordable” apartments are only required to be affordable for 15 years, after which they can be sold at any price. This doesn’t alogn with the proposals “advertising” that it’s to help a housing crisis. Also, nowhere do they explicitly say what “affordable” means. Is it affordable to the general population (I.e 200,000) or affordable to an already higher social economic bracket?
This monstrosity is a hideous attempt at rich developers attempt to swindle a way to make lots of money as a “good deed” in helping the housing crisis. Bollocks!

As a resident in Mosman for over 13 years, I am concerned about the continued development bring proposed in my suburb and neighourhood due to the adverse impact it is having on my daily life. Development projects such as 40-48 Redan St are changing the nature of Mosman. This particular one will demolish 5 beautiful federation homes in order to make way for a 10-story high rise (plus 2 more levels under) and over 50 units and over 100 cars
This development will further put stress on the already insufficient parking in the area as well as increase the traffic flow on Rangers Avenue, The Avenue and Raglan Street.
In addition, I do not believe that the State Government's objective to provide affordable housing will be realised by this development. Who can afford to buy a new property in Mosman that would be "affordable". It's a joke.
Sincerely,

Marshall White
80 Holt Avenue Mosman 2088

Dear Ms Ross.
I am the owner of my home in Wolseley road Mosman and have been a resident at that address for more than 20 years.

Redan street becomes Wolseley road as it traverses the Balmoral slopes, the proposed building will be visible from the living and recreational areas of my home.

However, I am more concerned about the size and scale impact of other residents and non-residents, the building will stand out like a monument for stupidity and greed, visible from boats and ferries on the harbour, those using Balmoral beach, there are water views down the slope to the harbour from so many public areas, like Mosman shopping strip, cafes and restaurants, parks and so many of the streets in Mosman. It will be a once in a lifetime mistake to build a building that size in that location.

To make the matter worse, and the proposed building standout even more it’s across the road from a scenic protection area. One side of Redan, all the properties are similar in height, shrouded in mature trees which presents beautifully from the harbour, beach or public areas further up the Balmoral slope. Across the road the proposed 10 storey building!

Thank you for reading my concerns.

Beyond ridiculous the whole process does not bear thinking about. Should not even be considered, and must be stopped.

Please see attached comments

Mosman is defined by its village scale, its heritage homes, its sandstone streetscapes, and its relationship to the harbour and Balmoral Beach.

Once a 12-storey tower stands on Redan Street, the street cannot be unbuilt. I agree that housing is needed in Sydney, including genuine long term affordable housing . It is whether this scale of development, in this location, achieved through this process, is the right answer.

There is a broader principle here that goes well beyond Mosman. The NSW Government's SSD pathway was designed to accelerate housing supply. It was not designed to allow developers to stack five separate planning concessions, misrepresent site topography, bypass local councils, and destroy protected foreshore views - all while offering 11 temporarily affordable apartments as justification. Just because land can be developed does not mean it must be. The generous uplifts available under State policy are exactly that: generous. This proposal takes them and then demands more. That is the misuse that I am objecting to.

My observations of a large proportion of developers most recently is that they are interested in one thing, profit per square metre of land. They want to build as many apartments as they can, particularly high end, high value apartments. They have no genuine interest or belief in affordable housing except for the concessions that this gives them to build more high end apartments. They also have no interest at all in what impact their developments have in a community and no real interest in long term affordable housing solutions.
In closing I might also note that the NSW Government also seems to have no interest in acquiring the thousands of acres of land currently used for golf courses (used by a tiny minority of people), race courses (again used by a tiny minority of people), or cemeteries (only used by deceased people) to convert these spaces to housing.
Thank you.

Refer attached letter.