Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
MOSMAN
,
New South Wales
Message
Development Application SSD-93020230 at 40-48 Redan Street, Mosman, NSW 2088
I appreciate and thank you for your time to read my submission
For the past 15 years I’ve had the pleasure of living in the suburb of Mosman. During that time, I’ve witnessed many houses, some old and neglected, others old but rather beautiful in design and style, demolished and replaced by new dwellings. Some enriched the street-scape, others did the opposite due to radical differences in architectural style to the neighbouring properties.
However, they all pale in comparison to the proposed development above.
Never before have I seen such an aggressive attack on a suburban area. The only word I could think of when confronted with the visual images of this monstrosity was ‘brutalist architecture’!
This design shows complete disregard to its surrounding environment and neighbouring properties, some of them heritage listed. The proposed development is of such a magnitude in visual impact that it negatively affects the whole hillside.
How can this be allowed to proceed? The projected images of the development represent a monolith of obscene proportions that would tower over its neighbours and the hill slope as an ominous sign of worse to come.
There are other aspects of this development that trouble me deeply, however let me start with the obvious one, the sheer size of the proposed development. At a proposed height of 33.4 metres the development exceeds the maximum legal height of 28.6 metres (which is inclusive of the height bonus for providing affordable housing) by 4.8 metres or 16.78%. The justification for the height violation is nothing else but clever spin.
The width and height of the development would create a visual block to neighbouring properties and of course will also affect wind flow and exposure to light and sunshine to the surrounding properties. The proposed gap in the middle of the development, cynically named ‘relieve view’, would be a sad and depressing reminder to the neighbouring property owners of the views they once had. I wonder how it will affect the value of their properties?
The plans for the development indicate that here will be deep excavations into the sandstone cliff. May God help the adjacent properties, some of them heritage listed, with the resulting damage to their properties due to vibration from jackhammering. The excavations would be partly in order to accommodate over 100 cars in two basement parking spaces. This could lead to serious issues with traffic flow in the area.
There is a proposed secondary entrance to the development from Redan Lane to the affordable housing units. That wouldn’t be segregation now, would it? Or a ‘poor door’ arrangement? Another issue with this entrance from Redan Lane is the fact that the lane is narrow, only 4 metres wide, and has no footpath. It is also used for waste collection. There would definitely be grave safety and security issues here if the development were to go ahead.
There are many other objections to be raised to stop this proposed development. However, I trust that sound judgement will prevail in this matter and the authorities come to the conclusion that this proposed development breaches fundamental controls and is not compliant.
Irreversible damage will be done if developments that take liberties and do not comply with regulations are permitted to proceed. It opens the door for even more opportunistic and damaging developments that we have to live with.
I appreciate and thank you for your time to read my submission
For the past 15 years I’ve had the pleasure of living in the suburb of Mosman. During that time, I’ve witnessed many houses, some old and neglected, others old but rather beautiful in design and style, demolished and replaced by new dwellings. Some enriched the street-scape, others did the opposite due to radical differences in architectural style to the neighbouring properties.
However, they all pale in comparison to the proposed development above.
Never before have I seen such an aggressive attack on a suburban area. The only word I could think of when confronted with the visual images of this monstrosity was ‘brutalist architecture’!
This design shows complete disregard to its surrounding environment and neighbouring properties, some of them heritage listed. The proposed development is of such a magnitude in visual impact that it negatively affects the whole hillside.
How can this be allowed to proceed? The projected images of the development represent a monolith of obscene proportions that would tower over its neighbours and the hill slope as an ominous sign of worse to come.
There are other aspects of this development that trouble me deeply, however let me start with the obvious one, the sheer size of the proposed development. At a proposed height of 33.4 metres the development exceeds the maximum legal height of 28.6 metres (which is inclusive of the height bonus for providing affordable housing) by 4.8 metres or 16.78%. The justification for the height violation is nothing else but clever spin.
The width and height of the development would create a visual block to neighbouring properties and of course will also affect wind flow and exposure to light and sunshine to the surrounding properties. The proposed gap in the middle of the development, cynically named ‘relieve view’, would be a sad and depressing reminder to the neighbouring property owners of the views they once had. I wonder how it will affect the value of their properties?
The plans for the development indicate that here will be deep excavations into the sandstone cliff. May God help the adjacent properties, some of them heritage listed, with the resulting damage to their properties due to vibration from jackhammering. The excavations would be partly in order to accommodate over 100 cars in two basement parking spaces. This could lead to serious issues with traffic flow in the area.
There is a proposed secondary entrance to the development from Redan Lane to the affordable housing units. That wouldn’t be segregation now, would it? Or a ‘poor door’ arrangement? Another issue with this entrance from Redan Lane is the fact that the lane is narrow, only 4 metres wide, and has no footpath. It is also used for waste collection. There would definitely be grave safety and security issues here if the development were to go ahead.
There are many other objections to be raised to stop this proposed development. However, I trust that sound judgement will prevail in this matter and the authorities come to the conclusion that this proposed development breaches fundamental controls and is not compliant.
Irreversible damage will be done if developments that take liberties and do not comply with regulations are permitted to proceed. It opens the door for even more opportunistic and damaging developments that we have to live with.
Michael Olesnicky
Object
Michael Olesnicky
Object
MOSMAN
,
New South Wales
Message
See attachments. In addition, a surveyor's report is being finalised and will be submitted soon. (The two weeks objection period obviously has given little time to digest and respond to the proposed development, hence the delay.) Note: the attached photomantage was prepared by a professional architect who was retained for this purpose.
Attachments
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
KURRABA POINT
,
New South Wales
Message
I write to formally object to the proposal.
This proposal represents a clear misuse of the NSW Government’s affordable housing framework. It delivers minimal, temporary public benefit via tokenistic affordable housing while enabling substantial and disproportionate private gain. In doing so undermines the intent and credibility of the NSW affordable housing policies.
Failure to Deliver Genuine Housing Affordability:
Sydney remains one of the least affordable housing markets in the developed world. The Demographia International Housing Affordability Index places Sydney’s median price-to-income ratio at approximately 13.8, a level classified as more than “impossibly unaffordable”. The report is widely used and quoted across the industry as the global gold standard in housing affordability metrics.
In this context, developments that rely on affordable housing incentives must deliver meaningful and enduring affordability outcomes.
This proposal does not.
It provides only 11 affordable dwellings for a limited 15-year period within a development that is otherwise clearly targeted at the ultra-luxury market. Based on comparable developments in Mosman, apartments are likely to achieve prices in the millions and tens of millions of dollars, with penthouses reaching significantly higher values. The proposed development does not meaningfully improve housing accessibility for typical households and does not address structural affordability challenges.
Financial Analysis Demonstrates Disproportionate Gain:
Based on a base case assumption, the financial profile of the proposal is exceptionally strong:
• Total development cost: ~$265 million (~$100m land cost, $106m construction, and ~$60m other costs including debt servicing and 15% contingency on land and construction costs)
• Estimated gross sales revenue: ~$419.5 million (see attached calculations)
• Estimated profit: ~$154.5 million
This equates to:
• ~58% project margin
• ~28–31% internal rate of return (IRR)
These returns are significantly above typical industry benchmarks, where:
• A good project margin is ~15–20%
• A strong IRR is ~20%
The scale of these returns demonstrates that the proposal delivers substantial windfall gains well beyond what is required to incentivise development.
Even under a conservative downside scenario, assuming a further 20% reduction in total sales revenue, the project achieves:
• Revenue: ~$335.6 million
• Profit: ~$70.6 million
• Project margin: ~26–27%
• Estimated IRR: ~17–20%
These returns remain above typical industry benchmarks and confirm that the current scale and intensity of the development are not required to achieve a commercially viable outcome. Rather, the proposal reflects a deliberate strategy to maximise development yield under the affordable housing provisions, rather than a balanced response to feasibility constraints.
Furthermore, in the attached spreadsheet i have calculated the gross median household income ratio for Australia and NSW to link the project to the results of the Demographia International Affordability report. It shows the proposed project delivers housing at an estimated ~38x the gross median income for the ‘cheapest’ apartment. This extends up to a massive ~240x for the penthouses. Put another way, these ratios are more than 4x what the Demographia report calls “impossibly unaffordable” (a ratio of 9x gross median income and over). For penthouse, this is over 26x.
The NSW Government’s affordable housing framework is intended to increase supply while delivering genuine community benefit. Based on the above, the Minns NSW Government and Department of planning simply cannot, in good faith, say to the people of NSW that this development is consistent with the intent of its policies.
This raises a fundamental issue under Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, whether the proposal is in the public interest. Given the imbalance between private gain and public benefit, it is difficult to conclude that it is.
If approved, this development risks becoming a visible example of policy failure, demonstrating how affordable housing provisions can be used to justify excessive development in premium locations with minimal community benefit.
Additionally, the development will have significant and lasting impacts on surrounding properties, particularly those located on both sides of Muston Street, including devastating loss of views and privacy in what is a low density location. There are also important economic and strategic consequences for neighbouring residents including material reductions in property values, emotional and financial stress, and reduced redevelopment potential. The reduction in future development potential is particularly concerning, as it may limit the ability to deliver additional housing supply in a more appropriate and balanced form. Another self inflicted wound to the policies intent.
The financial analysis clearly demonstrates that a reduced-scale development of, to <4 stories, would remain commercially viable while significantly reducing impacts on the surrounding community.
This confirms that the current proposal represents overreach rather than necessity.
In conclusion, this proposal:
• Fails to deliver meaningful or enduring affordable housing
• Generates substantial and disproportionate private profit
• Misuses the NSW Government’s affordable housing framework
• Imposes significant impacts on surrounding properties
• Risks undermining confidence in the planning system
Accordingly, it is not in the public interest and should be refused.
This proposal represents a clear misuse of the NSW Government’s affordable housing framework. It delivers minimal, temporary public benefit via tokenistic affordable housing while enabling substantial and disproportionate private gain. In doing so undermines the intent and credibility of the NSW affordable housing policies.
Failure to Deliver Genuine Housing Affordability:
Sydney remains one of the least affordable housing markets in the developed world. The Demographia International Housing Affordability Index places Sydney’s median price-to-income ratio at approximately 13.8, a level classified as more than “impossibly unaffordable”. The report is widely used and quoted across the industry as the global gold standard in housing affordability metrics.
In this context, developments that rely on affordable housing incentives must deliver meaningful and enduring affordability outcomes.
This proposal does not.
It provides only 11 affordable dwellings for a limited 15-year period within a development that is otherwise clearly targeted at the ultra-luxury market. Based on comparable developments in Mosman, apartments are likely to achieve prices in the millions and tens of millions of dollars, with penthouses reaching significantly higher values. The proposed development does not meaningfully improve housing accessibility for typical households and does not address structural affordability challenges.
Financial Analysis Demonstrates Disproportionate Gain:
Based on a base case assumption, the financial profile of the proposal is exceptionally strong:
• Total development cost: ~$265 million (~$100m land cost, $106m construction, and ~$60m other costs including debt servicing and 15% contingency on land and construction costs)
• Estimated gross sales revenue: ~$419.5 million (see attached calculations)
• Estimated profit: ~$154.5 million
This equates to:
• ~58% project margin
• ~28–31% internal rate of return (IRR)
These returns are significantly above typical industry benchmarks, where:
• A good project margin is ~15–20%
• A strong IRR is ~20%
The scale of these returns demonstrates that the proposal delivers substantial windfall gains well beyond what is required to incentivise development.
Even under a conservative downside scenario, assuming a further 20% reduction in total sales revenue, the project achieves:
• Revenue: ~$335.6 million
• Profit: ~$70.6 million
• Project margin: ~26–27%
• Estimated IRR: ~17–20%
These returns remain above typical industry benchmarks and confirm that the current scale and intensity of the development are not required to achieve a commercially viable outcome. Rather, the proposal reflects a deliberate strategy to maximise development yield under the affordable housing provisions, rather than a balanced response to feasibility constraints.
Furthermore, in the attached spreadsheet i have calculated the gross median household income ratio for Australia and NSW to link the project to the results of the Demographia International Affordability report. It shows the proposed project delivers housing at an estimated ~38x the gross median income for the ‘cheapest’ apartment. This extends up to a massive ~240x for the penthouses. Put another way, these ratios are more than 4x what the Demographia report calls “impossibly unaffordable” (a ratio of 9x gross median income and over). For penthouse, this is over 26x.
The NSW Government’s affordable housing framework is intended to increase supply while delivering genuine community benefit. Based on the above, the Minns NSW Government and Department of planning simply cannot, in good faith, say to the people of NSW that this development is consistent with the intent of its policies.
This raises a fundamental issue under Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, whether the proposal is in the public interest. Given the imbalance between private gain and public benefit, it is difficult to conclude that it is.
If approved, this development risks becoming a visible example of policy failure, demonstrating how affordable housing provisions can be used to justify excessive development in premium locations with minimal community benefit.
Additionally, the development will have significant and lasting impacts on surrounding properties, particularly those located on both sides of Muston Street, including devastating loss of views and privacy in what is a low density location. There are also important economic and strategic consequences for neighbouring residents including material reductions in property values, emotional and financial stress, and reduced redevelopment potential. The reduction in future development potential is particularly concerning, as it may limit the ability to deliver additional housing supply in a more appropriate and balanced form. Another self inflicted wound to the policies intent.
The financial analysis clearly demonstrates that a reduced-scale development of, to <4 stories, would remain commercially viable while significantly reducing impacts on the surrounding community.
This confirms that the current proposal represents overreach rather than necessity.
In conclusion, this proposal:
• Fails to deliver meaningful or enduring affordable housing
• Generates substantial and disproportionate private profit
• Misuses the NSW Government’s affordable housing framework
• Imposes significant impacts on surrounding properties
• Risks undermining confidence in the planning system
Accordingly, it is not in the public interest and should be refused.
Attachments
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
Mosman
,
New South Wales
Message
28 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
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
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
Guylen pty ltd
Object
Guylen pty ltd
Object
MOSMAN
,
New South Wales
Message
GUYLEN Pty Ltd
Guylen Super Fund
75A Muston Street
Mosman, NSW
2088
[email protected]
ABN 42 425 113 151
28 March 2026
To: The Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure
Locked Bag 5022
Parramatta NSW 2124
RE: Objection to SSD-93020230 – 40-48 Redan Street, Mosman
I am writing as chairman of Guylen Pty Ltd to formally object to the
proposed state significant development at 40-48 Redan Street,
Mosman (SSD-93020230). As residents of the area, we have serious
concerns about the scale, character and safety of this proposal.
Our objection stems from the substantial negative impact it will have
on the surrounding community, particularly residents of Muston
Street, Redan Lane, Almora Street and nearby Balmoral slopes. We
are also concerned about the misleading information distribution to
residents. A small leaflet easily confused with other junk mail was
distributed, demonstrating poor judgement or deliberate disregard
for community engagement.
DEVELOPMENT ISSUES:
• The construction of such a large development has caused several
problems:
• The construction proposed will block out beautiful Iconic
• views, and has already led to our property devaluation of in
excess of $1 million according to very recent appraisals.
• It has made it more difficult to plan our immediate future,
especially for us at our advanced age.
• Pictures below of our typical view at present,
and the destruction of that view after
the proposed construction:
LOSS OF VIEW, AMBIENCE AND WELLBEING
An example of the likely future of Balmoral and environs
•
Plans for home modifications, including installation of lifts to
assist movement within multi-level homes, have been
put on hold due to uncertainty caused by the development.
Reduced sunlight will also affect health and general living
conditions.
• Initial plans for my wife and I to have a comfortable downsize
shortly, have been ruined by the reduction in likely net funds.
• Land values have also declined with a subsequent reduction in
funds going to council.
• We would therefore expect a reduction in council rates due to
the property devaluation.
• These issues warrant our objection to the proposed development. It
will also significantly impact several properties along Muston
Street.
LOSS OF VIEWS, OVERSHADOWING AND LOSS OF
AMENITY
• The proposed building will cause severe overshadowing to
neighbouring properties, completely blocking sunlight to 75B and
75C Muston Street and partially affecting 75A. Later in the day,
additional overshadowing will occur due to surrounding buildings.
• The development will completely block existing views of the
Balmoral environment, including views of the harbour, North
Head, Middle Head and surrounding landscape. Sunrise will be
obstructed until late morning, resulting in loss of natural light and
a significant decline in living conditions and mental wellness.
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
• Strong winds are a major concern. We already experience gentle
sea breezes but also very strong winds, particularly from the east
and southeast. Currently the Balmoral Slopes funnel the wind,
with its speed increased as it is compressed below the upper air
mass as it comes to the crest of iconic Balmoral slopes.
• The proposed development’s shape and mass, especially the gap
between the towers, will amplify the wind blowing through that
gap, increasing its velocity substantially, which will impact
directly our living times on the balcony at our premises. This is
more than evident in the CBD and similar areas where tall
buildings create high winds in streets below and on upper
balconies, necessitating the securing of loose furniture.
• Having experienced a severe wind experience a few years ago,
causing me high anxiety for years at the least rustling of leaves,
the nerves start to go hyper at the first sound of high winds. The
health and anxiety aspects will be more profound with this
development.
• This objection is not made without a lot of concern. The lifetime
images we have capture, a lifestyle, a sense of worth and a
connection to the surrounding environs - It’s called truly a HOME!
• Our neighbours in 75C will be faced with a wall of windows not
more than 5m away! With significant rise in traffic from bikes,
people & cars. No privacy at all! Terrible consequences!
• One BIG concern is the presence of bicycle racks along narrow
Redan Lane boundary. The danger of E-batteries going up in
flames is of MAJOR concern. If the fire spreads there is little room
for multiple fire engines - they will not fit or be able operate
safely! The same applies to other emergency vehicles!
• We strongly object to this situation which will block our wonderful
views of the Iconic Balmoral environment and cause additional
high stress during much higher winds than previously experienced.
COUNCIL
The council should be submitting their concerns against this
proposal. They will lose rates due to devaluation of residential and
commercial properties. Many residents should be up in arms and
demanding a rate reduction as their land values have clearly
decreased.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons outlined above, the proposed development at 40–48
Redan Street will have a severe and lasting negative effect on the
surrounding community, including safety and fire risks, traffic
problems, loss of sunlight and views, severe health impacts on
elderly retired residents, infrastructure strain, and significant
property devaluation.
I respectfully request that the Proposal for the Development be
refused on grounds listed above,:- Council reconsider the proposal in
its current form and give proper weight to the resultant adverse and
long-term effects caused on existing residents as well as future
residents, and the long established current community character of
the Balmoral / Mosman area. There are many other more suitable
locations with existing high-rise accommodation. Why ruin the
amphitheater of Balmoral Slopes, the very “Soul of Mosman”.
Please listen to the voice of longtime residents, whose future plans,
financially and emotionally, have been shattered by the prospect of
the planned developments, rather than give way to greedy
developers whose huge gains will be our collective losses.
Yours faithfully,
Guylen Super Fund
75A Muston Street
Mosman, NSW
2088
[email protected]
ABN 42 425 113 151
28 March 2026
To: The Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure
Locked Bag 5022
Parramatta NSW 2124
RE: Objection to SSD-93020230 – 40-48 Redan Street, Mosman
I am writing as chairman of Guylen Pty Ltd to formally object to the
proposed state significant development at 40-48 Redan Street,
Mosman (SSD-93020230). As residents of the area, we have serious
concerns about the scale, character and safety of this proposal.
Our objection stems from the substantial negative impact it will have
on the surrounding community, particularly residents of Muston
Street, Redan Lane, Almora Street and nearby Balmoral slopes. We
are also concerned about the misleading information distribution to
residents. A small leaflet easily confused with other junk mail was
distributed, demonstrating poor judgement or deliberate disregard
for community engagement.
DEVELOPMENT ISSUES:
• The construction of such a large development has caused several
problems:
• The construction proposed will block out beautiful Iconic
• views, and has already led to our property devaluation of in
excess of $1 million according to very recent appraisals.
• It has made it more difficult to plan our immediate future,
especially for us at our advanced age.
• Pictures below of our typical view at present,
and the destruction of that view after
the proposed construction:
LOSS OF VIEW, AMBIENCE AND WELLBEING
An example of the likely future of Balmoral and environs
•
Plans for home modifications, including installation of lifts to
assist movement within multi-level homes, have been
put on hold due to uncertainty caused by the development.
Reduced sunlight will also affect health and general living
conditions.
• Initial plans for my wife and I to have a comfortable downsize
shortly, have been ruined by the reduction in likely net funds.
• Land values have also declined with a subsequent reduction in
funds going to council.
• We would therefore expect a reduction in council rates due to
the property devaluation.
• These issues warrant our objection to the proposed development. It
will also significantly impact several properties along Muston
Street.
LOSS OF VIEWS, OVERSHADOWING AND LOSS OF
AMENITY
• The proposed building will cause severe overshadowing to
neighbouring properties, completely blocking sunlight to 75B and
75C Muston Street and partially affecting 75A. Later in the day,
additional overshadowing will occur due to surrounding buildings.
• The development will completely block existing views of the
Balmoral environment, including views of the harbour, North
Head, Middle Head and surrounding landscape. Sunrise will be
obstructed until late morning, resulting in loss of natural light and
a significant decline in living conditions and mental wellness.
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
• Strong winds are a major concern. We already experience gentle
sea breezes but also very strong winds, particularly from the east
and southeast. Currently the Balmoral Slopes funnel the wind,
with its speed increased as it is compressed below the upper air
mass as it comes to the crest of iconic Balmoral slopes.
• The proposed development’s shape and mass, especially the gap
between the towers, will amplify the wind blowing through that
gap, increasing its velocity substantially, which will impact
directly our living times on the balcony at our premises. This is
more than evident in the CBD and similar areas where tall
buildings create high winds in streets below and on upper
balconies, necessitating the securing of loose furniture.
• Having experienced a severe wind experience a few years ago,
causing me high anxiety for years at the least rustling of leaves,
the nerves start to go hyper at the first sound of high winds. The
health and anxiety aspects will be more profound with this
development.
• This objection is not made without a lot of concern. The lifetime
images we have capture, a lifestyle, a sense of worth and a
connection to the surrounding environs - It’s called truly a HOME!
• Our neighbours in 75C will be faced with a wall of windows not
more than 5m away! With significant rise in traffic from bikes,
people & cars. No privacy at all! Terrible consequences!
• One BIG concern is the presence of bicycle racks along narrow
Redan Lane boundary. The danger of E-batteries going up in
flames is of MAJOR concern. If the fire spreads there is little room
for multiple fire engines - they will not fit or be able operate
safely! The same applies to other emergency vehicles!
• We strongly object to this situation which will block our wonderful
views of the Iconic Balmoral environment and cause additional
high stress during much higher winds than previously experienced.
COUNCIL
The council should be submitting their concerns against this
proposal. They will lose rates due to devaluation of residential and
commercial properties. Many residents should be up in arms and
demanding a rate reduction as their land values have clearly
decreased.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons outlined above, the proposed development at 40–48
Redan Street will have a severe and lasting negative effect on the
surrounding community, including safety and fire risks, traffic
problems, loss of sunlight and views, severe health impacts on
elderly retired residents, infrastructure strain, and significant
property devaluation.
I respectfully request that the Proposal for the Development be
refused on grounds listed above,:- Council reconsider the proposal in
its current form and give proper weight to the resultant adverse and
long-term effects caused on existing residents as well as future
residents, and the long established current community character of
the Balmoral / Mosman area. There are many other more suitable
locations with existing high-rise accommodation. Why ruin the
amphitheater of Balmoral Slopes, the very “Soul of Mosman”.
Please listen to the voice of longtime residents, whose future plans,
financially and emotionally, have been shattered by the prospect of
the planned developments, rather than give way to greedy
developers whose huge gains will be our collective losses.
Yours faithfully,
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
MOSMAN
,
New South Wales
Message
I write to formally object to the proposed development at 40-48 Redan Street, Mosman seeking approval for the demolition of existing dwellings and construction of a 10 storey residential building comprising 53 apartments and two basement parking levels for 106 vehicles.
My objection is based on significant concerns regarding the proposal's inconsistency with the character of the area, potential heritage impacts, traffic and safety issues and the lack of of adequate supporting infrastructure. These maters are directly relevant to the planning framework applying to Mosman, including the Mosman Council planning controls and the Mosman Local Environmental Plan 2012, which seek to ensure development is compatible with the existing scale, character and heritage of the locality.
1. the proposed 10 storey building represents a dramatic and unacceptable departure from the prevailing built form of the surrounding streets, which is characterised by low rise residential dwellings and smaller scale apartment buildings.
The height, bulk and massing of the development would:
Dominate the streetscape
Significantly overshadow neighbouring properties
Disrupt the established visual character of the area
The development is therefore out of scale with its context and constitutes an overdevelopment of the site. PLANNING CONTROLS EXISTS TO ENSURE NEW DEVELOPMENT REMAINS COMPATIBLE WITH THE EXISTING CHARACTER AND SCALE OF MOSMAN'S RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBOURHOODS.
2.Mosman is widely recognised for its historic streetscapes and architecturally significant dwellings, which contribute to the suburb's identity and value.
The demolition of existing dwellings and replacement with a large high rise building would:
Erase the existing historic built fabric
Diminish the heritage significance of the surrounding area
Set an undesirable precedent in a predominantly low rise heritage context.
The Mosman Heritage strategy emphasises the importance of protecting the municipality's unique visual character and architectural heritage, which this proposal would undermine.
3. The proposal includes parking for 106 vehicles, which would generate a substantial increase in daily vehicle movements in what is currently a quiet residential street.
This raises significant concerns including:
Increased traffic congestion
Reduced safety for pedestrians, particularly children and elderly residents
Increased noise and air pollution
The local road network was not designed to accommodate the traffic volumes associated with a development of this scale, and the cumulative impact of vehicles entering and exiting two basement levels has not been adequately addressed.
Also, approving development of this magnitude without corresponding infrastructure upgrades places undue strain on existing facilities and reduces the amenity of current residents.
4. While the proposal includes basement parking, the number of spaces is unlikely to meet the real world parking demands generated by 53 apartments, visitors , service vehicles and deliveries.
This will inevitably result in:
Overflow parking in surrounding residential streets
Reduced parking availability for existing residents
The concentration of vehicle access to basement levels also increases the likelihood of queuing, visibility conflicts and accidents.
5. Approval of a 10 storey building in a predominantly low rise residential area would establish an undesirable planning precedent and undermine existing planning controls intended to preserve Mosman's character and built form.
Such a precedent could lead to cumulative overdevelopment and gradual erosion of the low rise character that defines Mosman
For the reasons outlines above - excessive height and bulk, unacceptable heritage impacts, significant traffic and safety concerns, inadequate infrastructure, and parking pressures......I respectfully request that the Department refuse this development application.
The proposal is inconsistent with the established character of the area and fails to adequately address the impacts it would have on surrounding residents and the broader community.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this applications
My objection is based on significant concerns regarding the proposal's inconsistency with the character of the area, potential heritage impacts, traffic and safety issues and the lack of of adequate supporting infrastructure. These maters are directly relevant to the planning framework applying to Mosman, including the Mosman Council planning controls and the Mosman Local Environmental Plan 2012, which seek to ensure development is compatible with the existing scale, character and heritage of the locality.
1. the proposed 10 storey building represents a dramatic and unacceptable departure from the prevailing built form of the surrounding streets, which is characterised by low rise residential dwellings and smaller scale apartment buildings.
The height, bulk and massing of the development would:
Dominate the streetscape
Significantly overshadow neighbouring properties
Disrupt the established visual character of the area
The development is therefore out of scale with its context and constitutes an overdevelopment of the site. PLANNING CONTROLS EXISTS TO ENSURE NEW DEVELOPMENT REMAINS COMPATIBLE WITH THE EXISTING CHARACTER AND SCALE OF MOSMAN'S RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBOURHOODS.
2.Mosman is widely recognised for its historic streetscapes and architecturally significant dwellings, which contribute to the suburb's identity and value.
The demolition of existing dwellings and replacement with a large high rise building would:
Erase the existing historic built fabric
Diminish the heritage significance of the surrounding area
Set an undesirable precedent in a predominantly low rise heritage context.
The Mosman Heritage strategy emphasises the importance of protecting the municipality's unique visual character and architectural heritage, which this proposal would undermine.
3. The proposal includes parking for 106 vehicles, which would generate a substantial increase in daily vehicle movements in what is currently a quiet residential street.
This raises significant concerns including:
Increased traffic congestion
Reduced safety for pedestrians, particularly children and elderly residents
Increased noise and air pollution
The local road network was not designed to accommodate the traffic volumes associated with a development of this scale, and the cumulative impact of vehicles entering and exiting two basement levels has not been adequately addressed.
Also, approving development of this magnitude without corresponding infrastructure upgrades places undue strain on existing facilities and reduces the amenity of current residents.
4. While the proposal includes basement parking, the number of spaces is unlikely to meet the real world parking demands generated by 53 apartments, visitors , service vehicles and deliveries.
This will inevitably result in:
Overflow parking in surrounding residential streets
Reduced parking availability for existing residents
The concentration of vehicle access to basement levels also increases the likelihood of queuing, visibility conflicts and accidents.
5. Approval of a 10 storey building in a predominantly low rise residential area would establish an undesirable planning precedent and undermine existing planning controls intended to preserve Mosman's character and built form.
Such a precedent could lead to cumulative overdevelopment and gradual erosion of the low rise character that defines Mosman
For the reasons outlines above - excessive height and bulk, unacceptable heritage impacts, significant traffic and safety concerns, inadequate infrastructure, and parking pressures......I respectfully request that the Department refuse this development application.
The proposal is inconsistent with the established character of the area and fails to adequately address the impacts it would have on surrounding residents and the broader community.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this applications