Edwina Ross
Senior Planning Officer
Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure

Dear Ms Ross

Objection to DA SSD-93020230 at 40-48 Redan Street, Mosman

I write to oppose the development proposed at 40-48 Redan Street, Mosman.

I am the owner of Unit 1, 58 Upper Almora Street, Mosman. This is part of the building that also has a 79A Muston Street address.

My objections are as follows:

1. Outright Rejection – Not Modification

I am a long time resident of Mosman and have spent more than 30 years living in the suburb.

I submit that the application should be rejected outright and not just modified in some way due to the unsuitable nature of the proposed development.

The sheer size and scale of a 10-storey building with 53 apartments on Redan Street is absurd and the developer appears to not take into account the existing landscape, the geography of the local streets and the ongoing impact on livelihood and general community welfare this development will have in the future.

2. Character and heritage of Mosman

This development will ruin the visual look and character of Mosman’s famous landscape forever.

The viewpoint from my apartment building (corner of Almora Street and Muston Street) will be completely obstructed and the development will be an eyesore for the wider neighbourhood, particularly along Muston Street, Almora Street and Redan Lane.

I note the proposal for the Scenic Protection Zone to be moved. Mosman is one of the most iconic neighbourhoods in Sydney and this zone has been identified for a reason. There does not appear to be a good reason for this zone to be moved just for one development after being in place for so many years.

3. Safety impact on Mosman

A development like this will have long lasting impacts on Mosman’s safety. The construction
phase will see an increase in traffic with construction trucks, cars, workers, materials and equipment all bringing bring more pressure to the surrounding streets – particularly Almora Street and Muston Street which I reside on.
A proposed 106 car space car park will further exacerbate an already under pressure suburb. What are the measures that will be put in place to manage traffic flow, pedestrian safety and the general ability to get around the neighbourhood freely.

4. Valuation Loss

In Australia, the ‘Rule of Law’ protects citizens from being deprived of their assets. If someone takes my bag, for example, I (we all) expect the police and the judicial system to do something to recover it, give it back to me and to prosecute the person who took it.

I see no reason why this principle, this underpinning of private ownership, should not apply to my property. If someone damages it and thereby reduces its value, I expect the authorities to help me recover that value and pursue the person who caused that damage.
In this case, I have been advised that the construction of this building will reduce the value of my property.

Not only do I lose this amount but the developer will accrue this $$ benefit for itself.
Accordingly, I see no reason why they should not be required to compensate me for that loss in value.

To my mind it is unconscionable that someone can expropriate an asset of mine and appropriate it for themselves and not pay compensation. Consequentially, I demand compensation.


Yours sincerely.

I think this project is over height for the street it is in.
The bulk of the project does not fit with the surrounding residential area. It is way over sized.
The increased traffic in the local streets will make it almost impossible to drive around the suburb. The traffic on Military road during peak hour and on the weekends is almost at a standstill already without the increase of up to 106 extra cars on the road.
The loss of view for the surrounding houses because of the height.
Overshadowing of the neighbours property with reduced sun and natural light.
The removal of some old trees and the reduction of green space with the oversize of the development will ruin the look of the surrounding area and increase the urban heat .
The affordable housing option is only for 15 years then the developer can sell the units on the open market.
I object also to the fact that the affordable units have a seperate entrance to the other units in the building which is insulting to the affordable housing tenant.

I am writing to express my strongest possible objection to this application and the manner in which it is being managed. This entire process appears rigged and designed to enrich particular billionaires. This is all my personal opinion - but any normal person will come to the same conclusion.

I worked at the Commonwealth Treasury for nearly a decade; I can say without hesitation that this proposal represents a clear and blatant case of regulatory arbitrage. A billionaire is funding a “affordable” housing solely to secure massive height and floor-space-ratio bonuses for what is a luxury residential development designed for foreign investment.

In my opinion, approving this would be complicit in corruption and also selling out Australia. It is cheap, disgusting, profiteering that laughs in the face of the intent to create affordable housing for Australians. It is deeply concerning and constitutes a serious indictment on the government’s willingness to permit such an outcome.

It is my understanding, that James Packer has funded this development through NPACT and stands to make tens, if not hundreds, of millions of dollars from this regulatory arbitrage opportunity. There is nothing genuinely affordable about the project. It is designed for foreign investors to park capital in Australia, while delivering substantial profits to the developer. It creates no meaningful affordable housing and will permanently damage the local community.

If approved, this development would set a dangerous precedent with far-reaching long-term ramifications. It is a litmus test for the integrity of planning policy across the entire nation. Approving it would signal a systemic failure that risks seriously damaging Australia’s housing and urban character standards for generations to come, opening the floodgates to similar exploitative projects everywhere.

It will speak loudly to what Chris Minns, and anyone involved in this pathetic profiteering exercise, will be remembered for. The only silver lining to this will be is that is will be abunantly clear to what lengths people will go to make a buck and how little they value the society they live within.

This proposal is the epitome of low-talent development that enriches billionaires at the expense of everyone else. It is the antithesis of Australian values, and there is no legitimate community support for it. I am so disappointed that I have had to write such a pointed submission. Australians need to stand together - we don't need to destroy every suburb and everything thing for foreign investment.

If you absolute bottom feeding stingrays thing somehow the billionaire apartments are affordable, I look forward to highlighting your corruption.

Submission to the NSW Department of Planning Regarding the Proposed Development at 40–48 Redan Street, Mosman
To whom it may concern,
I am writing to formally object to the proposed 12‑storey development at 40–48 Redan Street, Mosman, on behalf of my parents, long‑term Mosman residents who live at 75A Muston Street. This proposal will have severe and irreversible consequences for their home, their wellbeing, and the broader Mosman community. The development, as currently designed, appears to disregard established planning controls, community character, and the legitimate expectations of existing residents.
1. Extreme and Unprecedented Height Breach
The proposed building height of approximately 35 metres is around four times higher than the current planning controls allow for this area. Mosman has never permitted a structure of this scale in this location. Approving such a height would set a dangerous precedent and fundamentally alter the character of the suburb.
2. Loss of Sunlight, Privacy, and Amenity for Surrounding Residents
For my parents at 75A Muston Street, the impact is devastating:
• The building will completely block their sunlight, leaving their home in permanent shadow.
• Their long‑established views will be entirely obstructed.
• The loss of natural light and amenity will significantly diminish their quality of life and mental wellbeing.
These are not minor inconveniences; they are life‑altering impacts on elderly residents who have invested their entire lives into their home.
3. Severe Financial Consequences
The overshadowing and loss of outlook will dramatically devalue their property, likely making it unsellable or forcing a sale at a fraction of its current worth. This is not speculative — it is a direct and predictable consequence of placing a 12‑storey tower immediately adjacent to low‑rise residential homes.
My parents, like many in Mosman, have worked their entire lives to secure their home. This development threatens to financially cripple them through no fault of their own.
4. Destruction of Heritage Homes
The proposal involves the demolition of five heritage homes, something that has never been permitted in Mosman under previous planning frameworks. These homes contribute to the suburb’s historical character and cultural identity. Their removal contradicts long‑standing heritage protections and community expectations.
5. Inadequate Infrastructure and Traffic Capacity
Mosman’s infrastructure is already under significant strain:
• Military Road is frequently gridlocked.
• Local streets cannot absorb additional traffic from 53 new apartments.
• Public transport capacity is limited.
• Essential services (schools, medical facilities, utilities) are already stretched.
This development will worsen congestion to the point where residents may struggle to access their own suburb.
6. Insufficient Parking Provision
The proposal does not provide adequate parking for the number of apartments. Overflow parking will inevitably spill into surrounding streets, which are already heavily congested. This will create safety issues, reduce accessibility, and further degrade local amenities.
7. Misrepresentation of “Affordable Housing”
The development has been framed as including “affordable housing,” yet the design and scale clearly indicate luxury apartments, not genuine low‑income housing. This appears to be misuse of the affordable housing pathway to bypass local planning controls.
8. Bypassing of Mosman Council and Local Planning Controls
Mosman Council — the body most familiar with the area’s needs, constraints, and character — has been entirely excluded from the decision‑making process. This undermines local democracy and disregards the community’s right to shape its own environment.
The development is also outside the 400‑metre radius typically required for higher‑density rezonings, making the justification for this scale of development even weaker.
9. Community Character and Livability Ignored
Mosman is a community built around low‑rise housing, heritage streetscapes, and a village‑like environment. This proposal is completely inconsistent with the way residents live, move, and interact within the suburb. It introduces density and scale that the area is neither designed for nor capable of supporting.
Conclusion
This development is incompatible with Mosman’s planning framework, its infrastructure capacity, its heritage values, and its community character. Most importantly, it will cause severe personal, financial, and emotional harm to long‑standing residents like my parents, whose home will be overshadowed, devalued, and effectively destroyed in terms of amenity.
I strongly urge the NSW Department of Planning to reject this proposal or require substantial redesign to align with existing planning controls, protect heritage, and safeguard the wellbeing of current residents.
Thank you for considering this submission.

Sincerely,
Anne O’Connor
On behalf of the residents of 75A Muston Street, Mosman