I have a number of concerns regarding the proposal, particularly in relation to its scale, impact on the surrounding area, and how it has been presented.

The overall height and bulk of the building feel excessive for this location. At ten storeys, it appears out of keeping with the predominantly low-rise character of the surrounding streets and would likely dominate the immediate area.

I am also concerned about the extent of excavation proposed. Digging up to 10 metres into sandstone, particularly so close to site boundaries, raises questions around potential ground movement, vibration, and the risk of damage to neighbouring properties.

There are also clear heritage considerations. Redan Street has a distinct and valued character, and the proximity to heritage-listed properties at numbers 36 and 38 makes the scale of this proposal feel particularly intrusive. It risks diminishing the setting and integrity of these buildings.

In addition, the site falls within the Scenic Protection Zone, which is intended to preserve important views to and from Sydney and Middle Harbours. It is difficult to see how a development of this height aligns with those objectives.

From a practical perspective, traffic and access are also concerning. Redan Lane is very narrow, with no pedestrian infrastructure, and does not appear suitable to accommodate increased use by service, waste or emergency vehicles.

There are broader infrastructure questions as well. It is unclear whether local emergency services, particularly given the reliance on a single nearby fire station are adequately equipped to support a development of this scale.

I am also concerned about how the proposal has been described. While it exceeds established height controls and relies on a Clause 4.6 variation, it is still presented as “compliant,” which feels somewhat misleading.

The approach to affordable housing also raises concerns. The use of separate laneway access suggests a division that may not support inclusive or equitable design outcomes.

Finally, the consultation process itself feels limited. The exhibition period was short, some documentation was unclear or incomplete, and awareness of the consultation session appeared low. There are also questions around whether the development genuinely meets the required “safe walking distance” criteria under the LMR zoning.

The height, bulk and overbearing nature of this development is completely out of keeping with such a traditional heritage, sea-side location.
If anyone cares to look at this particular precinct it's really obvious how ridiculous a ten story building looks compared to every neighbouring street - which is suburban family homes
Plenty of other areas in Mosman where a ten-story development would make sense - but not in these areas.

Submission to NSW Department of Planning Regarding Proposed DA for 40-48 Redan Street, Mosman
I understand that the DA proposes to demolish five properties 40 to 48 Redan Street Mosman and replace them with twin apartment towers up to 12 storeys high, containing 53 apartments. This would include 42 luxury apartments ranging from 129 to 321 sqm and 11 "affordable" apartments (for 15 years).
In this submission I make three main points heavily critical of this proposed development.
First, the development will have severe detrimental local heritage and environmental impacts. There will be a loss of three heritage listed houses and severe negative impacts on heritage-listed properties at 36 and 38 Redan Street. The development extends across almost the full site width, presenting as a continuous facade along Redan Street. The visual impacts on neighbouring properties are likely to be severely negative. The peace, greenery, and amenity of many residents in this beautiful street will be severely downgraded. Development that creates such significant detriment to neighbouring properties should not be permitted.
To provide additional context I note that the site sits in the Scenic Protection Zone. This long-standing zoning has been in place since the 1960s to protect the foreshore views both to, and from, Balmoral slopes and Sydney Harbour. The DA does not meet the standards of the Scenic Protection Zone.
Second, the claim that the development will provide 11 affordable apartments is completely false and misleading. The standard approach to affordable housing is the “30/40 guide”. The housing costs should be less than 30% of gross household income and this should apply to the bottom 40% of household income earners.
Suppose: household income: $120,000/year (around median full-time household range), then affordable housing cost = 30% → $36,000/year ($3000 / month). At current mortgage conditions, around 6% interest, and 30 years repayment, $3,000/month supports a loan of about $500k–$550k. With a 20% deposit → total house price ≈ $620k–$700k. Thus, the claim that this development would create 11 units of affordable housing is nonsense. There would be no affordable housing.
The third issue is the precedent. Presumably, if this DA were allowed, then under normal planning process any similar DA in a similar location would be allowed. This is not a single decision. It is a fundamental planning decision for the area. I write this as someone who has (in the past) spent 13 years on the Mosman Council dealing with DAs. A fundamental feature of good planning is that it is based on consistent uniform principles and standards, NOT on exceptional cases and exceptional decision making.
Further, to provide planning perspective, Mosman has one of the highest population and building densities in Sydney. At the 2021 household Census, Mosman had a population density of 32 persons per hectare which was almost three times the average of 12.7 persons per hectare across Greater Sydney. And units comprised 52% of the dwellings in Mosman, which was almost double the 27% over Greater Sydney. Also, Mosman has major traffic issues. It is a major thoroughfare for the Northern Beaches traffic and Taronga Zoo and Balmoral Beach are two major visitor destinations in Sydney.
As NSW Planning is aware, Mosman Council is currently engaged fulltime and at considerable expense to develop a revised Strategic Masterplan to try to develop a quality residential plan for the area, with high rise development to the top of the ridges, to limit view obstruction, provide a level walk to transport and shops, and a better traffic flow. I understand that this should be available in a few months.
Acceptance of this massive DA in Redan Street would set a profoundly poor planning precedent for both process and outcome.
Hon. Professor Peter Abelson
3 Wolger Road, Mosman
Mosman Council 1979-87 and 2012-17. Mayor 1983-85 and 2012-17.
Disclaimer. I have no personal relationship to this DA.

I am writing about the proposed development Ref: SSD-93020230 in at 40-48 Redan Street, Mosman.
5 houses to be demolished to provide space for 53 apartments of which 11 are in-fill affordable housing apartments and parking spaces for 106 cars.
I have lived for 13 years with my husband at 32a Redan Street, a few houses south of the proposed development. We much enjoy the beauty and peace of the area with the convenience of shops, a wonderful beach and walking areas.

I object to this development for the following reasons:

1. This is an area of mainly gracious Federation houses with two heritage listed cottages immediately adjacent to the site. The gross over-development will ruin the area for generations. I think the title of State Significant Development does not apply in this case. Only 11 in-fill affordable apartments in a development of 53 apartments. And the in-fill apartments only have to be there for 15 years after which they can be converted to regular apartments.

2. The development will ruin the houses behind in Muston Street by blocking their views and being overlooked for ever after. Many houses on Redan Street will also be overlooked.

3. The area is a naturally beautiful one with lovely gardens and many trees. I cannot imagine it becoming a concrete jungle. It falls within Mosman Scenic Protection Area which should be preserved for the future and is one of the reasons we moved here. The Redan Street verge is Heritage listed.

4. The excavation needed will be enormous and very likely to cause problems and damage to surrounding properties. Drainage could well be a massive problem. There are several run-off channels in Redan Lane. There is a development not far away down the hill that suffered greatly from heavy rain and flooding.

5. Redan Lane is narrow and unsafe at times. Deemed unsafe for walking by Mosman Council. Trucks sometimes cannot get around the double bend and have to reverse out again. There is an ever-increasing number of parcel, supermarket and food delivery vehicles. Another 53 apartments in the area will hugely exacerbate this. And where will over 100 extra garbage bins go?

6. Parking – Only 2 spaces per apartment is underestimated. Where do visitors park for 53 new apartments? Redan Street is parked out on sunny days with beachgoers. There is virtually no parking at all in Redan Lane.

7. If this development was on the ridge line it would not impact the area so much but as it is two streets down from the ridge line it will be unbelievably ugly and have a devastating impact on other properties. The visual impact from the harbour will also be severely impacted.

8. I find that the State Government are being very heavy-handed in taking away any control for this type of development from the Mosman Council who strive so hard to keep development appropriate for the area.

I object to the development for the above reasons. I feel that developer has taken poetic licence with the idea of affordable housing to justify massive over-development to improve their financial state. If this type of development is approved by the State Government it will turn Mosman into a mini-Gold Coast.

Phillippa and Colin McLachlan
32a Redan Street, Mosman

Objection to Development Application SSD-93020230 at 40–48 Redan Street, Mosman
I am a local resident, property owner in Mosman since 1985.
I object to this application on the basis that it is a gross interpretation of the SSD guidelines and seeks to push the boundaries to an overweening extent. In my opinion it is a completely unsuitable design for the context of Redan Street, and does not fulfil the spirit of the SSD guidelines.
It would be a joke if it were not such a serious issue.
Additionally, the amount of time allocated for members of the pubic to make submissions – two weeks – is ludicrous given the extent and scope of the proposal, which would have had extensive resources applied in its creation. The lack of an authentic opportunity for community consultation smacks of hubris in the extreme. What is being brushed under the carpet by the rush??
One of the great pleasures of my (retired) life is wandering the tree-lined and landscaped streets of Mosman and some of my objections reflect this, as follows:
• Inappropriate setting – a 10-storey building is completely out of context in Redan Street. The Street is a beautiful area comprised of lower scale homes, some of which are heritage listed. This HUGE building would stick out like a sore thumb and the developers’ own renditions of the building in the landscape show this very clearly. It would completely overshadow and dominate the neighbourhood, to its very real detriment.
• Scenic destruction – a development such as this would destroy the cohesive, integrated nature of the area as it currently stands. The balance of low-rise built environment with precious vegetation would be totally undermined and would create a dangerous precedent. The loss of mature vegetation would have a huge impact on soil quality, air quality, visual quality, the very vital element of quality of life.
• Heritage trampling – the development seeks to destroy 5 homes that currently fit into their setting tearing at the heritage fabric of the locale. The mix of old and new in Mosman is one of its great assets. In the past development, has trampled over the beauty of the place, but this has been addressed with a more considered approach with two goals: 1. Preserve heritage built environment where appropriate and 2. Allow medium-high density housing to be built, where appropriate. This bi-focal approach needs to continue to preserve the fabric of Mosman
• Deep excavation – the scale of the development which includes two basement levels is VERY concerning. What will happen to the neighbouring heritage listed properties. How will it affect their stability and integrity. What about drainage, run-off, groundwater. Implications for council going forward?

The above concerns are not just about the residents of Redan Street. They concern all Mosman residents who appreciate the great beauty and amenity of the area, Sydney-siders who flock here at all times of the year, international visitors drawn to this beautiful and precious shared environment.
Finally, I believe the proposal is cynical to the utmost degree with its design of the affordable housing component, which the SSD Guidelines mean to be inclusive and for the benefit of essential workers and the public in general.
• In the first place, the “affordability” expires after 15 years. An expiry date on social inclusion??
• Secondly, the accommodation is tiny, comparable to a bed sit. How does this help the very real housing crisis affecting young couples and families?
• Thirdly, and most reprehensibly the affordable accommodation is accessed via a SEPARATE entrance, in Redan Lane. Public benefit!? Inclusion!? The lane is not even a pedestrian thoroughfare, but a service lane primarily for waste collection. The very idea of an apartheid of tenants is disgusting and conjures up dystopia reminiscent of the South Korean Academy Award -winning film “Parasite”.
In all seriousness, I strongly oppose this insensitive and excessive development and request that the planning board refuse approval.
Thank you for reading my submission.

1. Summary

The purpose of this submission is to express my strong objections to this development at 40-48 Redan Street Mosman, which would see agroupof fine homes demolished to make way for a 10 storey high rise, comprising 53 apartments ( including 11 in-fill affordable housing apartments) two basement levels with parking for 106 cars, communal open space & associated works, which would include site preparation& excavation at 40-48 Redan St.

I have owned my property at 6/76 Muston Street since 2008, & have lived in the area for 29 years. My property is behind & above the proposed site, & I would be impacted by the development proposal in a number of ways, including the excessive height & scale, the impact on heritage, loss of view & the adverse effect on traffic & congestion.

I object to the application because it represents an excessive & unsuitable form of development for the site & its setting. The development does not meet the 400 metre safe walking distance as required by the LOW Rise a7 Mid-Rise Housing Policy, &, as explained in more depth below,I believe its height, bulk, visual presence & basement excavation , along with the desecration of its heritage setting, make it an unsuitable site for this proposed development.

The proposed development is supported by 'expert' submissions, paid for by the applicant, with no attempt at independence or objectivity.
However, the submissions do not provide an unbiased assessment of for the Authority to make its decision, & should be given limited weight. I believe natural justice is not well served by the process, as the short time frame that I had to respond meant tha yit seriously restricted my ability to get independent expert advice.

2. Height, Bulk, Scale & Suitability of the Site.

Redan Street & its surrounds are characterised by lower scale residential dwellings , with landscaped setbacks, so a 10-storey building with two basement levels & 106 car spaces would be a jarring escalation in height, bulk & intensity. It would result in the overdevelopment of a constrained site; a site which is outside the 400 meter LMR pathway using the safe waling trail mandated by Mosman Council, which is measured from the front of the Country Road Building, NOT through the back alley as proposed by this development.

3. Scenic Protection & Broader Visual Setting

Balmoral is an area of striking beauty which has inspired many artists, including grrerat painters such as Arthur Streeton & Ethel Carrick Fox. Redan Street is not an isolated suburban street but forms part of the wider harbour area.

Any development in this setting should preserve the visual qualities of the foreshore slopes, including the balance between vegetation and& built structures. Th proposal would replace that balance with a large, dominant building which is inconsistent with the scenic values of the area.

Of particular significance is that the site falls within the Mosman Scenic Protection Area, which Mosman Council describes as an integral part of the Sydney Harbour landscape, because it can be viewed from across the harbour. & from surrounding waterways. In what would be an abuse of decades of carefully create environmental protection, this proposal seeks to to move the scenic protection area for the convenience & financial benefit of development.

4. Heritage, Streetscape & Neighbourhood Character.

The proposal should be assessed for its impact on the character of the streetscape, including the heritage setting. . In order to proceed, this development would require the demolition of five homes : 40 & 42 Redan Street are both Federation buildings, circa 1902, while 44 Redan Street is a Federation Queen Anne structure, circa 1900. The development adjoins heritage listed properties at 36 & 38 Redan Street. This development would overwhelm these beautiful heritage buildings , destroying much of their visual setting & running the risk of severely damaging the character of the street.

5. Views & Visual Impact

The proposal, for a long ten story high rise structure running across multiple blocks of land, would have a major impact on the outlook from my living room & kitchen. It would have the effect of a large wall blocking my view of the harbour & see.

My property, at 6/76 Musonn Street, currently has a beautiful, scenic outlook with views if the harbour, Manly & the ocean. It is a view which is stimulating & constantly changing enabling me to observe the daily passage of cruise ships in & out of the harbour & the constant movements of sailing craft. It is indispensable to my pleasure of where I live.
Under the proposed development, which has caused me a greta deal of anxiety & stress, instead of seeing natural beauty I would be confronted by a large masonry structure which would completely block my view of harbour & sea & all maritime activity. This would substantially damage the character & amenity of my outlook.

6. Deep Excavation, Sandstone, Basement & Groundwater risk.

A further concern is the scale of the excavation required for the proposed basement structure. This would entail deep excavation & substantial sub ground works, which risks ground movement, vibration & potential damage to neighbouring properties.

7. Traffic, Access & Pedestrian Safety

The traffic snarls in Redan Street while this development is under construction would be horrific. The proposal is on a massive scale & would require large numbers of construction & trades people, with their vehicles. The construction phase, requiring very frequent deliveries. & sue of equipment such as concrete trucks & cranes, is likely to severely impede the vehicular use of Redan Street. Once completed, the development would permanently intensify traffic in Redan Street, Redan Lane & Upper Almora Street.

8. Affordable Housing , Pathway, Public Benefit & Inclusive design.

The project seeks to get approval under the NSW Government's State Significant Development legislation, claiming that it includes 11 "affordable" dwellings. It is simply absurd to propose that this luxury development could be given the go ahead under the guise of affordable housing, when two apartments in the same street sold for just under $20 million in 2024 each. This development proposes two penthouse apartments , with uninterrupted views over Balmoral & the harbour, expected to sell for around $20 million.

I do support the construction of affordable housing in Mosman. but I cannot support this type of construction. The affordable hosing component, which only lasts for 15 years, comprises eight studio style units with separate access from the laneway, & three larger affordable units which are virtually underground. Unlike the luxury apartments, which have entry access via the front of the building, the only access for the studios is from Redan Lane, a narrow rear service laneway with no footpath & very poor lighting. This introduces a 'poor door' system, effectively preventing residents of these modest dwellings form mixing with residents of th luxury apartments, introducing a de facto two class system, which would be most deleterious to Mosman's social cohesion image.

Subject: Objection to SSD-93020230 – 40–48 Redan Street, Mosman

I am writing to object to the proposed development at 40–48 Redan Street, Mosman.

I understand the need for more housing, including affordable housing, but this proposal doesn’t feel appropriate for this location and raises a number of concerns for me.

One of my biggest concerns is that this feels like luxury housing being presented as affordable housing, without clear transparency around how that is being delivered. There doesn’t appear to be any detailed or accessible financial modelling to support the affordability claims, which makes it difficult to understand the true intent and long-term outcome of the development.

I also understand that the proposal may include separate access or entrances for residents in the affordable housing component. If this is correct, it raises serious concerns. Having different entrances based on housing type feels inherently unequal and creates a clear social divide within the same development. This approach has been criticised in other developments as creating a “two-tier” system, and it does not align with the intent of inclusive and integrated communities.

I am also very concerned about the loss of heritage in the area. Federation homes and the existing character of Mosman are a significant part of what makes the suburb unique. Developments like this risk eroding that identity, and once that heritage is lost, it cannot be replaced.

The height, bulk and overall scale of the proposal feel excessive and out of proportion with the surrounding area. It does not integrate with the existing streetscape and instead feels oversized and incompatible with the character of Redan Street and the broader Mosman environment.

There are also practical concerns around infrastructure. Parking in the area is already limited, and this development is likely to increase pressure significantly without any meaningful upgrades to infrastructure. This raises concerns not only about convenience, but also safety and accessibility for residents.

Traffic and access are also key issues. Streets in this part of Mosman are already constrained, and an increase in density of this scale is likely to lead to congestion and reduced safety for both drivers and pedestrians.

I also question whether this is the right location for this type of development. From what I understand, there are planning expectations around proximity to services and safe walking distances, and it is not clear that this site meets those requirements. If that is the case, it further weakens the justification for a development of this scale.

There are also concerns regarding the Scenic Protection Zone and whether the proposal adequately respects the intent of protecting important views and the broader visual character of the area.

Finally, I want to highlight concerns with the process itself. Being given only around 10 days to review and respond to a major project of this scale does not feel fair or reasonable. It limits the ability for residents to properly understand the proposal, seek advice, and provide considered feedback. There are also concerns around the level of community awareness of consultation opportunities.

On a personal level, developments like this do have a real impact. It’s not just about buildings on paper — it’s about how a place feels to live in day-to-day. Changes to outlook, increased activity, noise, and the overall shift in the environment can affect quality of life. There is also a level of stress and uncertainty that comes with significant changes to an established neighbourhood.

Overall, I do not feel this proposal is appropriate for this site. The scale, impact on the streetscape, heritage concerns, infrastructure pressure, and broader planning issues all point to a development that is not well suited to its location.

For these reasons, I object to the proposal and ask that these concerns are properly considered in the assessment process.

I make this submission in objection to the proposed development at 40-48 Redan Street MOSMAN
The proposal is fundamentally inconsistent with the planning framework. The Low and Mid-Rise Housing Policy is directed toward development in the order of 2–6 storeys. A 12-storey building is plainly outside that contemplated scale and constitutes a material overdevelopment of the site. The reliance on multiple concessions, including the affordable housing uplift and the State Significant Development pathway, together with the need for a Clause 4.6 variation, demonstrates that the proposal exceeds the development standards even when the planning framework is applied at its most generous. We also note that the site is MORE than 400m from the town centre.
It is well established that a Clause 4.6 variation requires the demonstration of sufficient environmental planning grounds that are particular to the site, and not merely the assertion of a general public benefit. No such site-specific justification has been provided in this instance.
The purported public benefit is limited and does not justify the extent of the departure from the applicable controls. The provision of 11 affordable housing units for a limited 15-year period is not proportionate to the permanent impacts of a 12-storey development. The balance of the proposal comprises large, high-end residential apartments, indicating that the affordable housing component is not the primary driver of the development. In these circumstances, the principle of proportionality is not satisfied.
The bulk, scale and form of the development will result in a built outcome that is incompatible with the existing and desired future character of the locality. The building presents as a continuous and visually dominant form, exacerbated by substantial excavation and podium construction, which materially increases its apparent height. The applicant’s own assessment acknowledges severe visual impacts, which are not adequately resolved.
The proposal will give rise to significant and unacceptable privacy impacts. The arrangement of multiple levels of balconies and habitable rooms will result in direct and repeated overlooking into adjoining properties. The Environmental Impact Statement fails to properly assess these impacts, including the cumulative effect of multi-level overlooking and the consequences of the site’s mid-slope position.
The site is located within a sensitive heritage and scenic context, being situated on a designated Heritage Road, adjoining heritage-listed properties, and within a Scenic Protection Area. Development of the scale proposed will adversely affect the heritage setting and materially compromise scenic values, including views from and towards the Balmoral area. Such impacts are inconsistent with the statutory planning controls applicable to the site.
The proposal will also result in unacceptable traffic, parking and construction impacts. The level of parking provision is inadequate having regard to the scale and nature of the development, and will lead to overspill parking within surrounding streets. The construction phase will involve significant disruption to a narrow local lane, with consequential impacts on access and amenity.
The consultation undertaken by the applicant has been deficient and does not constitute meaningful community engagement. Affected residents were not adequately notified, and concerns raised by both the community and the local council have not been substantively addressed.
There are also material risks associated with the proposed excavation works. Given the scale of excavation and the known history of damage to nearby properties arising from similar works, the absence of detailed and enforceable mitigation measures gives rise to a legitimate concern as to potential structural impacts on adjoining land.
Further, the ongoing uncertainty and anticipated impacts of the proposal have already had a significant adverse effect on the amenity and wellbeing of neighbouring residents, including my household, resulting in stress-related health impacts. This is a relevant consideration in assessing the broader amenity impacts of the development.
Finally, the affordable housing justification is not supported by sufficient evidence. In the absence of financial modelling demonstrating that the proposed units will be genuinely affordable to households in housing need, the asserted public benefit remains unsubstantiated.
Conclusion
For the reasons set out above, the proposal represents an excessive and unjustified departure from the applicable planning controls and will result in unacceptable environmental, amenity and character impacts. The limited and unverified public benefit does not warrant the extent of non-compliance.
The application should be refused.

I am writing to register my strongest possible objection to this application. I urge and appeal to State Planning to reject this application. There are substantial reasons for my objection which I have given below.
1. Landscape
Mosman LGA contains unique topographic and geographic features which have not been appropriately addressed on the eastern side of Military Road and have clearly not been addressed by this application. This application is completely inconsistent and out of keeping with the landscape of the area. The bulk and height are totally incompatible with the terrain. Any application in the Mosman LGA at this location requires a fully informed knowledge of and respect for the topography. The building that is the subject of this application is definitely and absolutely not appropriate for the sloping location at 40-48 Redan Street.
2. Traffic
Redan Street is a narrow road and Redan Lane is an exceptionally narrow lane and has no footpaths and historically only designed for sanitary collection. It is completely unrealistic for the increased amount of vehicular traffic to use Redan Lane as an access point.
In addition, the additional number of vehicles that the proposed building will add to traffic in Almora Street and then subsequently in Military Road is going to make traffic in the area considerably worse. There have clearly not been traffic studies carried out with any acuity, nor has there been well researched projections and in-depth analysis made in relation to increased vehicular traffic as a result of a building such as this. The section of Military Road between Spit Junction and Mosman Junction is not in any sense a transport corridor but rather an already narrow and congested feeder road. The prospect of greater residential density adjacent to this section of Military Road such as the one proposed in this DA for Upper Almora Street will have an adverse impact on traffic and will exacerbate the traffic issues.
3. Bulk and Scale
A building such as the one in the application possesses excessive bulk and scale and will negatively affect neighbouring residents by creating shade and blocking sunlight, creating wind tunnels, and reducing privacy. These impacts will conflict with and fail to allow comfortable, healthy, and visually harmonious communities to be maintained. The application is completely unacceptable.
4. Views
The proposed building is the antithesis of aesthetic harmony with its situation. It has no sense of being thoughtfully integrated with its natural surroundings and neighbouring structures. This incompatibility will result in negative impact on the scenic views of neighbouring
26 March 2026
properties which should be preserved as a matter of fairness and of justice to the owners of those properties. The concept of view sharing is a fundamental principle that has not been applied in this application.
5. Neighbourhood Character
This building is too massive and lacks proper scale compared to its location and is therefore completely inappropriate. Developments need to transition between high- and low-density zones. The proposed building does not in any way compliment the landscape or the neighbourhood character in which it is placed and has no sense of architectural balance.
6. Car Access
The access for the entry and exit of vehicles to this property is completely inappropriate for a residential apartment block. Redan Lane as the access point is not safe and there is high risk of vehicular collisions and personal injury. Vehicles using Redan Lane is a high risk to pedestrians.
7. Heritage Character
The site lies next to heritage properties. The proposed building is completely incompatible
with these heritage homes. The homes preserve the historical and cultural identity of this
area. Homes such as these act as living monuments and cultural time capsules and help our
community appreciate architecture from previous eras. The proposed high rise building is
incompatible and incongruous and would severely negatively impact the character of the
area. These homes offer psychological comfort and act as anchors to place and a sense of
continuity and belonging which go beyond being physical structures. The proposed building
would be completely inappropriate in this location.
8.
9.
Posterity
The proposed building would be a scar on this beautiful landscape and be there for all
succeeding generations. It will dishonour the past and be disdained in the future and seen as
an act of vandalism.
Affordable Housing
It concerns me that the building has complete separation between those in the affordable
housing and those in the rest of the building. This kind of design is not acceptable and out of
character with the inclusive character of Australian society.