The Hon Chris Minns MP
Premier of New South Wales
Dear Premier,
I am writing as a long-term Mosman/Cremorne resident to strongly object to the proposed 10‑storey residential development at 40–48 Redan Street, Mosman. The scale, form and planning pathway of this project are completely inconsistent with the existing neighbourhood, the Mosman Scenic Protection Area and the expectations of the local community.
The proposed height and bulk are excessive for this location. A part‑10, part‑five storey building, replacing five existing dwellings, would tower over the surrounding low‑rise streetscape and visually dominate Redan Street and the foreshore slopes.
It would fundamentally change the character of this quiet residential area, and Sydney Harbour, and set a precedent for high‑rise intrusions in similar scenic, low‑scale suburbs.

I am also deeply concerned about the excavation required to deliver multiple basement levels and extensive underground car parking. The proposal involves excavation of up to around 10 metres into Hawkesbury sandstone to the site boundaries, which creates serious risks of ground movement, vibration and structural damage to neighbouring properties. This is fragile terrain on steep harbour slopes, and such intensive excavation is inappropriate and potentially dangerous so close to existing homes and public infrastructure.
The development would have significant heritage impacts. Redan Street has a distinct heritage character, and the proposal would visually overwhelm the adjoining heritage‑listed properties at 36 and 38 Redan Street and erode the established pattern of low‑rise dwellings. The scale and bulk of the new building are incompatible with the existing built form and would irreversibly damage the historic character of the street.
The site sits within the Mosman Scenic Protection Area, which covers land from the waterline to the 60‑metre contour to safeguard important views to and from Sydney and Middle Harbours. Allowing a 10‑storey tower form in this protected landscape is extremely difficult to reconcile with those objectives and undermines years of work by Council and the community to preserve the foreshore slopes. Once this kind of visually intrusive built form is approved, the scenic value of the area is permanently diminished.
Traffic, access and safety issues are also serious. Redan Lane is little more than four metres wide and was never designed to function as the primary access point for a large apartment complex, heavy construction vehicles, waste trucks and ongoing service and emergency vehicles. It has no footpaths and very limited sight lines, creating genuine risks for pedestrians, cyclists and drivers if traffic volumes increase substantially.
The local road network, already under pressure, is not suitable for development of this intensity.
There are further concerns about the capacity of local infrastructure and emergency services to support high‑rise development on this scale. Mosman is currently serviced by limited emergency facilities, including a single fire station, and it is not clear that adequate resourcing and response capacity have been considered for a 10‑storey residential building on a constrained, sloping site. In an era of heightened awareness of fire, evacuation and resilience risks, this should be a central consideration, not an afterthought.
I am troubled by the way this proposal relies on the Infill Affordable Housing pathway and a Clause 4.6 variation to exceed local height and floor space controls, yet is publicly described as “compliant”.
While I strongly support genuine affordable housing, using a short‑term affordable component to unlock large uplifts in height and density risks eroding public confidence in the planning system. The community perception is that “affordable housing” is being used as a planning loophole to deliver windfall gains for developers while permanently changing the character of established suburbs.

The design and access arrangements for the affordable housing component are also of concern. Reports that the affordable dwellings would be accessed separately from Redan Lane raise fears of a “poor door” outcome, undermining social inclusion and reinforcing stigma. If affordable housing is to be provided, it should be fully integrated, with equitable amenity and access, consistent with the NSW Government’s own commitments to inclusive communities.
There are also process and consultation issues. Residents have had only a very limited exhibition period to respond to a complex State Significant Development proposal that bypasses Mosman Council. Many people were unaware of the community information session, documentation has been difficult to navigate, and there is real doubt as to whether the required “safe walking distance” to public transport under the Low and Mid‑Rise Housing policy is genuinely met given the steep topography and safety of walking routes.
Across Mosman and other foreshore suburbs, there is a growing sense that the planning system is drifting away from its core purpose of balancing growth with heritage, character and environmental protection.
Residents are not asking to stop change altogether, but we do expect that change to be modest, context‑sensitive and consistent with long‑standing strategic planning for areas like the Scenic Protection Zone. The current proposal at 40–48 Redan Street fails that test.

For all of these reasons, I respectfully urge you and your Government to intervene to ensure that this development does not proceed in its current form. At a minimum, the height, bulk and excavation extent must be substantially reduced, affordable housing must be genuinely integrated, and the scenic, heritage and safety values of Redan Street and the Mosman foreshore slopes must be placed at the centre of the assessment.
I love Mosman and want to see it evolve in a way that respects its unique landscape and heritage while still contributing fairly to Sydney’s housing needs. This proposal, as lodged, is not the right way to achieve that balance. I ask you to stand with the local community and uphold the intent of the Mosman Scenic Protection Area by rejecting or significantly scaling back this development.
Yours sincerely,
Jane Rutter

We love Mosman for its feel, and the heritage nature of many of the areas. We have lived here for 28 years, and regularly sail to Balmoral, moor, and appreciate the unique environment it sits within. We walk on the Balmoral slopes and around the beach and are regular shoppers in Mosman village.

Number 36 and 38 Redan Street are treasured parts of Mosman's history. They're not just old buildings — they're living reminders of what this street once was, and they deserve protection. A 10-storey apartment block rising directly beside them would completely overwhelm these properties. The visual setting that gives these heritage items their meaning and dignity would simply disappear. You can't preserve a heritage house while allowing a massive modern tower to tower over it and dominate the streetscape. The proposal fails to respect the heritage protection objectives in Mosman LEP 2012 Clause 5.10, which explicitly aims to conserve heritage items and their settings. Once we lose that setting, we've lost something irreplaceable about these properties and about Redan Street itself.

This connects directly to the sheer scale of what's being proposed. A 10-storey building on this site is completely out of step with everything around it. Redan Street is characterised by two and three-storey homes set back with front gardens. The neighbourhood has maintained that character for generations. One massive apartment tower doesn't just add height — it fundamentally changes the entire street's identity. The proposal breaches the height limits in Mosman LEP 2012 Clause 4.3 and pushes the floor space ratio far beyond what Clause 4.4 contemplates for this location.

The site also falls within a Scenic Protection Area. That protection exists for good reason — to preserve the landscape character and visual quality of areas like this that contribute to Mosman's identity. A 10-storey residential tower is the opposite of what Scenic Protection Area objectives call for. Clause 6.5 of the LEP is designed to limit visual intrusion, not to accommodate it. This building would be visible from numerous vantage points and would materially harm the visual quality that the Scenic Protection Area is meant to protect. This reminds me of the tower block on Hamilton Island, built twenty or thirty years ago, and now everyone asks " how was that allowed to be built". Im sure the same questions will be asked of this proposal if it proceeds.

I'm also concerned about how this development would actually work in practice. The proposal requires excavation up to 10 metres into sandstone, right to the site boundaries. That's not site planning responding to constraints — that's engineering the site to fit the building. The risks are real: ground movement, vibration, and potential damage to neighbouring properties including the heritage houses next door. We're not just talking about theoretical risk. When you're digging that deep in sandstone, you're creating genuine structural hazards for adjacent buildings that have stood for over a century. The Environmental Planning and Assessment Act requires consideration of likely impacts on other land, and this excavation strategy creates impacts that haven't been adequately addressed.

Then there's the question of whether Redan Lane can actually handle what's being proposed. The lane is only a little over 4 metres wide, it has no footpaths, and it's never been designed for service and waste vehicles. Yet this building would introduce regular large vehicle movements into that narrow space. I use that lane regularly, and the thought of garbage trucks and delivery vehicles regularly navigating it is genuinely concerning for safety — both for residents and for drivers trying to manoeuvre in such a tight space. This isn't about minor inconvenience. Public interest considerations under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act require that we think carefully about whether public safety can be maintained.

The affordable housing component raises its own concerns. While affordable housing is important, the design proposes a separate laneway entry for the 11 affordable units. That's a "poor door" arrangement, and it's inconsistent with inclusive design principles that housing policy now expects. If we're going to have affordable housing, it should be genuinely integrated, not segregated through separate access arrangements.

There's also a broader infrastructure question that I think deserves serious consideration. Mosman operates with a single fire station. Our streets are narrow and characterised by low-rise development. A 10-storey building changes the profile of emergency service demands — larger fire vehicles need better access, response times become more critical for taller structures, and overall service capacity becomes a real issue. Adding significant residential density without genuine confidence that emergency services can actually serve the building safely raises legitimate public interest concerns.

This application should be refused. The proposal is incompatible with heritage protection objectives, it breaches height and density controls, it creates unacceptable structural risk, it conflicts with Scenic Protection Area objectives, and it raises genuine safety questions about laneway access and emergency service capacity. I urge the Department to decline this application and protect what makes Redan Street and this part of Mosman special.

I write to object to State Significant Development Application SSD-93020230 for a residential development at 40-48 Redan Street, Mosman.

We have lived in Mosman for 28 years, and love the suburb. We have recently moved to Orlando Ave, and part of the reason we bought the house was that it was in a low density, heritage listed precinct, and the shops and character and feel of Mosman remained a core part of our daily routine. We regularly walk around the Balmoral slopes, and sail on Sydney harbour and enjoy coming into Balmoral Beach and enjoying the incredible balance between a built residential environment and the natural habitat and the ease with which you can go from one to the other. This development, and what it entails is that the character of the Balmoral slopes will be fundamentally changed with much higher , bigger buildings. Whilst I understand the need to provide more housing, it is more affordable housing that Sydney and Mosman needs,. The proposed development doesnt exist to address this issue. It exists so that developers and the owners of the properties that will be replaced can make outsize profits. The new legislation has created a generational loophole, that allows high value properties to be built in an area that wouldn’t be allowed if the Mosman Council Planning guidelines were adhered to. I understand that these concerns may fall outside the scope of consideration, but do hope that those responsible for reviewing the proposal discuss them rigorously.

In addition, below I have made some objections that I believe relate more specifically to the planning guidelines.

The site presents inherent physical and planning constraints that fundamentally render this proposal unsuitable. Redan Street is characterised by a low-rise, fine-grained built environment. The site itself is modest in scale and is tightly constrained by adjacent heritage listed properties and proximity to the Scenic Protection Area that covers much of this locality. These constraints exist for sound planning reasons—to protect heritage values, maintain visual amenity, and preserve the established character of the streetscape. A 10-storey building on this site cannot be reconciled with these constraints and the planning objectives they serve.

The proposal breaches height limits established under Mosman Local Environmental Plan 2012, Clause 4.3. The 10-storey form substantially exceeds the permissible height for the zone and is entirely out of scale with the surrounding context of predominantly 2- to 4-storey residential buildings. This excessive height creates a built form that dominates the street and disrupts the established rhythm and character of Redan Street. The proposal similarly fails to comply with floor space ratio controls under Mosman LEP 2012, Clause 4.4, representing an inappropriate intensification of a constrained site.

The heritage impacts are particularly concerning. The site adjoins heritage listed properties at 36 and 38 Redan Street. These items are listed on the Mosman Local Environmental Plan 2012 register under Clause 5.10. The 10-storey building would overwhelm the visual setting of these heritage items, eroding their prominence and the historical character they contribute to Redan Street. Heritage conservation requires that adjacent development be sympathetic in scale and form. This proposal does neither. It would fundamentally diminish the integrity and setting of these protected items and contribute to the progressive degradation of Redan Street's heritage character.

The site falls within a Scenic Protection Area as defined under Mosman LEP 2012, Clause 6.5. The planning objectives for this area include limiting visual intrusion and protecting landscape character. A 10-storey building is difficult to reconcile with these objectives. The proposal would introduce a visually dominant structure into an area specifically designated to maintain visual amenity and landscape values. The height and bulk of the building would be visible from numerous vantage points within and beyond the locality, creating the visual intrusion that scenic protection controls are designed to prevent.

The proposal includes 11 affordable housing units accessed via separate entry from an adjoining laneway. This arrangement raises significant concerns about inclusive design and the quality of the affordable housing outcome. Under SEPP (Housing) 2021, affordable housing is to be delivered in a manner that supports inclusive and equitable housing outcomes. A separate access point, colloquially described as a "poor door" arrangement, creates a physical and social distinction between affordable and market-rate residents. This fails to meet the inclusive design principles that should underpin affordable housing delivery. The design suggests that affordable housing has been conceived as an ancillary use rather than an integral part of the development, which contradicts contemporary best practice and the spirit of the State Environmental Planning Policy framework.

For these reasons, the application should be refused. The site's constraints—its modest scale, proximity to heritage items, and location within a scenic protection area—are incompatible with a 10-storey development. The proposal breaches applicable height and FSR controls, undermines heritage conservation objectives, conflicts with scenic protection principles, and delivers affordable housing in a manner that fails inclusive design standards. Substantial amendment would be required to bring this proposal into alignment with planning objectives, and it is questionable whether any viable scheme could satisfy the competing constraints that apply to this site.

Re: Objection to Development Proposal SSD-93020230
40–48 Redan Street, Mosman
To:
The Planning Secretary
NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure
Dear Sir/Madam,
I write to formally object to the State Significant Development proposal SSD-93020230 at 40–48 Redan Street, Mosman.
By way of background, I am a long-time former resident of Mosman with deep personal and family connections to the area spanning several generations. I attended school locally, raised my children in the area, and my family history includes my great-grandfather serving as the first Principal of Mosman Elementary School. These longstanding ties have given me a strong appreciation of Mosman’s unique heritage, character, and community values.
My objection is based on the following key concerns:
1. Impact on Heritage and Local Character
Mosman is widely recognised for its cohesive streetscapes, heritage significance, and architectural consistency. The proposed development appears excessive in bulk and scale and is inconsistent with the established character of the area. It risks eroding the visual identity and historical continuity that have been carefully preserved over many decades.
2. Overdevelopment and Amenity Impacts
The proposal represents an overdevelopment of the site and would likely result in significant adverse impacts on neighbouring properties, including:
• Loss of natural light due to overshadowing
• Loss of privacy through overlooking
• Visual intrusion and dominance within the streetscape
These impacts would materially diminish the amenity currently enjoyed by surrounding residents.
3. Traffic, Parking, and Local Infrastructure
Redan Street and surrounding roads already experience constrained parking and traffic pressures. The scale of this development is likely to exacerbate these issues and place additional strain on local infrastructure, without adequate mitigation clearly demonstrated.
4. Questionable Public Benefit
While the proposal references the provision of “affordable housing,” it will only last 15 years and should the owner/developer decide to sell, these few properties will not be “affordable”. They will bought largely by foreign investors. There is concern that the claimed public benefit does not justify the significant and permanent impacts on the local environment and community. The reality is that the claimed “affordable housing” is regulatory arbitrage.
5. Inconsistency with Local Planning Controls and Desired Character
Although this is a State Significant Development, it should still give proper regard to local planning controls and the established desired character for Mosman, and better consideration of neighbouring properties. This proposal appears to depart from those principles and risks setting an undesirable precedent for future developments.
In light of the above, I respectfully request that the Department give careful consideration to the cumulative impacts of this proposal and refuse the application..
I request to be kept informed of any updates or decisions in relation to this application.

I am writing to formally lodge my strongest objection to the State Significant Development application SSD-93020230 for the site at 40-48 Redan Street. I was a resident at 46 Redan Street for 40 years. Over these four decades, I have seen this street maintain its identity as a quiet, suburban sanctuary. The proposal to demolish five existing dwellings—including my immediate neighbors—and replace them with a 10-story tower is a catastrophic overdevelopment that ignores the fundamental character of this community.
My objection is based on the following critical grounds:
1. Gross Non-Compliance with Local Planning Standards
This proposal seeks to bypass Mosman Council’s local controls by using the "In-fill Affordable Housing" pathway. While I recognize the need for housing, a 30% height and floor space ratio (FSR) uplift in a quiet suburban street is entirely disproportionate. A 10-story building is not a "mid-rise" addition; it is a high-rise imposition that sets a dangerous precedent for the total destruction of the Redan Street streetscape.
2. Excessive Visual Bulk and Heritage Impact
The sheer scale of two 10-story towers atop a three-story podium is an assault on the visual amenity of our neighborhood. This site is within a Scenic Protection Area, yet this design offers no sympathy to the topography or the surrounding low-rise homes. Furthermore, the demolition of Federation-era homes at numbers 40, 42, and 44 erases a century of local history that can never be recovered.
3. Devastating Impact on Solar Access and Privacy
As the resident of 46 Redan Street, my home and private open space will be directly impacted by the massive shadow footprint of this development. After 40 years of enjoying natural light, this 10-story wall will plunge neighboring properties into darkness for significant portions of the day. The "overlooking" from 53 new apartments—many featuring balconies directed toward the existing homes—represents a total loss of the privacy I have maintained for four decades.
4. Safety and Infrastructure Strain
Redan Street is a narrow residential road, not a thoroughfare designed for high-density traffic. The addition of 106 basement car spaces and the associated construction vehicles will create a permanent safety hazard and a traffic bottleneck. The reliance on Redan Lane for affordable housing access is also poorly conceived and will lead to significant logistical issues in an already cramped laneway.
5. Inadequate Transition and "Poor Door" Design
There is no "step-down" transition in this design to respect the existing residential boundary. Furthermore, the clustering of affordable units with separate laneway access is an exclusionary design practice that does not support a cohesive community.
Conclusion
I have invested 40 years of my life into this street. To see it targeted for such an aggressive, high-density "super site" is distressing. I urge the Department to reject this application and demand a design that respects the height limits and residential amenity of the Redan Street community.
I look forward to your response and request to be notified of any public hearings regarding this development.
Sincerely,
David

As a Mosman resident, I am increasingly concerned about the scale and nature of the developments being proposed across our suburb, and this application is a clear example of why.

A 10-storey building with 53 apartments in this location is simply too much. It is completely out of scale with the surrounding low-rise streetscape and will dominate the area in a way that permanently alters the character of the neighbourhood. This isn’t a gentle increase in density. It is a significant and jarring change.

I am also troubled by how this development is being presented. The proposal exceeds the existing height controls, yet it is being described as “compliant” through a planning variation. That does not feel transparent to the community, and it undermines confidence in the process.

The construction itself brings genuine risk. Excavating up to 10 metres into sandstone, right up to the boundaries, is a major undertaking. The potential for ground movement, vibration and damage to neighbouring properties cannot be dismissed, and residents should not be expected to carry that risk. Proposed parking for 106 car spaces highlights the enormity of the proposed development.

Traffic and access are real concerns as well. Redan Lane is narrow, just over four metres wide, with no footpaths, and is not designed to handle increased traffic, service vehicles, waste collection or emergency access. Making the affordable housing entry from the laneway highlights significant safety implications.

There are also important heritage and character concerns with this development. Redan Street has a distinct feel, and the nearby heritage listed homes at 36 and 38 Redan Street will be completely overshadowed by a development of this size. Once that setting is compromised, it cannot be undone. Of course, the destruction of five Federation homes to make way for this development will negatively impact the ongoing nature and character of the street and remove yet another slice of history.

The impact on the Scenic Protection Zone is another serious issue. This area exists to protect key views to and from Sydney and Middle Harbour. A 10-storey building of this scale conflicts with the intent of that protection and risks permanently altering those views.

There are also broader infrastructure questions. With limited local emergency services, including only one fire station servicing the area, it is hard to see how the existing infrastructure can adequately support a development of this size.

The affordable housing component also raises concerns. Separate access via the laneway feels like a “snub” arrangement – the “ poor” can only use the back door access via the laneway, whilst the extremely wealthy will use the main front entrance in Redan Street. How does this reflect genuine inclusivity? This development is not about providing affordable housing.
The proposal offers 40 three-bedroom residences and two four-bedroom penthouse residences with unobstructed Balmoral harbour views – this development is aimed at the wealthy, and the 15% affordable elements ( some only 57m2 ) are a token measure to enable the proposal to slide in under the State Government’s Significant Development.

Finally, the consultation process has felt rushed and unclear. The exhibition period has been limited, documentation has been difficult to navigate, and I, like many in the community, have been unaware of the consultation sessions. There are also questions about whether the site truly meets the safe walking distance requirement under the LMR framework.

In a nutshell, this proposal feels like an overreach. It places too much strain on local infrastructure, compromises neighbourhood character, and sets a concerning precedent for future development in Mosman.

For these reasons, I strongly object.

I write to formally object to the proposed development at 40–48 Redan Street, Mosman. The proposal is inconsistent with the established heritage character of the area, fails to meet key planning controls, and will result in significant and irreversible impacts on the local environment, streetscape, and residential amenity.

Redan Street is a designated Heritage Road, with its verge also heritage-listed, forming an important and protected streetscape. The proposed development is positioned immediately adjacent to heritage-listed properties at 36 and 38 Redan Street, effectively placing it between two recognised heritage items and behind a protected heritage road reserve. This context makes the scale and form of the proposal fundamentally incompatible with the surrounding heritage setting.

The site is also located within a Scenic Protection Area, a statutory planning control that requires the preservation of identified scenic values. Development within such an area must not compromise important public views. The proposed twin 12-storey towers would rise prominently above the Balmoral slopes and be visible from Balmoral Beach, the harbour foreshore, and surrounding public vantage points. The developer’s own Visual Impact Assessment confirms that the proposal will materially impact these views. On this basis, the development is inconsistent with, and potentially contrary to, the applicable scenic protection provisions.

The proposed parking provision is inadequate for a development of this scale and likely resident profile. The allocation of 106 spaces for 53 predominantly large, luxury apartments will not meet demand and will result in overspill parking into Redan Street and surrounding local roads, which are not designed to accommodate sustained increases in vehicle load. This will lead to ongoing congestion, reduced accessibility, and a permanent erosion of local amenity.

Recent experience on Redan Street demonstrates the validity of these concerns. A development of only six units resulted in the full occupation of available on-street parking for extended periods during construction. The current proposal, being substantially larger, will generate significantly greater disruption. The construction phase alone is likely to severely restrict access to Redan Street for an extended duration, while the long-term traffic and parking impacts will be enduring and irreversible.

Construction access arrangements further compound these impacts. Reliance on a single driveway for all construction vehicles and deliveries will result in frequent obstruction of Redan Street. Given the narrow configuration of the road and the absence of alternative access routes, this presents material risks to resident access, service delivery, and emergency response.

The community consultation undertaken by the developer has been deficient and does not constitute genuine engagement. Notification was limited and inconsistently delivered, with many directly affected residents receiving no communication. In some instances, notice of consultation activities was provided with less than 12 hours’ lead time, precluding meaningful participation. For many residents, the first formal notification was issued by the NSW Department of Planning rather than the proponent. This process fails to meet reasonable expectations of transparency and inclusivity.

The developer’s response to issues raised by Mosman Council lacks substance. Following Council’s identification of concerns relating to scale, heritage, traffic, landscaping, sandstone character and stormwater, the proponent provided only a generic statement asserting that matters had been addressed within technical reports. No specific responses, amendments, or commitments were provided. This does not constitute an adequate or accountable response to identified planning issues.

The consultation outcomes presented are not representative of community views. A total of 43 survey responses and six focus group participants is insufficient to demonstrate community awareness or support for a development of this magnitude. These figures more accurately indicate limited engagement rather than endorsement, and should not be relied upon in the assessment of community impact.

The proposal also presents significant and inadequately addressed risks associated with excavation. There is documented precedent for structural damage to neighbouring properties resulting from prior construction activity on Redan Street. The proposed development involves extensive excavation, including two basement levels across a large site area, representing a scale of works not previously undertaken in this location. The Environmental Impact Statement does not provide sufficient detail regarding mitigation measures, nor does it include firm commitments to vibration monitoring, pre-construction dilapidation surveys, or clear liability provisions. The risk to adjoining properties, including heritage dwellings, is therefore substantial and insufficiently managed.

The design and access arrangements for the proposed affordable housing component are inappropriate. Eight of the eleven affordable units are accessed via Redan Lane, an unpaved service laneway lacking basic pedestrian infrastructure, including footpaths and adequate lighting. This arrangement raises legitimate safety and amenity concerns and fails to provide equitable access conditions for future occupants.

Finally, the justification for exceeding established height controls relies on the provision of affordable housing, yet this claim is unsupported by evidence. While the proponent acknowledges high levels of rental stress within the local area, no financial modelling has been provided to demonstrate that the proposed units will be affordable to households in need. There is no information regarding rental levels, eligibility criteria, or accessibility for those experiencing housing stress. In the absence of such evidence, the affordable housing justification is unsubstantiated, and the associated planning uplift cannot be properly assessed.

For the reasons outlined above, the proposal represents an overdevelopment of a highly sensitive site and fails to adequately address fundamental planning, heritage, traffic, and community impact considerations. It is therefore respectfully submitted that the application should be refused.

I am a supporter of affordable housing where it is appropriate to the suburb's landscape and not against providing more housing in the area, in meeting the government's agenda. However, to butcher up the character and appeal for the suburb, by allowing skyscrapers on Balmoral slopes is scandalous, when there are plenty of other sites which achieve the government's strategy, whilst not disturbing the suburb's DNA.
This project is a disaster for the following reasons:
1. Excessive height and bulk, with a 10-storey building that is clearly out of scale with the surrounding low-rise streetscape and will dominate the area

2. Overdevelopment and structural risk, including excavation of up to 10 metres into sandstone to the site boundaries, creating risks of ground movement, vibration and damage to neighbouring properties

3. Heritage impacts, particularly to Redan Street itself and adjoining heritage-listed properties at 36 and 38 Redan Street, where the proposal would overwhelm their setting and erode the existing character of the street

4. Conflict with the Scenic Protection Zone, which applies from the waterline to the 60 metre contour and is intended to protect significant views to and from Sydney and Middle Harbours. A 10-storey building is difficult to reconcile with these objectives

5. Traffic, access and safety concerns, including reliance on Redan Lane, which is only a little over 4 metres wide, has no footpaths, and is not designed for increased service, waste or emergency vehicle use

6. Lack of supporting infrastructure, with concerns that local emergency services, including a single fire station, may not be equipped to service developments of this scale

7. Non-compliance and misleading claims, where the proposal exceeds height controls and relies on a Clause 4.6 variation, yet is described as “compliant”

8. Affordable housing design and access concerns, including separate laneway access, raising concerns about a “poor door” style arrangement and whether the development supports inclusive housing outcomes. This is not an affordable housing development - clearly it's for the wealthy, many of whom will not be residents. As for nurses, carers, local staff - totally inappropriate

9. Process and consultation concerns, including the limited exhibition period, missing or unclear documentation, low awareness of the community consultation session, and whether the development meets the required 400 metre “safe walking distance” under the LMR zoning

I object to SSD-93020230 on the basis that the proposed development is not an appropriate planning outcome for this site when assessed under section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, having regard to its scale, impacts, unresolved risks and the limited public benefit delivered.

The proposal seeks approval for a part 10-storey / part 5-storey residential flat building comprising 53 dwellings, including 11 affordable dwellings for a 15-year period. The development relies on multiple planning concessions, including exceedances of the uplifted building height control and a variation to wall height controls.

While the provision of affordable housing is acknowledged, the proposal goes materially beyond what is required to achieve that outcome and results in a built form that is excessive and inconsistent with the site context.

Key grounds of objection are as follows:

Excessive scale and built form
The proposal represents a significant intensification of development (FSR ~2.86:1; up to 10 storeys) in a location characterised by low-rise housing and sensitive topography. The scale, bulk and height exceedances are not minor and cannot be adequately mitigated through design.
Unjustified planning variations
The development exceeds the uplifted building height control (28.6m) and requires a variation to the 7.2m wall height control. These variations are fundamental to achieving the proposed yield and are not justified in a site-specific context.
Heritage, scenic and visual impacts
The site is adjacent to heritage items, fronts a heritage-listed streetscape and sits at the edge of Mosman’s Scenic Protection Area. The proposal introduces a building that will dominate and erode the existing character and landscape setting. These impacts are permanent and not capable of meaningful mitigation.
Traffic, access and local infrastructure constraints
The surrounding road network is narrow and constrained. The scale of the development (including 106 car spaces) will increase traffic, servicing and parking pressure across local streets, including adjacent residential streets such as Almora Street. These impacts are cumulative and not fully mitigable.
Excavation, construction and stormwater risks
The proposal involves significant excavation and basement construction in a steep sandstone environment. Key stormwater and hydraulic design elements were not fully resolved at exhibition. This introduces material risk to surrounding properties and infrastructure that has not been adequately addressed.
Disproportionate public benefit
The proposal provides 11 affordable dwellings for a 15-year period. This limited and time-bound benefit does not justify the scale of planning concessions sought or the permanent impacts created by the development.
EIS adequacy and consultation
There are inconsistencies in the way compliance is presented and key technical matters were not fully resolved at the time of exhibition. Community consultation appears limited relative to the scale and impact of the proposal.
Cumulative and precedent impacts
Approval would contribute to a broader shift in built form intensity on the Balmoral slopes and set an undesirable precedent for further overdevelopment in a sensitive locality.

Conclusion
The proposal results in environmental, built form and infrastructure impacts that are not acceptable in the context of the site and are not adequately mitigated. The public benefits relied upon do not outweigh these impacts.

For these reasons, the application should be refused or, at a minimum, require a substantially reduced and redesigned scheme.

A detailed submission expanding on these matters is provided in the attached PDF.