I strongly object to the project on the following grounds:
1. Visual Impact Assessment - The Visual Impact Assessment Report is both deficient and misleading. The Visual Impact Analysis fails the Tenacity Consulting v Warringah [2004] NSWLEC 140 planning principle, which requires assessment from the most affected viewpoints. There are no photomontages included of the devastating view loss for the properties on the eastern side of Muston Street. Mosman Residential DCP 2012 (Sec 4.3 View Sharing) states ‘in assessing applications for development, Council must consider the importance and need to protect views in the site analysis process’. Views of significant landmarks (e.g. The Heads, Opera House and Harbour Bridge) are more valued.
The controls require that new development is to be designed to achieve a reasonable sharing of views available from surrounding and nearby properties and must demonstrate that view sharing is achieved through the application of the Planning Principles established in the NSW Land and Environment case Tenacity v Warringah Council.
If a proposed development takes away the whole view this cannot be called “view sharing”. The purchasers of the 40-48 Redan St will not be sharing a view. They will have 100% of the view they have stolen from the owners of Muston St properties.
2. Affordable Housing - As the Northern Suburbs Regional President of St Vincent de Paul, I am appalled that the NSW Government considers that is fair and reasonable for a developer to obtain an approval for a bonus height of 30% for the inclusion of 11 affordable housing units for a short 15 year period.
The NSW Labor Government is handing developers an enormous financial windfall, without addressing the need for social & affordable housing.
As reported in the SMH (19.10.25) Shelter NSW research shows that 'Developers will recoup up to seven times the value of the discounted rent they must provide under a state government housing initiative…'
I object to the rorting of the LMR and Affordable Housing schemes to build luxurious, expensive apartments with views out of the Heads that would otherwise not be permitted.
Approval of a bonus height of 30% should not be granted.
3. Property Value Loss
The owners of properties in Muston St will suffer a property value loss in the millions of dollars.
4. Bulk & Scale
The scale, bulk and design of this 10 storey building are inconsistent with the existing neighbourhood streetscape character of Redan Street and Redan Lane.
5. Building Setbacks
The proposed building setbacks are inadequate. The proposal relies in part on the DCP setbacks to justify its proximity to side boundaries.
6. Privacy & Overshadowing
The proposed height and design will create significant overlooking into neighbouring properties and outdoor living spaces and cast extensive shadows that will reduce natural sunlight and block harbour views. The proximity of the building to the side boundary creates potential visual and acoustic privacy issues.
7. Heritage
The proposal is contrary to Section 4.15(1)(a)(iii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as it fails to provide adequate heritage conservation outcomes, presenting non-compliant envelope controls that are visible from the heritage items.
The development application should be refused because approval of the proposal will have an adverse and unacceptable impact on the heritage significance of the heritage buildings and on the character and significance of the Conservation Area pursuant to the LEP.
8. Alternative Mosman Master Plan
As there are 25 similar sites along the 1.3km eastern edge of the LMR zone, this DA will set a precedent for development on Balmoral slopes. Mosman Council is preparing an alternative master plan to relocate new development, more appropriately along the ridge line.
Regards
Peter Marshall
0414 889 825

I believe that the proposed development is unreasonably bulky. The development is a profit driven exploitation of the amenity of the area, and the Affordable Housing proportion is purely a wedge to enable this to occur.
The amenities that will be negatively impacted:
1-Area of natural beauty with views down to the harbour and over Manly to the sea. The proposed development will exploit this valuable commodity for profit while destroying that commodity for those who live further up the hill. The bulky shape of the development will also dominate and detract from the view of the natural amphitheatre shape of Balmoral Slopes as seen from further down the hill. Once the currently sympathetic built environment is gone it is gone forever
2-Existing utilities. There are excellent, but aging and recently unreliable, power, water and sewerage infrastructure. The extra strain of 53 apartments together with the concurrent construction of hundreds of other apartments in the municipality will put more strain on a finite system. Costs of repairs to be borne by the Community.
3-Cultural Heritage. Individual property owners are expected to maintain properties that have cultural heritage value for the common good. Old buildings that project the values and architectural interest enhance the streetscape and bring a sense of place to the Community. These properties now face being overshadowed by the proposed bulky development.
4-Community. Mosman is already an area that reflects the multicultural nature of our country. There is a good mixture of apartments and semidetached and detached housing. In my end of Redan St there are blocks of apartments that were built early last century. Mosman Council cannot please everyone but overall the developments that have been approved have blended well with their neighbours visually and culturally. The proposed development might be appropriate on the crest of a hill, but in Redan Street it is far out of scale to the surrounding properties.

There are other concerns in regard to the proposed development:
Traffic Congestion: In summer I often find that I can walk up Raglan St faster than the traffic moves due to the volume of both local and cars going to and from both the beach and sporting facilities.
Entrenching disadvantage: The thought that small bedsits are being proposed as homes that are affordable is a retrograde step in a society that prides itself on equality.
Precedent set for other inappropriate developments. If this development is approved, it will create an expectation that community concerns can be easily overridden, and developers will be able to realise their profit ambitions without any constraint

It is worth noting that I do not object to the consolidation of the properties from 40 to 48 Redan St, although as a Redan St resident I find it regrettable. It is the oversized scale of the project which is unreasonable and exploitive.

SCENIC PROTECTION AREA – currently covers this site and the Balmoral slopes. The location of a 10-storey building part way down a sloping hill is extremely bad planning and does not take into consideration the local environment. Developments should step down a hill, not be a shock to the natural landscape.
The height and bulk of the proposed development will create a brick wall effect for pedestrians and motorists as they travel towards Balmoral Beach; viewed from the beach upwards it will forever change the character of the iconic Balmoral slopes.
LOCAL TRAFFIC. On a hot day with beachgoers trying to return home the traffic can be at standstill halfway down both Raglan and Awaba streets, creating a safety issue for residents needing to leave their residences. There are not enough exit routes from Balmoral to deal with any real increase in population.
Redan Lane is too narrow for the trucks and cranes needed for this development (the lane was probably designed to accommodate the horse and buggy!).
FUTURE FLOODING - we live on Balmoral slopes in a street below Redan Street and have experienced flooding when the sandstone up the hill has been disturbed. We are concerned about any future flooding issues given the proposed extensive excavation of the sandstone, approx. 10 metres, which will change the natural flow of water.
NON-COMPLIANCE – the proposed development exceeds height controls, and is therefore not compliant.
LUXURY APARTMENTS vs PROVIDING ADDITIONAL HOUSING FOR THE GENERAL POPULATION – apartments in the recently completed “Redan Lane” at 22 Redan Street sold from $13.5M- $19.5M+. It can be assumed that the cost of an apartment at 40-48 Redan Street will far exceed these figures. Most locals would not be able to afford to downsize to one of these luxury apartments as the cost of an apartment will be far higher than what they would achieve if they sold their family home ie no housing stock will be freed up. Who is going to buy these apartments? Overseas buyers?Is there a mandate that these be owner-occupiers rather than investment stock? And limited to Australian citizens, rather than opening it up to overseas buyers? How is this development going to provide additional housing to Sydneysiders?
TRAFFIC AND ACCESS CONCERNS - Safety concerns arise from the use of Redan Lane, which was never constructed with building trucks in mind. It is a little over 4 metres wide, has no footpaths, and is not designed for increased service and waste vehicle activity, posing serious clear saftey risks and access issues.
LACK OF SUPPORTING INFRASTRUCTURE - Mosman is currently served by a single fire station with limited emergency services capacity. Practical concerns exist about the viability of emergency response, access for large fire vehicles, and overall service capacity in narrow residential laneways.

To whom it may concern,

I write to object to the proposed development at 40–48 Redan Street, Mosman. I am a resident that lives in the immediate area.

My objection is based primarily on the excessive height, bulk and scale of the proposal, the lack of meaningful setbacks, and the resulting overdevelopment of a site that is fundamentally unsuited to this intensity of development.

1. Excessive Height and Bulk

The proposal for a 10-storey building represents a dramatic and unjustified departure from the established low-rise character of Redan Street. The surrounding streetscape is defined by smaller-scale residential dwellings, landscaped settings, and a fine-grain built form.

A development of this height and mass is entirely inconsistent with that context and would dominate the streetscape, overwhelm neighbouring properties, and fundamentally alter the character of the area.

2. Overdevelopment of the Site

The proposal seeks to maximise yield rather than respond appropriately to site constraints. The scale of the building, combined with two basement levels and extensive excavation, indicates that the site is being overdeveloped.

This is not a case of sensitive infill, but rather an intensive urban form imposed on a site that does not have the capacity to accommodate it without significant impacts.

3. Lack of Adequate Setbacks

A critical concern is the absence of meaningful setbacks. The proposal appears to extend built form close to site boundaries, particularly given the extent of basement excavation.

This lack of setbacks:

Reduces visual relief and openness
Intensifies bulk and perceived scale
Impacts neighbouring amenity, including outlook, privacy and light
Fails to respect the established landscaped character of the street

Appropriate setbacks are fundamental to achieving compatibility with surrounding development, and their absence further reinforces the excessive nature of this proposal.

4. Incompatibility with Local Character

Redan Street is characterised by heritage homes, landscaped frontages, and a cohesive residential character. The proposed development is incompatible with this context and would introduce a built form that is visually intrusive and out of scale.

The proximity to heritage-listed properties at 36 and 38 Redan Street further amplifies these concerns, as the proposal would overwhelm their setting and diminish their significance.

5. Planning and Precedent Concerns

While the proposal is advanced under the SSD pathway, this does not justify a development outcome that is clearly excessive in scale and inconsistent with local planning objectives.

Approving a development of this magnitude would set a damaging precedent for similar over-scaled developments in Mosman, undermining established planning controls and community expectations.

6. Conclusion

In summary, the proposal represents an overdevelopment of the site characterised by excessive height, bulk and inadequate setbacks. It fails to respond appropriately to its context and would have unacceptable impacts on the character and amenity of Redan Street.

For these reasons, I strongly object to the proposal and request that it be refused. The proposer could address a development of smaller height and scale in a subsequent submission as local residents are aware of the need for more housing, just not of this scale and being so far out of character.

25 March 2026
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
1. Summary
1.1 I refer to State Significant Development Application SSD-93020230, which seeks consent for the “[d]emolition of existing dwellings; [c]onstruction of a 10-storey residential flat building comprising: 53 apartments (including 11 in-fill affordable housing apartments), two basement levels with parking for 106 cars, communal open space; and [a]ssociated works including site preparation, excavation, earthworks, landscaping and installation of services” at 40–48 Redan Street, Mosman (Site) (Development Application).
1.2 I am the owner and long-term resident of 75B Muston Street, Mosman. My property is situated directly behind the Site. I have lived here for 6 years and our home is defined by its integration into the quiet, scenic fabric of this ridgeline. My property will be severely and directly affected by the proposal’s likely impacts on our iconic views, privacy, structural integrity, and the health of my family.
1.3 I object to this application because it represents a gross overdevelopment that prioritises developer yield over the fundamental rights of existing residents. The proposal seeks to externalise its "costs" onto my family in the form of total view loss, destroyed privacy, and significant health risks associated with massive sandstone excavation.
2. Severe Impact on Views and Visual Amenity (The Tenacity Test)
2.1 The proposal would fundamentally and "devastatingly" alter the existing outlook from my kitchen, bedroom, and main outdoor living area. At present, my home enjoys iconic, unobstructed views of Middle Head, Dobroyd Head, and the Middle Harbour interface.
2.2 Under the Tenacity planning principles, the proposed 10-storey tower represents an unreasonable failure of view sharing. This is not a "partial" or "side" view loss; it is the total obscuration of the primary scenic vista that defines the character and value of my home. The developer’s decision to seek a 16.78% height variation above already generous bonuses is a choice that directly results in the "walling off" of my horizon. The Visual Impact Assessment (VIA) admits these impacts are "severe to devastating," yet the proposal offers no meaningful mitigation for my property.
3. Loss of Privacy and Overbearing Visual Bulk
3.1 The sheer scale of a 10-storey structure on the ridgeline creates an unacceptable "sense of enclosure" for my property.
• Overlooking: With 53 apartments replacing a low-density footprint, my private open spaces will be subject to direct overlooking from dozens of balconies. This destroys the fundamental privacy of my family’s backyard.
• Visual Looming: The height of the building—exceeding 33 metres—will dominate the skyward view from 75B Muston Street, creating a "looming" effect that is entirely inconsistent with the intended R3 medium-density transition and the character of the street.
4. Health and Wellbeing: Silica Dust and Acoustic Stress
4.1 A project of this magnitude, involving a 10-metre deep excavation into hard sandstone, poses a direct threat to my family’s health and wellbeing:
• Respiratory Risk: Sandstone excavation generates significant fine particulate matter (silica dust). As we are located directly behind and downwind of the site, our home will be the primary receptor for this dust. This is of grave concern for the health of my six-year-old son.
• Acoustic Stress: The prolonged use of 10-tonne hydraulic rock breakers will create a high-decibel environment for months on end. This is particularly concerning for the ability to maintain a healthy home environment and the mental health of residents subjected to constant vibration.
5. Structural Risk and Ground Integrity
5.1 My property at 75B Muston Street is built on the same continuous sandstone ridge as the Development Site. Sandstone is a highly efficient conductor of vibration.
• Vibration Damage: The use of heavy rock-breaking equipment poses a direct structural risk to the foundations and masonry of my home.
• Zone of Influence: The Geotechnical Report admits the "zone of influence" for potential structural damage extends up to 30 metres from the site perimeter. As a direct neighbour, I have no confidence in "preliminary" mitigation measures and demand a site-specific, independent geotechnical study to guarantee the safety of my property.
6. Incompatibility with Balmoral Townscape Character
6.1 The proposal is a direct assault on the Balmoral Townscape Character Statement, which defines this area as a delicate "amphitheatre" where the ridgeline and upper slopes should contain "one and two storey" housing.
• Breach of Scale: A 10-storey tower is a gross departure from this character, replacing a consistent residential fabric with a "bulky mega dwelling."
• Topographical Destruction: The Statement mandates the avoidance of "excessive excavation." Hollowing out the ridge for a 106-car basement permanently destroys the natural landform that forms the amphitheatre’s base.
7. Traffic, Access and Pedestrian Safety
7.1 The local street and lane network is not suited to this level of intensification.
• Redan Lane Hazards: Forcing waste collection and heavy vehicles into Redan Lane creates an operational conflict with the 90+ pedestrians who use the lane daily.
• Sub-standard Access: The TIA admits the primary "safe" walking route via Melaleuca Lane has a path only 600–700mm wide. This is technically insufficient for prams or residents with mobility aids, proving the site is unsuitable for this density.
8. Scenic Protection, Heritage and Vegetation
8.1 This site falls within the Mosman Scenic Protection Area. The proposal shifts the balance too far toward built form by removing eight trees and a significant group (G1), including a Category A Kentia Palm, simply to accommodate the basement. This destroys the "leafy character" identified as a defining quality of the Balmoral slopes.
9. Affordable Housing Pathway and Social Impact
9.1 I do not oppose affordable housing, but it must not be used to justify unconscionable planning impacts. Furthermore, the proposal’s use of "poor doors" (inferior access via a service lane for affordable units) and tiny bedsits is a regressive design that fails to provide genuine public benefit or social cohesion.
10. Conclusion
10.1 For the reasons set out above, I respectfully submit that the Development Application should be refused. The proposal represents an excessive and unsuitable response to a sensitive Mosman site. The concerns identified—specifically the total loss of iconic views, the health risks to my child from silica dust, and the structural risks to my home—go to the very heart of residential amenity.
10.2 Furthermore, the blatant disregard for the Balmoral Townscape Character Statement renders this development a fundamental threat to the local environment and broader public interest. It is clear that the "affordable housing" component is a tokenistic inclusion. Far from providing a genuine public benefit, the affordable housing pathway is being used as a strategic "free ride" to bypass local planning controls and maximise developer profits at the expense of established residents.
Sincerely,
Jiang Qian 75B Muston Street, Mosman

SSD-93020230 at 40-48 Redan Street Mosman
OBJECT TO DEVELOPMENT
Dear Ms Ross
I am the joint owner and long term resident of 1/77Muston street..I have lived in the area since we bought the property 26 years ago in 2000. I haven’t lived in a residence as long as this.
This was to be our forever home, never in our wildest dreams did we imagine such wicked development be possible allowed to even begin,with proportions utterly reprehensible.

The proposed development is complex, supported by hundreds of pages. I am not an architect so I have asked for help..
There is no pretence of independence in these reports. They are plainly prepared in support of the applicant and not to provide a balanced fair or objective assessment..
Out property is directly opposite the site 20 meters away down hill and we will be directly affected by the impacts on views to the harbour,North Head, Manly, Balgowlah Heights, Clontarf, Balmoral beach,and Middle Head. Basically zero views if this proposal goes ahead.

This development should be on the ridge line ,which is on military Road not Balmoral Slope..

I object to this application, most people do, because it represents an excessive and unsustainable development for the site and setting, and our home will never be the same again.
Natural justice is not served by this process.

Balmoral Slopes and Redan Street with surrounding streets are low scale residential, 2-3 storeys. A 10 storey building with. 2 basement and 106 car spaces is an abrupt escalation in height and bulk. This building is too prominent.
The site falls within the Mosman Scenic Protection Area an integral part of Sydney Harbour landscape. Recognised in both State and Council planning since the 1960s.
The proposal will alter our existing views and privacy dramatically. ZERO.
We have no north facing windows and have always enjoyed the morning sun and with this proposal will be lucky to get 1 hour a day from the east. The complete loss of privacy is utterly catastrophic
It has caused great heartache and stress on me causing me to be forced to take sleeping tablets to get a decent nights sleep.
Much less the stress on one’s marriage.
The loss of value on our property $1 million is devastating not only for us but also our children. My husband is 80 and that loss of value will alter the choice of care in his older age.
What an utter disgrace to blight Balmoral Slopes with this development.
We will be forced to live in a dark sunless apartment for most of the day.
Regards
Merrideth Stone
1/77 Muston Street
Mosman.

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

I am a resident, Dianne Essey at Unit 11 76 Muston Street Mosman and have lived in the area for the past 9 years. I strongly oppose the proposed development and firmly believe it would irreparably damage the unique character and liveability of our neighbourhood. The scale and nature of this application are entirely inappropriate for the area.

Although the development is presented as a means to provide affordable housing, it will in fact deliver high-end luxury apartments in one of Australia’s most expensive suburbs on the Balmoral Slopes. These units are beyond the financial reach of 98% of the population, and the proposal includes a segregated rear entrance for so-called affordable units that the ordinary workers will use. This approach is not only inappropriate, but also inconsistent with Australia’s values of social inclusion.

The site represents environmental and structural risks. The scale of excavation of up to 10 metres into sandstone to the site boundaries raises serious concerns about structural risk, including ground movement, vibration, and potential damage to neighbouring properties. The design appears to force the site to suite the building, rather than respecting the natural topography.

The proposed development would dominate and negatively impact the adjoining heritage-listed properties at 36 and 38 Redan Street. Furthermore, it would erode the established character of the Scenic Protection Area, where minimising visual intrusion is a key objective.

Access and safety are also major concerns. Redan Lane is narrow, lacks footpaths and is unsuitable for increased traffic, council trucks and pedestrian use.

Construction impacts would further disrupt access to the well-used Upper Almora Street pedestrian pathway to Balmoral Beach.

Local infrastructure is already under significant strain due to the increasing population in the area including significant traffic congestion we already experience on a daily basis.

Increased density from a large scale building in a steep and constrained location raises legitimate concerns and emergency access and service capacity.

The proposed increase in density, resulting from a large-scale building on a steep and tightly constrained site, raises significant concerns regarding both emergency access and the capacity of local services. The challenging topography and limited space would likely impede first responders in an emergency and place additional strain on already stretched infrastructure.

Furthermore, the proposal appears to be non-compliant with current planning controls. It exceeds the permitted building height and relies on the use of planning variations. Additionally, it does not satisfy the requirement to be within 400 metres of the Mosman centre when measured by safe and legitimate pedestrian routes, further highlighting its inappropriateness for this location.

In light of all these points, I urge that this application be refused. This proposal constitutes an excessive and inappropriate development within a sensitive and iconic part of Mosman. Approving such a development would not only undermine the unique character, amenity and heritage values that define our neighbourhood, but would also jeopardise the liveability and legacy of Mosman to all Australians who live and visit here. Our community deserves thoughtful planning that truly respects its history, environment and people—not a development that threatens to irreversibly damage what makes this place so special for the sake of lining greedy developers’ pockets under the guise of “affordable housing”. This is clearly not in the spirit of the policy and is very evident for all to see.

Dear Senior Planning Officer,

I refer to State Significant Development Application SSD-930202230, which proposes a 10-storey high-rise building comprising 53 apartments, including two basement levels with parking for 106 cars.

I am a long-term Mosman resident of 45 years and the current owner of an apartment in Almora Street, located around the corner from the proposed development. My property, and many others nearby, will be directly impacted by increased noise, traffic, and the broader consequences of this proposal.

This development is causing genuine concern and distress among long-term residents who care deeply about Mosman, its character, its heritage, and its unique relationship to the harbour. For many, this is not simply a planning application, but a proposal that would permanently alter a place they have lived in and contributed to for decades.

However, beyond that concern, this objection is grounded in clear and substantive planning issues.

I object to this application because:

* Excessive height, bulk, and visual dominance
The proposed building introduces a scale of development that is wholly inconsistent with its surroundings. Its height and bulk will dominate the streetscape and surrounding properties, rather than integrate with the natural slope and established built form.

* Incompatibility with established local character
Balmoral and the broader Mosman area are defined by low-rise development that responds to topography and landscape. This proposal represents an abrupt and unjustified escalation in density and scale.

* Conflict with Scenic Protection provisions
The site is located within a Scenic Protection area intended to preserve the visual relationship between the Mosman slopes and Sydney Harbour, including key view corridors.
A development of this magnitude risks interrupting these views and introducing a visually dominant built form that is not secondary to the landscape.

* Impact on heritage character, including Redan Street
Redan Street and adjoining properties contribute to a cohesive and historically significant streetscape. The scale and form of this proposal are not sympathetic to that context and risk eroding its integrity.

* Transport, traffic, and infrastructure mismatch
Parking for 106 vehicles indicates a development heavily reliant on private cars. This location is not supported by high-capacity public transport and is not suited to this level of density. Increased traffic will place additional pressure on local roads and raise safety and congestion concerns.

* Inappropriate scale relative to infrastructure capacity
State Significant Developments are expected to demonstrate strategic merit, including proximity to transport and services capable of supporting increased density. This site does not exhibit those characteristics to a degree that would justify a development of this scale.

* Inappropriate location for affordable housing at this scale
While the delivery of affordable housing is important, it must be located in areas appropriate for increased density and supported by adequate infrastructure.

The Balmoral slopes are a constrained, highly sensitive coastal environment with existing congestion challenges and limited transport capacity. This location is not suited to a development of this scale.

There are more appropriate areas within Mosman where affordable housing could be delivered closer to transport, services, and existing centres without compromising sensitive landscapes or established residential character.

* Bypassing of local planning scrutiny and significant impact on residents
It is of concern that this development is being assessed via the State Significant Development pathway, effectively bypassing the level of scrutiny typically applied by Mosman Council.
Local residents are required to comply with strict controls designed to protect views, streetscape, and neighbourhood character, yet this proposal seeks to depart significantly from those same principles.
This creates an inequitable planning outcome and risks undermining confidence in the planning system.
The impacts on surrounding residents will be significant and enduring. Many stand to lose key views, experience a substantial reduction in amenity, and face a fundamental change to the character of their homes and neighbourhood.

These are not marginal effects, they go directly to the liveability and value of properties in this area. Such losses, imposed without the usual level of local scrutiny, represent a profound and lasting consequence for residents.

* Design quality and façade outcome
The proposed façade lacks the articulation and variation expected in this setting, resulting in a building that reads as a large, dominant form rather than a carefully resolved residential development.
Given the visual prominence of the site, the overall presentation is not consistent with the level of design quality or contextual sensitivity expected on the Balmoral slopes.

In conclusion:
I am not opposed to development in Mosman. Thoughtful, well-scaled projects have contributed positively to the area and demonstrate that growth can be achieved while respecting local character and community expectations.

Recent developments, such as Woolworths Metro, the apartments at the top of Avenue Road, and projects near the Council precinct, show that it is possible to deliver new housing and amenity, in a way that integrates with the surrounding environment.

This proposal does not achieve that balance.

This proposal fails to demonstrate sufficient merit to justify its scale and departure from established planning controls.

It is inconsistent with the character of Mosman, conflicts with Scenic Protection objectives, places pressure on infrastructure not designed for this level of density, and risks long-term impacts on heritage, views, and community amenity.

Once constructed, these impacts cannot be undone.

I strongly urge that this application be refused.

Sincerely,
Kimberly Knox

Objection to 40-48 Redan Street, Mosman Development Proposal

SSD – 93020230 March 30th 2026

Introduction
My family and I live at 14 Balmoral Avenue, 70 metres diagonally across from the proposed development on Redan.
I am not equipped to fully understand the many breaches of planning compliance that are so well articulated and compelling in other objections on this submission portal.
My concerns will simply come from a common-sense perspective of a neighbouring resident and actually for many, many residents of Mosman who will be indirectly impacted by this proposal in their daily lives. This leads me to my first point:

Safety and Traffic;
I acknowledge and support the cases put forward on the inadequacy of Redan Lane to support both the construction and on going traffic impact. Broadening this impact, there are two major points of accessing Redan Avenue and Redan lane;
The junction between Almora Street and Military road
The junction between Raglan Street and Military road
Both are currently huge pinch points at any time of day from volume of traffic whether joining or leaving the Military Road. I have observed on may occasions dangerous driving and enormous congestion as motorists queue for long periods for ingress and egress of these major junctions. If each of the current residences to be demolished have c.2 car parking spaces, that would be a reduction of c.10 cars but the development proposes 106 car parking spaces giving a net increase of residential traffic of 96 cars. This would significantly add to the above junctions’ huge bottlenecks and also the sheer volume of traffic on the Military road in Mosman, particularly the traffic lights at Spit Junction. Add to this, home delivery vehicles, trades, visitors etc and you create enormous strain and congestion on a road system never designed for the current volume of traffic, never mind a further increase. I also strongly believe this will have a material safety impact for the whole of Mosman’s residences traversing the Military road and its associated arterial roads which will inevitably become dangerous rat runs.

Excessive height and scale.
A 10 storey building has to be seen as high density overdevelopment. The offer of affordable housing is absolute lip service and completely a means to an end for a luxury development. The landscape character of Mosman has been protected for generations and whilst I am supportive of change to enable progress, the excessive height and scale is driven by a profit and loss account as opposed to any housing, community or heritage benefits.

Conclusion
As I stated at the start, I cannot add further to the well-articulated and undeniable arguments in other submissions of breaches of Planning consents. The development is driven by greed from developers focused on their bottom line. I acknowledge this is the nature of business, but it needs its constraints. Just as oil and mining companies have to be sensitive to the local environment and communities, if this development is approved it will be travesty of historical proportions for the Mosman community that could not be undone.
I would hasten to add I suspect the owners of these development proposals do not live in this vicinity and they would be the first to complain should something of this nature be built in their neighbourhood.
Whilst you review all the technical aspects of this development, I ask you to come back to my very first point: let common sense and common decency also guide your decision making.
I therefore respectfully ask you to reject this proposal.