We wish to lodge an objection to the development at 40-48 Redan Street which also backs onto a very narrow Redan Lane.
The Proposed 10 storey high-rise building consisting of 53 apartments on top of two basement levels with 106 car parling spaces.
1. We object to the short notice of 30th March as there is insufficient time to assess the volume of material available & find the missing information. Please extend the objection date to allow a fair assessment.
2. As a resident who chose to live in a Heritage area, we are staggered that such a large out of place development disguised as an attempt to solve the housing problem including low-income affordable housing (Only required for 15 years) would be considered. Redan Street is Heritage listed & a 10 storey building of such volume & height will severely impact the streetscape & the structural risk to the low-rise heritage houses either side.
3. Low-income affordable housing in Mosman that discriminates by offering access by a rear lane is not acceptable & should not be supported by Government using the SSD. How could the SSD support developers that provide only 11 affordable units with three units below ground level that have no sunlight & a draconian tradesman type entrance.
4. Having previously experienced an overdevelopment on Balmoral Slopes before the New State Significant Development (SSD) were introduced we are aware that it set a precedent for the developers to look for loopholes to overbuild on Balmoral Slopes for Profit. SSD is now their go to with the affordable housing bonus.
Massive excavations for car parking & bulky high-rise developments = Profit.
5. We object to the proposed development of 53 apartments with 106 car spaces. It is so bulky it will overshadow the surrounding houses & cause more traffic in an already congested Redan Street & Redan Lane.
6. Approving this will only assist the other SSD developments that are currently seeking approval in Redan Lane & Muston Street that also backs onto Redan Lane.
7. We object to the view capture within a Scenic protection area by such a bulky proposal & feel for the surrounding properties that will lose their views as well as devaluing their properties.
8. The proposed development fails to comply with the 400 meters from the Mosman Council offices as defined by the SSD.
9. The proposed development sits within the 60-meter contour requirement & its bulk is not consistent with the overall visual setting of Balmoral Slopes.
We are concerned that the proposed development will set a new precedent in forcing people out of their homes & into the developers' hands as they push the SSD boundaries to pass this unsuitable, noncompliant development that is excessive in bulk & height.

We are in a housing crisis for which the solution is to build more homes. This is more homes, and better yet, super close to the city, with half hour access to the CBD using the B line and other bus routes that operate on high frequency during the day, and easily close enough to cycle to various destinations throughout inner and north Sydney. The inner suburbs of Sydney have not been providing opportunities for housing for far too long, pushing people out West where there is objectively less opportunity, infrastructure, amenity and more. It's time to build lots of housing where people want to live, so this project should go ahead.

I object to the project because the site is not close to a transport hub as defined by the government. A bus is not defined as a transport hub. As it is, the buses are full when they reach Mosman as they service the northern beaches. The size of the development related to its neighbours is out of all proportion for a neighbourhood. The developers are the only winners. Why did the developers go to Balmoral slopes? To get the expensive views of course with no concern for ruining a loved and iconic part of Sydney, loved by Sydneysiders and tourists alike.
Thank you for your consideration.

I am writing to formally object to the State Significant Development application SSD-93020230.
While I acknowledge the strategic need to increase housing supply and diversity, this proposal represents an overdevelopment of the site that is inconsistent with the established character of the locality and is not supported by adequate infrastructure capacity. The application does not satisfactorily demonstrate that the scale of development can be accommodated without unacceptable impacts on amenity, transport, and the surrounding road network.
My objection is based on the following planning grounds:
1. Incompatible Building Height and Scale
The proposed building height and bulk are inconsistent with the prevailing built form of the surrounding area and do not provide an appropriate transition to adjacent low- and mid-rise development. This is contrary to established “context and setting” principles of good design under NSW planning frameworks.
The proposal will result in material impacts on solar access, visual privacy, and overall residential amenity for neighbouring properties. The application does not adequately demonstrate that these impacts have been avoided or minimised.
Furthermore, the extent of the height and floor space uplift sought is not supported by a commensurate public benefit. In its current form, the proposal prioritises development intensity over compatibility with the existing urban fabric.
2. Inadequate Public Transport Capacity
The application relies on the site’s proximity to bus services within a 400-metre radius. However, it does not adequately assess the operational capacity of these services. Bus routes along the Military Road corridor are already subject to peak-hour crowding, delays, and service unreliability, with regular instances of full services and passenger pass-ups.
While the application references the B-Line service, the nearest stop is approximately 850 metres from the site and therefore falls outside commonly accepted walking catchments for high-frequency public transport.
Critically, the Environmental Impact Statement does not include detailed peak-hour load analysis or demonstrate coordination with transport authorities to confirm that additional demand generated by the proposal can be accommodated. In the absence of such evidence, it cannot be concluded that the existing public transport network has the capacity to support the development.
3. Escalation of Local Road Congestion and Safety Impacts
The proposal will generate a significant increase in vehicle movements within an already constrained local road network. Intersections connecting to Military Road experience regular congestion during peak periods, and the surrounding street network is not designed to accommodate substantial increases in traffic volumes.
The traffic assessment appears to rely on limited data collection and does not adequately reflect cumulative or peak-period conditions. As such, it is likely to underestimate the true impact of the development on traffic flow and intersection performance.
Of particular concern is the proximity to local schools, including Mosman Public School and Mosman High School. Increased traffic volumes in this context raise legitimate pedestrian safety concerns, particularly during school drop-off and pick-up periods when pedestrian activity is highest.
The application also overstates the viability of cycling as an alternative transport mode, given the fragmented and incomplete nature of cycling infrastructure connecting Mosman to the Sydney CBD. As such, reliance on mode shift to mitigate traffic impacts is not realistically supported by existing conditions.
4. Misalignment with Affordable Housing Objectives
The application seeks to justify additional height and floor space through the provision of affordable housing. However, the evidence suggests that the resulting rents would remain inaccessible to very low-, low-, and moderate-income households, as defined under NSW Government criteria.
Based on publicly available rental data, even discounted rents are likely to require household incomes well above the threshold for housing stress (generally defined as housing costs exceeding 30% of gross income). This indicates that the proposed “affordable” units would not be genuinely affordable to the intended target groups.
This raises concerns that the proposal does not deliver affordable housing outcomes consistent with the intent of the relevant policy framework. Rather, it appears that the affordable housing provisions are being used to support increased development yield without delivering a proportionate and meaningful community benefit.
Conclusion
For the reasons outlined above, I respectfully request that the Department refuse application SSD-93020230.
The proposal is inconsistent with key planning principles relating to context, amenity, and infrastructure capacity, and does not demonstrate that the additional development intensity is justified by an appropriate level of public benefit.
In the alternative, the application should be subject to substantial redesign to reduce height and scale, align with infrastructure capacity, and ensure that any affordable housing delivered meets the needs of very low-, low-, and moderate-income households in a meaningful and genuine way.
I confirm that I have not made any reportable political donations in the previous two years.

Mosman is a heritage property area and has remained so due to the diligence and love the residents & council have for it. Demolishing it to create a few extra beds will ruin the area's beauty, culture and history. If you've visited London, you can see the vast difference between areas rebuilt after the bombing vs the beautiful Edwardian and Georgian terrace homes that remain. This provides us all with insight into what Mosman will look like if developments like this are approved. The only people benefiting from the approval are the developers, and the losers will be the local community and generations that follow, who will miss experiencing the beauty and history of this wonderful slice of the world.

Objection to Development Application SSD 93020230
40–48 Redan Street, Mosman
I am a resident, Maria Psalts, of Muston Street, Unit 2/ 76 Muston Street and have lived in the area for 60 years. I strongly object to the proposed development.
This project is fundamentally out of character with the Balmoral slopes. Its excessive height and bulk would permanently disrupt the scale and visual harmony of the area, creating a dominant and intrusive structure visible from across Balmoral BeachO.
Despite being presented as “affordable housing,” the development is likely to deliver high-end apartments beyond the reach of ordinary workers, while introducing a segregated rear entrance for so-called affordable units. This “poor door” approach is inappropriate and inconsistent with Australia’s values of social inclusion.
The proposal would significantly impact established views to the Heads and Balmoral Beach, causing distress to long-term residents who have enjoyed these outlooks for generations.
The scale of excavation—up to 10 metres into sandstone to the site boundaries—raises serious concerns about structural risk, including ground movement, vibration, and potential damage to neighbouring properties. The design appears to force the site to suit the building, rather than respecting the natural topography.
The development would also overwhelm nearby heritage-listed properties at 36 and 38 Redan Street and undermine the character of the Scenic Protection Area, where visual intrusion is meant to be minimised.
Access and safety are major concerns. Redan Lane is narrow, lacks footpaths, and is unsuitable for increased traffic, service vehicles, and pedestrian use. Construction impacts would further disrupt access to the well-used Upper Almora Street pedestrian pathway to Balmoral Beach.
Local infrastructure is already limited. Increased density, combined with a large-scale building in a steep and constrained location, raises legitimate concerns about emergency access and service capacity.
Finally, the proposal appears non-compliant. It exceeds height controls and relies on variations, while not meeting the 400-metre proximity requirement to the Mosman town centre when measured via safe, legitimate pedestrian routes.
For these reasons, I urge that this application be refused. The proposal represents an overdevelopment of a sensitive and iconic area and risks causing lasting harm to the character, amenity, and heritage of Balmoral and its surrounds.

SSD-93020230, I am beyond belief this submission has been lodged! I ask the Department to refuse the application. My strongest submission points:
1. Height restrictions arrogantly ignored by developer
2. the mischaracterisation of the site as a 'ridge line' - this is situated on the slopes of Balmoral and totally corrupts the landscape.
3. the stacking of five planning concessions - is this to confuse objectors? or bolster the application?
4. the outrageous 15 year time-limited affordable housing - affordable housing will continue to be needed - this concession is a conflict of interest. Affordable housing is already insufficient, unlikely to decrease if population is forecast to increase. How could anyone possibly live in 1 of 15 bunker sized concrete boxes?
5. EIS's own admission of "severe to devastating" visual impacts are totally accurate - no aesthetic consideration, no design or sustainable build considered; it is literally an ugly lump of grey, carbon hungry, concrete looming into the sky and learing over low situated traditional homes = nil design or thought = treating neighbours with absolute contempt
6.Proposed servicing of these apartments? Collection of waste, recycling, trades.
7. Access to roadway or pedestrian entry with no footpath ? Parents with Prams? Safe entrance?
8. Failure to assess surrounding privacy from an elevated mid-slope position
9. Heritage streetscape incompatibility, = non existent, nil Respect for history and location.
10. No consultation process & timing of notices - the developer's failed to reach residents on Redan Street in a timely respectful way.
11. Democracy? Mosman Council lodged detailed objections receiving a dismissal - so they are being silenced. Council represents the common interests of a community - this 'process'is undemocratic and wrong and stacked to advantage money grabbing rogue development.
12. Justified or unjust development? Unjustifiable in every possible perspective, only driven by real estate / or an address with an ugly legacy to be ashamed of for all time..."what were they thinking when this was approved? They should be ashamed!"
13. Beautiful harbour slopes destined to be radicalised and destroyed for ever? setting precedents for all of Sydney harbour slopes. I say No! We need to preserve/encourage low set housing (within height restrictions) on harbour slopes for all people to share.
14. Destabilising of bedrock through excavation - destructive interference to solid geology and geography.
15. Potential damage to surrounding homes through earth digging/excavation
16. No respect for surrounding homes and gardens; interference overlooking private spaces, gardens, rooms in surrounding existing homes.
17. Setting the groundwork as a precedent for future development applications that totally wipe out the character and natural beauty of this natural landscape.
18. Irresponsibility to future generations who lose their sense of community and historic housing. Large building apartments like this proposed, do not encourage community. Residents can lock up 'bolthole"and go away.
19. Increase in traffic flow and density in narrow Redan street + split street contours.
20. Where do children play? Go to the park /the beach? Lack of paths that safely convey to those places down a steep hill.
21. Consideration for shadowing neighbouring properties? Winter? Heat of concrete in Summer? 'Climate' design is environmentally & socially irresponsible.
22. Stress on surrounding residents in construction process - noise, traffic, parking, trades, cranes, heavy vehicles, concrete pours, noise, drainage of water, dirty waste, access to properties, stop go traffic controls, noise, anxiety, bedrock drilling, eroding of community, disrespect, isolation, noise and ultimately psycho-social consequences. Cost?
23. Many aged residents staying in their home for as long as possible (as encouraged by the govt) will have to live in these conditions. This is not OK - they should not have to endure this!

In conclusion, simply do not allow this to proceed - in any form! It is not appropriate at this location. Best placed in a central business location - away from the Harbourside.

I write to formally object to the proposed development at 40–48 Redan Street, Mosman. This objection is based on substantive planning, environmental, and procedural concerns that, taken together, demonstrate the proposal is inconsistent with both the intent and application of relevant planning controls.

1. Excessive Reliance on Stacked Planning Concessions
The proposal is underpinned by the simultaneous application of five separate planning concessions. This level of cumulative variation goes well beyond any reasonable or intended interpretation of planning flexibility. Concessions are designed to be applied judiciously and in isolation where warranted—not aggregated in a manner that fundamentally alters the scale, form, and impact of a development. The extent of these concessions indicates an overreach that undermines the integrity of the planning framework.

2. Disproportionate and Time-Limited Affordable Housing Provision
While affordable housing is cited as a justification for the proposal, the provision is both limited in scope and temporary in duration. This raises serious questions about proportionality. The scale of planning benefit granted is not commensurate with the modest and time-restricted public benefit delivered. This imbalance suggests the affordable housing component is being used primarily as a mechanism to unlock otherwise non-compliant development outcomes.

3. Acknowledged Severe Visual Impact
The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) itself acknowledges that the development will result in “severe to devastating” visual impacts. This is an extraordinary admission within the proponent’s own documentation and should carry significant weight in the assessment process. A development that is predicted to have such pronounced adverse visual consequences is inherently incompatible with its surroundings and should not be supported.

4. Inadequate Assessment of Cumulative Privacy Impacts
The proposal fails to properly assess the cumulative privacy impacts arising from its elevated mid-slope position. This topographical context amplifies overlooking and visual intrusion into surrounding properties. A comprehensive analysis of sightlines, building height, and orientation has not been sufficiently undertaken, particularly in relation to the combined effect on multiple neighbouring dwellings.

5. Incompatibility with Heritage Streetscape Character
Redan Street is characterised by a distinct heritage streetscape that contributes significantly to the local identity of Mosman. The scale, bulk, and architectural expression of the proposed development are not sympathetic to this context. Rather than responding to the established character, the proposal introduces a form that is visually and materially discordant, eroding the coherence of the streetscape.

6. Mischaracterisation of the Site Context
The development relies, in part, on describing the site as being located on a “ridge line.” This is a mischaracterisation. The site is more accurately described as mid-slope, and this distinction is critical. Misrepresenting the topography has implications for how visual impact, bulk, and overshadowing are assessed. Planning conclusions drawn from an incorrect site classification are inherently flawed.

7. Deficient Community Consultation
The consultation process undertaken by the developer is demonstrably inadequate. Appendix E of the proponent’s own documentation indicates that residents of Redan Street were identified as key stakeholders; however, many were not meaningfully engaged. This failure undermines the credibility of the consultation process and does not meet reasonable expectations for community participation in developments of this scale.

8. Dismissal of Council’s Detailed Objections
Mosman Council has raised substantive and detailed concerns regarding the proposal. The proponent’s response—summarised as “considered and responded to”—is cursory and lacks transparency. Such a boilerplate dismissal does not constitute genuine engagement with the issues raised and fails to address the substance of Council’s objections.

Conclusion
The proposal represents a significant departure from planning controls, relies on disproportionate justification, and introduces unacceptable environmental and amenity impacts. The cumulative effect of the issues outlined above demonstrates that the development is not in the public interest and should not be approved.

I respectfully request that the consent authority give full weight to these concerns and refuse the application.

Overdevelopment of site and out of proportion with surrounds
Excessive height and bulk reducing amenity of area and surrounding housing character
Traffic and access problems which exist already will be exacerbated
How this development will address "Affordable Housing" is misleading
It will create (and has already started to create) a cascade of destruction of character properties which define the Balmoral basin area which will be regretted in future
Developments of this scale should be encouraged and confined to built areas of Mosman with character and access already appropriate to larger scale

This 42 Apartment block is an over development of the site. It has no community benefits (only increased traffic demands on our infrastructure and public transport) and we will lose heritage homes from the 1900's. It is a luxury apartment block and in no way provides "affordable homes" to anyone. The height and scale of the building is arrogant and out of scale with the surrounding neighborhood. The fact that Mosman Council has no say in the planning process is very unfair to the people (voters) in the municipality. It is a project that enriches the developers at the expense of the local community.