Traffic, Parking and Affordable Housing Justification — Submission Concerns
Parking Provision
The proposed ratio of 106 car spaces across 53 apartments — including 42 units configured as luxury three and four-bedroom dwellings — falls materially short of what this development will generate. Residents occupying premium multi-bedroom apartments in this location are highly likely to own multiple vehicles. The shortfall will not be absorbed within the site; it will displace onto Redan Street and neighbouring roads that were never designed or upgraded to accommodate that volume.
This concern is grounded in direct local experience, not assumption. A recent six-unit development on Redan Street occupied every available on-street parking space between 7am and 5pm, Monday to Saturday, throughout its 18-month construction period. The proposed development is approximately nine times that scale. The construction phase alone — before a single resident moves in — has the potential to render Redan Street functionally inaccessible to existing residents for an extended period. Once complete, the traffic burden will be enduring and cannot be undone.
Compounding this, all construction vehicles, deliveries and contractor access are proposed via a single driveway entry. On a narrow local road with no bypass or alternative route, this will result in repeated and significant obstruction to residents throughout the construction period.
Affordable Housing Pathway — Absence of Financial Modelling
The entire basis for approving height exceedances under the affordable housing pathway depends on the development delivering genuine affordability outcomes. However, the application contains no financial modelling to substantiate this claim.
The developer's own Social Impact Assessment acknowledges the scale of need: 99.4% of very-low-income renters in Mosman are already experiencing rental stress, and only 31 affordable rental dwellings exist across the entire LGA. These figures make the absence of modelling more significant, not less. Nowhere in the submitted documentation is there analysis of what rent the proposed "affordable" units will actually command, what income thresholds will apply for eligibility, or whether any household currently experiencing housing stress in this area could realistically access them.
The planning uplift sought in this application is contingent on the affordable housing justification being sound. Without modelling that connects proposed rents to local incomes and housing need, that justification cannot be independently verified — and the consent authority cannot properly assess whether the community benefit offered is real or notional.

Segregated Entry Arrangements — Social Equity Concerns
The application proposes that residents occupying the affordable housing component access the building via a separate rear entrance on Redan Lane, while occupants of the luxury apartments use the primary building entrance. This type of arrangement — colloquially referred to as a "poor door" — is fundamentally at odds with the principles of inclusive housing design and social cohesion that underpin NSW affordable housing policy.
The NSW Government's affordable housing framework, and the broader objectives of the Housing SEPP, are premised on the integration of affordable and market-rate housing within mixed communities. Physically separating residents by income at the point of building entry contradicts that intent. It does not produce an integrated development — it produces a two-tier building in which lower-income residents are visibly distinguished from their neighbours by design.
The fact that this arrangement is proposed in a development where affordable housing forms the primary justification for exceeding planning controls warrants serious scrutiny from the consent authority. Where affordable housing is the mechanism by which a developer obtains significant planning uplift, the quality and integrity of that component must be assessed holistically — including whether the design treats all residents with equal dignity. A configuration that segregates residents by income at the front door does not meet that standard.
The consent authority should satisfy itself that approving this arrangement is consistent with the policy intent of the affordable housing pathway under which the height exceedance is sought.

I strongly support this proposal for more housing in Mosman. It looks good, it’s appropriate for the area given the extremely high unmet demand there. This is what is needed to solve the housing crisis - it will house dozens of wealthy families, getting them out of my auctions and rental inspections. I started work nearby in Annandale (Inner West Council) last month, there is no where for me to live especially on my $70k salary. I now commute 3.5 hours per day. This is because people like Mosman community members who can’t find housing there, move here and flood the IWC, pricing us out. Economic Research shows even expensive luxury housing improves affordability for bottom income earners like me, this must be approved

The height of the building is completely out of character for the area. The building will block the views for surrounding neighbours. Views that have been available for ever will now disappear. The height and scale of the building will be intrusive and spoil the typical streetscape that makes Mosman what it is.
Has any thought be given to emergency services access?
Has any thought be given how to manage the extra traffic?
Has any thought be given to the mental and financial impact that this development will have on surrounding residents?
Is this development all about greed and filling the pockets of rich developers.

Planning Submission – Objection to Proposed Development

40–48 Redan Street, Mosman NSW 2088

I am writing as a local resident to strongly object to the proposed development at 40–48 Redan Street.

Mosman is not just where I have lived for the past 18 years it is a community defined by its village atmosphere, its low rise heritage homes, and its connection to the landscape with its large swathes of national park and harbour-side beaches and parkland. The quiet character of our streets, the established tree canopy, and the balance between built form and open space are what make this area so special. It is deeply concerning to see a proposal of this scale that appears fundamentally out of step with these qualities.

At its core, this development feels like an overreach, a proposal that prioritises yield over sensitivity to context.

Neighbourhood Character & Built Form

Under the Mosman Local Environmental Plan 2012 (LEP) and Mosman Development Control Plan (DCP), there is a clear emphasis on ensuring that new development responds appropriately to its surroundings, particularly in terms of scale, bulk, and visual impact.

This proposal does not appear to meet those objectives.

The scale and density of the development are inconsistent with the prevailing low-density character of Redan Street and its surrounds. Rather than sitting comfortably within the streetscape, it risks dominating it. The DCP specifically seeks to ensure that development:

- respects the existing streetscape and character
- maintains a consistent scale with surrounding development
- protects the visual quality of the locality

In its current form, this proposal undermines those principles.

Amenity Impacts – Privacy, Overshadowing & Liveability

As a resident, one of my greatest concerns is the very real impact this development will have on everyday living conditions.

The bulk and height of the proposal raise strong concerns regarding:

- loss of privacy to neighbouring homes
- overshadowing of private open spaces
- increased noise and reduced sense of retreat within our own homes

The Mosman DCP places clear importance on protecting residential amenity, including access to sunlight, outlook, and privacy. These are not abstract planning concepts, they directly affect how people live.

This proposal risks eroding those qualities in a very tangible way.

Traffic, Parking & Local Safety

Redan Street and the surrounding road network are not equipped to handle the level of intensification this development would bring.

Increased traffic, limited parking capacity, and already constrained road conditions will be exacerbated. This is not just an inconvenience it is a safety issue. Many residents rely on these streets daily, including families and school children.

The DCP requires that developments minimise impacts on local traffic and ensure safe and efficient access. It is difficult to see how this proposal satisfies that requirement.

Infrastructure & Cumulative Impact

There is also a broader concern around cumulative impact.

Approving developments of this scale, even incrementally, shifts the character of the suburb over time. Local infrastructure including roads, drainage, and community services is not designed for this level of density.

Without clear and meaningful upgrades, this proposal risks placing additional strain on systems that are already under pressure.

Environmental & Landscape Character

One of Mosman’s defining features is its greenery the tree canopy, landscaped setbacks, and the sense that homes sit within the landscape rather than replace it.

The LEP and DCP both emphasise the importance of maintaining this landscape character. Large-scale development threatens this balance through:

- potential loss of mature vegetation
- reduced deep soil zones
- increased hard surfaces and urban heat

This is not just an aesthetic issue it affects environmental quality and the long-term sustainability of the area. This proposal does not feel like a natural evolution of the neighbourhood it feels like a departure from it.

As a resident, I am not opposed to development. But it must be thoughtful, proportionate, and respectful of the place in which it sits. This proposal, in its current form, does not achieve that balance.

I respectfully request that Council refuse the application, or require substantial revisions to ensure it aligns with the intent and controls of the Mosman LEP and DCP, and just as importantly with the expectations of the community who call this area home.

I formally write to object to the proposed State Significant Development at 40–48 Redan Street, Mosman.

While the need to increase housing supply across New South Wales is acknowledged, this proposal raises significant concerns in relation to consistency with the objectives of the planning framework, including the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act), applicable State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPPs), and the integrity of Clause 4.6 variations.

1. Failure to Achieve the Objectives of Affordable Housing Policy

The proposal seeks to rely on affordable housing provisions to justify substantial increases in height and floor space. However, the affordable housing component is both limited in scale and temporary in nature (15 years), along with being very small one-bedroom units with seperate entrances, which raises questions as to whether the development satisfies the broader objectives of the relevant SEPP provisions. Namely, to deliver genuine, ongoing housing affordability. Additionally, upon a site visit, these ‘affordable’ units on the ground floor will face into the sloping landscape facing west, offering very little to no natural sunlight. These are poor quality living conditions for our most needed essential workers and raise concerns regarding social segregation and whether the development achieves appropriate standards of inclusive design.

In the context of Sydney’s housing market, with a median price-to-income ratio of approximately ~14x developments of this nature, which will deliver apartments valued in the millions of dollars (estimated $5-10+ million), cannot reasonably be said to contribute meaningfully to housing affordability. Rather, the proposal appears to leverage the policy framework to facilitate a high-end development outcome, exploiting loopholes which are yet to be closed.

This raises concerns regarding whether the proposal is in the public interest, as required under Section 4.15 of the EP&A Act.

2. Clause 4.6 Variation and non-compliance

The proposal exceeds applicable height controls and relies on a Clause 4.6 variation. In order to justify such a variation, it must be demonstrated that:
• Compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary;
• There are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify the contravention; and
• The proposal is in the public interest.

Based on the available information, it is difficult to conclude that these tests are satisfied. The scale of the exceedance appears to be driven by yield maximisation rather than site-specific constraints or planning merit.

Further, describing the proposal as “compliant” despite reliance on a Clause 4.6 variation is misleading and undermines transparency in the assessment process.

3. Excessive Bulk, Scale and Inconsistency with Local Character

The proposed 10-storey building is inconsistent with the established low-rise character of Redan Street and the surrounding locality. The bulk and scale of the development indicate a built form outcome that is not responsive to its context.

This is inconsistent with fundamental planning principles requiring development to be compatible with surrounding land uses and built form, and to achieve an appropriate transition in scale. In reality, developments of 3-4 stories - such as 22 Redan Lane and the proposal at 34 Redan Street - are more appropriate for this location. Higher storied buildings under LMR are better suited to the elevated parts of Mosman/Balmoral - Military road, the high sides of Muston Street and Moruben road.

4. Excavation and Structural Risk

The proposal involves deep excavation into bedrock, extending to site boundaries. This represents a high level of site intervention and introduces potential risks, including ground movement, possible structural impacts on adjoining properties on Redan and Muston Street, and significant construction-related vibration.

Such risks raise concerns as to whether the proposal represents an appropriate or orderly use of the land, as contemplated by the EP&A Act.

5. Local traffic, access and Infrastructure Constraints

The reliance on Redan Street and Redan lane - a narrow laneway without pedestrian infrastructure - raises concerns regarding:
• Safe vehicular access
• Pedestrian safety
• Emergency vehicle access

In addition, local infrastructure capacity, including emergency services, are limited relative to the scale of development proposed. These issues are relevant considerations under Section 4.15 of the EP&A Act. Simply, this local is ill equipped for developments greater than 4 stories.

6. Precedent and Strategic Planning Context

A key concern is the precedent this development would set if approved. The scale and nature of this proposal risks encouraging similar applications that rely on minimal, temporary affordable housing contributions to justify significant planning concessions.

Importantly, there are several developments within Mosman that have been proposed under similar planning controls that represent a more appropriate and balanced approach. These include developments at:
• 1A Punch Street
• 30 Muston Street
• 34 Redan Street
• 35–45 Awaba Street
• 5–9 Bond Street
• 89–91 Avenue Road
• 27–29 Heydon Street

These proposals demonstrate that it is possible to deliver additional housing supply in a manner that is consistent with local character, minimises impacts on existing residents, and aligns with the intent of planning controls. They represent a more appropriate balance between facilitating development and protecting community amenity.

In summary, i believe the proposed development:
• Does not deliver meaningful or enduring affordable housing outcomes
• Relies on a Clause 4.6 variation that appears inadequately justified
• Represents excessive bulk and scale inconsistent with the local context
• Introduces structural, heritage, traffic, and infrastructure concerns
• Risks setting an undesirable planning precedent

Accordingly, I respectfully submit that the proposal is not in the public interest and should be refused.

I write to formally object to the proposed development at 40-48 Redan Street on the following planning grounds.

Excessive Height and Bulk
The proposal for a 8-storey building is clearly excessive and out of scale with the established low-rise character of the surrounding area. Such height and bulk would dominate the streetscape and result in a built form that is inconsistent with the prevailing context.

Overdevelopment and Structural Risk
The development involves excavation of up to 10 metres into sandstone, extending to the site boundaries. This raises serious concerns regarding ground movement, vibration, and the potential for structural damage to adjoining properties. It appears that the site is being excessively engineered to accommodate the scale of the building, rather than the design responding appropriately to site constraints.

Heritage Impacts
The site directly adjoins heritage-listed properties at 36 and 38 Redan Street. The proposed development would visually overwhelm these heritage items, diminish their significance, and erode the established character of the streetscape. The setting of these properties is a critical component of their heritage value, which this proposal fails to respect.

Conflict with Scenic Protection Area Objectives
The site is located within a Scenic Protection Area, where planning objectives seek to minimise visual intrusion and preserve landscape character. An eight-storey structure is fundamentally inconsistent with these objectives and would result in significant visual impacts when viewed from surrounding areas.

Traffic and Access Concerns
The proposal relies on Redan Lane for service and vehicle access. This laneway is only marginally over 4 metres wide, lacks pedestrian footpaths, and is not designed to accommodate increased traffic volumes or larger service and waste vehicles. The introduction of such vehicles presents clear safety risks for residents and pedestrians.

Lack of Supporting Infrastructure
There are legitimate concerns that local infrastructure is not equipped to support developments of this scale. The area is currently serviced by limited emergency infrastructure, including a single fire station. Increased density and building height raise serious questions about emergency access, response times, and the ability to safely service taller buildings within narrow residential streets.

Non-Compliance and Misleading Claims
The proposal exceeds applicable height controls and relies on a Clause 4.6 variation. Despite this, it is described as “compliant.” A development that departs from fundamental planning controls should not be characterised in this way, and this raises concerns about the accuracy and transparency of the application.

In conclusion, the proposal represents an overdevelopment of the site, fails to respect the established character and heritage context, introduces safety and infrastructure concerns, and conflicts with key planning objectives. For these reasons, I strongly urge the council to refuse the application.

Objection to Development Application – 40–48 Redan Street
This scale of development cannot reasonably be characterised as low to medium rise. Rather, it represents a high-density outcome facilitated through planning concessions.
Further, the location is inappropriate.

Key Concerns:
Too High!
Overdevelopment and Excavation Impacts
The proposal involves substantial excavation, reportedly up to 10 metres into sandstone. This presents potential structural and geotechnical risks to adjoining properties and raises serious concerns about construction impacts on neighbouring homes.
Non-Compliant Built Form
The development exceeds applicable height controls and depends on a Clause 4.6 variation to justify the exceedance. Despite this, it is presented as “compliant.” A proposal that departs from fundamental planning controls should not be described in these terms.
Impacts on Heritage Properties
The adjacent heritage-listed dwellings at 36 and 38 Redan Street are likely to experience overshadowing and a loss of visual and historical context due to the scale and proximity of the proposed building.
Inconsistency with Scenic Protection Objectives
The site is located within a Scenic Protection Area. A development of this height and bulk is inconsistent with the intent of protecting the visual character and environmental qualities of such areas.
Safety Risks – Redan Lane
Redan Lane is narrow and lacks pedestrian infrastructure. The introduction of waste collection and service vehicle traffic in this confined space raises significant safety concerns for residents and pedestrians.
Inconsistent Technical Reporting
Supporting technical documents appear to acknowledge adverse impacts, yet subsequently minimise their significance. When considered cumulatively, these impacts are substantial and should be given appropriate weight.
Equity and Design Concerns (“Poor Door” Access)
The inclusion of 11 affordable housing units accessed separately via the laneway raises concerns about social segregation in design. This arrangement does not appear to support principles of inclusive and integrated housing.
Conclusion
In its current form, the proposal represents an overdevelopment of the site. It exceeds planning controls, undermines heritage values, conflicts with scenic protection objectives, and introduces unacceptable safety risks. For these reasons, the application should be refused.

This is sheer greed. Nothing to do with affordable housing. And once these beautiful houses and landscape are gone. They are gone forever! What kind of community do we want to leave for our children. Surely some intelligent person out there can cone up with better solutions. And realise this is just not feasible. Leaving aside the sheer ugliness and BULK of this development - how on earth are we going to fit all those 106 extra cars on our village roads!?! Perhaps if you want to build near public transport hubs the. Build apartments without car parking spaces!!!!! Please find sense. Regards Susan Macmillan

This communistic development is for the sole profit for the developer and anyone associated with it. It does nothing for the beauty of this amazing harbour.
Public transport is already stretched, B1 and other buses arriving at Spit Junction are often full at peak times.
The arterial roads are already congested and more cars will add to the congestion with no solution in sight.
This is not a compliant development.
This does not comply with Scenic Protection of the area and would be a monstrosity on the Balmoral Slopes, while demolishing lovely historic homes and their gardens.