The proposed development represents an unprecedented impost of height and volume on the local area. While presented under the guise of "affordable housing," the project’s scale and luxury positioning suggest a "smash and grab" exercise that will, if approved, cause irreversible damage to the character, heritage, and infrastructure of the surrounding neighbourhood.
1.KEY ISSUES & IMPACTS
A. Heritage and Neighbourhood Character
Irreversible Destruction: The project will decimate existing heritage-aligned homes, undermining the integrity of the local heritage programme.
Visual Intrusion: The proposed height and bulk are entirely out of scale with the existing low-rise environment. The proposed development appears to have been scaled, not surprisingly, to maximize profit rather than be considerate of key concerns including but not limited to overdevelopment and significant structural risks to neighbouring sites
Scenic Protection Area (SPA): The development seemingly ignores SPA objectives by failing to provide minimal visual intrusion or protect the existing landscape character, impacting both residents and visitors to the Balmoral Beach area.
B. Infrastructure and Environmental Risks
Geotechnical Concerns: Significant excavation is proposed. This poses a high risk of irreparable damage to adjoining properties via ground movement and vibration.
Water & Utilities: The proposal fails to account for the redirection of natural water flows or the impact on aging service infrastructure. These long-term potential costs will likely fall on ratepayers once the developer has exited the project.
C. Traffic, Access, and Safety
Redan Lane Congestion: The primary entry for the proposed affordable units is located on Redan Lane. This narrow, one-way lane is already burdened by service access issues (e.g., waste collection); increased foot and vehicle traffic poses a significant safety risk with no planned pedestrian egress. It is not a pedestrian pathway, there are no footpaths there is minimal night lighting.
General Traffic: Existing congestion in the area is worsening. This development will undoubtedly increase and exacerbate the existing traffic problems
3. REGULATORY NON-COMPLIANCE
Height Controls: Based on current information, the development appears to exceed established height limits.
Given the breaches in scale and height, this project should not be defined or be treated as a "complying development."
4. CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATION
The proposed development prioritises developer profit over community character and safety. It is recommended that the planning authority reject the proposal in its current form due to its failure to meet key objectives including the Scenic Protection Area objectives and its projected negative impact on local heritage and infrastructure. It cannot simply be because it is defined as significant as it involves in excess of $75 million capital investment that all other concerns and passed over. Surely money should not be the sole determinant of what is defined as State Significant.

I object to this proposal.
The size of the project is too large and inappropriate for the area, specifically;
- it's height and size is excessive for this quiet street (it exceeds current height regulations) and is completely out of character for the neighbourhood, including current heritage aspects,
- it will negatively impact traffic conditions and other local infrastructure supports,
- it will impact the views and quiet enjoyment of surrounding residents,
- Redan Street does not have footpath/access facilities to support this oversized development.
I am not against reasonable development projects; this one is voracious, vexatious and should not proceed.

I am referring to SSD-93020230 and I object to the proposal wholeheartedly.
I have lived in Mosman for 17 years and our house faces up the slopes to the proposed site and would be directly affected by the Development Proposal both visually, and the overflow of traffic, blocked streets during excavation and development over the several years it will take to complete. We have just had to deal with the most recent development in Redan Street/Lane which is near completion after nearly 3 years, and it was only a 3 level development over 2 Lots, now we are looking at 10 Storeys over 4 Lots which is not only a ridiculous proposal but one with which has put many residents in a situation where they have for many years lived under the pretence that Mosman will be keep its Lower Scale Residential Developments, keeping heritage homes with landscaped setbacks and the leafy suburb and its fine streetscapes. This includes adjoining heritage listed properties at 36 and 38 Redan St. Residents have paid very high prices for the houses they have chosen to live in and retire into old age and felt comfortable with their decision that they will be able to afford downsizing, retirement living or aged care once they have needed too with the proceeds of the sale of their properties. Many people living behind this and several other proposal sites, have already invested in developing their own dwellings at very expensive costs, only to find out now that the value of their property has dramatically fallen, only to the benefit of the developers. If the development were to keep to the 3 levels at which Mosman Council has demanded for the residence in all Low Residential Developments then this would make it still a substantial development of at least 12+ apartments and allow the local residence peace of mind in their investment in their homes and surrounding infrastructure to cope. Redan Lane at present is a very tight lane for the exisiting residence to navigate, and the thought of the proposed 10 Storey 106 carpark development would make it near impossible for the resident to access their carparks and would increase safety concerns with increased service and waste vehicles, especially once the development would commence. There is also a conflict with the Scenic Protection Area with planning objectives to limiting visual intrusion and protecting landscape character. It makes complete sense where the new developments are taking place on Military road near the Spit Junction and the RSL, but not halfway down Balmoral Slopes.
Mosman as a community would suffer under the massive height increases of these proposals, by losing Heritage homes, landscaped setbacks and streetscapes, not to mention visual amenity of the beautiful harbour seen all around from many locations around the town centre.
What Mosman would be of benefit from would be proper town planning and propose a reasonable alternative to keep with the visual beauty and too accomodate Low Scale Residential Developments but on a smaller scale as to not destroy something so beautiful.
It is just so disappointing that there is no real thought process to this at all, just the creation of Non Compliant, over Shadowing, large scale accomodation with which the community will buckle sadly at the lack of planning and understanding of how our National Heritage and Protected Areas should be at the forefront of Keeping Australia Beautiful.
I hope for the sake of the community and any further projects, that a fair precedent can be made and upheld.
Thank you for receiving my submission.
Very Concerned Resident

I object to the proposed Residential Development with In-fill Affordable Housing at 40–48 Redan Street, Mosman due to:
Incompatibility with Established Local Character
Excessive Height, Bulk, and Overdevelopment
Overshadowing, Privacy, and Visual Intrusion
Traffic, Parking, and Infrastructure Strain
Inadequate Justification of Affordable Housing Provision
Strategic Misalignment and Public Interest Concerns

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

1. Introduction
I am a long-term owner occupier of a property on a close residential street, at 3 Arbutus Street, Mosman. I object to the proposed development on numerous grounds that are detailed below.
I would also like to express my deep concern regarding the extremely short exhibition period. This is not a small development and there are a substantial number of documents to review. The time provided is insufficient for an individual to be able to fully understand all the details involved. And there is insufficient opportunity to be able to involve specialists to provide guidance as needed.
The Applicant has clearly had no time constraints to prepare the submission, and the proposal has most overtly been prepared wholly from the developers’ perspective. In such situation, the Authority cannot hope to receive a balanced view solely from the submissions. This demands that the Authority do its own research or ensure it receives independent advice from professional consultants to be able to make an informed and impartial decision.
The objection details below should be read in the light of this.

2. Location of the Proposed Development
I am not satisfied that the statement “The site is located within 400m of the Spit Junction town centre and is within the ‘inner’ area” is correct.
My estimate suggests the safe walking distance from the proposed building entrance to Spit Junction town centre to be in excess of 400m. This is an objective measurement easily verified, and the Authority should obtain an independent surveyors “safe walking distance” certificate to verify compliance.
I would also note that the A8 Military Road at Spit Junction is hardly a transport node suitable for additional loading. This road is recognised as one of the most congested in Greater Sydney, so much so that relief through the costly Beaches Link was underway until subsequently being cancelled. Relief for this transport corridor is still urgently and desperately needed.
The proposed development sits between Redan Street and Redan Lane. Redan Lane is a very narrow access lane providing rear access to properties on Redan and Muston Streets. It has no pedestrian pavement and so poses potential dangers to pedestrians. Eight of the affordable housing units have their only access from Redan Lane which could raise safety issues. Redan Lane is not a safe walking area.
Redan Street, like many surrounding streets, is a residential street; a street primarily designed for homes, rather than through traffic, characterized by lower speed limits and residential houses. Building 10x the number of dwellings on the same land will overload Redan and other streets in the area. Many of these “residential” streets are already dangerously busy, being used as “rat-runs” to avoid Military Road. This is true for my street, Arbutus Street, which is opposite Redan Lane, and is both frequently parked out and used as a major rat run for traffic.


3. Beauty, Heritage and Scenic Protection Zone
The proposed development fronts onto Redan Street, which is understood to be a heritage street, heritage that includes the elevated pedestrian pavement, extending to the boundary of the proposed development. The proposed access to the carpark will necessarily require breaking through the heritage streetscape causing major damage to the heritage pedestrian walkway. I strongly object to our beautiful heritage streetscape being destroyed in this way. I frequently walk my dog along the path on the south side of Redan Street and enjoy the natural beauty that the heritage listing has protected for 100 years. Our heritage should be respected and maintained.
It is understood that the development will impinge on the 60m contour that defines the Scenic Protection Zone for Sydney Harbour, identified as a benchmark for significant views to and from Sydney and Middle Harbours. This has been in place since the 1960’s and exists for a very good reason. “Sydney Harbour is widely recognised as one of the most beautiful urban harbours in the world and the gateway to Sydney. As a place of significant national and heritage values, the harbour shapes Sydney’s identity and image like no other natural feature”. This scenic protection zone is there for the benefit of the whole of Sydney and it should be vigorously protected with no exceptions.

4. Bulk, Scale and View Sharing
The bulk and height of this proposed development is excessive in the extreme. This 10-storey block is surrounded by low rise residential developments. It will stick out like a sore thumb from all angles. Balmoral Slopes provide a wonderful natural amphitheatre that is enjoyed not just the residents but also the many local and international visitors that come to the suburb to enjoy Balmoral Beach and the vistas provided by it. This one construction will destroy that natural beauty.
Mosman is not exclusively residential houses, 65% of housing stock are apartments (compared to 46% in Greater Sydney). Many are 6 storeys and in the most part these blend in well to the streetscape of Mosman. There is no reason why additional units could not also blend in well, maintaining the character of Mosman while providing accommodation, views and affordable housing to many more residents. It needs to be planned development. If developer led, as this proposal is, they will simply nab to best spots first with little care to anything else.
It is clear that the developers are taking advantage of government rules established for perfectly good reasons and applying them to a situation that is not appropriate, and for which I am sure they were not intended. It is akin to a basketball team buying the front row seats at a concert and then standing up throughout the performance wearing tall hats! It is creating views at the expense of those residences behind the development and selling them to new rich people. This is not view-sharing, it is view-destruction. And it will likely result in the land behind becoming fallow, unsuitable to be developed because the views have already been taken. Not the best way to increase population density.
The proposed development will provide 53 apartments, 11 of which will be “affordable housing” and 42 will be “luxury apartments and penthouses”. Judging from recent sales, some of these are likely to be sold in excess of $20m. Much of this value will result from the views that will be created at the expense of other residents and of visitors to the area. We already have enough rich people in Mosman, the suburb needs more reasonably priced family accommodation. I though that was the purpose of the SSD.

5. Affordable Housing
The Applicant is seeking a 30% increase in height allowance on the basis of setting aside15% of the GFA as “affordable housing”. The spaces set aside for Affordable housing are mostly areas that would otherwise be dead space, at the rear of the development and below ground level. Of the 11 affordable housing units, 8 have their living areas below ground level and have their main access onto Redan Lane, the only units that do so. There has been no attempt to integrate the affordable housing units into the building proper.
Housing the affordable housing tenants below ground and giving them a separate entrance onto a service road is social segregation. This is not the Aussi egalitarian way and is unlikely to foster social and community harmony. I thought we left upstairs/downstairs behind in the Victorian era.
And it should be noted that this affordable housing exists for just 15 years. The 30% height increase lasts forever. This is a great deal for the developer, but a disastrous one for Mosman, residents and visitors alike.

Stephen Barry Parkinson FIE(Aust) (Retired)
3 Arbutus Street, Mosman

Edwina Ross
Senior Planning Officer
Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure

[email protected]

Dear Ms Ross

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

From: Jane Button of 1/76 Muston Street, Mosman, NSW, 2088

Regarding: Residential development with in-fill affordable housing – 40 -48 Redan Street Mosman (SSD – 93020230)

1. Summary

The purpose of this submission is to voice my very strong objection to this development at 40-48 Redan Street which would see a group of stately homes bulldozed 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 and associated works which will include site preparation and excavation at 40-48 Redan Street.

I have owned 1/76 Muston Street since 2007 and have lived in the area for approximately twelve years. My property is behind the site and I would be impacted by the development proposal on multiple fronts including the excessive height and scale, the impact on heritage, loss of view and the effect on traffic and congestion.

I object to this application, because it represents an excessive and unsuitable form of development for the site and its setting. The development does not meet the 400 metre safe walking distance as required by the Low and Mid-Rise Housing Policy; and 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. However, the submissions do not provide an unbiased assessment for the authority to make its decision and should be given limited weight.
I believe natural justice is not served by the process as the short time frame that I had to respond, meant that it severely hampered my ability to get independent advice.

2. Height, bulk, scale and suitability of the site

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

3. Scenic protection and broader visual setting

Balmoral is an area of striking beauty which has inspired countless artists including some of our greatest impressionist painters like, Arthur Streeton and Ethel Carrick Fox.
Redan Street is not an isolated suburban street but forms part of the wider harbour landscape.

Development in this setting should preserve the visual qualities of the foreshore slopes including the balance between vegetation and buildings. The 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 the Mosman Council describes as an integral part of the Sydney harbour landscape because it can be viewed from across the water and surrounding waterways. In what would be an abuse of decades of carefully created environmental protection, this proposal seeks to move the scenic protection area for the convenience of the development.

4. Heritage, streetscape and neighbourhood character

The proposal should be assessed for its impact on the character of the street including its heritage setting. To go ahead, this development would require five homes be demolished – 40 and 42 Redan Street are both Federation, c.1902; while 44 Redan Street is a Federation Queen Anne, c.1900. The development adjoins heritage listed properties at 36 and 38 Redan Street. This development would swamp these beautiful heritage buildings, destroying much of their visual setting and running the risk of overwhelming the character of the street.

5. Views and visual impact

This proposal, for a long ten storey high rise structure running across multiple blocks, would have a major impact on the outlook from my living room and kitchen. It would have the effect of a large wall blocking my view of the sea.

My property at 1/76 Muston Street currently has a beautiful, scenic outlook which captures a small picturesque sea view. (See Appendix A)

It is a view which is mesmerising, allowing us to watch an array of maritime activity, including the daily passage of the cruise ships as they come in and turn out to sea….. as author Ada Cambridge wrote in 1903, we watch people …. voyaging to the distant world and back again.


Under this proposal, which my family and I have found extremely stressful, instead of natural beauty, I would be confronted with a large cement structure that completely blocked out my view of the sea and all maritime activity. This would substantially alter the character and amenity of the view.

6. Deep excavation, sandstone, basement and groundwater risk

A further concern is the scale of the excavation required for the proposed basement structure. This entails deep excavation into sandstone and substantial basement works which risks ground movement, vibration and damage to neighbouring properties.

7. Traffic, access and pedestrian safety

The traffic snarls in Redan Street, while this project is being built, would be horrendous. The development proposal is on a massive scale and would require lots of trades people with their vehicles. The construction phase, requiring deliveries and use of equipment like cement trucks, is likely to severely impede the use of Redan Street for years. Once finished, this development would permanently intensify traffic in Redan Street, Redan Lane and neighbouring streets.


8. Affordable housing pathway, public benefit and inclusive design

This project seeks to get the green light under the NSW government’s State Significant Development claiming eleven in fill ‘affordable’ housing apartments. It is beyond ridiculous that this luxury development could be given the green light under the guise of affordable housing when two apartments sold in the same street in 2024 for just under $20 million dollars each. This development proposes two penthouse apartments, with uninterrupted views over Balmoral, expected to sell for around $20 million dollars.

I strongly support the construction of affordable housing in Mosman but don’t support this type of construction. The affordable housing component, which only lasts for fifteen years, is comprised of eight studios with separate access from the laneway and three larger affordable units underground. Unlike the luxury units, which enter through the front door, the only access for the studios is from Redan Lane, a narrow rear service laneway, with no footpath and extremely poor lighting. This introduces a ‘poor door’ system, preventing lower income people from mixing with wealthier residents, introducing a de-facto financial apartheid system which will be damaging for Mosman’s social cohesion.

I object to this proposal on multiple grounds.
1. It vastly exceeds the height limits. Surrounding dwellings are mostly 2 liviong levels or some 3 levels if ground floor parking is included. At 12 levels including the parking this proposal is not in keeping with the height restrictions and artifically manipulates the mechanisms for uplifts. It vastly exceeds the height and footprint of any dwelling in this area of Mosman.
2. Visually it is not in keeping with the surrounding neighborhood. Surrounding houses and streetscape are mostly federation and heritage buildings, including the 5 residences planned for demolition if this procedes.
3.Loss of view for multiple residences in Redan Lane. These were purchased and constructed following the existing rules and the proposal would completely block out their views, causing major loss of amenity and major financial loss.
4.Overshadowing. The height and scale of the proposed development would cause major overshadowing of the streets above in the morning and below in the afternoon.
5.Traffic congestion. The only 2 exits from this development onto Military Road are via Upper Almora Avenue at one end of Redan Street and Raglan Street at the other. The traffic at the lights at the Military Road and Raglan street intersection is frequently blocked up down to 189 Raglan Street currently, that is before any additional cars from the proposal are added. Similarly the crossing at Upper Almora and Military Road is also frequently blocked up and relatively unsafe for pedestrians crossing. Military Road itself is almost a parking lot itself between Spit Junction and Mosman Junction for much of the day. Also the car parking lots off Raglan street on either side of Military Road are already frequently full. An additional 106 cars in the proposed development will severely aggravate the traffic situation on Military Road and adjacent streets.
6. This proposal will do nothing to achieve the governments desired "affordable housing". The nearest recent development at 22 Redan Lane being completed currently and comprising 7 units sold in the range of 18-20 million dollars per unit. Hardly affordable for your teachers, nurses, ambo drivers etc. The proposed 11"affordable" units out of 53 are only for 15 years and there is no mention of "affordable" rents. The grossly overscale building will continue to have severe adverse effects on the community long after the 15 years has expired. Seperate rear door access for the "affordable" units is un-australian. If the rents are 10% below the market value for the other units, this is still highly unlikely to be unaffordable. This is not a low income housing scheme and does not fulfill the governments aims when the State Significant Development pathway was introduced.

In summary the proposal is vastly overscale and should be rejected. Just modifying it by excluding one or two floors will NOT NEGATE the multiple adverse effects on current residents amenity (especially in Redan Lane),its visual impact, overshadowing and traffic congestion. It vastly exceeds height restrictions. It will do nothing to increase affordable housing.

NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure
By submission through the NSW Planning Portal
Reference: SSD-93020230

Subject: Formal Objection – State Significant Development Application SSD-93020230 – 40–48 Redan Street, Mosman NSW 2088

Dear Assessment Officer,


We wish to formally object, as affected residents, to the proposed development at 40–48 Redan Street, Mosman. Our objection is based on the following planning grounds:

1. Inconsistent with the Intent of the Low and Mid-Rise Housing Policy

The current permissible height under Mosman Local Environmental Plan controls is 8.5 metres. The proposed building reaches approximately 35 metres above street level – more than four times the permitted height. To achieve this, the developer has simultaneously invoked multiple planning mechanisms: the Low and Mid-Rise Housing Policy, a 30% height uplift under the Infill Affordable Housing incentives, a Clause 4.6 height variation, and the State Significant Development pathway.
The fact that a Clause 4.6 variation is still required even after invoking every available State incentive is the clearest possible demonstration that this proposal exceeds the planning framework at its most generous. The Low and Mid-Rise Housing Policy is explicitly directed at housing of 2–6 storeys. A 10-storey building is not low or mid-rise development under any accepted planning definition and the application of that policy to justify this development misrepresents its intent.
The Land and Environment Court has confirmed that Clause 4.6 variations require strong, site-specific environmental planning grounds – not general public benefit arguments: see Initial Action Pty Ltd v Woollahra Council [2018] NSWLEC 118 and Four2Five Pty Ltd v Ashfield Council [2015] NSWLEC 90. Those tests are not met here. The stacking of five discrete concessions to achieve a building of this scale is not a legitimate application of planning policy. It is an escalation beyond any policy limit.
Further, constructing a ten-storey building half way down the slope will undermine, rather than achieve, the housing policy objectives. The height of this proposal will block potential views for properties higher up the slope, discouraging further development and resulting in a single, visually intrusive line of high-rise buildings. A more strategic and coordinated approach to increased density across the slope would achieve greater housing supply and more equitable view access.


2. Disproportionate and Unverified Affordable Housing Justification
The proposal relies on 11 “affordable” apartments out of 53 dwellings, available for only 15 years, to justify a substantial and permanent increase in height and density.
No clear modelling has been provided to demonstrate what rents will be charged, what income thresholds apply, and we seriously doubt whether these dwellings will be genuinely affordable to those in housing stress.
This is clearly a large luxury apartment development where affordable housing is being used as a mechanism to unlock excessive height, rather than as a genuine design driver. The permanent impacts of the proposal are not proportionate to a temporary and unverified benefit.

3. Heritage Impact and Irreversible Loss
The proposal involves the demolition of five Federation-era homes dating from around 1900 and sits adjacent to heritage-listed properties on a designated Heritage Road.
This will permanently remove historically significant dwellings, undermine the setting of adjacent heritage items, and erode the cohesive character of Redan Street. These impacts are inconsistent with established heritage conservation principles and should not be supported.

4. Visual Bulk, Privacy and Overlooking Impacts
The scale, height and mid-slope position of the development will create substantial visual dominance and loss of amenity for surrounding properties.
Multiple levels of balconies and habitable rooms will result in direct and cumulative overlooking into neighbouring homes and private open spaces. The Environmental Impact Statement itself acknowledges impacts ranging from “severe to devastating,” which is inconsistent with an acceptable planning outcome.
The building’s bulk and limited articulation will further contribute to a continuous and intrusive built form that is incompatible with the existing streetscape.

5. Scenic Protection and View Loss
The site is located within a Scenic Protection Area, which carries obligations to preserve important visual landscapes.
The proposed development will be highly visible from Balmoral Beach, surrounding streets and the harbour foreshore, and will obstruct existing views currently enjoyed by residents and the public. This is incompatible with the intent of the Scenic Protection provisions and represents a permanent loss of visual amenity.

6. Traffic, Parking and Construction Impacts
The development proposes 106 car spaces for 53 dwellings. This will increase traffic volumes on a narrow residential street not designed for such intensity and result in overflow parking in our surround street.
Vehicle access via a single driveway will concentrate traffic movements and create ongoing safety and congestion concerns.
It is inconsistent with the objectives of the new state government housing policy, which aim to reduced car dependency in developments near transport hubs. The additional vehicle movements will increase safety risks for pedestrians, cyclists, and local residents, and exacerbate existing congestion.

In addition, the scale of excavation required for two basement levels introduces risks of structural damage to neighbouring properties and will result in prolonged construction disruption, significantly impacting ourselves and other local residents.


7. Inadequate Community Consultation
The developer’s consultation process was insufficient and ineffective. We received a postcard in our letter box with insufficient time to attend the consultation.

8. Precedent for Overdevelopment
This proposal represents more than a single development. It reflects a broader pattern of site amalgamation and large-scale redevelopment emerging across Mosman.
Approval would set a precedent for similar proposals, weakening established planning controls and progressively altering the character of the area. Each approval makes subsequent developments easier to justify, resulting in cumulative and irreversible change.

9. Incompatibility with Neighbourhood Character
Mosman is defined by its village scale, heritage streetscapes, landscaped character and strong relationship to the harbour.
A development of this scale is wholly inconsistent with the established built form and residential amenity of the area, and undermines long-standing planning controls designed to preserve these qualities.

Conclusion
While we support appropriate and well-planned housing development, this proposal represents a significant departure from established planning principles. It delivers excessive and irreversible impacts in exchange for a limited and unproven public benefit.

For the reasons outlined above, we respectfully request that the Department refuse this application.

Yours sincerely,
Kirsty and Peter Gold
1C Arbutus Street
Mosman NSW 2088