INTRODUCTION
I am a resident of Muston Street , Mosman with views which will be impeded by the subject development and will also be directly impacted by the increase in pedestrian and vehicular traffic in Redan Lane.
My objections and comments are provided in the paragraphs below

1. THE SUBJECT SITE IS NOT WITHIN THE 400M INNER AREA FROM SPIT JUNCTION.
This whole SSD proposal is based upon the erroneous assumption that the subject site is within the Inner 400m zone when measured from the boundary of the Spit Junction Town Centre. See paragraph 2.1.4 and Fig 14 in the EIS.
The claimed walking distance from the designated Spit Junction boundary is 372.5m .
However, the route depicted does not meet the requirements of the LMR Rules and Standards as legislated in February 2025.
Those requirements state that the measurement should be :
`along a route that may be safely walked by a pedestrian using, as far as reasonably practicable, public footpaths and pedestrian footpaths´.
The Applicant has chosen a measurement route which demonstrably fails this test A compliant route would place the subject site in the outer 400m - 800m zone with the attendent reductions in allowable height and FSR .

Specifically:
The first part of the route is along Melaleuca Lane. This is a roadway without a pavement. You HAVE to walk along the road. There is a 70cm wide kerb but too narrow to walk along. (The minimum NSW width of an approved pedestrian pavement is 1.2m)
The subject route then assumes that pedestrians will cross Almora Street at Muston Street….a busy intersection ….even though a pedestrian crossing is available at the Almora Street and Military Road junction.

Finally, the proposed route assumes access to the Site via Redan Lane which has no pedestrian pavement or even a verge ….and is trafficated by heavy garbage trucks and overspill traffic from the surrounding streets. NOT SAFE!

A professional survey of the shortest route compliant with the legislation shows a route along Military Road (or Ritchies Lane), crossing Almora Street at the pedestrian crossing, proceeding down to Redan Street and then along Redan Street to the boundary of the first Subject Property.
This route has been mapped to 417m.
Clearly, this is not the result that a developer would wish but I trust that the Assessment Panel will use its powers to enforce the legislated rules.

Comment: if the developer complies with the applicable rules for development in the outer 400m-800m then this would quell some of the objections to this development.

If, however, the Planning Authority chooses not to reject this Development Application on these location grounds, then I have the following additional objections.

2. THE SHEER HEIGHT AND BULK OF THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE IS INAPPROPRIATE FOR THIS LOCATION
This 10 storey apartment development would be a grotesque imposition on the local environment.
The current stock of houses and apartment buildings have been built to facilitate shared views and amenity for all. As detailed in the EIS, this development will have an everlasting negative impact on the views and sunlight patterns for many existing residences in Muston Street.
The developer is seeking to exacerbate the height and bulk issue through asking for an additional 5m of height over and above the ´discretionary bonus height´ provision a development with sufficient infill housing. The only justification for this is increased profits through the provision of a few more luxury apartments
It is in close proximity to several Heritage Listed houses which will be dwarfed by this colossus and have their views and daylight stolen.
The Balmoral Slopes are a designated ´Scenic Protection Zone` which implies a certain aesthetic to be considered and maintained when building in this area. Again, this has clearly been ignored with this proposal.
(Again: if the development was amended to comply with the correct location legislation then the local environment impact would be reduced accordingly)

3. AFFORDABLE HOUSING AS A MEANS TO A PROFITABLE END
The so-called ´affordable ´ apartments will NOT be within the grasp of typical working families given the high average rents in Mosman. Nevertheless, the proposal to have a segregated building with a separate ´poor door ´ for the Affordable Housing tenants is abhorrent in 2026.

CONCLUSION
I urge the NSW Planning Authority to have the courage to reject this proposal in its current form based predominently on the fact that it has been submitted on the false assumption of being in the 400m Inner Zone.

I would also add that to expect the general public to respond to a multi-hundred page DA in the space of 2 weeks is disrespectful at best. Large developments such as this take at least 3 years from DA submission to completion …so a 4 week exhibition period would be immaterial to the progress of the overall project.

Ian Conley
29 March 2026

I object to this proposal and urge that it be rejected.

I believe there are many reasons why the proposal should be rejected. I am sure most reasons will be addressed by others so my objection concentrates only on the damage that approval would cause to private domain views and to the wider implications that would have for the property market generally.

The project documents state that it will result in “devastating” view loss to many properties.

Judging by the documentation for their proposal, the proponents appear to have done little to minimise those losses. The Visual Impact Assessment is seriously deficient in failing to properly consider the loss of private domain views. It fails to accurately identify the number of dwellings affected; the view analysis is amateurish, relying on real estate listings when it should have used drones and image generation software; it contains lots of fake facts (e.g., the block is not on the ridgeline (s7.3) – the ridgeline is 190m away – and how is planting large trees in the view corridor consistent with “design attempts to reduce potential view loss”?); it is carelessly written with poor grammar, errors in punctuation, confusion between singular and plural and stray characters as well as misspellings. Those errors are not just technicalities littering the report – they are indicators of a very worrying lack of care in preparing and checking the report. They completely undermine its credibility.

What the VIA should include is:
• a list of all properties affected, not just their street numbers but rather a reckoning of each unit in the case of multi-unit blocks (e.g., 76 Muston has 12 units)
• images showing the current and future views for each affected property; if a resident does not allow access to take photographs then it would be relatively simple to use drones flying above Muston St and/or Redan Lane to capture the probable views

In the absence of such an analysis it is impossible to judge the project’s affects.

A key argument in the VIA’s conclusions is
“more residents housed in contemporary developments under the SEPP will enjoy access to views of high scenic quality previously held by a few”

Again, the analysis is shoddy with no numbers to back up “more” or “few”. It seems to me that there could be 40 or more residences that suffer at least “moderate to devastating” view loss while at most 45 of the proposed units will have views. Their “more is better” argument needs closer examination to determine if it is even based on fact.

While Australian law might not give property owners a legal right to compensation for loss of a view, it would be bad planning practice to approve a project that causes devastating view loss to so many properties without some attempt at compensating the losers.

A proposal shouldn’t be approved just because doesn’t infringe a law or others’ legal rights as the VIA suggests.

Such an approval has the potential to cause catastrophic damage to a significant section of the residential property market by raising uncertainty. Without certainty, buyers will not pay as much as they would have paid in a more well-ordered market.
An approval which caused large financial losses to so many neighbours would also undermine confidence in the planning system.

That is in no-one’s interest.

Ironically, the project is at risk of having the very same devastating view loss inflicted upon many of its own units. It appears feasible that a developer could buy the strip of houses at 35-41 Redan St and use the same 400m/affordable exemptions to build an 8 storey tower at the southern end of that site, blocking the views of Time & Place’s northern tower. Would Time & Place undertake to disclose that risk to their potential purchasers?

This proposal should be rejected as it will cause devastating view losses to a large number of its neighbours and the proponents appear to have done very little to ameliorate the losses or even properly consult with those affected.

Date: 26 March 2026
To: Edwina Ross, Senior Planning Officer
Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure
Email: [email protected]
Subject: Individual Objection to Development Application SSD-93020230 at 40–48 Redan Street, Mosman
________________________________________
Dear Ms. Ross,
I am the owner and a long-term resident of 75B Muston Street, Mosman, located directly behind the proposed development site. I am writing to formally lodge my individual objection to the State Significant Development application SSD-93020230.
While there are many technical failures in this proposal, I am writing to highlight the severe personal, physiological, and health impacts this 10-storey overdevelopment is inflicting on my family and our daily life.
1. Severe Impact on Privacy and Living Conditions
The sheer scale of a 10-storey structure on the ridgeline creates an unacceptable "sense of enclosure" and "looming" effect for my property.
• Invasion of Privacy: With 53 apartments replacing a low-density footprint, my private spaces will be subject to direct overlooking from dozens of balconies.
• Loss of Amenity: They will completely look into our bedroom and I will be forced to have the curtains closed all day and all night and not getting any sunlight.
• Visual Dominance: The height of the building—exceeding 33 metres—is entirely inconsistent with the intended character of the street and will "wall off" my horizon.
2. Mental Health and Physiological Distress
The prospect of this "transformational visual change" has caused me significant and ongoing psychological distress.
• Physical Health: The stress regarding the future of my home has manifested in physical health issues, including the disruption of my regular health and hormonal cycle.
• Acoustic Stress: The prolonged use of 10-tonne hydraulic rock breakers on the continuous sandstone ridge will create a high-decibel environment and constant vibration for months, which is a direct threat to my mental health and ability to maintain a healthy home.
3. Health Risks: Silica Dust and Asbestos
The proposal involves a 10-metre deep excavation into hard sandstone, posing a direct threat to my family's wellbeing.
• Respiratory Risk: Sandstone excavation generates significant fine particulate matter (silica dust), and as we are located directly downwind, our home will be the primary receptor.
• Carcinogenic Concerns: I am gravely concerned about the potential release of asbestos during the demolition of existing dwellings and the long-term health risks this poses to my family.
• Impact on Children: This is of grave concern for the health of my six-year-old son, who will be exposed to these particulates daily.
4. Excessive Scale and Structural Risk
• Unjustified Variations: The developer is seeking a 16.78% height variation above already generous bonuses, representing a gross departure from the Balmoral Townscape Character.
• Ground Integrity: My property sits on the same sandstone ridge as the site, and the "zone of influence" for potential structural damage from excavation extends up to 30 metres from the site perimeter, placing my home at direct risk.
• Landscape Destruction: The removal of eight trees and a Category A Kentia Palm to accommodate a massive basement destroys the "leafy character" of our neighbourhood.
________________________________________
Conclusion The social and health impacts of this proposal are not "negligible"; they are life-altering. The total loss of privacy, the health risks to my child from silica dust, and the severe physiological stress I am experiencing go to the very heart of residential amenity. I respectfully submit that the Development Application should be refused.
Sincerely,
Xinjue Zhang 75B Muston Street, Mosman

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


1. Statement

As an owner and occupier of a property on a residential street, at 26A Awaba Street, Mosman, and use both Redan Street and Redan Lane, I object to the proposed development on numerous grounds that are detailed below.

I would also like to express my deep concern regarding the extremely short window given of the exhibition period. This is not a small development and there are a substantial number of documents to review. The time provided is insufficient for any individual to be able to fully understand all the details
involved. And there is insufficient opportunity to be able to involve specialists to provide
guidance as needed.

The Applicant has clearly had no time constraints to prepare the submission, and the proposal
has most overtly been prepared wholly from the developers’ perspective. With such a situation as this
the Authority cannot expect to receive a balanced view solely from the submissions. This demands
that the Authority do its own research or ensure it receives independent advice from
professional consultants to be able to make an informed and impartial decision.
The objection details below should be read in the light of this.

2. Location of the Proposed Development

As it is I am not satisfied that the statement “The site is located within 400m of the Spit Junction town
centre and is within the ‘inner’ area” is correct. My estimate suggests the safe walking distance from the proposed building entrance to Spit Junction town centre to be in excess of 400m. This is an objective measurement easily verified, and the Authority should obtain an independent surveyors “safe walking distance” certificate to verify compliance.

I cannot understand, and therefore would like to ask that in making such hastily decisions of this development of such size, why when you as the state government have not taken into account that the A8 Military Road at Spit Junction is hardly a transport node suitable for additional loading. This road is recognised as one of the most congested in Greater Sydney, so much so that relief through the costly Beaches Link was underway until subsequently being cancelled. Relief for this transport corridor is still urgently and desperately needed.

The proposed development sits between Redan Street and Redan Lane. Redan Lane is a very
narrow access lane providing rear access to properties on Redan and Muston Streets. It has no
pedestrian pavement and so poses potential dangers to pedestrians.

Eight of the affordable housing units have their only access from Redan Lane which could raise safety issues. Redan Lane is not a safe walking area. Redan Street, like many surrounding streets, is a residential street; a street primarily designed for homes, rather than through traffic, characterised by lower speed limits and residential houses.
Building 10x’s the number of dwellings on the same land will overload Redan St, Redan Lane and other
streets in the area. Many of these “residential” streets are already dangerously busy, being used
as “rat-runs” to avoid Military Road.

3. Beauty, Heritage and Scenic Protection Zone

The proposed development fronts onto Redan Street, which is understood to be a heritage
street, heritage that includes the elevated pedestrian pavement, extending to the boundary of
the proposed development. The proposed access to the carpark will necessarily require breaking through the heritage streetscape causing major damage to the heritage pedestrian walkway. I strongly object to our beautiful heritage streetscape being destroyed in this way. I daily walk along the path on the south side of Redan Street and enjoy the natural beauty that the heritage listing has protected for 100 years. Our heritage should be respected and maintained. It is understood that the development will impinge on the 60m contour that defines the Scenic Protection Zone for Sydney Harbour, identified as a benchmark for significant views to and from Sydney and Middle Harbours.
This has been in place since the 1960’s and exists for a very good reason. “Sydney Harbour is widely recognised as one of the most beautiful urban harbours in the world and the gateway to Sydney.
As a place of significant national and heritage values, the harbour shapes Sydney’s identity and image like no other natural feature”. This scenic protection zone is there for the benefit of the whole of Sydney and it should be vigorously protected with no exceptions.

4. Bulk, Scale and View Sharing

The bulk and height of this proposed development is excessive in the extreme.
This 10-storey block is surrounded by low rise residential developments. It will stick out like a sore thumb from all angles. Balmoral Slopes provide a wonderful natural amphitheatre that is enjoyed not just by
the residents but also the many of Sydney and international visitors that come to the suburb to enjoy
Balmoral Beach and the vistas provided by it.

This one construction will destroy that natural beauty. Mosman is not exclusively residential houses, with 65% of housing stock are apartments (compared to 46% in Greater Sydney).
Many are 6 storeys and in the most part these blend in well to the streetscape of Mosman.
There is no reason why additional units could not also blend in well, maintaining the character of Mosman while providing accommodation, views and affordable housing to many more residents.
It needs to be a planned development. This developer led, as this proposal is, they will take the best spots first with little care to any environmental or long term impact of the suburb.

It is clear that the developers are taking advantage of government rules established for perfectly
good reasons and applying them to a situation that is not appropriate, for which I am sure
they were not intended.
This is not view-sharing, it is view-destruction. And it will likely result in the land behind becoming
fallow, unsuitable to be developed because the views have already been taken. Not the best
way to increase population density. It is creating views at the expense of those residences behind the development and selling them to new rich people. The proposed development will provide 53 apartments, 11 of which will be “affordable housing” of which is not for eternity.
And 42 will be “luxury apartments and penthouses”. (Judging from recent sales, some of these
are likely to be sold in excess of $20m)! Much of this value will result from the views that will be created at the expense of other residents and of visitors to the area. We already have enough
rich people in Mosman, the suburb needs more reasonably priced family accommodation. I
though that was the purpose of the SSD.

5. Affordable Housing

The Applicant is seeking a 30% increase in height allowance on the basis of setting aside15% of
the GFA as “affordable housing”. The spaces set aside for affordable housing are mostly areas
that would otherwise be dead space, at the rear of the development and below ground level. Of
the 11 affordable housing units, 8 have their living areas below ground level and have their main
access onto Redan Lane, the only units that do so. There has been no attempt to integrate the
affordable housing units into the building proper. Housing the affordable housing tenants below ground and giving them a separate entrance onto a service road is social segregation.
And it should be noted that this affordable housing exists for just 15 years. The 30% height
increase lasts forever. This is a great deal for the developer, but a disastrous one for Mosman,
residents and visitors alike.


Alexandra Chapman
26A Awaba Street, Mosman

Dear Sir/Madam,

I write to formally object to the proposed residential development at 40-48 Redan Street, Mosman.

This submission raises concerns regarding the proposal’s compliance with relevant planning controls and the assessment criteria under Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, including impacts on neighbourhood character, heritage, residential amenity, environmental quality and the suitability of the site for a development of this scale.

As a long-term resident of Mosman, having lived in my current home for 49 years and in the suburb for more than half a century, I believe the proposed development is out of character with the established nature of the area and disproportionate to the lifestyle and environment that Mosman provides.

Neighbourhood Character and Built Form
The surrounding locality is characterised predominantly by low-rise residential dwellings and heritage homes, generally one to two storeys in height. The introduction of a ten-storey residential flat building represents a dramatic departure from the established built form and would fundamentally alter the scale and character of the streetscape.

The proposal introduces a development more typical of high-density urban centres rather than an established residential suburb. It also fails to provide an appropriate transition in building scale between surrounding low-rise homes and the proposed tower, resulting in a visually dominant structure that would disrupt the existing character of the neighbourhood.

Heritage Impacts
The development is located immediately adjacent to a heritage-listed double-front semi-detached dwelling constructed of sandstone. Heritage conservation principles emphasise the importance of maintaining appropriate scale, context and visual curtilage around heritage items.

The proposed ten-storey structure risks overwhelming this heritage building both visually and physically. Without adequate setbacks and landscaping buffers, the development could significantly diminish the heritage setting and prominence of the adjoining property.

It is also concerning that the heritage property appears to be the only neighbouring site directly adjoining the development.

Privacy, Overshadowing and Residential Amenity
A development of this scale will inevitably result in overshadowing and overlooking of neighbouring homes. Numerous balconies and elevated windows will create increased opportunities for direct views into surrounding properties, reducing privacy and impacting the amenity currently enjoyed by residents.

Adequate building separation and landscaping buffers are essential to maintain privacy between neighbouring dwellings. Given the height and density proposed on a constrained site, it is unclear how appropriate separation distances and privacy protections can be achieved.

Excavation and Structural Risks
The proposal is expected to involve extensive excavation for basement car parking and foundations. Such works can create vibration, ground movement and structural stress on neighbouring buildings.

This risk is particularly concerning given the adjacent heritage building constructed of sandstone, which may be more sensitive to changes in ground stability. Excavation in close proximity to such structures could pose potential risks to their foundations and long-term structural integrity. Careful geotechnical assessment and significant setbacks would be necessary to ensure that heritage buildings are not exposed to unacceptable risks.

Traffic and Infrastructure
A development of 53 apartments will substantially increase vehicle movements in local streets that were originally designed to service low-density residential housing. Increased traffic volumes may contribute to congestion, parking pressure and reduced pedestrian safety for residents.

Suitability of the Site
Under Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, the consent authority must consider the suitability of the site for the proposed development. Given the surrounding low-rise residential context, heritage constraints and infrastructure limitations, there are serious concerns that the site is not appropriate for development of this magnitude.

Conclusion
For the reasons outlined above, the proposed development represents an excessive and incompatible form of development that would adversely impact the character, heritage setting and residential amenity of the surrounding neighbourhood.

I respectfully request that the consent authority carefully consider these concerns and refuse the application in its current form.

Yours faithfully,
A Concerned, Long Term Mosman Resident Who Loves Their Suburb

“Mosman is defined by its village scale, its mixture of contemporary and heritage houses and its relationship to the Harbour and Balmoral Beach”.
Indeed, 25 years ago, the noted heritage consultants Godden Mackay proposed that Clifton Gardens – where I have lived for 40 years – become a Heritage Conservation area for just those reasons above, stressing that views between the houses was a key to the identity of the area. There will be no views of Port Jackson or Middle Harbour if this development goes ahead, other than for its well-heeled residents.
Of course we need more housing in Sydney. But the extraordinary thing about Mosman is the frequency of sub-division of the current housing stock. As a regular deliverer of political pamphlets, I am constantly amazed by the density of the population in what is considered such a swell community.
It would be interesting to know how many people actually live in the 3 Federation era homes and 2 later properties in Redan Street/Lane that will be destroyed. Not to mention the 2 heritage-listed properties which abut the development – whose status will surely be threatened.
Apart from the threatened ambience of the municipality – where many blocks of flats beside the main, ridgeline roads are an existing demographic balance for the mix of housing on Mosman’s Harbour slopes – the vital issue of Mosman’s Scenic Protection Zone must be a key to Government’s decision on this application. It’s important to stress that the SPZ is not there to protect residents’ water views. It exists as a SEPP in order to give Harbour users harmonious views of the city from their boats.
A 10-storey tower block on a site that has the relevant 60 metre SPZ control line running right through it should be illegal. It certainly is not “compliant” as claimed. I’m amazed that the application has progressed this far under the circumstances.
As a frequent user of Redan Lane – I have friends who live south of the proposed development – I am well aware of the lane’s narrowness and the impossibility of managing traffic for a further 53 apartments and their proposed 106 car spaces. I wonder whether fire and medical emergency services have been consulted? The Lane also lacks any pedestrian pavement.
I’m also concerned about the dubious claims for a 15% “affordable housing” quotient for the building. I wonder who selects the 8 apartment tenants who would pay rentals no greater than 30% of their gross income in rent? The Housing SEPP may establish the income eligibility limits for very low, low and moderate income households. But surely the landlord will do his best to achieve a maximum return resulting from the NSW Government’s generous 30% increase in height and bulk for this proposed blot on the landscape.
And these “affordable” tenancies will have their own, discriminatory entrance. Might I point out that even Prince Charles (as he then was) insisted that Council tenants in his Poundbury development in Dorset have homes identical to their neighbours.
Finally, this State Government generosity does not affect the consent authority’s responsibility to consider the requirements of relevant Environmental Planning Instruments. According to Mills Oakley, a lead national law firm, you must still consider site constraints and local impacts including the acceptability of the height of building, massing, likely impacts and suitability of the site, in the context of the permitted and additional FSR and height of building provisions. The consent authority must also consider the character of the local area and its desired future character.
I do not desire a future character for Mosman that includes this development, nor others like it that are threatened across our Harbour slopes.

I object strongly to this proposal on the grounds that:-
1. It is overwhelmingly a luxury development which is not fitting with the intentions and guidelines for SSDs.
2. It has excessive height and bulk, removing iconic views and destroying surrounding property values along with removing their access to natural light.
3. The proposal is of a scale that the excavation of 10m of sandstone to all boundaries of the site is irresponsible and bound to create issues as well as damage to neighbours.
4. The site adjoins 36 and 38 Redan Street which are heritage listed - it will not only disrupt their visual setting but it harm them as well as erode the existing character of this charming area.
5. Traffic will be a nightmare if this proceeds as the rear lane is small and often impassable. The knock on effect of the scale of the development on already small and often choked roads is frightening. The lack of casual parking for existing residents, visitors and trades is already evident and will reach a breaking point with the building works and eventual additional residents.
6. Infrastructure is already under pressure and will worsen significantly. Service delivery is already erratic and a challenge as well.
7. The proposal is misleading in that it exceeds height controls and requires a Clause 4.6 variation, yet is incorrectly calling itself compliant.
8. This is a luxury development with scant attention being paid to the social housing component. Its separate entrance for these units reeks of elitism, something we don't need in any community.

This is a high rise development, at a height not seen anywhere in this low rise area, which will lead to many negative outcomes.
Thank you for your consideration.

28 March 2026

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

[email protected]

Dear Ms. Ross,

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

The residents and community members of Mosman have significant concerns about the proposed development at 40-48 Redan Street.

This application represents a fundamental departure from the established character of the streetscape and the low-rise residential context that defines this neighbourhood. A 10-storey building in this location will permanently alter the visual character and scale of the street in a way that cannot be reconciled with Mosman's planning objectives or community expectations. The proposal breaches the height controls established in Mosman Local Environmental Plan 2012, Clause 4.3. The building is designed to 10 storeys, which clearly exceeds the permissible height limit for the zone and requires a Clause 4.6 variation.

It is misleading for the applicant to describe this development as "compliant" when it fundamentally breaches the height development standards that apply to the site. A development that requires a variation from core planning controls should not be presented as meeting the applicable standards. The height controls exist to manage the scale and bulk of development in residential areas. This proposal disregards those controls.

The site falls within a Scenic Protection Area, where the objectives of Mosman Local Environmental Plan 2012, Clause 6.5 are to limit visual intrusion and protect landscape character. A 10-storey building is fundamentally at odds with these objectives. The height and bulk of the proposal will create a visual intrusion that will be visible from public vantage points and will materially diminish the scenic quality that the planning controls are designed to protect. The development cannot be integrated into the landscape character of the area given its scale.

The proposal requires excavation of up to 10 metres into sandstone, extending to site boundaries. This level of excavation creates real structural risks to neighbouring properties. Ground movement, vibration and damage to adjoining buildings are likely impacts that must be assessed under section 4.15(1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. The site is being engineered to accommodate the building, rather than the building responding to the site conditions. This approach prioritises development intensity over site suitability and creates unacceptable risks to the structural integrity of neighbouring properties.

Access to the site is proposed via Redan Lane, which is only slightly over 4 metres wide, has no footpaths, and was not designed for intensive vehicle activity. The introduction of service vehicles, waste collection vehicles and increased traffic movements into this constrained laneway raises serious safety and access concerns. The RMS guidelines and standard practice for residential development require adequate access with appropriate sight lines and vehicle movement capacity. Redan Lane does not meet these standards.

The public interest, as required to be considered under section 4.15(1)(e) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, is not served by creating a safety hazard in a narrow residential laneway. The proposal includes 11 affordable housing units with separate access from the laneway. This arrangement raises concerns about a "poor door" style configuration that creates a physically and socially segregated arrangement for affordable housing residents. The SEPP (Housing) 2021 and inclusive design principles require that affordable housing be integrated into developments without creating separate, inferior access arrangements. The design as proposed does not support inclusive housing outcomes.

Mosman currently operates with limited emergency services capacity, including a single fire station serving a growing residential population. The introduction of a 10-storey building in a narrow residential street raises practical questions about emergency response times, access for large fire vehicles, and the adequacy of services to support this scale of development. Section 4.15(1)(c) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 requires assessment of the suitability of the site for the proposed development. The lack of supporting infrastructure, combined with constrained street access and emergency services limitations, indicates that this site is not suitable for a building of this scale. For these reasons, the application should be refused.

The proposal is inconsistent with the planning objectives for the area, breaches fundamental development standards, creates unacceptable risks to neighbouring properties, and is not supported by adequate infrastructure or suitable site access. A development that respects the height controls, responds to site constraints, and is integrated with neighbourhood character would be appropriate for this location. This proposal is not.

Yours faithfully,

Andrew Lancaster

1/2A Upper Spit Road,
Mosman

Dear Ms Ross,
OBJECTION TO SSD-93020230

I am owner & occupier of 5/41 Upper Almora Street - around the corner from this State Significant Development proposal SSD-93020230.

I have previously been involved in the development of the building on the corner of Military Rd and Almora Street, a project that was undertaken subject to the full scrutiny of Mosman Council. Throughout that process, there was a clear and shared commitment between developer, owners, and occupiers to ensure the outcome was respectful of its surroundings and in keeping with the character of Mosman village. The objective was not simply to deliver a building, but to contribute positively to the area for years to come. An approach that reflects the standards and expectations consistently applied within this community and which stands in stark contrast to the state significant development currently proposed.

This proposal is causing many long-term residents emotional distress & mental health issues.

In reviewing this development, I do not believe it meets the NSW State significant development guidelines.

The Independent planning commission states:
- The development must have extensive community participation. Determined on its merits as having regard to
* Economic
* Environmental
* Social impacts
* Principles of ecologically sustainable development
* The guidelines set clear expectations for everyone, community, councils and clarity of information in the document.

I do not believe this criteria has been met, for the following reasons.

1/ The Community has not been given enough time or information to assess the impact of this development as it’s very complex and disproportionate to anything previously proposed in this visually prominent position on Balmoral slopes.
2/ On Thursday, the department of planning website had technical issues whereby submissions were unable to be lodged. Dept notified of this outage.
3/ Clearly, this development is in favour of major developers who are using the accessible housing component as a means to get a building of this scale looked upon favourably, bypassing the Mosman council which every other resident and local development faces.
4/ Excessive bulk and scale - this proposal exceeds state guidelines allowable building height on one tower by 16.78% and the secondary tower by 5.59% - let alone the expectation of the community in this beautiful area of Sydney. This bulky building will be the only one of its kind seen from the harbour looking back up the slope. 106 carparks is the scale of the Bridgepoint shopping centre. There is nothing of this kind comparable anywhere in a building in Mosman. It's ridiculous.

5/ Traffic: The streets of Mosman are already incredibly congested, often gridlocked with significant delays experienced simply travelling around in & out of the local streets to access Military Road. Redan and the close by Muston Street in Mosman (access to Balmoral Beach) have on street parking, already only allowing for one car to pass at a time - they are effectively one lane streets.
I do not believe a proper assessment of the Mosman traffic has been taken into consideration. With 106-car spaces in this large scale development, the scale of which has never been planned for in this area. This is a traffic-generative development.
Further to this forseen traffic nightmare on a very narrow street which provides access to Balmoral Beach - the document states it will create jobs for 141 workers. Most of whom I would believe would travel in a car with tools, let alone the contruction vehicles and cranes used to create a development of this scale completely unsuitable for this area.
6/Another proposed development at 65 Muston St is also proposing to use Redan Lane for parking access and amenities.

7/ Overshadowing of surrounding heritage listed dwellings, next door and across the road and within the surrounding area of the Beautiful Balmoral slopes.
Buildings of this scale are totally out of character with the Mosman streetscape. This proposed development may be more suitable on Military Road or Spit Road.

8/This proposed development does not provide any significant public benefit with merely '11' affordable apartments. The developer stands to gain by this development, not the community.

9/ No consideration has been given to the Scenic protection area as per Mosman LEP, and does not align with the Mosman strategic planning statement 2020.
3.7% of the apartments receive no direct Sun at mid winter exceeding the ADG criteria.

10/ Environmental damage: The construction will environmentally impact surrounding properties. Excavating into Sydney sandstone is an incredibly complex procedure and I question the damage which is likely to be done to the heritage buildings next door.

I strenuously object to a proposal of this scale on the Balmoral Slopes. It is complete out of character for this area, and sets a precedent on a scale which is unacceptable to be viewed from the harbour.

Concerned Resident,
Sue Knox