Jane Button
Object
Jane Button
Object
Mosman
,
New South Wales
Message
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.
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.
Attachments
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
MOSMAN
,
New South Wales
Message
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.
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.
Kirsty Gold
Object
Kirsty Gold
Object
MOSMAN
,
New South Wales
Message
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
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
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
MOSMAN
,
New South Wales
Message
I am a local resident and I object to the proposed development. It is completely out of character for the area. Four storeys might be acceptable and fit into the street scape but a 10 storey building is outrageous.
The infrastructure can't cope now. Power access and water run off after the last storm is still being 'fixed' and local streets are a parking lot now.
I cannot believe I have to sit here and object.
To the developers - Which part of the fact that the potential project is a bad idea don't you understand!!
The infrastructure can't cope now. Power access and water run off after the last storm is still being 'fixed' and local streets are a parking lot now.
I cannot believe I have to sit here and object.
To the developers - Which part of the fact that the potential project is a bad idea don't you understand!!
Ron Crause
Object
Ron Crause
Object
MOSMAN
,
New South Wales
Message
24 March 2026
Edwina Ross
Senior Planning Officer
Department of Planning, Housing and Infastructure
Dear Ms Ross
Objection to Development Application SSD – 93020230 at 40-48 Redan Street, Mosman.
The above SSD is seeking the approval of a 10-storey building with 53 apartments including some 11 so called affordable housing apartments with rear building access. There is also provision for parking to accommodate 106 cars in a 2-level underground car park. Entrance to this car park is proposed via a Heritage Divided Road of Redan Street. Excavation to accommodate this enormous carpark, site preparation, hydraulic management and overall tree felling and landscaping are all proposed.
My name is Ronald Crause and I am the owner of 19 Balmoral Avenue, Mosman. My property will be approximately 50 meters below the hill from the development. I have lived in Mosman since 1995 and enjoyed all the amenities and bushland that the suburb has to offer. This proposed development is the most radical change proposed since I have lived here. Consequently, the impact and loss of amenities will affect me in many ways as I have attempted to outline below.
All in all, my key objections to this proposal are as follows:
1. Excessive height and bulk – the proposal is clearly out of keeping with the surrounding neighbourhood and houses in the immediate and surrounding area.
2. Overdevelopment and risks associated with such a large development- there are potentially serious risks with the massive excavation, up to 10 meters of sandstone. The site would appear to be completely inappropriate for such a bulky development.
3. Heritage- the development will be adjoining various heritage sites including the heritage “divided road” of Redan Street which is proposed to be developed to include the entrance to the car park for the proposed development.
4. Traffic – the development will cause unnecessary traffic congestion in an already very congested area with roads leading to and from the proposed development exacerbating potential traffic delays and changes to traffic flow in the area.
5. Transport- Mosman Junction to Sydney and other key transport hubs (eg St Leonards) is primarily along Military Road (so it is not a “transport hub”). The influx of so many new residents and their transport needs could not be serviced by the current transport options in and out of Mosman. How is this SSD considered to be of significance in this regard? Strictly speaking there has been no adequate planning to increase the transport infrastructure in Mosman to accommodate a development of this size.
6. Affordable Housing – the design calls for 11 apartments at the back of the building from Redan Lane will have no access to or from to the main entrance on Redan Street. These apartments will only have access via the back lane through a “poor door” which raises serious question about the inclusiveness of the design and the extent to which this encourages greater social cohesion.
7. Non-Compliance- the development requires a Clause 4.6 variation as it exceeds height controls. It describes the proposal as “compliant’. This needs to be further examined by a more thorough reading of the documents that has led to this conclusion.
8. Scenic Protection Area- the site is part of an existing, established area. The proposed development does not take this into account and the landscape size and design is sparce when compared to the existing appearance of the lush landscape in the surrounding area. It will be a massive concrete structure not in keeping with the existing streetscape.
9. Emotional Stress- the proposal has, so far, caused me an enormous amount of stress, worry and anxiety. My sleeping has been seriously affected by the proposal as I cannot stop thinking about the extent of the loss of amenities in my immediate neighbourhood. It has given me an overall feeling of uneasiness.
Specifically, I would like to comment on some of the reports and statements that have been presented by the various groups on behalf of supporting the developer to garner approval and acceptance of the development.
The Social Impact Assessment (SIA) was prepared by Notting Hill Advisory Pty Ltd (Notting Hill) on behalf of Mosman Land No.1 Pty Ltd (the Applicant) to support a State Significant Development Application (SSDA) for the site located at 40-48 Redan Street, Mosman (the Proposal).
I have some serious concerns about this assessment and the conclusions that are purported. All the bullet points below are from the SIA.
• From a way of life perspective, the development is expected to generate moderate positive social outcomes for future residents within the new buildings. The provision of affordable housing enhances access to the suburb for moderate income households and key workers who may otherwise be excluded from the local housing market. The inclusion of 11 affordable housing dwellings introduces greater housing diversity within Mosman and supports access for key workers and moderate-income households.
These assumptions of moderate positive outcomes need to be challenged in that the new building segregates those in the affordable housing section of the building by directing these resident to a separate entrance from the back lane and some units on the ground level do not even have access other than via a staircase accessed via the back lane. In what way is this INCLUSIVE in fact it is not promoting social cohesion. Due to this aspect of the building design, those residents in the ‘affordable housing’ part of the complex is like to be perceived as a separate ‘subclass’ by other residents and the neighbourhood as a whole. Further there is no evidence supplied as to how the affordable housing is going to operate and who will be eligible and what the average rent will be especially taking into account the exorbitant rents that currently exist in Mosman. What level of salary will need to be earned to be eligible, etc. More transparent analysis needs to be supplied by the developer. Mosman land values are very high and rents are correlated to land values. Thus ‘affordable’ may be very high for a person that is used to land values in other non-comparable areas of NSW.
• Engagement undertaken for the SSDA indicates that, notwithstanding opposition to built form scale, community members recognised the value of additional housing supply and affordable housing provision. Overall, residual impacts on community cohesion and character are assessed as low to moderate positive, with the benefits of increased housing diversity outweighing temporary disruption.
The engagement undertaken was very unsatisfactory. I want to complain and object to the way this entire engagement was handled.
We were notified on the 11th December 2025 at 5:50pm to attend a community engagement meeting the next day at 10am in the city. This was undertaken supposedly by Brilliant Logic Team an independent team working with community engagement. Some of my neighbours also received this request. Apparently only 3 people attended. We have had no further requests to attend future sessions? Why? If only 3 people attended, is it not possible that the community was (a) not aware of this the meeting and (b) not given enough time to make arrangements.
More genuine community engagement needs to be undertaken. I strongly believe the local community has NOT been given adequate time to assess the conclusion that the impacts on community cohesion and assessed as low to moderate positive. The short timeframe to make arrangements to attend, has tainted the whole process as one of paying “lip service” to timely community involvement It does not allay concerns about serious decision-making authorities not having sufficient information to assess this development application and its true impact on the community.
• Heritage -The site is adjacent to locally listed heritage items. The Visual Impact Assessment concludes that the proposal will not result in significant visual impacts. Accordingly, residual impacts on heritage values are assessed as low and unlikely to occur.
However, the subject site is in the vicinity of several heritage items that include:
o ▪ ‘Divided Road’ Redan Street (LEP I440).
o ▪ ‘Pair of semi-detached houses’ 38 and 36 Redan Street (LEP I262).
o ▪ ‘House’, 29 Redan Street (LEP I261).
Additionally, a significant rock face/retaining wall has been identified adjacent to the subject site in the Mosman Residential Development Control Plan (Mosman DCP) 2012 (amended 2024).
My major concern is that this development site has not been adequately assessed for its impact on the local residents, their community and the neighbourhood. For example, many local resident, including my family, do not fully understand or appreciate that the abolition of the current “Divided Road” pedestrian walkway will greatly impact on our access and amenity. In addition, the community concern about the dramatic increase in vehicular traffic in the immediate neighbourhood and back into Mosman is not fully understood. It is conceivable that the impact of 106 cars entering and exiting the driveway just north of the Balmoral Avenue /Redan Street intersection in both directions is going to be dangerous as cars regularly speed along these two streets on a regular basis.
The proposed major intersection of Redan and Balmoral Avenue including extensive on street parking on both these streets, will make access to the underground car parking potentially a major traffic impediment. It is difficult to assess just how great the traffic impact will be and how safe entry and exit from the underground car park will be achieved.
Also, we request more information about where and when the heritage value of the Redan “Divided Road” is discussed and debated. It behoves the developer to provide more detailed discussion on how this intersection is going to operate without causing major disruption and loss of amenities to local residents.SEE ATTACH
Edwina Ross
Senior Planning Officer
Department of Planning, Housing and Infastructure
Dear Ms Ross
Objection to Development Application SSD – 93020230 at 40-48 Redan Street, Mosman.
The above SSD is seeking the approval of a 10-storey building with 53 apartments including some 11 so called affordable housing apartments with rear building access. There is also provision for parking to accommodate 106 cars in a 2-level underground car park. Entrance to this car park is proposed via a Heritage Divided Road of Redan Street. Excavation to accommodate this enormous carpark, site preparation, hydraulic management and overall tree felling and landscaping are all proposed.
My name is Ronald Crause and I am the owner of 19 Balmoral Avenue, Mosman. My property will be approximately 50 meters below the hill from the development. I have lived in Mosman since 1995 and enjoyed all the amenities and bushland that the suburb has to offer. This proposed development is the most radical change proposed since I have lived here. Consequently, the impact and loss of amenities will affect me in many ways as I have attempted to outline below.
All in all, my key objections to this proposal are as follows:
1. Excessive height and bulk – the proposal is clearly out of keeping with the surrounding neighbourhood and houses in the immediate and surrounding area.
2. Overdevelopment and risks associated with such a large development- there are potentially serious risks with the massive excavation, up to 10 meters of sandstone. The site would appear to be completely inappropriate for such a bulky development.
3. Heritage- the development will be adjoining various heritage sites including the heritage “divided road” of Redan Street which is proposed to be developed to include the entrance to the car park for the proposed development.
4. Traffic – the development will cause unnecessary traffic congestion in an already very congested area with roads leading to and from the proposed development exacerbating potential traffic delays and changes to traffic flow in the area.
5. Transport- Mosman Junction to Sydney and other key transport hubs (eg St Leonards) is primarily along Military Road (so it is not a “transport hub”). The influx of so many new residents and their transport needs could not be serviced by the current transport options in and out of Mosman. How is this SSD considered to be of significance in this regard? Strictly speaking there has been no adequate planning to increase the transport infrastructure in Mosman to accommodate a development of this size.
6. Affordable Housing – the design calls for 11 apartments at the back of the building from Redan Lane will have no access to or from to the main entrance on Redan Street. These apartments will only have access via the back lane through a “poor door” which raises serious question about the inclusiveness of the design and the extent to which this encourages greater social cohesion.
7. Non-Compliance- the development requires a Clause 4.6 variation as it exceeds height controls. It describes the proposal as “compliant’. This needs to be further examined by a more thorough reading of the documents that has led to this conclusion.
8. Scenic Protection Area- the site is part of an existing, established area. The proposed development does not take this into account and the landscape size and design is sparce when compared to the existing appearance of the lush landscape in the surrounding area. It will be a massive concrete structure not in keeping with the existing streetscape.
9. Emotional Stress- the proposal has, so far, caused me an enormous amount of stress, worry and anxiety. My sleeping has been seriously affected by the proposal as I cannot stop thinking about the extent of the loss of amenities in my immediate neighbourhood. It has given me an overall feeling of uneasiness.
Specifically, I would like to comment on some of the reports and statements that have been presented by the various groups on behalf of supporting the developer to garner approval and acceptance of the development.
The Social Impact Assessment (SIA) was prepared by Notting Hill Advisory Pty Ltd (Notting Hill) on behalf of Mosman Land No.1 Pty Ltd (the Applicant) to support a State Significant Development Application (SSDA) for the site located at 40-48 Redan Street, Mosman (the Proposal).
I have some serious concerns about this assessment and the conclusions that are purported. All the bullet points below are from the SIA.
• From a way of life perspective, the development is expected to generate moderate positive social outcomes for future residents within the new buildings. The provision of affordable housing enhances access to the suburb for moderate income households and key workers who may otherwise be excluded from the local housing market. The inclusion of 11 affordable housing dwellings introduces greater housing diversity within Mosman and supports access for key workers and moderate-income households.
These assumptions of moderate positive outcomes need to be challenged in that the new building segregates those in the affordable housing section of the building by directing these resident to a separate entrance from the back lane and some units on the ground level do not even have access other than via a staircase accessed via the back lane. In what way is this INCLUSIVE in fact it is not promoting social cohesion. Due to this aspect of the building design, those residents in the ‘affordable housing’ part of the complex is like to be perceived as a separate ‘subclass’ by other residents and the neighbourhood as a whole. Further there is no evidence supplied as to how the affordable housing is going to operate and who will be eligible and what the average rent will be especially taking into account the exorbitant rents that currently exist in Mosman. What level of salary will need to be earned to be eligible, etc. More transparent analysis needs to be supplied by the developer. Mosman land values are very high and rents are correlated to land values. Thus ‘affordable’ may be very high for a person that is used to land values in other non-comparable areas of NSW.
• Engagement undertaken for the SSDA indicates that, notwithstanding opposition to built form scale, community members recognised the value of additional housing supply and affordable housing provision. Overall, residual impacts on community cohesion and character are assessed as low to moderate positive, with the benefits of increased housing diversity outweighing temporary disruption.
The engagement undertaken was very unsatisfactory. I want to complain and object to the way this entire engagement was handled.
We were notified on the 11th December 2025 at 5:50pm to attend a community engagement meeting the next day at 10am in the city. This was undertaken supposedly by Brilliant Logic Team an independent team working with community engagement. Some of my neighbours also received this request. Apparently only 3 people attended. We have had no further requests to attend future sessions? Why? If only 3 people attended, is it not possible that the community was (a) not aware of this the meeting and (b) not given enough time to make arrangements.
More genuine community engagement needs to be undertaken. I strongly believe the local community has NOT been given adequate time to assess the conclusion that the impacts on community cohesion and assessed as low to moderate positive. The short timeframe to make arrangements to attend, has tainted the whole process as one of paying “lip service” to timely community involvement It does not allay concerns about serious decision-making authorities not having sufficient information to assess this development application and its true impact on the community.
• Heritage -The site is adjacent to locally listed heritage items. The Visual Impact Assessment concludes that the proposal will not result in significant visual impacts. Accordingly, residual impacts on heritage values are assessed as low and unlikely to occur.
However, the subject site is in the vicinity of several heritage items that include:
o ▪ ‘Divided Road’ Redan Street (LEP I440).
o ▪ ‘Pair of semi-detached houses’ 38 and 36 Redan Street (LEP I262).
o ▪ ‘House’, 29 Redan Street (LEP I261).
Additionally, a significant rock face/retaining wall has been identified adjacent to the subject site in the Mosman Residential Development Control Plan (Mosman DCP) 2012 (amended 2024).
My major concern is that this development site has not been adequately assessed for its impact on the local residents, their community and the neighbourhood. For example, many local resident, including my family, do not fully understand or appreciate that the abolition of the current “Divided Road” pedestrian walkway will greatly impact on our access and amenity. In addition, the community concern about the dramatic increase in vehicular traffic in the immediate neighbourhood and back into Mosman is not fully understood. It is conceivable that the impact of 106 cars entering and exiting the driveway just north of the Balmoral Avenue /Redan Street intersection in both directions is going to be dangerous as cars regularly speed along these two streets on a regular basis.
The proposed major intersection of Redan and Balmoral Avenue including extensive on street parking on both these streets, will make access to the underground car parking potentially a major traffic impediment. It is difficult to assess just how great the traffic impact will be and how safe entry and exit from the underground car park will be achieved.
Also, we request more information about where and when the heritage value of the Redan “Divided Road” is discussed and debated. It behoves the developer to provide more detailed discussion on how this intersection is going to operate without causing major disruption and loss of amenities to local residents.SEE ATTACH
Attachments
JOAO PERESTRELLO
Object
JOAO PERESTRELLO
Object
Mosman
,
New South Wales
Message
“Residential development with in-fill affordable housing-40-48 Redan Street Mosman”
application SSD 93020230.
Submission by Joao Perestrello resident in unit 1, nr 76 Muston Street, Mosman
opposing the above-mentioned application.
As a resident of Muston Street for almost 10 years. I would like to express my opposition to this project.
1 : If carried on, it will damage forever scale and proportion of adjacent slopes to Balmoral beach. And if carried on it will endure as a persistent scar for many decades.
2: Instead of promoting development of affordable housing at the top and along the ridge of Military Road this project will produce astronomical priced units inaccessible to workers and other middle-class buyers/ renters mainly catering to a billionaire minority.
3: the prospect of mega structure at short distance that deprives residents and visitors of views to the Heads and Balmoral beach - they have enjoyed for many years and in some cases for generations -is causing intense distress and acute anxiety to many neighbors, the signatory and his family.
4: its segregated entrance to “affordable units” by the back of building introduces a noxious vision of social apartheid so foreign to Australia.
5 : Excessive height and bulk
A10-storey building with its massive width is clearly out of scale with the surrounding low-rise context. If carried out will create a monstrous long wall on the slope visible from every angle along Balmoral beach.
6: Overdevelopment and structural risk
Requires excavation of up to 10 metres into sandstone, extending to site boundaries, thus creating real risks of ground movement, vibration and damage to neighbouring properties. The proposed site is being engineered to accommodate the building, rather than the building conforming to the site.
7: Heritage impacts
Adjoins heritage listed properties at 36 and 38 Redan Street and would overwhelm these heritage items, dismembering their visual setting and eroding the existing character of Redan Street.
8: Scenic Protection Area conflict
Is affected by a Scenic Protection Area, where planning objectives include limiting visual intrusion and protecting landscape character. A 10-storey building will clearly not reconcile with those objectives.
9: Traffic and access concerns
Serious safety concerns arise from the use of Redan Lane -only a little over 4 metres wide- without footpaths, not designed for increased service and waste vehicle activity.
Larger vehicles in such constrained space raise a multitude of safety and access issues.
Not to speak of risks caused by the access of some of the cars to the garage of the proposed building through Redan Lane, mingling with “not so high-heeled” renters coming and going by foot to their exclusive back entrance to building.
Furthermore, access public to pedestrian pathway by stairs in Upper Almora to Balmoral Beach -used by hundreds of local residents and visitors every day- will be severely affected during construction.
10: Lack of supporting infrastructure
Infrastructure is not keeping pace with the scale of development being proposed. As the Premier of NSW would be aware, Mosman operates a single fire station and limited emergency services. A significant increase in population, combined with introduction of 10-storey buildings in such steep surroundings raises practical questions about emergency response, access for large fire vehicles, and overall service capacity in narrow residential streets.
11: Non-compliance and misleading claims
Exceeds height controls and requires a Clause 4.6 variation yet is described as “compliant”.
Furthermore, the requirement of new NSW planning rules allowing for higher density housing with this height within 400 meters from town center have not been met.
From the main door of Country Road (town center) using pedestrian pathways along Military Road and Upper Almora St, the distance to front door of 48 Redan St is 417 meters as demonstrated by Mosman Council.
So clearly this distance exceeds 400 m to boundary required to more than six storey buildings.
Using to this effect Redan Lane to measure the distance from the projected building to the town center is clearly inacceptable as Redan Lane has not a footpath and is very narrow for mixed pedestrian and vehicle use of such a volume.
One should also discard the argument regarding measuring the distance to the boundary of the town center of Mosman through the narrow alley behind Country Road. The reason being that this alley has not a continuous dedicated footpath for pedestrians.
12: Affordable housing design and “poor door” access concerns
The proposal includes 11 so called “affordable housing units” with segregated access, from the laneway, which raises concerns about safety access through that narrow laneway, on top of “poor door” style arrangement. Highlighting thus the concern of whether design supports inclusive housing.
For these reasons I urge you to carefully reconsider this project and avoid that an irreparable damage would be done for generations to come by this disproportionate -and not conforming to regulations- massive structure to a most iconic area of recreation of Sydney : the beautiful Balmoral beach and its views from and to the slopes , enjoyed by hundreds of thousands of yearly visitants and thousands of its residents . An heritage legacy that we shouldn’t deprive future generations to preserve and enjoy.
application SSD 93020230.
Submission by Joao Perestrello resident in unit 1, nr 76 Muston Street, Mosman
opposing the above-mentioned application.
As a resident of Muston Street for almost 10 years. I would like to express my opposition to this project.
1 : If carried on, it will damage forever scale and proportion of adjacent slopes to Balmoral beach. And if carried on it will endure as a persistent scar for many decades.
2: Instead of promoting development of affordable housing at the top and along the ridge of Military Road this project will produce astronomical priced units inaccessible to workers and other middle-class buyers/ renters mainly catering to a billionaire minority.
3: the prospect of mega structure at short distance that deprives residents and visitors of views to the Heads and Balmoral beach - they have enjoyed for many years and in some cases for generations -is causing intense distress and acute anxiety to many neighbors, the signatory and his family.
4: its segregated entrance to “affordable units” by the back of building introduces a noxious vision of social apartheid so foreign to Australia.
5 : Excessive height and bulk
A10-storey building with its massive width is clearly out of scale with the surrounding low-rise context. If carried out will create a monstrous long wall on the slope visible from every angle along Balmoral beach.
6: Overdevelopment and structural risk
Requires excavation of up to 10 metres into sandstone, extending to site boundaries, thus creating real risks of ground movement, vibration and damage to neighbouring properties. The proposed site is being engineered to accommodate the building, rather than the building conforming to the site.
7: Heritage impacts
Adjoins heritage listed properties at 36 and 38 Redan Street and would overwhelm these heritage items, dismembering their visual setting and eroding the existing character of Redan Street.
8: Scenic Protection Area conflict
Is affected by a Scenic Protection Area, where planning objectives include limiting visual intrusion and protecting landscape character. A 10-storey building will clearly not reconcile with those objectives.
9: Traffic and access concerns
Serious safety concerns arise from the use of Redan Lane -only a little over 4 metres wide- without footpaths, not designed for increased service and waste vehicle activity.
Larger vehicles in such constrained space raise a multitude of safety and access issues.
Not to speak of risks caused by the access of some of the cars to the garage of the proposed building through Redan Lane, mingling with “not so high-heeled” renters coming and going by foot to their exclusive back entrance to building.
Furthermore, access public to pedestrian pathway by stairs in Upper Almora to Balmoral Beach -used by hundreds of local residents and visitors every day- will be severely affected during construction.
10: Lack of supporting infrastructure
Infrastructure is not keeping pace with the scale of development being proposed. As the Premier of NSW would be aware, Mosman operates a single fire station and limited emergency services. A significant increase in population, combined with introduction of 10-storey buildings in such steep surroundings raises practical questions about emergency response, access for large fire vehicles, and overall service capacity in narrow residential streets.
11: Non-compliance and misleading claims
Exceeds height controls and requires a Clause 4.6 variation yet is described as “compliant”.
Furthermore, the requirement of new NSW planning rules allowing for higher density housing with this height within 400 meters from town center have not been met.
From the main door of Country Road (town center) using pedestrian pathways along Military Road and Upper Almora St, the distance to front door of 48 Redan St is 417 meters as demonstrated by Mosman Council.
So clearly this distance exceeds 400 m to boundary required to more than six storey buildings.
Using to this effect Redan Lane to measure the distance from the projected building to the town center is clearly inacceptable as Redan Lane has not a footpath and is very narrow for mixed pedestrian and vehicle use of such a volume.
One should also discard the argument regarding measuring the distance to the boundary of the town center of Mosman through the narrow alley behind Country Road. The reason being that this alley has not a continuous dedicated footpath for pedestrians.
12: Affordable housing design and “poor door” access concerns
The proposal includes 11 so called “affordable housing units” with segregated access, from the laneway, which raises concerns about safety access through that narrow laneway, on top of “poor door” style arrangement. Highlighting thus the concern of whether design supports inclusive housing.
For these reasons I urge you to carefully reconsider this project and avoid that an irreparable damage would be done for generations to come by this disproportionate -and not conforming to regulations- massive structure to a most iconic area of recreation of Sydney : the beautiful Balmoral beach and its views from and to the slopes , enjoyed by hundreds of thousands of yearly visitants and thousands of its residents . An heritage legacy that we shouldn’t deprive future generations to preserve and enjoy.
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
MOSMAN
,
New South Wales
Message
I am writing in response to the exhibition notice regarding the proposed development ‘Residential Development with In-fill Affordable Housing - 40-48 Redan Street Mosman’
I strongly object to SSD-93020230 on several planning grounds.
This proposal does not comply with the definition of low-mid rise.
The site is approx 400metres from Mosman station/centre.
These planning controls below are copied and pasted as stated on the NSW Govt website ‘Low & Mid-rise Housing Policy’
Low and Mid-Rise Housing inner areas (0-400 m from a nominated station/centre)
* Floor space ratio: max 2.2:1
* Height of building: max 22 m
* Storeys: max 6
* No minimum lot size or width (LEP provisions switched off)
Low and Mid-Rise Housing outer areas (400-800 m from a nominated station/centre)
* Floor space ratio: max 1.5:1
* Height of building: max 17.5 m
* Storeys: max 4
The proposal is not for low and mid-rise housing or "missing middle" housing as defined by the NSW Govt’s own materials as 2-6 storeys. The proposal is a massive overdevelopment for the site and the neighbourhood. The proposal exceeds the maximum building height, and is not consistent with the surrounding streetscape. There are severe visual impacts to neighbouring properties and the streets surrounding, and to privacy of neighbours. The mid slopes location is devastating to the appearance of Balmoral slopes and to the heritage streetscape.
The developer is attempting to take advantage of every available concession to reap the financial benefits, not to help with ‘affordable housing’ and completely regardless of the intentions of local Mosman Council and NSW State Govt.
This is a ‘Scenic Protection Area’ the proposal is unlawful in this location.
Any claims of ‘affordable housing’ are unassessed and unverifiable. What is fact is that due to the location and views the overriding majority of the units are proposed to be luxury housing at a typically very high Mosman market price, each additional level being proposed by the gross use of planning clauses and loopholes is purely for more financial gain for the developers, not to address affording housing. It does not comply with NSW Govt policy. Proposing 10 storeys is making a complete mockery of the NSW Govt’s own policies. The developer attempting to use the clause 4.6 variation so that they can get around complying with basic development standards is abhorrent.
The NSW Govt's SSD pathway was intended to accelerate housing supply. Please don’t allow developers to abuse & misapply planning concessions to their own advantage. State policy is already generous to developers, don’t allow them to make misrepresentations, bypass & disregard local council and community concerns.
This proposal is unreasonable and unnecessary and does not comply with NSW Govt legislation, and certainly does not take into consideration Mosman Council policy or the vision of Mosman that the local community wants.
The current proposal represents an unnecessary and excessive increase in both height and density. Overall, the proposal represents an overdevelopment of the site, resulting in excessive scale, bulk and density relative to the surrounding area.
The risk of setting an unintended planning precedent by allowing a development of this scale is significant. Future proposals would seek similar excessive variations to height and density controls within Mosman. While housing supply and affordable housing are important policy objectives, development proposals should respect the established planning framework and the long-term strategic vision for the area.
For all of the reasons outlined above, including the significant exceedance and abuse of planning controls, precedent risks, lack of appropriate height transition, excessive bulk and massing, and potential impacts on local amenity and infrastructure, I respectfully submit my objection to SSD-93020230 and request that the proposal be carefully considered and rejected.
I strongly object to SSD-93020230 on several planning grounds.
This proposal does not comply with the definition of low-mid rise.
The site is approx 400metres from Mosman station/centre.
These planning controls below are copied and pasted as stated on the NSW Govt website ‘Low & Mid-rise Housing Policy’
Low and Mid-Rise Housing inner areas (0-400 m from a nominated station/centre)
* Floor space ratio: max 2.2:1
* Height of building: max 22 m
* Storeys: max 6
* No minimum lot size or width (LEP provisions switched off)
Low and Mid-Rise Housing outer areas (400-800 m from a nominated station/centre)
* Floor space ratio: max 1.5:1
* Height of building: max 17.5 m
* Storeys: max 4
The proposal is not for low and mid-rise housing or "missing middle" housing as defined by the NSW Govt’s own materials as 2-6 storeys. The proposal is a massive overdevelopment for the site and the neighbourhood. The proposal exceeds the maximum building height, and is not consistent with the surrounding streetscape. There are severe visual impacts to neighbouring properties and the streets surrounding, and to privacy of neighbours. The mid slopes location is devastating to the appearance of Balmoral slopes and to the heritage streetscape.
The developer is attempting to take advantage of every available concession to reap the financial benefits, not to help with ‘affordable housing’ and completely regardless of the intentions of local Mosman Council and NSW State Govt.
This is a ‘Scenic Protection Area’ the proposal is unlawful in this location.
Any claims of ‘affordable housing’ are unassessed and unverifiable. What is fact is that due to the location and views the overriding majority of the units are proposed to be luxury housing at a typically very high Mosman market price, each additional level being proposed by the gross use of planning clauses and loopholes is purely for more financial gain for the developers, not to address affording housing. It does not comply with NSW Govt policy. Proposing 10 storeys is making a complete mockery of the NSW Govt’s own policies. The developer attempting to use the clause 4.6 variation so that they can get around complying with basic development standards is abhorrent.
The NSW Govt's SSD pathway was intended to accelerate housing supply. Please don’t allow developers to abuse & misapply planning concessions to their own advantage. State policy is already generous to developers, don’t allow them to make misrepresentations, bypass & disregard local council and community concerns.
This proposal is unreasonable and unnecessary and does not comply with NSW Govt legislation, and certainly does not take into consideration Mosman Council policy or the vision of Mosman that the local community wants.
The current proposal represents an unnecessary and excessive increase in both height and density. Overall, the proposal represents an overdevelopment of the site, resulting in excessive scale, bulk and density relative to the surrounding area.
The risk of setting an unintended planning precedent by allowing a development of this scale is significant. Future proposals would seek similar excessive variations to height and density controls within Mosman. While housing supply and affordable housing are important policy objectives, development proposals should respect the established planning framework and the long-term strategic vision for the area.
For all of the reasons outlined above, including the significant exceedance and abuse of planning controls, precedent risks, lack of appropriate height transition, excessive bulk and massing, and potential impacts on local amenity and infrastructure, I respectfully submit my objection to SSD-93020230 and request that the proposal be carefully considered and rejected.
Sarah McLachlan
Object
Sarah McLachlan
Object
MOSMAN
,
New South Wales
Message
I am going to Make points in my objection:-
The development will overshadow and cause a huge eyesore in what is a low rise and old home area.
There is no light rail, metro or rail - transport only bus. They are infrequent and hasn't been improved ever. The best
transport was before i was born- a tram line which is no longer
Everyone relies on cars- more units more cars more gridlock and no one goes anywhere. To live in mosman the realisation is everyone drives it's not a transport hub at all.
The houses are over 100 years old. How is this right to suddenly knock them down- no history for the younger generation. If we travel overseas they keep their historic houses and are proud of them. We are proud of our houses too. Why do we need to fight to keep them. What if for example Shakespeare's house was knocked down as they thought it was not needed. How would everyone feel now? Same reason here.
The scale is out of proportion for what is already in place. Bulk scale overshadowing area.
Redan st is heritage listed on LEP as protected
Concern about depth of excavation groundwater risk
There is lack of pedestrian safety- no footpath in redan lane
The condition process has been inadequate
There has been no time and no consultation between government and developer
Non. Compliant design - exceeds height limits
Scenic protection ignored- the site is within Denice Pete ruin area. This development goes against this
Poor people access- the door for affordable housing is separate so how is that inclusive to everyone
Tree loss- losing existing trees which provide shade to the area
Overall not compliant and considerate to area
The development will overshadow and cause a huge eyesore in what is a low rise and old home area.
There is no light rail, metro or rail - transport only bus. They are infrequent and hasn't been improved ever. The best
transport was before i was born- a tram line which is no longer
Everyone relies on cars- more units more cars more gridlock and no one goes anywhere. To live in mosman the realisation is everyone drives it's not a transport hub at all.
The houses are over 100 years old. How is this right to suddenly knock them down- no history for the younger generation. If we travel overseas they keep their historic houses and are proud of them. We are proud of our houses too. Why do we need to fight to keep them. What if for example Shakespeare's house was knocked down as they thought it was not needed. How would everyone feel now? Same reason here.
The scale is out of proportion for what is already in place. Bulk scale overshadowing area.
Redan st is heritage listed on LEP as protected
Concern about depth of excavation groundwater risk
There is lack of pedestrian safety- no footpath in redan lane
The condition process has been inadequate
There has been no time and no consultation between government and developer
Non. Compliant design - exceeds height limits
Scenic protection ignored- the site is within Denice Pete ruin area. This development goes against this
Poor people access- the door for affordable housing is separate so how is that inclusive to everyone
Tree loss- losing existing trees which provide shade to the area
Overall not compliant and considerate to area