I object to the project at 40-48 Redan Street Mosman. the grounds for objection are :
1. Redan Street and nearby streets are characterised by low rise housing. Placing a 10 storey building in this environment is totally out of character with the surrounding area . It directly iipacts heritage listed properties at 36 and 38 Redan Street.
2. Although there are "affordable"houses , the fundamental reason for the building is to provide expensive luxury apartments.
3. This proposal clashes with the defined scenic protection area. Scenic Protection area limits visual intrusion and protects housing landscape.
4. The proposal requires significant use of Redan Lane in construction and operational mode. Redan lane was built to allow men to manually carry buckets of night soil. It is dangerous and likely illegal to use Redan Lane as a road. There is no footpath , no street markings , no gutters and a number of blind spots. It is not suitable for cars , trucks , today's garbage trucks.
5. The proposal exceeds height controls. There is no no Clause 4.6 variation.
6.Infrastructure in Mosman does not support this increase in population .

THis submission should be rejected.

Ross Webb

The bulk and scale of this development is excessive and will unduly dominate the surrounding properties. The scale of the development will add significant traffic to the area which is already congested. NSW Planning needs to consider aesthetic, transport and traffic implications before allowing a development of this size.

This size development is truely not appropriate for the location, it should be moved closer to Military Road it should not be between beautiful homes and no other likewise building in close proximity.

This development if passed will ruin the character of Mosman. The heritage nature of Redan Street will be destroyed. The bulk of the development will take away views and create a monster in the garden. The already busy back Redan Lane will be inadequate for multiplied traffic and services let alone excavation implications of the already flooding gullies when we have heavy rain. The affordable housing section of the development allows few apartments for people with no families. It becomes non affordable like the rest of the development in 15 years. This is a development built purely for the profit of the developer. The alternative plan to help affordable housing at Bridgepoint is much preferable with no interrupted views as it is on the ridge, near transport and shops, allowing many more appropriate living areas and would replace already high rise buildings which are shoddy and in need of update.

As a former resident and rate payer of Mosman (and soon to be returning), I am writing to object to the size and scale of the Redan Street Mosman development proposal for the following reasons:
1. With just 11 of the 53 apartments in the proposed development being allocated as affordable housing, this is clearly a luxury development masquerading as in -fill affordable housing in order to get around building and planning controls of Mosman Council. Those 11 apartments are also being built with a separate access creating a "poor door" approach to affordable housing.
2. A 10 storey block of apartments represents a substantial increase in height and scale of a traditionally low-rise streetscape that has historical and heritage significance. The design of the building as published on various social media sites and news forums is excessively bulky and does not blend into the natural environment, thereby being in contravention of the Scenic Protection area.
3. The extensive excavation required to create a multi-level, 106 car garage underground, will no doubt de-stablise the foundations of the land on which the apartment is being built as well as the foundations of neighbouring properties, especially given the increasing number of adverse weather events we are experiencing.
4. The size of this block - 53 apartments and 106 car spaces - is going to place enormous strain on Mosman's aging infrastructure and cause traffic chaos getting in and out of Mosman as well as in around the Mosman shopping area, Balmoral Slopes and Balmoral's beautiful harbour-front beach. The suburb of Mosman is already choked with traffic.
5. The people in the homes surrounding the proposed development, and particularly those situated behind 40-48 Redan Street, will have their views completely blocked and hence seriously devaluing their properties causing them economic harm and financial distress.
As a result of the above considerations, I strongly object to this development.
Yours sincerely
Lesley Wilson

I object to the proposed development for the following reasons:
• Excessive height and bulk
The proposal is for a 10-storey building, which is clearly out of scale with the surrounding low rise context.
• Overdevelopment and structural risk
The development requires excavation of up to 10 metres into sandstone, extending to site boundaries. This creates real risks of ground movement, vibration and damage to neighbouring properties. The site is being engineered to accommodate the building, rather than the building responding to the site.
• Heritage impacts
The site adjoins heritage listed properties at 36 and 38 Redan Street. The proposal would overwhelm these heritage items, disrupt their visual setting and erode the existing character of Redan Street.
• Scenic Protection Area conflict
The site is affected by a Scenic Protection Area, where planning objectives include limiting visual intrusion and protecting landscape character. A 10-storey building is difficult to reconcile with those objectives.
• Traffic and access concerns
Safety concerns arise from the use of Redan Lane, which is only a little over 4 metres wide, has no footpaths, and is not designed for increased service and waste vehicle activity. The introduction of larger vehicles into such a constrained space raises clear safety and access issues.
• Lack of supporting infrastructure
There are growing concerns that infrastructure is not keeping pace with the scale of development being proposed. Mosman currently operates with a single fire station and limited emergency services capacity. A significant increase in population, combined with the introduction of 10-storey buildings, raises practical questions about emergency response, access for large fire vehicles, and overall service capacity in narrow residential streets.
• Non compliance and misleading claims
The proposal exceeds height controls and requires a Clause 4.6 variation, yet is described as “compliant”. A development that breaches fundamental controls should not be presented as compliant.
• Affordable housing design and “poor door” access concerns
The proposal includes 11 affordable housing units with separate access from the laneway, which raises concerns about a “poor door” style arrangement and whether the design supports inclusive housing.

I am strongly objecting to the proposed development at 40 to 48 Redan St. Mosman!
This is not affordable Housing, Balmoral slopes is only for the rich. I & my family have lived in Mosman for many years in a residential area or Military Rd. We would love to live on Balmoral slopes but could not afford that area. this is only making money for rich Developers & makes mockery of the LMR!
10 storey high on the slopes will be totally out of character with this beautiful historic area, please don't be the Government that will be responsible for destroying one of the most beautiful areas of Sydney it will not be a good legacy by any means.
This would be the same as building a high rise glass clad building in the centre of Rome and justifying it by calling it "affordable housing" ........ would the custodians of the culture of Rome allow such a thing ......WHY would we do it to the character of Mosman ??
Yours faithfully.
Brian & Ashlear Britt

The project is objectionable on a number of grounds. It is an excessive development that is inconsistent with the nature and character of the area, it is inconsistent with planning laws, it relies upon exemptions from planning laws (which should not be granted), will if allowed fundamentally alter the nature and character of the local area and thereafter be used as a precedent for further substantial development and overdevelopment, does not provide accomodation at a price point that will materially alter access to housing which is not otherwise available (a number of apartments in mosman remain unsold or with long on the market times including apartments cheaper than those which will be available here), should be restricted in height, seeks to devastate views or causes devastation al impact on views and amenity of a number of surrounding properties. This is a cynical attempt by a developer and associates to utilise recent LMR changes to seek development approval for a non complying development for private gain at the expense of the community. It is fundamentally objected to by the vast majority of local people, including an overwhelming silent majority who do not believe their voice will be heard.

The proposed development is completely inappropriate for the location. It raises the following concerns, among any number of others. Sense must prevail here, and the proposed development must be rejected.
• Excessive height and bulk
Out of scale with the surrounding low rise context.
• Overdevelopment and structural risk
Risks of ground movement, vibration and damage to neighbouring properties.
• Heritage impacts
The site adjoins heritage listed properties at 36 and 38 Redan Street. The proposal would overwhelm these heritage items and erode the existing character of Redan Street.
• Scenic Protection Area conflict
The site is affected by a Scenic Protection Area, where planning objectives include limiting visual intrusion and protecting landscape character. A 10-storey building is difficult to reconcile with those objectives.
• Traffic and access concerns
Safety concerns arise from the use of Redan Lane, which is not designed for increased service and waste vehicle activity. The introduction of larger vehicles into such a constrained space raises clear safety and access issues.
• Lack of supporting infrastructure
Infrastructure is not keeping pace with the scale of development being proposed. A significant increase in population, combined with the introduction of 10-storey buildings, raises practical questions about emergency response, access for large fire vehicles, and overall service capacity in narrow residential streets.
• Non compliance and misleading claims
The proposal exceeds height controls and requires a Clause 4.6 variation, yet is described as “compliant”. A development that breaches fundamental controls should not be presented as compliant.
• Affordable housing design and “poor door” access concerns
The proposal includes 11 affordable housing units with separate access from the laneway, which raises concerns about a “poor door” style arrangement and whether the design supports inclusive housing.

I object to this development because the size and mass totally dominates the surrounding area and would change forever the character of the area. The additional traffic can not be accomodated and the impact on surrounding heritage properties would be devastating.
I also object to the pointless impact studies undertaken by Urbis. State Significant Developments should require proper impact studies by independent and licenced providers. This submission contains totally biased analysis. Urbis should be excluded by the Government from participating in any assessment studies. Urbis provide photomotages of the existing setting, the impact of this development and then a third view of what is possible under the LMR policy. The implication is the visual impact is minimal if you assume all of the developments take place. Yet this also confirms the total destruction of the character of the area that the LMR policy will cause. You can not assess the impact against some future environment. If you do assess against this future, then you should also assess this proposal against the future traffic, construction, heritage and infrustructure consequences of all of these developments. Either way, you can only come to the conclusion that these developments are not consistent with either the character or capacity of the surrounding area. Neither do these developments meet the objective of the LMR policy (being affordable housing) as the majority of these apartments are multi-million dollar apartments. The only beneficiaries are the developers and their associated consultants like Urbis.