I object to the proposed development because it
1) Is not in the public interest EP&A Act Sec 4.15(1)(e),
2) Misinterprets legal foundations,
3) Is non-compliant with ALL Mosman Council LEP guidelines
4) Massively misleads the Planning Panel via a false location statement (it is not on a ridgeline), mis-characterised zoning, incomplete and inaccurate visuals (never show impact on Balmoral skyline from foreshore, also shows buildings that DO NOT EXIST)
5) Attempts to use SSD for developer uplift despite not satisfying SSD Planning Guidelines.
5) Would destroy a HERITAGE STREET for perpetuity. Some things need protecting! Keep it Low/Medium Density.

I am deeply concerned about this proposed development. An above ground 10 storey development is grossly out of scale with the surrounding area, it is not on a transport corridor, it has been disguised as offering "affordable housing", (11 units for temporary rental, via a separate "poor door" entry, which is discriminatory). This is not the answer to increase housing supply across Sydney. It will not. The developers are buying up prime sites to maximise their profits. In this instance, the actual purpose is to build 42 luxury high-end units, potentially at sale prices of $15-20 million, for which there is NO need! Height proposed is 35m above street level, current planning rules currently permit 8.5m. 5 Federation homes will be destroyed, forever desecrating part of the essential history of the Mosman municipality. Redan Street is a designated Heritage Road. There will be severe to devastating visual impacts to neighbours, there are cumulative privacy issues and to the views in general in this area - does this proposal comply with height within the ridge line? I believe: No. The plans indicate the development is sited mid-slope, which substantially worsens the visual dominance impact. The site is located within a Scenic Protection Area., so must not compromise the scenic values intended to be protected, so the proposal is unlawful. The development specifically breaches many if not all planning provisions.
The "community consultation" process was both deceptive and inadequate, with insufficient notification. Parking and access appear to be inadequate. Massive and deep excavation into sandstone has major implications, including structural damage to adjacent homes during construction to drainage and stormwater.
The developer claims that this will deliver a net benefit but has not included the impact on the property values of surrounding properties. Loss of their views will reduce the value of these properties by millions of dollars. Is this fair and reasonable?
As the State Government knows, Council is currently completing a housing Masterplan for the Municipality Mosman, with the aim of achieving the Government's objectives, and I urge you to await receipt of this plan, before making you final assessment and decision.

Submission Against Planning Development at 40-48 Redan Street, Mosman

To Whom It May Concern,
I am writing to formally object to the proposed development at 40-48 Redan Street, Mosman. As a local neighbour situation just 2 streets away that uses Redan St often, my concerns are as follows:
1. Misclassification of Development Type
The Low and Mid-Rise Housing Policy is designed for "missing middle" housing, with mid-rise defined as 2-6 storeys. A proposal for a 12-storey building does not meet this classification and exceeds accepted planning standards.
2. Excessive Height and Variations
The proposal stacks various state incentives, including a height uplift of 30% and a Clause 4.6 variation. This indicates that the project already exceeds the most generous parameters of the planning framework, which raises serious concerns about its appropriateness, especially in a quiet residential street.
3. Inadequate Justification for Variations
According to the Land and Environment Court, Clause 4.6 variations require strong site-specific environmental planning grounds. The current proposal fails to meet these standards and relies on general public benefit arguments that are insufficient.
4. Visual and Environmental Impact
The building's design presents as a continuous facade along Redan Street, with minimal articulation. The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) acknowledges that impacts on neighbouring properties range from "severe to devastating," yet concludes these impacts are acceptable. This contradiction undermines the planning justification.
5. Excavation and Height Concerns
The proposed deep excavation into sandstone to create two basement levels removes the natural ground plane, leading to a building height of approximately 35 metres above street level. The EIS does not adequately address the implications of this artificial platform.
6. Overlooking Issues
The multiple levels of balconies and habitable rooms facing east create significant overlooking into the private spaces and bedrooms of neighbouring properties. The EIS fails to consider the cumulative impacts and specific site conditions, as the site is at a mid-slope rather than a ridge line.
7. Traffic and Parking Concerns
The provision of 106 car spaces for 53 apartments, including luxury units, is inadequate. This will lead to overflow parking on Redan Street, which is already under strain from previous developments. The anticipated construction phase will effectively close Redan Street to residents for an extended period, causing significant disruption. The traffic flow along Redan st will come to a standstill - with its lack of pedestrian footpaths, it will create significant safety issues for such an expanded number of residents.
8. Segregation of Residents
The proposal includes a separate entrance for affordable housing residents, commonly referred to as a "poor door." This segregation raises serious concerns about the intent behind the affordable housing component, undermining the principles of integrated and equitable living. In addition Redan lane is unpaved and unsuitable for access.
9. Impact on Heritage and Scenic Values
This development is situated adjacent to heritage-listed properties and falls within a Scenic Protection Area. The proposed height and design will compromise the scenic values that these protections are in place to preserve, making the development unlawful under current provisions.
10. Community Consultation was non-existent
I am within 200m of the proposed development and did not receive any notification from the developer - there has been little opportunity for the commmunity to comment.
11. The building is out of step with the streetscape of Mosman
It would be a true eyesore in a quiet residential street that has very attractive homes that would be absolutely dwarfed by these great towers. This would be true for a number of streets that are both above and below the proposed development that would sit in the shadow of these mammoth towers.
Conclusion
Given the numerous concerns outlined above, I strongly urge the planning authorities to reconsider this proposal. The potential negative impacts on the community, environment, and local heritage are too significant to overlook.

Thank you for considering my submission.

Sincerely,
Rebecca Willson
5/223 Raglan st,
Mosman NSW 2088
0417 423937

-

Residential Development with In-Fill affordable housing , 40-48 Redan Street , Mosman , NSW 2088
Application No. : SSD-93020230
Location : 40-48 Redan Street , Mosman NSW 2088
Council Area : Mosman Municipality
Consent Authority : Minister for Planning and Public Spaces

I wish to object to the development application for a State Significant Development , for a proposed residential development with in-fill affordable housing at 40-48 Redan street , Mosman ( SSD 93020230 ) for the following reasons .

1. The size of the development( 10-12 storeys ) is currently more than 4 times what current planning rules permit . It is inappropriate in a street where the maximum height of buildings is 2 storeys . The size and bulk of the building will cause significant over shadowing and block views form Muston Street .

2. NSW Govt. policy is to reduce the number of cars on the road ( to reduce air pollution and congestion ) and increase the use of public transport . This development includes 106 car parking spaces which will lead to an increase in traffic congestion ( especially in Redan Lane where vehicular access to the carpark is located ) parking difficulties and air pollution .
3. Ingress to and egress form the building is via Redan Lane where vehicular, a narrow street with no footpaths . This will cause congestion and increase the danger for pedestrians , not only on completion , but during construction .
4. The deep excavation required for 2 underground levels in this project means excavating geologically unstable sandstone with the potential to damage neighbouring buildings . On this slope , large quantities of water CONSTANTLY filter down through the sandstone .
5. Provision of “ bed-sit “ style studio apartments , with a separate entrance , as affordable is totally DEMEANING . Is this the way we chose to treat the vitally important members of our society such as Police and Ambulance officers , Teachers , Paramedics , Hospital and Medical staff ?
6. The Governments SSD pathway was designed to accelerate housing supply ; in Mosman it is being used to build large scale developments of multi-million dollar apartments which will benefit only the very wealthy , and the developers . Sites with favourable views are being chosen , rather than sites which are central and close to transport hubs . Recently 2 town houses with partial water view adjacent to this development , sold for $8-9 million . Every apartment facing East in this development will have uninterrupted water views and are expected to sell for between $6 and $20 MILLION DOLLARS . This is NOT housing for the MILLIONS but housing for the MILLIONAIRES .

I strongly object to the proposed development on the basis that it represents an excessive and inappropriate overdevelopment that will cause significant and irreversible harm to the character, heritage, infrastructure capacity and safety of the surrounding neighbourhood.

Excessive Height and Bulk
The proposed 10‑storey building is entirely out of scale with the established low‑rise character of Redan Street and nearby streets. Its height and mass would dominate the area, resulting in an oppressive built form wholly inconsistent with the existing streetscape and residential context. It is completely out of place with the area.

Overdevelopment and Structural Risk
The proposal requires excavation of up to 10 metres into sandstone to the site boundaries, creating unacceptable risks of ground movement, vibration and structural damage to adjoining properties. This level of excavation is a direct consequence of overdevelopment and is inappropriate for a constrained site surrounded by existing dwellings. It also includes the transport in and out of Mosman, which is a one-lane road, of heavy machinery and the removal of debris.

Heritage Impacts
The development would have unacceptable impact on the heritage character of Redan Street and adjoining heritage‑listed properties at 36 and 38 Redan Street. The bulk and scale of the proposal would overwhelm these heritage items, erode their setting, and permanently diminish the historic character of the street. This is not about a residential solution - it is an apartment tower that sets opposed to the area.

Scenic Protection Zone Conflict
The site is affected by the Scenic Protection Zone, intended to protect significant views to and from Sydney and Middle Harbours. A 10‑storey building is fundamentally incompatible with the objectives of this zone and would intrude into protected view corridors, undermining long‑standing scenic protection controls.

Traffic, Access and Safety
The proposal relies heavily on Redan Lane for access, despite it being only slightly over 4 metres wide, lacking footpaths and unsuitable for increased traffic, servicing, waste collection and emergency vehicle access. This presents serious pedestrian and safety risks and raises concerns about emergency response capability.

Exiting Upper Almora on to Military Road is already congested and dangerous. Increasing traffic on this street will increase the risk of accidents and injury.

Infrastructure Capacity
There is insufficient evidence that local infrastructure, including emergency services such as the nearby fire station, can adequately support a development of this scale. The proposal fails to demonstrate that essential services can safely and reliably service a 10‑storey building in this location.

Planning Non‑Compliance
The development exceeds prescribed height controls and relies on a Clause 4.6 variation, yet is misleadingly described as “compliant.” The scale of non‑compliance undermines the intent of the planning controls and cannot be justified as a minor or exceptional departure.

Affordable Housing Concerns
This is not an affordable housing option or solution. This is an obvious development opportunity to extract millions in real estate while diminishing the area and no one in a 10-story apartment building will gain benefit of living in a tower.

Conclusion

The proposal is fundamentally unsuitable for this site. Its excessive height, bulk, excavation impacts, heritage harm, access constraints, infrastructure inadequacy and planning non‑compliance warrant refusal of the application in its current form.

The Scope and size are out of keeping with the neighbourhood. It will overlook and take away light from neighbours.
The street is heritage listed with heritage listed buildings it will not be in keeping with heritage listing.
The street and area does not have the capacity to cope with 53 residences owning potentially 106 cars requiring parking and street access.
Emergency vehicle access for a building of this size would be limited and if there is an issue could be compromised.
The depth to which a building of this size would have to go to through sandstone to provide adequate infrastructure, drainage, parking etc could undermine the whole street and those nearby.

I am objecting:
To knocking down heritage houses
The size of the whole develoment
It does not fit the landscape
It’s visible from the water
Council does not have say
It completely ignores all council rules and regulations.
It only proposes short term low income housing.
Traffic implications

So much wrong with this development. Hearing all the stories of all other impacts. I agree with other submissions against this project.

As a Redan Street resident living within 70 metres of the proposed development at 40–48 Redan Street, I wish to lodge a formal objection to this proposal. My concerns relate to the planning principles embedded in the Mosman LEP and Scenic Protection Area controls, the established character and heritage context of Redan Street, and the NSW Government’s stated policy objectives for equitable housing distribution. I also consider that the NSW Government’s housing density targets can be more appropriately achieved around Spit Junction—along the ridgeline and in proximity to major transport infrastructure—without imposing the significant and irreversible impacts that this proposal would have on the lower density areas of Balmoral.
The Mosman LEP and Scenic Protection Area provisions were developed through extensive community consultation and are directly responsible for the impressive visual qualities that define Balmoral. These controls aim to preserve important visual landscapes and ensure that new development remains subordinate to both the natural and built environment. The proposed development, however, visually dominates the ridgeline and surrounding streets, introduces excessive bulk and scale into a low rise residential setting, blocks and interrupts established view corridors, and undermines the intent of scenic protection controls, which require visually recessive development.
Redan Street is characterised by single and two storey dwellings, several heritage and contributory homes, and housing set within a generous landscaped environment. A 10 storey development would create an abrupt and unjustified height transition, be highly visible from surrounding public viewpoints, break the established roofline, and diminish the scenic qualities that the planning controls are designed to protect. The height, bulk, and density are fundamentally inconsistent with the intended built form outcomes for this locality.
The NSW Government’s policy driver for increased density is to ensure that low and middle income households have access to housing across high , medium and low income suburbs, rather than being concentrated in isolated pockets. However, the proposed development undermines this policy objective. To obtain height and density concessions, the developer proposes a model that effectively creates two classes of dwellings within the same building. The affordable rental units are accessed via a laneway/back of house entry, have no access to shared facilities, and do not benefit from the views associated with the site’s scenic significance. As a result, the affordable housing component is physically and socially segregated from the market rate apartments.
This design approach reinforces stigma associated with low income housing, contradicts the Government’s intent to integrate—rather than segregate—affordable housing, creates inequitable living conditions within a single development, and implies that low income residents are not “qualified” for the same amenity as others. This is not the model of inclusion the NSW Government envisaged when introducing density incentives.
For the reasons outlined above, the proposed development at 40–48 Redan Street is inconsistent with the Mosman LEP and Scenic Protection Area planning principles, is out of character with the significant heritage and landscape context of the precinct and contravenes the NSW Government’s policy objective of equitable and integrated housing.

This propsoed project scale is totally out of the scale to the surrounding area about 4 x the hieght limit currently allowed. This will impact residents in the surround streets due to loss of views, privacy, shadowing, Increased traffic and parking. More broadly the increased population this brings will impact the suburb as no new infrasuture is planned to cope witht this this will bring. Street are already conjested and parking already limited this is only going to compound the problems.
This project also is no affordable housing with most unit will be mutli million dollars witrh penthouses in 10s millions

This Project needs to be rejected in it current form. And be reasseted within Mosmans Council management plans