103 Awaba Street
Mosman NSW 2088
30 March 2026


Dear Sir/Madam
Re: 40-48 Redan Street SSD development
I am writing to you as a long term (over 25 years) resident of Mosman, and I grew up in Neutral Bay. I have therefore witnessed how the two suburbs and adjoining areas have changed over the last 60 years.
Generally home owners in Mosman have followed the DA rules and renovated or built homes within the Mosman Council guidelines. These guidelines were created with the knowledge of the infrastructure and layout of the suburb, and thus there have been restrictions on heights and numbers of homes that can be built on the blocks of land.
My concern with the proposed development is simply that there isn’t the infrastructure (including roads, public transport, hospitals, water, power grids, internet etc) to service a huge increase in housing in this part of Mosman. There is nothing that the State or Federal Governments will do, or plan to do, to address these issues. The Beaches link road option has been taken away, so there aren’t any current solutions in place.
My second concern is with the sheer size of the proposed properties, both up close as well as the view from the water up Balmoral slopes. If this development is approved then the precedent will be relied upon for many more developments, which will just exacerbate the current issues as a result of the lack of infrastructure.
My third concern is the “affordable housing” card that is being played. There will never be affordable housing in Mosman, so this should not be used as a means for additional levels of apartments.
This development in its current form, with its current bulk and height, should not be approved given the issues above.
Yours sincerely

Catherine Keddie

I do not believe the project meets community standards

The proposed submission is completely out of keeping with the surrounding area and streetscape. I walk along the road most days in the early morning and the nature of the housing in the road with houses of individual character or apartment blocks set back from the road and without any kind of visual dominance owing to their low street profile makes it an interesting and character filled road. The proposed development will detract from the area and though it will contribute to the housing availability in the state the proposed nature of the apartments mean that this does not represent a genuine attempt to address housing shortages as the price point will ensure that the majority of the apartments will only be accessible to a wealthy few. One of the beauties of Balmoral slopes is the mix of housing - and the proposed new block will completely dominate the skyline when viewed from the sea or the beach. If you look at the apartment blocks along Military Road that were built in the 1960s you can see the ugly impact that a high rise building can have on the skyline when viewed from off shore or the beach.

Proposed development at 40 – 48 Redan St Mosman SSD-93020230

I object to this proposal and feel very strongly that SSP and LMR housing policies as they are being used in our area have been completely hijacked by developers who have paid scant regard to the intentions of the policies.
There appears to be little alignment with the original intentions of the policies whose aim is to increase affordable, in-fill housing. Where is that in this case??
This development goes to the borders of the proposed build zones (and often beyond), include absolute minimum amount of affordable housing and use that to claim extra height and push all boundaries of building dimensions to the heartbreak of local residents and the detriment of surrounding housing and with no planning for increased local infrastructure to handle the impact. It would also detract from the visual impact and attractive heritage character and charm of Balmoral slopes which has attracted residents and visitors alike for well over 100 years. It’s a precious point of difference to those who reside here.
There are 106 car parking spaces proposed in this development which is down a fairly steep hill from main (so-called) traffic hubs. Very few, if any new residents are going o use public transport from this locality. It can only increase pressure on local roads.
I believe this proposal borders on fraudulent in the way it corrupts the intentions of these policies and will do little to address the real need for increased accommodation for essential workers in our area.
I am so disappointed with what these policies appear to be delivering – they sound so reasonable on paper with the 6 and 4 storey graduations to lower density. However, the development proposed here bears NO resemblance to the LMR policy, instead the use of these policies has been perverted by those with other priorities and interests, who should surely be using more appropriate channels.
Development and infill on our ridgetop public transport corridor makes sense. This proposal does not comply!!

Geoff Burgess
3/15 Warringah Rd
Mosman NSW 2088

The road infrastructure in Mosman is already at breaking point and there is nothing being done to improve infrastructure in line with increasing the population.
Mosman is a thoroughfare for the entire Northern Beaches and therefore affected not only by developments in Mosman but also every development in the Northern Beaches, every local street is a ‘Rat Run’
Public Transport options are limited to busses and are currently over capacity, to say Mosman has sufficient transport options is absolutely absurd!
The bulk and scale of this development is excessive and completely out of character with neighbouring properties, I do agree that more housing is needed but not without a significant upgrade to infrastructure and some sensible planning options for the location of redevelopment.

This proposal exposes a fundamental flaw in the current planning framework. A policy intended to increase housing affordability is being used to justify a large-scale luxury development in one of Sydney’s most expensive suburbs, with only a minimal and temporary affordable housing component.

The scale of the proposal is excessive. A 10-storey building is plainly out of character with the surrounding low-rise residential area and represents a significant departure from established planning controls.

Approving a development of this nature risks undermining confidence in the planning system. If affordable housing provisions can be used to enable substantial increases in height and density without delivering meaningful long-term affordability, the policy itself is brought into disrepute.

This is not an appropriate planning outcome and should be refused.

I am a nearby resident and wish to object to the proposed development at 40–48 Redan Street.

Although my property is not directly adjoining the site, I am concerned about the cumulative impacts this development will have on the surrounding area.

The proposed building is significantly taller and denser than the prevailing built form in the locality. This introduces a level of intensity that is inconsistent with the character of Mosman and represents a clear overdevelopment of the site.

There are also broader impacts to consider, including increased pressure on local infrastructure, traffic congestion, and reduced amenity for surrounding properties.

The scale of the development does not appear proportionate to the limited affordable housing outcome being delivered, particularly given that any affordability provisions are temporary in nature.

In my view, this proposal fails to strike an appropriate balance between development and community impact and should not proceed in its current form.

Please see my attachment

I object to the proposed development.

There is a level of audacity to this proposal that is difficult to ignore. A development of this scale, backed by significant private wealth by one of Australia’s richest men, seeks to rely on affordable housing provisions to justify a 10-storey building in a low-rise area. This raises a fundamental question: how has a policy intended to support housing affordability been applied in a way that enables a high-end project of this nature?

The proposal is not marginally non-compliant, it substantially exceeds both local controls and the intended limits of the Housing SEPP. The resulting building form is excessive, visually dominant, and incompatible with the surrounding environment.

The proposal is deficient in its Environmental Impact Statement, including a failure to properly assess significant impacts such as catastrophic view loss, overshadowing and privacy. These are not minor omissions, they go to the core of whether the project can be properly evaluated.

At a broader level, approving a development of this kind risks signalling that planning controls can be stretched or bypassed where sufficient financial backing exists.

That is not a precedent that should be set.