This proposal at 40-48 Redan St is totally unsuitable for the site and will e a dangerous precedent for the area. The developers have used every loophole available in the new regulations. They are stacking 5 planning concessions to end up with an enormous unit building comprising an ugly 12 storey tower, which is 4 times the permitted height in Mosman (8.5 metres is the permitted housing height currently on Redan st).
-Redan st is a designated heritage st. This development will overshadow the heritage buildings remaining.
-The site falls within a Scenic Protection Area. Development within a Scenic Protection Area must not compromise the scenic values the designation exists to protect. A 12-storey tower rising above the Balmoral slopes will be visible from Balmoral Beach, from the harbour foreshore, and from surrounding streets. The development, as proposed, would be unlawful under the scenic protection provisions if it materially damages those views - and the developer's own Visual Impact Assessment confirms it does.
- Is this really affordable housing? The penthouses are likely to sell for $20 million ….there are only 11 affordable units on offer with this development proposal and the developers have not given any info on how much the ‘affordable’ units will sell for.
I am of the opinion that this proposed development will do very little if anything to help increase housing supply in Sydney but will probably just line the pockets of the developers and set a very dangerous precedent if approved for more ugly towers to be built on Mosman’s heritage streets.
I strongly object to this proposal.

Submitting objection to the project

I strongly object to the proposed SSD at 40-48 Redan Street, Mosman, based on the following:
1. Excessive bulk and height.
The proposed development is using LMR housing provisions and the in fill affordable housing provisions to build a development with excessive bulk and scale in an area with a surrounding low rise streetscape.
2. Negative impact on surrounding heritage houses.
The architectural design of the proposed development will have a significant impact on surrounding heritage listed properties, in particular number 36 and number 38 Redan Street.
3. Lack of existing infrastructure.
I am very concerned that the existing infrastructure will not be able to cope with this and other proposed SSDs in the area.
4. Conflict with the Scenic Protection Zone.
The size of this development will have a significant visual impact from Sydney and Middle Harbours.
5. The intent of the SSD policy is not met.
The affordable housing policy is facilitating the development of luxury apartments on a site clearly chosen for the views. This development is not about providing long term affordable housing, it's about lining the pockets of developers. I am again appalled that the 'affordable' housing will have separate access. We cannot condone this sort of social segregation in Australia, where integration is key.
I ask that the Department of Planning takes into account my concerns and denies this application.

Sincerely,
Mary Biggs

My understanding is that the technical definition of the walking distance refers to the use of a SAFE pedestrian footpath and must be used for the calculation. The DA’s calculation uses Redan Lane as a starting point. Redan Lane does not have actually a footpath. Continuing along the route used by the developer is Melaleuca Lane where the footpath is far too narrow and is unquestionably dangerous for pedestrians. Nor does an alternative, Ritchie Lane have a continuous footpath. A safe alternative would be to start at 48/50 Redan STREET, left at Almora Street, right at Military Road, continue past FRONT of Country Road up to Mandolong Road. Right onto Mandolong Road then left into Melaleuca Street to end up at rear of Country Road This distance would far exceed 400 metres.
Photos attached in order.
Redan Lane
Melaleuca Lane
Melaleuca Lane
Melaleuca Lane
Ritchie Lane