This proposal is disingenuous, disproportionate and will do NOTHING to alleviate the shortfall of affordable housing. What happens in 15 years? This proposal is a reflection of the appallingly poor NSW Government policy blindly over-committing to construction without infrastructure (roads, transport) or schools to support it. Clearly there are other agendas at play here most politely described as well intentioned but naive. We all agree we need more affordable housing. But we need a permanent solution. This isn't it.

I have been a resident of Mosman for nearly 30 years and have previously resided at Upper Upper Almora Street.

For the reasons set out below the existing building should not be demolished and replaced with the proposed luxury residences.

At the outset, I broadly support the objectives of the State Government’s Low and Mid-Rise Housing Policy. New South Wales faces a serious housing shortage, the result of several decades of neglect by both sides of government. Increasing housing supply, particularly in well-located suburbs with supporting infrastructure, is an important and necessary reform.

However, the current proposal does not represent good or balanced implementation of that policy. While the intent of increasing housing supply is commendable, this particular development fails to respond appropriately to its site, surrounding context, and the principles of good urban design. All it does is enriches property developers.

Scale and Height

The proposed eight-storey building is inconsistent with the established character and built form of the Upper Almora Street locality. The surrounding area is predominantly low-rise residential, with buildings of far more modest height and bulk.

The development’s visual massing and height would dominate the streetscape, disrupt the existing character of Mosman, and set an undesirable precedent for future overdevelopment. Even allowing for the policy’s intent to facilitate additional housing, the proposed scale exceeds what could reasonably be integrated without adverse impact on amenity, heritage, and neighbourhood character.

The application also seeks a variation to exceed the maximum building height under the Mosman Local Environmental Plan 2012. The justification for this variation is weak and fails to demonstrate that strict compliance would be unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances.

Traffic, Density and Overshadowing

Another problem is density and traffic implications. The scale is excessive for this quiet local street. The inclusion of 31 parking spaces over three basement levels suggests significant excavation, construction impact and ongoing traffic generation. This will inevitably increase congestion, reduce pedestrian safety, and undermine residential amenity in Upper Almora Street.

The density is a gross overdevelopment, likely to cause overshadowing, loss of views and privacy impacts.

The bulk and density also risk long-term cumulative effects on local infrastructure, parking availability, and traffic conditions, none of which appear to have been addressed adequately in the application materials.

Inadequate Justification of Affordable Housing

While the inclusion of three affordable housing units is welcome in principle, the application provides little or no information about the nature, tenure, or accessibility of these dwellings. There is no evidence that they will deliver genuine affordability or ongoing community benefit proportionate to the overall scale and impacts of the development. It invites cynicism.

A token inclusion of should not be relied upon to justify an otherwise inappropriate building envelope. True delivery of affordable housing must be balanced against considerations of design quality, amenity, and neighbourhood character.


Conclusion

In summary, while I support the policy aim of increasing housing supply through sensitive infill development, this particular proposal is over-scaled, over-dense, and inadequately justified. It would materially harm the character and amenity of the local area and fails to demonstrate how it meets the objectives of sustainable, well-designed urban growth.

The application should therefore be refused.

Whilst being generally in support of higher density residential living options in Mosman, in my opinion they need to be in keeping with the current built and natural environment whilst offering the benefits of more housing for increased population.
The proposed development fails on two major aspects concerning the future state of the immediate area, namely built form and traffic.
Built form
Literally 100m away on the same street there is a sympathetic development currently nearing completion at 3 storeys tall for 7 apartments. This development provides additional housing versus the single dwelling previously present on the site but in a way that does not permanently destroy the setting, visual impact and character of the surrounding streets.
There are no other buildings of similar height in the immediate vicinity of this quiet residential street, despite the continuous attempts in the submission documents to show what may be allowed in the future as being relevant to this submission making it appear less impactful and as such place this development within acceptable bounds.
The proposed height is completely out of alignment with the contours of the existing hillside. While I accept that some expansion of the natural hillside in terms of height is likely inevitable, 10 storeys is far too much. 4 or maybe 5 with a much more sympathetic design rather than a square block would be far more acceptable.
One need look no further than the developers own submission as to visual impact and use their own words: “The potential impacts for neighbours that are likely to range from severe to devastating”.
Traffic issues
The proposed development looks to move from 5 residences with (I assume) 10 cars to 53 residences with 106 cars. An extra 106 cars in Mosman would certainly make parking even worse than it already is all around the suburb, stressing the existing parking facilities beyond their capacity which is almost full on a normal day and totally overflowing on any day when visitors from outside the suburb come, which is almost every day and particularly bad in summer.
The proximity to the transport hub of Spit Junction is technically complied with but living close by I can say will not be relevant. The closest bus stop is ~150m and services that stop at this stop in rush hours are unreliable and often full before arriving at the stop due to the changes to routes and frequencies already implemented by the bus operator. Additionally, B-Line buses arriving at Spit Junction are very similar - either unreliable or full. Therefore, private car transport remains the most likely option and a 10x increase in car numbers will make an already bad situation much worse.
Secondary issues
I have doubts about the provision of affordable housing. The aforementioned development at 22 Redan Street has apparently sold 2 apartments for >$19m each (I understand they are different in scale and target market). Not affordable. The 11 apartments proposed as affordable have no details as to how this affordability will be arrived at. I find it unlikely that a developer will allow ~20% of the apartments to be sold for prices well under that available in the open market and this seems to me to be a loophole that is targeted to allow the undesirable height to be achieved.
Summary
The proposed height and scale of the development is totally out of character with the surrounding environment and will permanently degrade the area. In addition, the stresses placed on local infrastructure will be too high in particular with regard to traffic and number of vehicles.
This will be a permanent change to the streetscape which cannot be reversed and as such should be scaled down to a more appropriate size that would sit comfortably amid the existing and future environment.

I am a Mosman resident living at 92 Muston Street. While my property is not directly adjoining the proposed development at 40–48 Redan Street, I am writing to object to the proposal due to its broader impacts on the character, amenity, and functioning of the surrounding area.

1. Excessive bulk and scale relative to the established neighbourhood
The proposed building appears significantly out of scale with the surrounding low‑rise residential character that defines this part of Mosman. The height, massing, and visual bulk do not reflect the prevailing built form and risk setting an undesirable precedent for future intensification. This is inconsistent with the established planning principles that protect Mosman’s village‑like character and sensitive topography.

2. Impact on public views and visual amenity
Although I am not directly affected in terms of private views, the proposal will likely impact public views enjoyed by residents, visitors, and people walking through the area. Mosman’s scenic outlooks are a key part of its identity and tourism appeal. Any development that intrudes into these shared view corridors should be carefully scrutinised, and in this case the height and bulk appear likely to diminish the visual experience of the general public.

3. Construction impacts on the surrounding community
The scale of excavation and construction required for a development of this size will inevitably create prolonged disruption. This includes noise, dust, traffic congestion, and reduced pedestrian safety. Redan Street and the surrounding network are narrow and already constrained; extended construction activity will materially affect the amenity of residents well beyond the immediate vicinity.

4. Ongoing operational impacts and infrastructure strain
Mosman’s local infrastructure—particularly parking, traffic flow, and community facilities—is already under pressure. Introducing a development of this density without corresponding upgrades risks further congestion and reduced accessibility. The cumulative impact of multiple developments in the area must be considered, not just the isolated effect of this single proposal.

5. Questionable alignment with the definition and intent of “in‑fill affordable housing”
While the proposal is framed as in‑fill affordable housing, it is unclear whether it genuinely meets the intent of the policy. Affordable housing should provide meaningful benefit to key workers and lower‑income households. Without clear, enforceable commitments to long‑term affordability, management, and eligibility criteria, there is a risk that the development functions primarily as a standard residential project with minimal social benefit.

6. Inconsistency with Mosman’s heritage and environmental context
This part of Mosman is valued for its cohesive architectural character, landscaped setting, and sensitive environmental conditions. A development of this scale risks undermining these qualities. The Environmental Impact Statement should be required to demonstrate, in a more rigorous way, how the proposal protects neighbourhood character, biodiversity, and the area’s unique topography.

7. Precedent risk
Approving a building of this size and density in this location may encourage similar proposals, gradually eroding the character and amenity that planning controls are designed to protect. The cumulative precedent risk is a legitimate strategic concern for the community.

In summary, I respectfully request that the Department carefully consider the issues raised above and require significant amendments to the proposal—or refuse it—unless it can be demonstrated that the development will genuinely align with the scale, character, infrastructure capacity, and community expectations of the Mosman area.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

I object to this development at Redan Street on the basis of precedent, and how this project would be used to allow other similar constructions to be undertaken thereby truly ruining Mosman and indeed the enjoyment of life here for its citizens. Irrespective of the technical consent the proposal may have under current new legislation, this is not a black and white matter. It is a dangerous deviation from decades of sensible and reasonable planning limitations, and simply goes against common sense.

Outstanding architectural merit (subjective) or otherwise, this type of development is not suited to Mosman. Should it go ahead, the precedent it sets potentially incentivises other developers to entice homeowners with inflated sums of money and the cycle continues, thereby ruining the village life for those who remain steadfast, loyal and respectful to the character that is Mosman.

These high density developments cause months/years of rock excavation related dust, damage and disturbance. The views stolen from neighbouring properties and the permanent overshadowing is disgraceful. The disturbance that tens of minutes of additional garbage trucks each week cause by idling in the street, blocking traffic and creating noise from their hydraulics and engine. The existing infrastructure and road networks inability to handle this density. The loss of heritage properties is a travesty. By precedent, what I mean is the continuation of more of these developments, leading to an unsustainable situation that changes Mosman irreversibly.

We don't all have to live in one area. This socialist band aid solution of the state government's is ill thought through and is having an adverse effect on certain areas that it is applied to. For what it is worth, the country would be a much better place if we distributed ourselves more by making our surrounding regional towns appetising and enticing places to live, with quick rail access to the cities and state capitals, like the rest of the world has largely done. Instead, there appears to be a desire in government to pack everyone into central sydney and make life worse for all, including the new occupants of the developments. It is madness; each proposal needs to be heavily scrutinised on a case by case basis.

I implore those in a position of influence to find cause to object to this proposal for all the reasons mentioned and for what a terrible precedent it will set. At the very least, the application should be rejected until such time that the alternative solution being developed by Mosman residents is put forward to government and then reassessed.

I have lived in the area for 20 years the development will increase traffic, impact neighbouring homes and over shadow / block views. It does not blend with the existing landscape. The development are all about money and is meaning all are losing the option to have the Australian backyard. The government should think about what they are doing to the areas and communities. We are all becoming sardines in a tin. That tin will be only available to overseas investors and not Australians who live and pay taxes. Rethink these developments are they in the right place? Where is the transport to support it and how does this contribute to the Australian environment.

It seems to me that if the Govt aim is to provide affordable housing this development is a very poor example. It knocks down 5 existing dwellings to provide 53 apartments , 42 of which will be very expensive luxury apartments in a very expensive location and only 11 will be "affordable." Whereas a similar development in a less expensive suburb would have a much greater chance of doing what the Govt wants. If the Department approves this development I think they should require the developer to build a similar size development in a cheaper suburb with a majority of affordable units.

This is a wonderful opportunity for Mosman. Over the years, I’ve spoken with many elderly residents who deeply love the area but find it increasingly difficult to maintain a large home on their own. The option to remain in the community they cherish, while transitioning into a well-designed, comfortable apartment, would be incredibly meaningful to them.
Developments like this provide an important pathway for people to age in place with dignity and connection. I strongly support this proposal and the positive impact it will have on our community.

1 These are not affordable apartments. My Wife and I have been living here for 26 years. I'm 80 and it's so convenient to walk into the village just around the corner. When and if a 10 story Building is built in front of us with sea views, our Valuer reports the loss of sea view will wipe $1 million dollars off the value of our home.
2 Perhaps in 5 or 6 years we might have to move to a Nursing Home, with a loss in value of $1million I don't know where we could go.
3 Neighbourhood Character and Heritage. A Ten story structure is entirely out of scale. Its High Rise. Visually intrusive, loss of heritage streetscape.
4 There will catastrophic view loss for many Houses. Views being presently blocked. We have worked hard to get to this Suburb.
5 Affordable Housing. The development is overwhelmingly advertised as luxury multimillion dollar apartments with Harbour views. Misleading representation to Mosman Council and the Community
6 Overshadowing and Solar. There will be an enormous loss of Solar particularly winter access within our bounds and neighbours. Like to see overshadowing diagrams
7 Traffic and Safety Parking for 106 cars will funnel more vehicles down Almora, Redan Lane and Street. Narrow, steep with already traffic and pedestrians risk and privacy loss for existing neighbours who will be directly overlooked by multiple levels of Balconies and terraces
8 Aesthetics Impact the building(s) is bulky, over scaled, visually intrusive and out of character
9 Excavation Risks. Slope instability, groundwater interception, hydrostatic pressures, flooding and structural damage risk. Face also risks settlement, cracking, vibration damage and land slip