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.

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

While I acknowledge the need to increase housing supply across Sydney, this proposal raises significant concerns regarding scale, planning integrity, and whether it genuinely contributes to housing affordability outcomes.

Sydney is currently one of the least affordable housing markets in the developed world. In this context, it is critical that planning policies designed to improve affordability are applied in a way that delivers meaningful and lasting outcomes. This proposal relies on affordable housing provisions to secure additional height and density, while delivering only a small proportion of affordable dwellings for a limited 15-year period.

Based on comparable developments in Mosman, including recent projects achieving prices in excess of $15–20 million for premium apartments and several million dollars for smaller units, it is reasonable to expect that this development will target the upper end of the market. This raises legitimate concerns that the primary outcome of the proposal is the delivery of luxury housing, rather than addressing affordability. In addition, the design of the affordable housing component using the provision of separate access does not align with best practice principles for inclusive housing design.

From a planning perspective, the proposed 10-storey building represents excessive bulk and scale that is inconsistent with the established low-rise character of Redan Street and surrounding areas. The extent of excavation required, up to 10 metres and extending to site boundaries, indicates a high level of site intervention and introduces potential structural risks, including ground movement and impacts to neighbouring properties.

The proposal also raises concerns in relation to heritage and visual impact. The scale and massing of the building would dominate nearby heritage-listed properties, diminishing their setting and eroding the character of the streetscape. This outcome is inconsistent with established heritage conservation principles.

There are further concerns regarding compliance and transparency. The proposal exceeds height controls and relies on a Clause 4.6 variation, yet is presented in supporting material as “compliant.” This characterisation is misleading and undermines confidence in the planning process.

Finally, there are broader infrastructure concerns. Local infrastructure, including emergency services capacity, is also limited and may not adequately support increased density in this location.

In summary, this proposal appears to prioritise development yield over planning integrity and community outcomes. I respectfully request that the Department reconsider the scale, design, and justification of this development, and ensure that any approval is consistent with both the intent of affordable housing policy and the character and capacity of the local area.

As a resident of a neighbouring property, I write to object to the State Significant Development at 40–48 Redan Street, Mosman.

The proposal raises serious concerns in relation to scale, site suitability, and planning integrity.

The 10-storey height is completely inconsistent with the established low-rise character of the area and results in excessive bulk and visual dominance. The extent of excavation required (up to 10 metres into sandstone per the planning documents) further indicates that the building is being forced onto the site, rather than designed in response to it.

From the perspective of 77 Muston Street, the impacts are particularly acute:
• A complete loss of views
• Increased overlooking and reduced privacy
• Traffic and safety concerns associated with intensified use of Redan Lane

The above will have a significant impact on the sale price of our property. We are a young family who have just broken into a difficult property market and intend to use this property as a stepping stone to purchasing a house. With such a poorly planned development under the one-size fits all LMR, this development if approved, would have devastating financial impacts for us and cause deep stress. People often forget there is a human element to this.

I am also concerned that this proposal does not genuinely address housing affordability. It parades as an “Trophy” asset that uses a small number of temporary affordable units to justify a much larger and more profitable project for a very small number of ultra wealthy buyers - likely $5m+ and some $10m+ (based on the $100m+ land purchase and $106m building cost). It mocks the governments affordable housing policy and would signal to the people of NSW that the Minns government is just here to line the pockets of developers - especially one financed by billionaire James Packer. With an election coming up, the Minns government should develop a backbone and say no to these ridiculous developer led proposals. This is not the type of development that benefits the community.

To be clear i am not anti-development. I have actively written to Mosman Council to support proposed developments that have been submitted under the LMR, namely 1A Punch Street, 89-91 Avenue Road, 30 Muston Street, 27-29 Heydon Street, 5-9 Bond Street. I also intend to support SSD’s on 35-37 Awaba street and 494-516 Military road. These make sense based on the topography of the land and are in line with what I believe are the community expectations.

On this basis, the development proposal needs to be refused in complete.

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

As a resident of Mosman, I am deeply concerned about the direct and disproportionate impacts this proposal will have on neighbouring properties, immediate surroundings, and the precedent it will set for the area. The proposed 10-storey building is entirely out of scale with the low-rise character of the area and represents a clear case of overdevelopment. The bulk and height appear driven by maximising developer return rather than responding appropriately to the site or neighbourhood. To be clear, i am not opposed to development, but a development of this size should be contained to the top of the Balmoral slopes ridgeline, not the middle of the slope which will have severe impacts for existing properties, especially those directly behind on Muston Street. I object because the following impacts:
• Complete loss of harbour and district views
• Significant loss of sunlight across all apartments directly behind on Muston street that back onto Redan Lane
• Major privacy impacts due to overlooking from upper levels
• Increased congestion and safety risks in Redan Lane, which most residents on the lower side of Muston street rely for garage access and parking.
• Deep excavation raising concerns regarding ground movement, structural integrity, vibration and potential damage to adjacent buildings, including heritage houses.
• Increased congestion and safety risks in Redan Street and Redan Lane with 100+ proposed car spaces. This also raises traffic and congestion concerns without increased public infrastructure or traffic signal changes.

The financial impact will also be material for those residents due to the above. The developer has shown absolutely no regard to those impacted. If this was built on the topside of Muston Street, Post Office Lane, Military Road or the high side of Moruben Road, a development of this size and scale genuinely makes sense. It increases much needed housing stock, provides low, mid, and top floors all with amazing views that many downsizers want in housing, freeing up larger homes for younger families. And for developers, it gives them commercial returns. All this can be done without severely impacting surrounding residents. Simply, a building of more than 4 stories on this site does not make sense and this is where the NSW Government policies simply don’t work for all council areas. NSW Govt department of planning should actively engage with Mosman council to develop a plan that works for residents and much needed housing targets.

Equally concerning is the misuse of the affordable housing pathway. This proposal delivers only a small number of “affordable” units for a limited 15-year period, while enabling a high-end luxury development that will ultimately sell for millions per apartment, and likely the top floor penthouses $10m+. This does not represent genuine affordability and undermines the intent of the NSW Governments policy. I seriously doubt that Mr Minns and Mr Scully can stand at this site and tell the people of NSW that this development is a credible pathway to increasing affordable housing stock under their policies… It is simply not a genuine attempt by Time & Place to meet the Governments policy intent. Time and Place will argue that they are adding housing stock, but their actions say otherwise - the Chimes building in Potts Point that they have somehow received approval for demolishes 80 affordable apartments for just 34. A net loss of housing stock. This just proves Time and Place are abusing the NSW Govts affordable housing policies for greed and profit. Mr Minns and Mr Scully, need to put a STOP to this nonsense and send a strong signal to the people of NSW that are not just here to pump up the coffers of developers.

I strongly urge the Department to refuse this application and work with Mosman Council to develop a community led plan that achieves sensible development.

I write to formally object to the proposed State Significant Development at 40–48 Redan Street, Mosman NSW 2088.

While I support the need to address Sydney’s housing supply and affordability challenges, this proposal represents a clear misuse of the NSW Government’s Affordable Housing pathway. It facilitates an ultra-luxury development of excessive scale in a sensitive residential context, delivering limited and temporary affordability outcomes (15yrs) while imposing significant and permanent impacts on the surrounding community.

I object on the following:
1. Failure to Deliver Genuine Housing Affordability

Sydney is experiencing a deepening housing affordability crisis. According to the Demographia International Housing Affordability Report, Sydney has a median price-to-income ratio of 13.8, making it one of the least affordable housing markets in the developed world. Against this backdrop, the proposed development is an abuse of the NSW Governments one-size-fits-all affordable housing incentives, using them to secure increased height and density in exchange for a small proportion of affordable dwellings for a limited 15-year period.

Given the scale and nature of this project, this raises serious concerns that the policy is being used to facilitate high-end, luxury apartments to the benefit of developers, rather than deliver meaningful, long-term affordability outcomes for communities.

This alone raises serious red flags for the NSW Governments credibility in delivering what is a well intended policy. The NSW Government and Planning Minister needs to use this blatant misuse of the current planning controls to send a signal to all developers that the NSW Government is serious about delivering increased affordable housing stock. For reference, comparable developments in the area (22 Redan Lane Mosman, Kurraba Residents) and have achieved prices in excess of $15 million per apartment, delivering housing far beyond the reach of typical households. Under the Demographia International Housing Affordability index criteria, this would represent a over 160x the median household income ratio (using the the gross median household income in Australia is $92,856). Put another way, this is more than 17x what the International Housing Affordability index calls an ‘impossibly unaffordable’ ratio. Given these will be the penthouses, but a not unreasonable assessment of the potential sale price of a 2-bedroom apartment in this development of $3-4m, it still represents between 32x - 43x the gross median household income ratio or 3.5x - 4.7x the impossibly unaffordable ratio.

This is an absolute laugh in the face of the average NSW taxpayer and does not represent the best interests of the NSW voter base. This proposal seriously risks undermining the intent of the policy and eroding public confidence in the planning system.

2. Excessive Height, Bulk and Overdevelopment
The proposed 10-storey building is clearly excessive and out of scale with the predominantly low-rise character of Redan Street and the surrounding area. The development represents overdevelopment of the site, with the building form driven by maximising yield rather than responding appropriately to its context. The bulk and scale are incongruous with the established streetscape and would set a significant and undesirable precedent for Mosman.

3. Excavation, Structural and Construction Risks

The proposal requires excavation of up to 10 metres into sandstone, extending to site boundaries. This raises serious concerns regarding:
• Ground movement and structural integrity
• Vibration impacts on neighbouring properties
• Potential damage to adjacent buildings

The extent of excavation indicates that the site is being engineered to accommodate the building, rather than the building being designed to suit the site, an approach that introduces unnecessary risk.

4. Heritage and Streetscape Impacts

The scale and massing of the proposed development would overwhelm heritage-listed properties at 36 and 38 Redan Street, diminish their visual setting and erode the established character of Redan Street. This is inconsistent with fundamental heritage conservation principles.

5. Traffic, Access and Safety Concerns

The proposal relies on Redan Lane for access, which:
• Is approximately 4 metres wide
• Has no footpaths
• Is not designed for increased service, waste, and delivery vehicle movements

This raises serious concerns regarding:
• Pedestrian safety - including young children that reside in the area and play in the laneway
• Vehicle conflicts
• Emergency access

The introduction of larger vehicles into this constrained environment is inappropriate and unsafe.

6. Infrastructure Constraints

Mosman’s infrastructure is already constrained, with limited emergency services capacity, including reliance on a single local fire station. The scale of this development, with 100+ parking spots, combined with its height and access constraints, raises legitimate concerns regarding:
• Emergency response capability
• Access for fire and rescue vehicles
• Overall infrastructure capacity to support increased density

Evidence also shows that those buying apartments at the estimated value, do not catch public transport. If they did, then why does the development need more than 2 car spots per household.

7. Affordable Housing Design Concerns

The inclusion of 11 affordable housing units accessed separately via the laneway raises concerns regarding:
• Social segregation (“poor door” design outcomes)
• Lack of integration with the broader development
• Whether the proposal achieves genuine inclusive housing

Looking at the design, these affordable apartments are shoved at the back of the development with tiny gross floor space as little as 57sqm. These are far from desirable apartments and have been included only so the developer can maximise the height and bulk of the development to generate excessive profits against the NSW Governments intent of these policies.

Finally, the direct impacts on 77 Muston Street.

The proposed development would have severe and unacceptable impacts on our property at 77 Muston Street, including:
• Complete loss of harbour and district views, contrary to established view-sharing principles
• Significant loss of morning sunlight
• Substantial reduction in property value, estimated between $500,000 and $1 million per apartment
• Loss of privacy due to proximity and building height
• Restricted access to garages via Redan Lane
• Increased traffic and safety risks in a lane used by residents, including children

The design response is inequitable, with building height reduced at the southern end to protect another property while increased at the northern end, concentrating impacts on Muston Street residents.

Additionally, the scale of the development may constrain future development opportunities on Muston Street properties, limiting longer-term housing supply outcomes, contrary to broader planning objectives and goals of the NSW Government.


Conclusion
This proposal represents a clear case of overdevelopment enabled by the misuse of affordable housing incentives. It delivers limited and temporary public benefit while imposing significant and permanent impacts on the local community, heritage, and environment.

I respectfully request that the Department refuse this application in its current form, or require substantial redesign to:
• Reduce height and bulk to <4 stories
• Ensure genuine, long-term affordability outcomes
• Address safety, heritage, and infrastructure concerns
• Minimise impacts on surrounding properties

The community supports well-considered development that aligns with planning objectives and delivers real public benefit. This proposal does not meet that standard and frankly is a joke laughing at the NSW Government and the people of NSW.

I am writing to object to the State Significant Development proposal at 40–48 Redan Street, Mosman.

While I support the need for affordable housing, this proposal is fundamentally incompatible with its surroundings and raises serious planning, heritage, and safety concerns.

1. Excessive height and bulk
The proposed 10‑storey building is entirely out of scale with the low‑rise residential character of Redan Street. It would dominate the streetscape and set an inappropriate precedent for the area.

2. Heritage impacts
The site adjoins heritage‑listed properties at 36 and 38 Redan Street. The scale and massing of the development would overwhelm these heritage items and severely compromise their setting.

3. Scenic Protection Area
The site falls within a Scenic Protection Area. A building of this height and intensity cannot be reconciled with the objectives of protecting landscape character and limiting visual intrusion.

4. Geotechnical and structural risks
The proposal requires excavation up to 10 metres into sandstone, extending to site boundaries. This poses real risks of ground movement, vibration, and damage to neighbouring properties.

5. Traffic and access safety
Redan Lane is only a little over 4 metres wide, has no footpaths, and is unsuited to increased service and waste vehicle movements. The safety risks for pedestrians and residents are unacceptable.

6. Inadequate infrastructure
Mosman’s emergency services, including the single fire station, are not equipped to service a 10‑storey building in narrow, constrained streets. The proposal fails to account for practical emergency access and response capacity.

7. Non‑compliance and misleading claims
The development exceeds height controls and relies on a Clause 4.6 variation, yet is presented as “compliant”. Such an approach undermines the integrity of the planning system.

8. Affordable housing design
The 11 affordable units are separated from the main building with a “poor door” arrangement. This design contradicts the principles of inclusive housing and raises serious equity concerns.

For these reasons, I strongly urge the Department to refuse this application. Approving a development of this scale in such an unsuitable location would set a damaging precedent and irreversibly alter the character of Mosman.

Thank you for considering my submission.

It is outrageous that such an enormous development can even be considered for this area. The surrounds are lovely old federation houses, 2 levels maximum. It out of scale, poor access and only a tiny lane behind, destroys people’s views from everywhere of the surrounding area and Balmoral Beach. It will be a massive blight on a beautiful, unique area in Sydney. Shame on the Government for taking a one size fits all approach to increasing ‘affordable’ housing in Sydney. This will not help the housing problem, only destroy a special place in Sydney.