Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
MOSMAN
,
New South Wales
Message
I am writing to object to the 40-56 Ourimbah Road development (SSD-119133490) on the following basis:
I understand the need to increase the housing supply across NSW & Australia and I am in favour of this. I genuinely object to the fact that the above development and the majority of the other SSD / large developments being proposed in Mosman are out of character to the neighbourhood of Mosman. There are several proposed projects including the well published Awaba street & Reddan street developments, all of them are 6-8-10 storeys high...making them approximately 4-8 storeys higher than any other existing developments.
They are enormous projects (6- 8-10 storeys high) that will adversely affect the enjoyment of the residents who have to live in close proximity and in some cases next door to these structures once they are completed.
Clearly, affordable housing is being leveraged as a way to increase the scale of the projects and ultimately drive more profits. Property unfortunately is not and never really has been in the "affordable" bracket in Mosman. Why do we have to listen to this "affordable housing" line being rolled out time and again to justify the projects? I am sure many people in Mosman feel the same as I do on this point!
Below are the justifiable objections, facts that should be considered for the 40-56 Ourimbah Road development:
Personal and social impacts
The personal impacts this proposal will have on our home and enjoyment of our home are not to be underestimated as the development is close to where we live (within 50m). These include the genuine stress and worry of the impact of this development on our lives, living with construction disturbance for an extended period of time as the construction takes place, potential loss of privacy from the overlooking apartments / development, loss of sunlight/solar access from the Western aspect of our home, the loss of outlook from the Western & Southern aspects of our home and ultimately the quiet enjoyment of our home, are all real world concerns that we are living with whilst this application is considered, and will then have to live with on an ongoing basis should this proposal be approved.
Excessive height, bulk and scale
The proposal would introduce a part eight-, part nine-storey building reaching approximately 31.6 metres within an existing low-scale residential streetscape. Its height and mass would substantially exceed surrounding homes and dominate Ourimbah Road. Why should this be allowed?
Exceeds even the affordable-housing bonus height
Even after application of the maximum 30% affordable-housing bonus, the proposed height of approximately 31.6 metres would still exceed the increased 28.6-metre limit by about three metres. A development that cannot fit within its own maximum bonused height is an overdevelopment of the site. This is a key point that should be strongly considered when assessing the development. If the height development doesn’t comply and the site is over developed, how can and why should it it be allowed?
Extreme wall-height variation
The proposed wall height reportedly reaches approximately 29.42 metres, compared with the 7.2-metre standard under the Mosman Local Environmental Plan. Parts of the wall would therefore be more than four times the local standard, and the Department must be satisfied that there are genuine, site-specific planning grounds for such an extreme departure.
Exceeds Council’s preferred Masterplan scale
Although the site falls within the boundary of Council’s endorsed preferred Masterplan, the preferred plan generally contemplates development of approximately six storeys along this section of Ourimbah Road. The proposed part eight-, part nine-storey building would be around two to three storeys taller. Why are we allowing this development which is over six storeys to be considered, if the development clearly falls outside of the endorsed preferred Mosman Master Plan?
Fails to provide a respectful heritage transition
The proposal would sit immediately beside the much smaller heritage-listed building at 60 Ourimbah Road. Its proposed response appears to rely largely on a setback and contrasting contemporary architecture, rather than breaking down the building’s scale or responding to the heritage item’s two-storey proportions, street alignment and architectural character.
Site-isolation and heritage viability concerns
The proposed building would wrap around the adjoining heritage property, while the applicant’s suggestion that No. 60 could be redeveloped in the future appears uncertain. The Department should examine whether genuine and reasonable amalgamation attempts were made and whether the heritage property would retain a viable use, appropriate setting and orderly future development outcome.
Inadequate assessment of nearby conservation areas
The applicant’s heritage assessment reportedly dismisses impacts on the Lang Street and Killarney Estate Heritage Conservation Areas largely on the basis that there are no shared view corridors. However, the proper question is whether the development would affect their setting, skyline, visual character and heritage significance, not simply whether a formal view corridor exists.
No verified views from within the conservation areas
The submitted visual assessment does not appear to include verified photomontages from within the Lang Street or Killarney Estate Heritage Conservation Areas. These should be provided so residents and the Department can properly understand how the upper levels of the tower would appear as a backdrop to their low-scale, early twentieth-century character.
Reliance on trees as visual screening
The heritage and visual assessments should not rely on mature street trees or landscaping to conceal the proposed building. Trees are not permanent structures and may be seasonal, damaged or removed, while the upper levels of the tower would remain a permanent part of the skyline.
Privacy, overlooking and overshadowing
An eight- to nine-storey building would overlook nearby lower-scale homes, gardens and private open spaces. The Department should require detailed, property-specific assessments of overlooking, solar access and total overshadowing, rather than focusing only on the additional effects caused by the height exceedance.
Excavation risks to the adjoining heritage building
Two basement levels would require substantial excavation immediately beside the heritage-listed building. The developer should be required to complete an independent structural and dilapidation survey, continuously monitor vibration and movement, establish strict stop-work thresholds and accept responsibility for repairing any damage caused to the heritage item.
Excavation, vibration and construction impacts on neighbours
The application should also include enforceable measures addressing groundwater, construction noise, rock excavation, truck movements, dust, structural monitoring and any damage caused to surrounding homes and properties.
Vehicle access from a classified road
The development would provide basement access for 92 car spaces directly from Ourimbah Road, a classified road and bus route. Its location near an existing bus stop raises concerns about vehicle movements, pedestrian safety, sightlines and construction access.
Insufficient existing-context visual assessment
The visual impact of the proposal should be assessed against the neighbourhood that exists today, not an imagined future streetscape in which surrounding homes have already been replaced by larger buildings. Accurate close-range photomontages should be provided from Ourimbah Road, Bond Street, adjoining properties and nearby heritage areas.
Cumulative neighbourhood impacts
The Department should assess the combined effect of this proposal and other major developments planned around Spit Junction, including cumulative construction traffic, excavation, parking pressure, noise and demand on local infrastructure.
Temporary affordable housing for permanent additional height
Only 12 of the 63 apartments would be designated as affordable housing, and the proposal relies on a minimum affordability period of only 15 years. The affordable apartments should remain affordable in perpetuity, just as the additional building height and floor space would remain in perpetuity.
Thanks for considering the justifiable objections.
I hope my other reason "the majority of the SSD / large developments being proposed in Mosman are out of character to the neighbourhood of Mosman" resonate on a personal and professional level for those who are in a position to influence the outcome of all SSD's / large projects proposed in Mosman and across NSW.
Kind regards
Bond Street resident
I understand the need to increase the housing supply across NSW & Australia and I am in favour of this. I genuinely object to the fact that the above development and the majority of the other SSD / large developments being proposed in Mosman are out of character to the neighbourhood of Mosman. There are several proposed projects including the well published Awaba street & Reddan street developments, all of them are 6-8-10 storeys high...making them approximately 4-8 storeys higher than any other existing developments.
They are enormous projects (6- 8-10 storeys high) that will adversely affect the enjoyment of the residents who have to live in close proximity and in some cases next door to these structures once they are completed.
Clearly, affordable housing is being leveraged as a way to increase the scale of the projects and ultimately drive more profits. Property unfortunately is not and never really has been in the "affordable" bracket in Mosman. Why do we have to listen to this "affordable housing" line being rolled out time and again to justify the projects? I am sure many people in Mosman feel the same as I do on this point!
Below are the justifiable objections, facts that should be considered for the 40-56 Ourimbah Road development:
Personal and social impacts
The personal impacts this proposal will have on our home and enjoyment of our home are not to be underestimated as the development is close to where we live (within 50m). These include the genuine stress and worry of the impact of this development on our lives, living with construction disturbance for an extended period of time as the construction takes place, potential loss of privacy from the overlooking apartments / development, loss of sunlight/solar access from the Western aspect of our home, the loss of outlook from the Western & Southern aspects of our home and ultimately the quiet enjoyment of our home, are all real world concerns that we are living with whilst this application is considered, and will then have to live with on an ongoing basis should this proposal be approved.
Excessive height, bulk and scale
The proposal would introduce a part eight-, part nine-storey building reaching approximately 31.6 metres within an existing low-scale residential streetscape. Its height and mass would substantially exceed surrounding homes and dominate Ourimbah Road. Why should this be allowed?
Exceeds even the affordable-housing bonus height
Even after application of the maximum 30% affordable-housing bonus, the proposed height of approximately 31.6 metres would still exceed the increased 28.6-metre limit by about three metres. A development that cannot fit within its own maximum bonused height is an overdevelopment of the site. This is a key point that should be strongly considered when assessing the development. If the height development doesn’t comply and the site is over developed, how can and why should it it be allowed?
Extreme wall-height variation
The proposed wall height reportedly reaches approximately 29.42 metres, compared with the 7.2-metre standard under the Mosman Local Environmental Plan. Parts of the wall would therefore be more than four times the local standard, and the Department must be satisfied that there are genuine, site-specific planning grounds for such an extreme departure.
Exceeds Council’s preferred Masterplan scale
Although the site falls within the boundary of Council’s endorsed preferred Masterplan, the preferred plan generally contemplates development of approximately six storeys along this section of Ourimbah Road. The proposed part eight-, part nine-storey building would be around two to three storeys taller. Why are we allowing this development which is over six storeys to be considered, if the development clearly falls outside of the endorsed preferred Mosman Master Plan?
Fails to provide a respectful heritage transition
The proposal would sit immediately beside the much smaller heritage-listed building at 60 Ourimbah Road. Its proposed response appears to rely largely on a setback and contrasting contemporary architecture, rather than breaking down the building’s scale or responding to the heritage item’s two-storey proportions, street alignment and architectural character.
Site-isolation and heritage viability concerns
The proposed building would wrap around the adjoining heritage property, while the applicant’s suggestion that No. 60 could be redeveloped in the future appears uncertain. The Department should examine whether genuine and reasonable amalgamation attempts were made and whether the heritage property would retain a viable use, appropriate setting and orderly future development outcome.
Inadequate assessment of nearby conservation areas
The applicant’s heritage assessment reportedly dismisses impacts on the Lang Street and Killarney Estate Heritage Conservation Areas largely on the basis that there are no shared view corridors. However, the proper question is whether the development would affect their setting, skyline, visual character and heritage significance, not simply whether a formal view corridor exists.
No verified views from within the conservation areas
The submitted visual assessment does not appear to include verified photomontages from within the Lang Street or Killarney Estate Heritage Conservation Areas. These should be provided so residents and the Department can properly understand how the upper levels of the tower would appear as a backdrop to their low-scale, early twentieth-century character.
Reliance on trees as visual screening
The heritage and visual assessments should not rely on mature street trees or landscaping to conceal the proposed building. Trees are not permanent structures and may be seasonal, damaged or removed, while the upper levels of the tower would remain a permanent part of the skyline.
Privacy, overlooking and overshadowing
An eight- to nine-storey building would overlook nearby lower-scale homes, gardens and private open spaces. The Department should require detailed, property-specific assessments of overlooking, solar access and total overshadowing, rather than focusing only on the additional effects caused by the height exceedance.
Excavation risks to the adjoining heritage building
Two basement levels would require substantial excavation immediately beside the heritage-listed building. The developer should be required to complete an independent structural and dilapidation survey, continuously monitor vibration and movement, establish strict stop-work thresholds and accept responsibility for repairing any damage caused to the heritage item.
Excavation, vibration and construction impacts on neighbours
The application should also include enforceable measures addressing groundwater, construction noise, rock excavation, truck movements, dust, structural monitoring and any damage caused to surrounding homes and properties.
Vehicle access from a classified road
The development would provide basement access for 92 car spaces directly from Ourimbah Road, a classified road and bus route. Its location near an existing bus stop raises concerns about vehicle movements, pedestrian safety, sightlines and construction access.
Insufficient existing-context visual assessment
The visual impact of the proposal should be assessed against the neighbourhood that exists today, not an imagined future streetscape in which surrounding homes have already been replaced by larger buildings. Accurate close-range photomontages should be provided from Ourimbah Road, Bond Street, adjoining properties and nearby heritage areas.
Cumulative neighbourhood impacts
The Department should assess the combined effect of this proposal and other major developments planned around Spit Junction, including cumulative construction traffic, excavation, parking pressure, noise and demand on local infrastructure.
Temporary affordable housing for permanent additional height
Only 12 of the 63 apartments would be designated as affordable housing, and the proposal relies on a minimum affordability period of only 15 years. The affordable apartments should remain affordable in perpetuity, just as the additional building height and floor space would remain in perpetuity.
Thanks for considering the justifiable objections.
I hope my other reason "the majority of the SSD / large developments being proposed in Mosman are out of character to the neighbourhood of Mosman" resonate on a personal and professional level for those who are in a position to influence the outcome of all SSD's / large projects proposed in Mosman and across NSW.
Kind regards
Bond Street resident
Anton Mazkovoi
Object
Anton Mazkovoi
Object
MOSMAN
,
New South Wales
Message
**Re: Objection to Proposed Development at Ourimbah Road**
I wish to lodge a formal objection to the proposed redevelopment of the Ourimbah Road site. While I recognise the need for additional housing, development should be consistent with planning controls, respect the existing neighbourhood character, protect heritage significance and minimise impacts on surrounding residents.
My objections are as follows:
1. Excessive Height, Bulk and Scale
The proposal would introduce a part eight-, part nine-storey building reaching approximately 31.6 metres within an established low-scale residential streetscape. Its height and mass would substantially exceed the scale of surrounding homes and would dominate the Ourimbah Road streetscape. The development is out of proportion with its immediate context and represents an excessive intensity of development for the site.
2. Exceeds Even the Affordable Housing Bonus Height
Even after applying the maximum 30% affordable housing height bonus, the proposed building would still exceed the allowable height. A maximum bonused height of approximately 28.6 metres appears to apply, yet the proposal reaches approximately 31.6 metres—around three metres higher. A development that cannot comply with its own maximum bonused height demonstrates that the proposal is an overdevelopment of the site.
3. Exceeds Council's Preferred Masterplan Scale
Although the site falls within Council's endorsed preferred Masterplan area, the preferred plan generally contemplates development of approximately six storeys along this section of Ourimbah Road. The proposed part eight-, part nine-storey building would be approximately two to three storeys taller than the preferred built form, undermining the strategic planning vision for the precinct.
4. Inappropriate Reliance on Trees as Visual Screening
The heritage and visual impact assessments appear to rely heavily on mature street trees and landscaping to reduce the apparent scale of the building. Trees are not permanent structures; they may be seasonal, damaged, removed or replaced over time. The upper levels of the proposed building would remain a permanent and highly visible element of the skyline irrespective of vegetation. The visual impacts should therefore be assessed without assuming long-term screening by landscaping.
5. Failure to Provide a Respectful Heritage Transition
The proposal sits immediately adjacent to the heritage-listed building at 60 Ourimbah Road. The response appears to rely primarily on setbacks and contrasting contemporary architecture rather than reducing the overall building scale or responding to the heritage item's two-storey proportions, street alignment and architectural character. This does not provide an appropriate or respectful transition to the adjoining heritage place.
6. Site Isolation and Heritage Viability
The proposed development would effectively wrap around the adjoining heritage property. The applicant's suggestion that No. 60 may be redeveloped in the future appears speculative and should not be relied upon when assessing the proposal. The consent authority should examine whether genuine and reasonable attempts have been made to amalgamate the sites and whether the heritage property would retain a viable long-term use, an appropriate heritage setting and an orderly future development outcome.
7. Inadequate Assessment of Nearby Heritage Conservation Areas
The heritage assessment reportedly dismisses impacts on the Lang Street and Killarney Estate Heritage Conservation Areas largely because there are no direct or formal view corridors. This approach is inadequate. The relevant consideration is whether the proposal would adversely affect the broader setting, skyline, visual character and heritage significance of these conservation areas.
8. Lack of Verified Views from Within Conservation Areas
The submitted visual assessment does not appear to include verified photomontages taken from within the Lang Street and Killarney Estate Heritage Conservation Areas. Such material should be provided to enable residents and the consent authority to properly assess how the upper levels of the proposed building would appear as a backdrop to these low-scale early twentieth-century neighbourhoods.
9. Privacy, Overlooking and Overshadowing
A building of eight to nine storeys would overlook neighbouring dwellings, private open spaces and rear gardens. The application should include detailed, property-specific assessments of overlooking, solar access and total overshadowing for surrounding properties, rather than limiting assessment to the additional impacts associated only with the proposed height exceedance.
10. Excavation Risks to the Adjoining Heritage Building
Construction of two basement levels would require substantial excavation immediately adjacent to the heritage-listed building at 60 Ourimbah Road. Before any approval is granted, the developer should be required to:
* Undertake an independent structural and dilapidation survey;
* Continuously monitor vibration and structural movement throughout construction;
* Establish strict stop-work thresholds if movement exceeds acceptable limits; and
* Accept full responsibility for repairing any damage caused to the heritage building.
11. Construction and Excavation Impacts on Neighbours
The proposal should include enforceable conditions addressing groundwater management, construction noise, rock excavation, dust, truck movements, structural monitoring and the repair of any damage caused to surrounding homes and properties. Without robust safeguards, neighbouring residents bear unacceptable risks during the construction period.
12. Vehicle Access from a Classified Road
The proposal provides basement access to 92 car parking spaces directly from Ourimbah Road, which is a classified road and important bus route. The proximity of an existing bus stop raises concerns regarding vehicle movements, pedestrian safety, sight distances and the practical management of construction access. These issues require more detailed assessment.
13. Insufficient Existing Context Visual Assessment
The proposal should be assessed against the neighbourhood as it exists today, not against hypothetical future scenarios in which surrounding homes have already been replaced by larger developments. Accurate, verified close-range photomontages should be provided from Ourimbah Road, Bond Street, adjoining residential properties and nearby heritage conservation areas to allow a realistic assessment of visual impacts.
14. Cumulative Neighbourhood Impacts
The consent authority should assess the cumulative impacts of this proposal together with other significant developments proposed around Spit Junction. This assessment should consider the combined effects of construction traffic, excavation activities, parking demand, noise, pressure on local infrastructure and the overall impact on neighbourhood amenity.
Conclusion
For the reasons outlined above, I respectfully submit that the proposal represents an excessive and inappropriate form of development that exceeds the intended planning framework, fails to provide an adequate heritage response, and would result in unacceptable impacts on neighbouring residents and the surrounding streetscape.
I respectfully request that the consent authority require substantial redesign to achieve compliance with applicable planning controls and strategic planning objectives. Should these concerns not be satisfactorily addressed, I request that the development application be refused.
Thank you for considering this submission.
I wish to lodge a formal objection to the proposed redevelopment of the Ourimbah Road site. While I recognise the need for additional housing, development should be consistent with planning controls, respect the existing neighbourhood character, protect heritage significance and minimise impacts on surrounding residents.
My objections are as follows:
1. Excessive Height, Bulk and Scale
The proposal would introduce a part eight-, part nine-storey building reaching approximately 31.6 metres within an established low-scale residential streetscape. Its height and mass would substantially exceed the scale of surrounding homes and would dominate the Ourimbah Road streetscape. The development is out of proportion with its immediate context and represents an excessive intensity of development for the site.
2. Exceeds Even the Affordable Housing Bonus Height
Even after applying the maximum 30% affordable housing height bonus, the proposed building would still exceed the allowable height. A maximum bonused height of approximately 28.6 metres appears to apply, yet the proposal reaches approximately 31.6 metres—around three metres higher. A development that cannot comply with its own maximum bonused height demonstrates that the proposal is an overdevelopment of the site.
3. Exceeds Council's Preferred Masterplan Scale
Although the site falls within Council's endorsed preferred Masterplan area, the preferred plan generally contemplates development of approximately six storeys along this section of Ourimbah Road. The proposed part eight-, part nine-storey building would be approximately two to three storeys taller than the preferred built form, undermining the strategic planning vision for the precinct.
4. Inappropriate Reliance on Trees as Visual Screening
The heritage and visual impact assessments appear to rely heavily on mature street trees and landscaping to reduce the apparent scale of the building. Trees are not permanent structures; they may be seasonal, damaged, removed or replaced over time. The upper levels of the proposed building would remain a permanent and highly visible element of the skyline irrespective of vegetation. The visual impacts should therefore be assessed without assuming long-term screening by landscaping.
5. Failure to Provide a Respectful Heritage Transition
The proposal sits immediately adjacent to the heritage-listed building at 60 Ourimbah Road. The response appears to rely primarily on setbacks and contrasting contemporary architecture rather than reducing the overall building scale or responding to the heritage item's two-storey proportions, street alignment and architectural character. This does not provide an appropriate or respectful transition to the adjoining heritage place.
6. Site Isolation and Heritage Viability
The proposed development would effectively wrap around the adjoining heritage property. The applicant's suggestion that No. 60 may be redeveloped in the future appears speculative and should not be relied upon when assessing the proposal. The consent authority should examine whether genuine and reasonable attempts have been made to amalgamate the sites and whether the heritage property would retain a viable long-term use, an appropriate heritage setting and an orderly future development outcome.
7. Inadequate Assessment of Nearby Heritage Conservation Areas
The heritage assessment reportedly dismisses impacts on the Lang Street and Killarney Estate Heritage Conservation Areas largely because there are no direct or formal view corridors. This approach is inadequate. The relevant consideration is whether the proposal would adversely affect the broader setting, skyline, visual character and heritage significance of these conservation areas.
8. Lack of Verified Views from Within Conservation Areas
The submitted visual assessment does not appear to include verified photomontages taken from within the Lang Street and Killarney Estate Heritage Conservation Areas. Such material should be provided to enable residents and the consent authority to properly assess how the upper levels of the proposed building would appear as a backdrop to these low-scale early twentieth-century neighbourhoods.
9. Privacy, Overlooking and Overshadowing
A building of eight to nine storeys would overlook neighbouring dwellings, private open spaces and rear gardens. The application should include detailed, property-specific assessments of overlooking, solar access and total overshadowing for surrounding properties, rather than limiting assessment to the additional impacts associated only with the proposed height exceedance.
10. Excavation Risks to the Adjoining Heritage Building
Construction of two basement levels would require substantial excavation immediately adjacent to the heritage-listed building at 60 Ourimbah Road. Before any approval is granted, the developer should be required to:
* Undertake an independent structural and dilapidation survey;
* Continuously monitor vibration and structural movement throughout construction;
* Establish strict stop-work thresholds if movement exceeds acceptable limits; and
* Accept full responsibility for repairing any damage caused to the heritage building.
11. Construction and Excavation Impacts on Neighbours
The proposal should include enforceable conditions addressing groundwater management, construction noise, rock excavation, dust, truck movements, structural monitoring and the repair of any damage caused to surrounding homes and properties. Without robust safeguards, neighbouring residents bear unacceptable risks during the construction period.
12. Vehicle Access from a Classified Road
The proposal provides basement access to 92 car parking spaces directly from Ourimbah Road, which is a classified road and important bus route. The proximity of an existing bus stop raises concerns regarding vehicle movements, pedestrian safety, sight distances and the practical management of construction access. These issues require more detailed assessment.
13. Insufficient Existing Context Visual Assessment
The proposal should be assessed against the neighbourhood as it exists today, not against hypothetical future scenarios in which surrounding homes have already been replaced by larger developments. Accurate, verified close-range photomontages should be provided from Ourimbah Road, Bond Street, adjoining residential properties and nearby heritage conservation areas to allow a realistic assessment of visual impacts.
14. Cumulative Neighbourhood Impacts
The consent authority should assess the cumulative impacts of this proposal together with other significant developments proposed around Spit Junction. This assessment should consider the combined effects of construction traffic, excavation activities, parking demand, noise, pressure on local infrastructure and the overall impact on neighbourhood amenity.
Conclusion
For the reasons outlined above, I respectfully submit that the proposal represents an excessive and inappropriate form of development that exceeds the intended planning framework, fails to provide an adequate heritage response, and would result in unacceptable impacts on neighbouring residents and the surrounding streetscape.
I respectfully request that the consent authority require substantial redesign to achieve compliance with applicable planning controls and strategic planning objectives. Should these concerns not be satisfactorily addressed, I request that the development application be refused.
Thank you for considering this submission.
Johanna Heffernan
Object
Johanna Heffernan
Object
MOSMAN
,
New South Wales
Message
Johanna Heffernan. 3/08/2026
Re: Objection to State Significant Development Application SSD-119133490 Residential development with in-fill affordable housing at 40-56 Ourimbah Road, Mosman
I am writing to formally object to the above development application. I live at 79 Ourimbah Road, approximately 50 metres from the site and I will be directly affected by this proposal. I object on the following grounds.
1. Excessive height, bulk and scale
The proposed development is significantly out of scale with the existing low-to-medium density streetscape of Ourimbah Road and the surrounding Mosman residential area. The consolidation of nine residential lots into a single site to accommodate approximately 63-65 apartments represents a scale of development that overwhelms the prevailing built form and is not a sympathetic transition to neighbouring properties.
2. Extreme wall height variation
The proposal exhibits significant and abrupt variation in wall height across the site, resulting in an inconsistent and visually disruptive built form. This lack of a graduated or articulated façade is inconsistent with good urban design practice and negatively impacts the amenity of adjoining and nearby properties.
3. Exceeds Mosman Council's preferred masterplan controls
The scale, height and density of this proposal exceed the built form envisaged under Mosman Council's preferred masterplan and local planning controls for this precinct. Approval via the State Significant Development / in-fill affordable housing pathway should not be used to circumvent the height, FSR and design controls that Council and the community have developed through proper local planning processes.
4. Lack of respectful heritage transition
Mosman contains a significant concentration of heritage and heritage-conservation-area properties. The proposed development fails to provide an appropriate transition in scale, materiality and setback to neighbouring heritage items and the established character of the area, contrary to good heritage conservation planning practice.
5. Excavation risk and impacts on neighbouring properties
Given the scale of basement/car park excavation likely required for a development of this size, I am concerned about:
Structural risks to neighbouring dwellings from excavation and dewatering
Potential impacts on groundwater and slope stability, given the site's topography
Vibration, noise and dust during the excavation phase
Adequacy of geotechnical assessment and dilapidation reporting for adjoining properties
6. Vehicle access from a classified road
Ourimbah Road functions as a classified road, and vehicle access arrangements for a development of this scale raise serious traffic safety concerns, including:
Increased traffic conflict points on a classified road
Adequacy of sight lines and turning movements for the projected number of dwellings
Impacts on traffic flow and safety for pedestrians and cyclists
Suitability of the access design for construction traffic and, subsequently, long-term resident and visitor traffic
7. Cumulative neighbourhood impacts
This development cannot be assessed in isolation. It forms part of a broader wave of large-scale "super site" developments being brought forward across Mosman and the Lower North Shore under the NSW Government's Low and Mid-Rise Housing reforms. The EIS should be required to properly assess the cumulative impact of this and other approved/proposed developments in the vicinity on:
Local road network capacity and congestion
Public transport capacity
Local schools, open space and community infrastructure
Character and amenity of the wider neighbourhood
8. Temporary nature of proposed affordable housing
I have concerns regarding the affordable housing component of this proposal, noting that in-fill affordable housing provisions of this kind are typically time-limited (commonly around 15 years) rather than a permanent affordable housing outcome. This raises questions as to:
The long-term public benefit being delivered in exchange for the significant planning concessions (height/FSR bonuses) granted to the developer
What happens to the affordable housing component, and the broader development's compliance, once the affordability period expires
Whether this represents a genuine and lasting contribution to affordable housing in Mosman, or a mechanism primarily used to access development bonuses
Conclusion
For the reasons outlined above, I request that the Department require substantial amendments to the proposal, or refuse the application in its current form. In particular, I ask that any approval require:
A significant reduction in height, bulk and scale to better align with Mosman Council's preferred masterplan
Independent geotechnical and structural review of excavation impacts on neighbouring properties, with binding dilapidation reporting
A full cumulative impact assessment covering traffic, infrastructure and neighbourhood character
Clarification and strengthening of the long-term affordable housing commitment
Please register my objection on the public record for this application and keep me informed of the exhibition period and any opportunity for further submissions.
Yours sincerely,
Johanna Heffernan
Re: Objection to State Significant Development Application SSD-119133490 Residential development with in-fill affordable housing at 40-56 Ourimbah Road, Mosman
I am writing to formally object to the above development application. I live at 79 Ourimbah Road, approximately 50 metres from the site and I will be directly affected by this proposal. I object on the following grounds.
1. Excessive height, bulk and scale
The proposed development is significantly out of scale with the existing low-to-medium density streetscape of Ourimbah Road and the surrounding Mosman residential area. The consolidation of nine residential lots into a single site to accommodate approximately 63-65 apartments represents a scale of development that overwhelms the prevailing built form and is not a sympathetic transition to neighbouring properties.
2. Extreme wall height variation
The proposal exhibits significant and abrupt variation in wall height across the site, resulting in an inconsistent and visually disruptive built form. This lack of a graduated or articulated façade is inconsistent with good urban design practice and negatively impacts the amenity of adjoining and nearby properties.
3. Exceeds Mosman Council's preferred masterplan controls
The scale, height and density of this proposal exceed the built form envisaged under Mosman Council's preferred masterplan and local planning controls for this precinct. Approval via the State Significant Development / in-fill affordable housing pathway should not be used to circumvent the height, FSR and design controls that Council and the community have developed through proper local planning processes.
4. Lack of respectful heritage transition
Mosman contains a significant concentration of heritage and heritage-conservation-area properties. The proposed development fails to provide an appropriate transition in scale, materiality and setback to neighbouring heritage items and the established character of the area, contrary to good heritage conservation planning practice.
5. Excavation risk and impacts on neighbouring properties
Given the scale of basement/car park excavation likely required for a development of this size, I am concerned about:
Structural risks to neighbouring dwellings from excavation and dewatering
Potential impacts on groundwater and slope stability, given the site's topography
Vibration, noise and dust during the excavation phase
Adequacy of geotechnical assessment and dilapidation reporting for adjoining properties
6. Vehicle access from a classified road
Ourimbah Road functions as a classified road, and vehicle access arrangements for a development of this scale raise serious traffic safety concerns, including:
Increased traffic conflict points on a classified road
Adequacy of sight lines and turning movements for the projected number of dwellings
Impacts on traffic flow and safety for pedestrians and cyclists
Suitability of the access design for construction traffic and, subsequently, long-term resident and visitor traffic
7. Cumulative neighbourhood impacts
This development cannot be assessed in isolation. It forms part of a broader wave of large-scale "super site" developments being brought forward across Mosman and the Lower North Shore under the NSW Government's Low and Mid-Rise Housing reforms. The EIS should be required to properly assess the cumulative impact of this and other approved/proposed developments in the vicinity on:
Local road network capacity and congestion
Public transport capacity
Local schools, open space and community infrastructure
Character and amenity of the wider neighbourhood
8. Temporary nature of proposed affordable housing
I have concerns regarding the affordable housing component of this proposal, noting that in-fill affordable housing provisions of this kind are typically time-limited (commonly around 15 years) rather than a permanent affordable housing outcome. This raises questions as to:
The long-term public benefit being delivered in exchange for the significant planning concessions (height/FSR bonuses) granted to the developer
What happens to the affordable housing component, and the broader development's compliance, once the affordability period expires
Whether this represents a genuine and lasting contribution to affordable housing in Mosman, or a mechanism primarily used to access development bonuses
Conclusion
For the reasons outlined above, I request that the Department require substantial amendments to the proposal, or refuse the application in its current form. In particular, I ask that any approval require:
A significant reduction in height, bulk and scale to better align with Mosman Council's preferred masterplan
Independent geotechnical and structural review of excavation impacts on neighbouring properties, with binding dilapidation reporting
A full cumulative impact assessment covering traffic, infrastructure and neighbourhood character
Clarification and strengthening of the long-term affordable housing commitment
Please register my objection on the public record for this application and keep me informed of the exhibition period and any opportunity for further submissions.
Yours sincerely,
Johanna Heffernan
Troy Cairns
Object
Troy Cairns
Object
MOSMAN
,
New South Wales
Message
I am shocked that a nine storey development is being pushed through so quickly here. This is clearly not in keeping with the adjacent area. I am concerned due process is not being followed. From what I can see some assessments are yet to be completed and community concerns don’t seem to be properly taken into account. I remain sceptical about who is really benefiting from this development. The waiving of height restrictions seems to be too easy for this development.
David Grant
Object
David Grant
Object
MOSMAN
,
New South Wales
Message
OBJECTION — SSD-119133490, 40–56 Ourimbah Road, Mosman
I am a resident of Hale Road, a street directly adjacent to Ourimbah Road, and I formally object to this application. My detailed grounds are set out in the attached submission. In summary:
The proposal breaches the R3 wall-height standard by approximately 300% (7.2m limit vs 29.42m) on an invalid Clause 4.6 justification, and exceeds the building height limit of 28.6m — even after claiming the maximum available affordable-housing bonus. At 8–9 storeys, it exceeds the 6-storey cap contemplated by the Housing SEPP. The building isolates the listed heritage item at No. 60 and the impact on the Lang Street and Killarney Estate Conservation Areas has not been properly assessed. The development conflicts directly with Mosman Council's draft Residential DCP (Section 5.5B, exhibited May–June 2026) and its endorsed Masterplan, which contemplates only 4–6 storeys in transition streets such as Ourimbah Road.
Vehicle access onto a classified regional road beside a bus stop raises genuine safety concerns for Hale Road and Ourimbah Road users, and the visual impact assessment is unreliable — it judges the building against an imaginary future streetscape and is mislabelled throughout as a different project in a different suburb. The affordable-housing justification for the bonus is marginal (15.2% against a 15% threshold) and time-limited to 15 years, delivering a slim and temporary public benefit in exchange for a permanent oversized structure. Cumulative impacts with the concurrent Military Road SSD (SSD-93787211) have not been assessed.
I ask the Department to refuse this application, or require a fundamental redesign that complies with the applicable height standards.
Please find my full object submission attached, which includes additional fact and detail.
Kind regards
David Grant
I am a resident of Hale Road, a street directly adjacent to Ourimbah Road, and I formally object to this application. My detailed grounds are set out in the attached submission. In summary:
The proposal breaches the R3 wall-height standard by approximately 300% (7.2m limit vs 29.42m) on an invalid Clause 4.6 justification, and exceeds the building height limit of 28.6m — even after claiming the maximum available affordable-housing bonus. At 8–9 storeys, it exceeds the 6-storey cap contemplated by the Housing SEPP. The building isolates the listed heritage item at No. 60 and the impact on the Lang Street and Killarney Estate Conservation Areas has not been properly assessed. The development conflicts directly with Mosman Council's draft Residential DCP (Section 5.5B, exhibited May–June 2026) and its endorsed Masterplan, which contemplates only 4–6 storeys in transition streets such as Ourimbah Road.
Vehicle access onto a classified regional road beside a bus stop raises genuine safety concerns for Hale Road and Ourimbah Road users, and the visual impact assessment is unreliable — it judges the building against an imaginary future streetscape and is mislabelled throughout as a different project in a different suburb. The affordable-housing justification for the bonus is marginal (15.2% against a 15% threshold) and time-limited to 15 years, delivering a slim and temporary public benefit in exchange for a permanent oversized structure. Cumulative impacts with the concurrent Military Road SSD (SSD-93787211) have not been assessed.
I ask the Department to refuse this application, or require a fundamental redesign that complies with the applicable height standards.
Please find my full object submission attached, which includes additional fact and detail.
Kind regards
David Grant
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
MOSMAN
,
New South Wales
Message
ATTN: Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure
I am writing to formally OBJECT to State Significant Development Application SSD-119133490 for the proposed residential flat building at 40–56 Ourimbah Road, Mosman.
While I support the provision of well-designed, sustainable housing and affordable accommodation in appropriate locations, this application represents a severe overdevelopment of the site. The proposal fails to satisfy fundamental planning controls, causes unacceptable amenity impacts, and ignores the established character and local strategic planning context of Mosman.
My objection is based on the following key planning merits:
1. Extreme Breach of Wall Height & Building Height Controls
Wall Height Exceedance (~300% Over Limit): The proposed building dramatically exceeds the standard R3 wall height control (7.2m maximum) with proposed heights reaching up to 29.42m. The justification submitted under Clause 4.6 is invalid and fails to establish sufficient environmental planning grounds to support a ~300% variation.
Building Height Exceedance: The building reaches 31.64m against a maximum allowable height limit of 28.6m. This comes after already taking the maximum available statutory height bonus (from the 22m base limit). The cumulative height creates an imposing physical presence completely out of character with surrounding properties.
2. Excessive Storeys and Bulk Beyond Strategic Controls
Inappropriate Storey Count: The development proposes an 8 to 9-storey tower. The Housing SEPP and mid-rise strategic planning framework for R3 residential zones contemplate 6 storeys or fewer.
Out of Scale with Local Planning Context: The scale violates Mosman Council’s Draft Residential DCP (Section 5.5B) and Local Housing Masterplan. An 8–9 storey structure directly alongside 1 and 2-storey low-density homes creates an unacceptable, jarring transition in density and scale.
3. Severe Impacts on Heritage and Local Character
Isolation of Heritage Items: The bulk and positioning of the proposed building isolates and overwhelms the neighboring listed heritage building at No. 60 Ourimbah Road.
Adverse Impact on Conservation Areas: The site sits immediately adjacent to the Lang Street and Killarney Estate Heritage Conservation Areas. The excessive height and visual dominant bulk will visually overshadow and detrimentally affect the streetscape and heritage values of these precincts.
4. Unacceptable Amenity Impacts on Nearby Residents
Loss of Privacy & Overshadowing: The sheer scale of the 8–9 storey building results in unreasonable visual privacy loss and overshadowing onto neighboring residential properties.
Flawed Environmental & Visual Impact Assessments: The visual impact and shadow diagrams submitted by the applicant evaluate the proposal against an imaginary "future streetscape" rather than the actual existing context. Furthermore, key environmental documentation misidentifies the project location (referencing unrelated projects), undermining the reliability of the submission.
5. Traffic Safety Concerns on a Classified Regional Road
The proposed vehicle access onto Ourimbah Road—a busy, heavily congested classified regional road immediately adjacent to a public bus stop—presents significant traffic hazard and safety concerns for both motorists and pedestrians.
6. Unverified Infill Affordable Housing Bonus & Lack of Lasting Benefit
The scale of this proposal relies entirely on claiming affordable housing bonuses (15.2% provided vs. 15% required).
This marginal bonus provides affordable housing for only 15 years, after which the community loses the benefit while permanently bearing the burden of a massive over-scale building. If the affordable housing commitment fails to meet statutory requirements, the entire building envelope must be substantially reduced.
7. Omission of Cumulative Impact Assessment
The assessment fails to evaluate the cumulative traffic, infrastructure, and visual impacts of nearby major projects, notably omitting a concurrent ~100-apartment SSD proposal nearby on Military Road. Assessing this application in isolation underestimates the true strain on local infrastructure and community services.
CONCLUSION & REQUESTED DECISION
For the reasons outlined above, the proposal in its current form represents an unacceptable overdevelopment that will permanently harm the amenity, heritage, and character of Mosman.
I strongly urge the Department of Planning and the Minister to REFUSE application SSD-119133490 or require the applicant to substantially reduce the scale, height, and envelope of the building to comply with local planning controls and protect local residential amenity.
Thank you for considering this submission.
Sincerely,
Emily Cooper
I am writing to formally OBJECT to State Significant Development Application SSD-119133490 for the proposed residential flat building at 40–56 Ourimbah Road, Mosman.
While I support the provision of well-designed, sustainable housing and affordable accommodation in appropriate locations, this application represents a severe overdevelopment of the site. The proposal fails to satisfy fundamental planning controls, causes unacceptable amenity impacts, and ignores the established character and local strategic planning context of Mosman.
My objection is based on the following key planning merits:
1. Extreme Breach of Wall Height & Building Height Controls
Wall Height Exceedance (~300% Over Limit): The proposed building dramatically exceeds the standard R3 wall height control (7.2m maximum) with proposed heights reaching up to 29.42m. The justification submitted under Clause 4.6 is invalid and fails to establish sufficient environmental planning grounds to support a ~300% variation.
Building Height Exceedance: The building reaches 31.64m against a maximum allowable height limit of 28.6m. This comes after already taking the maximum available statutory height bonus (from the 22m base limit). The cumulative height creates an imposing physical presence completely out of character with surrounding properties.
2. Excessive Storeys and Bulk Beyond Strategic Controls
Inappropriate Storey Count: The development proposes an 8 to 9-storey tower. The Housing SEPP and mid-rise strategic planning framework for R3 residential zones contemplate 6 storeys or fewer.
Out of Scale with Local Planning Context: The scale violates Mosman Council’s Draft Residential DCP (Section 5.5B) and Local Housing Masterplan. An 8–9 storey structure directly alongside 1 and 2-storey low-density homes creates an unacceptable, jarring transition in density and scale.
3. Severe Impacts on Heritage and Local Character
Isolation of Heritage Items: The bulk and positioning of the proposed building isolates and overwhelms the neighboring listed heritage building at No. 60 Ourimbah Road.
Adverse Impact on Conservation Areas: The site sits immediately adjacent to the Lang Street and Killarney Estate Heritage Conservation Areas. The excessive height and visual dominant bulk will visually overshadow and detrimentally affect the streetscape and heritage values of these precincts.
4. Unacceptable Amenity Impacts on Nearby Residents
Loss of Privacy & Overshadowing: The sheer scale of the 8–9 storey building results in unreasonable visual privacy loss and overshadowing onto neighboring residential properties.
Flawed Environmental & Visual Impact Assessments: The visual impact and shadow diagrams submitted by the applicant evaluate the proposal against an imaginary "future streetscape" rather than the actual existing context. Furthermore, key environmental documentation misidentifies the project location (referencing unrelated projects), undermining the reliability of the submission.
5. Traffic Safety Concerns on a Classified Regional Road
The proposed vehicle access onto Ourimbah Road—a busy, heavily congested classified regional road immediately adjacent to a public bus stop—presents significant traffic hazard and safety concerns for both motorists and pedestrians.
6. Unverified Infill Affordable Housing Bonus & Lack of Lasting Benefit
The scale of this proposal relies entirely on claiming affordable housing bonuses (15.2% provided vs. 15% required).
This marginal bonus provides affordable housing for only 15 years, after which the community loses the benefit while permanently bearing the burden of a massive over-scale building. If the affordable housing commitment fails to meet statutory requirements, the entire building envelope must be substantially reduced.
7. Omission of Cumulative Impact Assessment
The assessment fails to evaluate the cumulative traffic, infrastructure, and visual impacts of nearby major projects, notably omitting a concurrent ~100-apartment SSD proposal nearby on Military Road. Assessing this application in isolation underestimates the true strain on local infrastructure and community services.
CONCLUSION & REQUESTED DECISION
For the reasons outlined above, the proposal in its current form represents an unacceptable overdevelopment that will permanently harm the amenity, heritage, and character of Mosman.
I strongly urge the Department of Planning and the Minister to REFUSE application SSD-119133490 or require the applicant to substantially reduce the scale, height, and envelope of the building to comply with local planning controls and protect local residential amenity.
Thank you for considering this submission.
Sincerely,
Emily Cooper
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
MOSMAN
,
New South Wales
Message
I am a resident of Rosebery Street, Mosman, within the area likely to be affected by the proposed development at 40-56 Ourimbah Road. I object to this application and ask the Department to carefully consider its impacts on neighbouring residents, heritage assets and the established character of the area.
While I support additional housing, including affordable housing, I do not believe this proposal achieves an appropriate balance between housing outcomes and local amenity. The proposal represents an overdevelopment of the site and exceeds what can reasonably be accommodated in this location.
Excessive Height, Bulk and Scale
The proposal seeks approval for a part eight-storey, part nine-storey residential building reaching approximately 31.6 metres in height. This would introduce a building of a scale that is dramatically larger than the existing surrounding development and would dominate the streetscape along Ourimbah Road.
The underlying planning controls permit a maximum building height of 22 metres. Even after applying the maximum affordable housing bonus, the permissible height would increase to approximately 28.6 metres. The proposed building would still exceed that bonused height limit by around three metres. This demonstrates that the development cannot fit comfortably within even the maximum planning concessions available and is therefore an overdevelopment of the site.
The proposal also includes wall heights reaching approximately 29.42 metres compared with the 7.2-metre wall-height standard under the Mosman Local Environmental Plan. Parts of the building would therefore exceed the local wall-height standard by more than four times. Such an extreme departure requires exceptional justification, which in my view has not been demonstrated.
Inconsistency with Council's Preferred Masterplan
Although the site falls within Mosman Council's endorsed preferred Masterplan area, the Masterplan generally contemplates development of approximately six storeys along this section of Ourimbah Road. The proposed development would substantially exceed that scale, rising approximately two to three storeys above what Council's preferred planning vision contemplates. This creates a development outcome that is inconsistent with the strategic planning framework that residents have been led to expect.
Reliance on a Speculative Future Context
A significant concern is that many of the proposal's urban design and visual impact conclusions appear to be based on an assumed future context in which surrounding sites are progressively redeveloped into larger apartment buildings. However, planning decisions should be based primarily on the existing and reasonably foreseeable character of the area, rather than on an optimistic redevelopment scenario that may never fully occur.
As a resident of Rosebery Street, I have not seen evidence demonstrating that widespread redevelopment of surrounding properties is either imminent or inevitable. In fact, redevelopment across the broader precinct remains uncertain, and at least one nearby redevelopment proposal has previously been withdrawn, demonstrating that redevelopment outcomes cannot simply be assumed. Many surrounding properties face ownership, market and economic constraints that may limit redevelopment opportunities for many years. In particular, a number of sites do not possess the same redevelopment economics or value drivers that would support large-scale site amalgamation and redevelopment.
My own experience further reinforces this uncertainty. As a property owner on Rosebery Street, I am aware of the practical challenges associated with site amalgamation and redevelopment within the locality. Redevelopment outcomes depend on numerous factors, including landowner participation, market conditions and site assembly, and cannot be assumed to occur within any particular timeframe.
I also note that a nearby State Significant Development proposal affecting properties on Countess Street and Rosebery Street was subsequently withdrawn. This further demonstrates that redevelopment outcomes remain uncertain and that future development assumptions may not materialise within the timeframes anticipated by proponents.
As a result, there is a realistic possibility that the proposed 31.6-metre building would remain surrounded by substantially lower-scale development for decades. If this occurs, the building's visual dominance, bulk, privacy impacts, overshadowing and effects on neighbourhood character would be experienced by existing residents long into the future.
The Department should therefore assess the proposal against the neighbourhood that exists today and the reasonably foreseeable future, not against a hypothetical future streetscape that assumes widespread redevelopment has already occurred. Particular weight should be given to the existing built form and current streetscape character, as these are the conditions that neighbouring residents experience and may continue to experience for many years. Even if further redevelopment eventually takes place, the potentially lengthy interim period during which this building would stand well above its surroundings must be properly considered.
If the Department is minded to support redevelopment of the site, the building should be reduced in height and scale so that its impacts are minimised under both the existing neighbourhood context and any future redevelopment scenario.
Heritage Impacts
The site sits immediately adjacent to the two-storey heritage-listed property at 60 Ourimbah Road and in proximity to the Lang Street and Killarney Estate Heritage Conservation Areas. The applicant's own heritage assessment acknowledges that introducing a large building into an area currently characterised by one- and two-storey dwellings will inherently affect the area. Despite this acknowledgement, the proposal appears to rely largely on setbacks and architectural contrast rather than providing a genuine transition in height, bulk and scale to the heritage item.
The proposed development would wrap around the heritage-listed building at No. 60, creating serious concerns regarding site isolation, the future viability of the property and the preservation of its heritage setting. The Department should carefully examine whether reasonable amalgamation opportunities have genuinely been exhausted and whether the proposal would compromise the heritage item's long-term use and significance.
I am also concerned that the heritage assessment appears to dismiss impacts on the nearby Lang Street and Killarney Estate Heritage Conservation Areas primarily on the basis that there are limited direct view corridors. Heritage impacts cannot be assessed solely through formal view corridors. The proposal's effect on skyline character, visual setting and the broader heritage significance of these areas must be properly considered. Furthermore, it does not appear that verified photomontages have been provided from within these conservation areas. Such assessments should be required before any determination is made.
Privacy, Amenity and Construction Impacts
An eight- to nine-storey building would increase overlooking of neighbouring homes, gardens and private open spaces while affecting privacy, outlook and neighbourhood character. The proposal also includes two basement levels requiring extensive excavation immediately adjacent to a heritage-listed building and near surrounding homes. Independent structural assessments, vibration monitoring and enforceable repair obligations should be required. Construction impacts, including noise, dust, truck movements, traffic disruption and extended construction periods, would affect nearby residents for years and should not be underestimated.
Traffic and Road Safety
The development proposes access to 92 parking spaces from Ourimbah Road, a classified road and bus route.
Given its proximity to an existing bus stop, concerns remain regarding traffic safety, pedestrian movements, sightlines and construction access arrangements.
Affordable Housing Does Not Justify Permanent Impacts
Only 12 of the 63 apartments would be designated as affordable housing, and affordability would be maintained for only 15 years.
In contrast, the additional building height, floor space and neighbourhood impacts would remain permanently. It is difficult to justify permanent departures from planning controls on the basis of a temporary public benefit.
Conclusion
For the reasons outlined above, I respectfully object to the proposed development at 40-56 Ourimbah Road. The proposal exceeds both existing planning controls and Council's preferred Masterplan scale, creates unacceptable impacts on heritage assets and neighbouring residents, relies on a speculative future redevelopment scenario that may never occur, and fails to appropriately minimise its impacts on the existing community. The Department should be cautious about approving permanent departures from planning controls based on future redevelopment assumptions that may not materialise for many years, if at all.
I have attached a screenshot from the NSW Planning Portal showing the withdrawal of a nearby State Significant Development proposal as an example of the uncertainty associated with assumptions of widespread future redevelopment within the locality.
I urge the Department to either refuse the application or require substantial modifications, including a significant reduction in height, bulk and scale, so that the development better reflects the existing character of the area, provides a genuine transition to nearby heritage items and minimises long-term impacts on surrounding residents and properties.
Yours faithfully,
Resident of Rosebery Street, Mosman
Attachment A: NSW Planning Portal Screenshot Showing Withdrawn SSD Proposal (Countess Street / Rosebery Street)
While I support additional housing, including affordable housing, I do not believe this proposal achieves an appropriate balance between housing outcomes and local amenity. The proposal represents an overdevelopment of the site and exceeds what can reasonably be accommodated in this location.
Excessive Height, Bulk and Scale
The proposal seeks approval for a part eight-storey, part nine-storey residential building reaching approximately 31.6 metres in height. This would introduce a building of a scale that is dramatically larger than the existing surrounding development and would dominate the streetscape along Ourimbah Road.
The underlying planning controls permit a maximum building height of 22 metres. Even after applying the maximum affordable housing bonus, the permissible height would increase to approximately 28.6 metres. The proposed building would still exceed that bonused height limit by around three metres. This demonstrates that the development cannot fit comfortably within even the maximum planning concessions available and is therefore an overdevelopment of the site.
The proposal also includes wall heights reaching approximately 29.42 metres compared with the 7.2-metre wall-height standard under the Mosman Local Environmental Plan. Parts of the building would therefore exceed the local wall-height standard by more than four times. Such an extreme departure requires exceptional justification, which in my view has not been demonstrated.
Inconsistency with Council's Preferred Masterplan
Although the site falls within Mosman Council's endorsed preferred Masterplan area, the Masterplan generally contemplates development of approximately six storeys along this section of Ourimbah Road. The proposed development would substantially exceed that scale, rising approximately two to three storeys above what Council's preferred planning vision contemplates. This creates a development outcome that is inconsistent with the strategic planning framework that residents have been led to expect.
Reliance on a Speculative Future Context
A significant concern is that many of the proposal's urban design and visual impact conclusions appear to be based on an assumed future context in which surrounding sites are progressively redeveloped into larger apartment buildings. However, planning decisions should be based primarily on the existing and reasonably foreseeable character of the area, rather than on an optimistic redevelopment scenario that may never fully occur.
As a resident of Rosebery Street, I have not seen evidence demonstrating that widespread redevelopment of surrounding properties is either imminent or inevitable. In fact, redevelopment across the broader precinct remains uncertain, and at least one nearby redevelopment proposal has previously been withdrawn, demonstrating that redevelopment outcomes cannot simply be assumed. Many surrounding properties face ownership, market and economic constraints that may limit redevelopment opportunities for many years. In particular, a number of sites do not possess the same redevelopment economics or value drivers that would support large-scale site amalgamation and redevelopment.
My own experience further reinforces this uncertainty. As a property owner on Rosebery Street, I am aware of the practical challenges associated with site amalgamation and redevelopment within the locality. Redevelopment outcomes depend on numerous factors, including landowner participation, market conditions and site assembly, and cannot be assumed to occur within any particular timeframe.
I also note that a nearby State Significant Development proposal affecting properties on Countess Street and Rosebery Street was subsequently withdrawn. This further demonstrates that redevelopment outcomes remain uncertain and that future development assumptions may not materialise within the timeframes anticipated by proponents.
As a result, there is a realistic possibility that the proposed 31.6-metre building would remain surrounded by substantially lower-scale development for decades. If this occurs, the building's visual dominance, bulk, privacy impacts, overshadowing and effects on neighbourhood character would be experienced by existing residents long into the future.
The Department should therefore assess the proposal against the neighbourhood that exists today and the reasonably foreseeable future, not against a hypothetical future streetscape that assumes widespread redevelopment has already occurred. Particular weight should be given to the existing built form and current streetscape character, as these are the conditions that neighbouring residents experience and may continue to experience for many years. Even if further redevelopment eventually takes place, the potentially lengthy interim period during which this building would stand well above its surroundings must be properly considered.
If the Department is minded to support redevelopment of the site, the building should be reduced in height and scale so that its impacts are minimised under both the existing neighbourhood context and any future redevelopment scenario.
Heritage Impacts
The site sits immediately adjacent to the two-storey heritage-listed property at 60 Ourimbah Road and in proximity to the Lang Street and Killarney Estate Heritage Conservation Areas. The applicant's own heritage assessment acknowledges that introducing a large building into an area currently characterised by one- and two-storey dwellings will inherently affect the area. Despite this acknowledgement, the proposal appears to rely largely on setbacks and architectural contrast rather than providing a genuine transition in height, bulk and scale to the heritage item.
The proposed development would wrap around the heritage-listed building at No. 60, creating serious concerns regarding site isolation, the future viability of the property and the preservation of its heritage setting. The Department should carefully examine whether reasonable amalgamation opportunities have genuinely been exhausted and whether the proposal would compromise the heritage item's long-term use and significance.
I am also concerned that the heritage assessment appears to dismiss impacts on the nearby Lang Street and Killarney Estate Heritage Conservation Areas primarily on the basis that there are limited direct view corridors. Heritage impacts cannot be assessed solely through formal view corridors. The proposal's effect on skyline character, visual setting and the broader heritage significance of these areas must be properly considered. Furthermore, it does not appear that verified photomontages have been provided from within these conservation areas. Such assessments should be required before any determination is made.
Privacy, Amenity and Construction Impacts
An eight- to nine-storey building would increase overlooking of neighbouring homes, gardens and private open spaces while affecting privacy, outlook and neighbourhood character. The proposal also includes two basement levels requiring extensive excavation immediately adjacent to a heritage-listed building and near surrounding homes. Independent structural assessments, vibration monitoring and enforceable repair obligations should be required. Construction impacts, including noise, dust, truck movements, traffic disruption and extended construction periods, would affect nearby residents for years and should not be underestimated.
Traffic and Road Safety
The development proposes access to 92 parking spaces from Ourimbah Road, a classified road and bus route.
Given its proximity to an existing bus stop, concerns remain regarding traffic safety, pedestrian movements, sightlines and construction access arrangements.
Affordable Housing Does Not Justify Permanent Impacts
Only 12 of the 63 apartments would be designated as affordable housing, and affordability would be maintained for only 15 years.
In contrast, the additional building height, floor space and neighbourhood impacts would remain permanently. It is difficult to justify permanent departures from planning controls on the basis of a temporary public benefit.
Conclusion
For the reasons outlined above, I respectfully object to the proposed development at 40-56 Ourimbah Road. The proposal exceeds both existing planning controls and Council's preferred Masterplan scale, creates unacceptable impacts on heritage assets and neighbouring residents, relies on a speculative future redevelopment scenario that may never occur, and fails to appropriately minimise its impacts on the existing community. The Department should be cautious about approving permanent departures from planning controls based on future redevelopment assumptions that may not materialise for many years, if at all.
I have attached a screenshot from the NSW Planning Portal showing the withdrawal of a nearby State Significant Development proposal as an example of the uncertainty associated with assumptions of widespread future redevelopment within the locality.
I urge the Department to either refuse the application or require substantial modifications, including a significant reduction in height, bulk and scale, so that the development better reflects the existing character of the area, provides a genuine transition to nearby heritage items and minimises long-term impacts on surrounding residents and properties.
Yours faithfully,
Resident of Rosebery Street, Mosman
Attachment A: NSW Planning Portal Screenshot Showing Withdrawn SSD Proposal (Countess Street / Rosebery Street)
Sandra Matthews
Object
Sandra Matthews
Object
MOSMAN
,
New South Wales
Message
Executive Summary
I write to formally lodge my strong objection to the State Significant Development (SSD) proposal at 40-56 Ourimbah Road, Mosman. While I recognise the critical need for diverse housing supply and affordable infill options across Sydney, the scale of this project represents a severe overdevelopment of the site. The push for a part-eight, part-nine storey high-density structure grossly violates the local environmental planning guidelines, jeopardises neighbourhood safety, and sets a destructive precedent for the Mosman community.
1. Gross Overdevelopment and Excessive Height
• Scale Incompatibility: An 8-to-9 storey apartment complex stands completely at odds with the predominantly low-to-mid rise character of Ourimbah Road and its surrounding streetscapes.
Abuse of Incentives: Exploiting state-accelerated planning pathways to construct a high-rise tower under the guise of "mid-rise affordable housing" constitutes clear planning overreach. Even after application of the maximum 30% affordable-housing bonus, the proposed height of approximately 31.6 metres would still exceed the increased 28.6-metre limit by about three metres. A development that cannot fit within its own maximum bonused height is an overdevelopment of the site.
• Precedent Risk: Approving a 63-apartment complex of this visual bulk strips away the validity of Mosman Council’s local planning controls and opens the floodgates for unregulated high-density zoning.
2. Severe Impact on Local Amenity
• Overshadowing and Solar Access: The building's bulk will cast massive, multi-storey shadows over adjoining properties, blocking natural light from existing homes, private open spaces, and gardens.
• Loss of Privacy: Visual intrusion from the upper levels will directly overlook the yards and windows of neighbouring low-density residences, completely destroying their acoustic and visual privacy.
• Visual Bulk and "Canyon" Effect: Replacing nine traditional detached homes with a single massive building footprint creates an oppressive, concrete visual barrier along Ourimbah Road.
3. Infrastructure and Traffic Strain
• Traffic Congestion: Adding 63 luxury and infill apartments—compounded by basement parking—will inject heavy vehicular traffic into Ourimbah Road, which is already a highly active local thoroughfare.
• Construction Disruptions: The inevitable excavation required for substantial underground parking poses severe risks of structural vibrations, prolonged noise pollution, and hazardous heavy vehicle movements on narrow residential streets.
• Utility Overload: Local sewage, stormwater drainage, and emergency access pathways are not adequately scaled to handle sudden, high-density population spikes.
• Temporary affordable housing for permanent additional height
• Only 12 of the 63 apartments would be designated as affordable housing, and the proposal relies on a minimum affordability period of only 15 years. The affordable apartments should remain affordable in perpetuity, just as the additional building height and floor space would remain in perpetuity.
Conclusion
The proposed design by Doroch Architects for First Quadrant Properties fails to align with the visual, physical, and environmental baseline of the Mosman Municipality. It sacrifices the liveability and safety of long-standing community members for developer yield.
I strongly urge the Department of Planning to refuse this application in its current form. The applicant must be instructed to significantly scale down the height and bulk of the building to integrate safely with the existing neighbourhood character.
Thank you for considering this submission.
I write to formally lodge my strong objection to the State Significant Development (SSD) proposal at 40-56 Ourimbah Road, Mosman. While I recognise the critical need for diverse housing supply and affordable infill options across Sydney, the scale of this project represents a severe overdevelopment of the site. The push for a part-eight, part-nine storey high-density structure grossly violates the local environmental planning guidelines, jeopardises neighbourhood safety, and sets a destructive precedent for the Mosman community.
1. Gross Overdevelopment and Excessive Height
• Scale Incompatibility: An 8-to-9 storey apartment complex stands completely at odds with the predominantly low-to-mid rise character of Ourimbah Road and its surrounding streetscapes.
Abuse of Incentives: Exploiting state-accelerated planning pathways to construct a high-rise tower under the guise of "mid-rise affordable housing" constitutes clear planning overreach. Even after application of the maximum 30% affordable-housing bonus, the proposed height of approximately 31.6 metres would still exceed the increased 28.6-metre limit by about three metres. A development that cannot fit within its own maximum bonused height is an overdevelopment of the site.
• Precedent Risk: Approving a 63-apartment complex of this visual bulk strips away the validity of Mosman Council’s local planning controls and opens the floodgates for unregulated high-density zoning.
2. Severe Impact on Local Amenity
• Overshadowing and Solar Access: The building's bulk will cast massive, multi-storey shadows over adjoining properties, blocking natural light from existing homes, private open spaces, and gardens.
• Loss of Privacy: Visual intrusion from the upper levels will directly overlook the yards and windows of neighbouring low-density residences, completely destroying their acoustic and visual privacy.
• Visual Bulk and "Canyon" Effect: Replacing nine traditional detached homes with a single massive building footprint creates an oppressive, concrete visual barrier along Ourimbah Road.
3. Infrastructure and Traffic Strain
• Traffic Congestion: Adding 63 luxury and infill apartments—compounded by basement parking—will inject heavy vehicular traffic into Ourimbah Road, which is already a highly active local thoroughfare.
• Construction Disruptions: The inevitable excavation required for substantial underground parking poses severe risks of structural vibrations, prolonged noise pollution, and hazardous heavy vehicle movements on narrow residential streets.
• Utility Overload: Local sewage, stormwater drainage, and emergency access pathways are not adequately scaled to handle sudden, high-density population spikes.
• Temporary affordable housing for permanent additional height
• Only 12 of the 63 apartments would be designated as affordable housing, and the proposal relies on a minimum affordability period of only 15 years. The affordable apartments should remain affordable in perpetuity, just as the additional building height and floor space would remain in perpetuity.
Conclusion
The proposed design by Doroch Architects for First Quadrant Properties fails to align with the visual, physical, and environmental baseline of the Mosman Municipality. It sacrifices the liveability and safety of long-standing community members for developer yield.
I strongly urge the Department of Planning to refuse this application in its current form. The applicant must be instructed to significantly scale down the height and bulk of the building to integrate safely with the existing neighbourhood character.
Thank you for considering this submission.
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
MOSMAN
,
New South Wales
Message
I strongly object to the proposed residential development at 40–56 Ourimbah Road, Mosman. This project is extremely concerning and, in its current form, should not proceed. The scale, height, design and overall approach are completely inappropriate for this part of Mosman and would have a significant and unreasonable impact on the surrounding residential area, local traffic, neighbouring properties, heritage items and the character of the suburb.
The scale of the project is far too large. It appears to push well beyond what is contemplated by the applicable planning controls and raises serious questions about the approach being taken by the developer. The proposal gives the impression of something being put forward at such an excessive scale that, even if it is eventually reduced, the resulting building could still be substantially larger and taller than what is appropriate for this location. The planning authority should take a very serious view of a proposal that appears to test the limits of the planning system and rules in this manner.
The proposed building is simply far too large and too tall for its surroundings. It does not provide an appropriate transition between the existing low-rise homes and buildings and the proposed development. Rather than gradually blending into the existing streetscape, it would introduce a building of a scale that is completely out of character with the immediate area.
The developers state that the proposal supports the Mosman Council Masterplan. However, the final draft of the Mosman Council Masterplan has been amended to identify a maximum height of four storeys in this area. This is important because the final draft reflects the need for development to occur gradually, with building heights carefully managed so new development can blend into the existing character of the suburb. It also reflects the views expressed by Mosman residents that development in this area should remain at a lower height and that significant increases in building height should not occur without an appropriate transition.
The proposal does not appear to recognise or follow that principle of gradual transition. As one of the first substantial developments of this scale in the street, it should be setting an appropriate precedent rather than establishing a significantly greater height before the surrounding area has undergone any corresponding change. If development were to occur gradually over time, with appropriately designed two- to four-storey buildings established first over the next 15 years, a larger development may eventually be more compatible with the changing streetscape. At present, however, that gradual transition simply does not exist.
Even the older Masterplan material referred to by the developers does not appear to support the proposed scale. The previous High and Narrow option identified heights of approximately 6–8 storeys, rather than the 9–10 storeys proposed. It is therefore concerning that the proposal presents itself as supporting the Masterplan when its proposed height appears to exceed even the higher range previously contemplated. It is difficult to see how a proposal of nine or ten storeys can reasonably be described as supporting a planning direction that has now moved towards a maximum of four storeys in this location.
The impact on surrounding residents cannot be understated. Consider the properties immediately to the south of the proposed development. These homes currently receive reasonable access to sunlight from the north, and a building of the proposed scale will substantially obstruct that sunlight for a significant part of the day. The proposal would also affect privacy, outlook and the sense of openness currently enjoyed by neighbouring properties. Its excessive height and bulk would make it a dominant feature of the streetscape and could obstruct views and negatively affect the broader visual character of Mosman, including views towards the harbour and foreshore.
The relationship between the proposed development and the heritage-listed shops at the end of the block is another significant concern. A development of this scale and height in such close proximity to a heritage item requires particularly careful consideration. How can a building of this size, bulk and height reasonably be considered an appropriate design response next to a heritage-listed building? A new development should respond sensitively to the scale, character and significance of heritage buildings rather than overwhelming them through its size and visual presence.
I am also concerned about the way the affordable housing provisions are being relied upon to support this development. While the proposal utilises affordable housing provisions, the scale and nature of the development raise legitimate questions about whether the intended objectives of those provisions are genuinely being achieved. Affordable housing provisions should not become a mechanism through which a development can obtain significant additional scale or height while delivering housing that remains unaffordable to ordinary local residents.
If these apartments are genuinely intended to provide affordable housing, there should be clear evidence demonstrating how they will remain affordable in practice. In Mosman, genuinely affordable housing is extremely difficult to achieve, particularly if affordable housing is intended to mean housing costing less than $1 million. In the last 12 months, only approximately 60 properties have reportedly sold for less than $1 million, and none were new-build properties. This raises an obvious question: if the development is intended to provide genuinely affordable housing, how can the apartments be offered at an affordable price while also providing the developer with a commercially viable return and profit?
There is also a concern about the temporary nature of the affordability requirement. If the housing is only required to remain affordable for a limited period, where does that leave the essential workers and other people who rely on genuinely affordable housing once that period expires?
The proposed parking arrangements are also a major concern. Access for more than 90 vehicles is proposed via Ourimbah Road, which is an important traffic route that already carries significant traffic and experiences congestion during parts of the day. Adding an entrance and exit serving this number of vehicles has the potential to create significant traffic-flow and safety problems, particularly during peak periods. The proposed exit onto Ourimbah Road is particularly concerning given the volume and speed of traffic using this road.
There is further concern regarding the nearby bus stop and the potential for vehicle movements associated with the development to interfere with public transport operations or contribute to additional congestion. This is not simply a matter of adding another driveway to a quiet residential street; the development is proposing a substantial number of vehicles accessing a major local thoroughfare.
If the development were reduced substantially in height and scale, the resulting reduction in the number of apartments could also reduce the demand for parking and vehicle access. However, if the number of apartments and parking spaces were reduced too far, residents could instead be forced to rely more heavily on already limited on-street parking in the surrounding streets, creating another significant impact for existing residents. A genuinely appropriate reduction in scale should therefore reduce the overall number of vehicles without simply transferring the parking problem onto neighbouring streets. The proposal should also consider whether a lower level of car ownership and greater reliance on public transport could form part of a genuinely appropriate affordable housing development.
There are also significant concerns regarding the scale of excavation required. This part of Mosman sits on significant sandstone geology, and excavation on the scale required for a development of this size has the potential to affect surrounding properties, roads and infrastructure. The impacts of such extensive excavation need to be properly understood before a development of this scale is approved.
Taken together, the excessive height, substantial bulk, lack of appropriate transition, impact on sunlight and privacy, heritage concerns, traffic and parking issues, excavation requirements and questions surrounding the affordable housing provisions demonstrate that this development is simply too large and too intensive for this location.
If a nine- or ten-storey development is permitted when the final draft of the Mosman Masterplan identifies a maximum of four storeys, it would establish an inappropriate precedent for future development and undermine the principle of gradual change. The community has expressed a preference for lower heights in this area, and the first major development should not leap ahead of the surrounding neighbourhood and then become the justification for further increases in scale.
I therefore strongly urge the planning authority to refuse the proposal in its current form. At an absolute minimum, the development should be substantially reduced in height, bulk and density so that it provides a genuine transition between the existing low-rise residential development and any future development in the area.
The scale of the project is far too large. It appears to push well beyond what is contemplated by the applicable planning controls and raises serious questions about the approach being taken by the developer. The proposal gives the impression of something being put forward at such an excessive scale that, even if it is eventually reduced, the resulting building could still be substantially larger and taller than what is appropriate for this location. The planning authority should take a very serious view of a proposal that appears to test the limits of the planning system and rules in this manner.
The proposed building is simply far too large and too tall for its surroundings. It does not provide an appropriate transition between the existing low-rise homes and buildings and the proposed development. Rather than gradually blending into the existing streetscape, it would introduce a building of a scale that is completely out of character with the immediate area.
The developers state that the proposal supports the Mosman Council Masterplan. However, the final draft of the Mosman Council Masterplan has been amended to identify a maximum height of four storeys in this area. This is important because the final draft reflects the need for development to occur gradually, with building heights carefully managed so new development can blend into the existing character of the suburb. It also reflects the views expressed by Mosman residents that development in this area should remain at a lower height and that significant increases in building height should not occur without an appropriate transition.
The proposal does not appear to recognise or follow that principle of gradual transition. As one of the first substantial developments of this scale in the street, it should be setting an appropriate precedent rather than establishing a significantly greater height before the surrounding area has undergone any corresponding change. If development were to occur gradually over time, with appropriately designed two- to four-storey buildings established first over the next 15 years, a larger development may eventually be more compatible with the changing streetscape. At present, however, that gradual transition simply does not exist.
Even the older Masterplan material referred to by the developers does not appear to support the proposed scale. The previous High and Narrow option identified heights of approximately 6–8 storeys, rather than the 9–10 storeys proposed. It is therefore concerning that the proposal presents itself as supporting the Masterplan when its proposed height appears to exceed even the higher range previously contemplated. It is difficult to see how a proposal of nine or ten storeys can reasonably be described as supporting a planning direction that has now moved towards a maximum of four storeys in this location.
The impact on surrounding residents cannot be understated. Consider the properties immediately to the south of the proposed development. These homes currently receive reasonable access to sunlight from the north, and a building of the proposed scale will substantially obstruct that sunlight for a significant part of the day. The proposal would also affect privacy, outlook and the sense of openness currently enjoyed by neighbouring properties. Its excessive height and bulk would make it a dominant feature of the streetscape and could obstruct views and negatively affect the broader visual character of Mosman, including views towards the harbour and foreshore.
The relationship between the proposed development and the heritage-listed shops at the end of the block is another significant concern. A development of this scale and height in such close proximity to a heritage item requires particularly careful consideration. How can a building of this size, bulk and height reasonably be considered an appropriate design response next to a heritage-listed building? A new development should respond sensitively to the scale, character and significance of heritage buildings rather than overwhelming them through its size and visual presence.
I am also concerned about the way the affordable housing provisions are being relied upon to support this development. While the proposal utilises affordable housing provisions, the scale and nature of the development raise legitimate questions about whether the intended objectives of those provisions are genuinely being achieved. Affordable housing provisions should not become a mechanism through which a development can obtain significant additional scale or height while delivering housing that remains unaffordable to ordinary local residents.
If these apartments are genuinely intended to provide affordable housing, there should be clear evidence demonstrating how they will remain affordable in practice. In Mosman, genuinely affordable housing is extremely difficult to achieve, particularly if affordable housing is intended to mean housing costing less than $1 million. In the last 12 months, only approximately 60 properties have reportedly sold for less than $1 million, and none were new-build properties. This raises an obvious question: if the development is intended to provide genuinely affordable housing, how can the apartments be offered at an affordable price while also providing the developer with a commercially viable return and profit?
There is also a concern about the temporary nature of the affordability requirement. If the housing is only required to remain affordable for a limited period, where does that leave the essential workers and other people who rely on genuinely affordable housing once that period expires?
The proposed parking arrangements are also a major concern. Access for more than 90 vehicles is proposed via Ourimbah Road, which is an important traffic route that already carries significant traffic and experiences congestion during parts of the day. Adding an entrance and exit serving this number of vehicles has the potential to create significant traffic-flow and safety problems, particularly during peak periods. The proposed exit onto Ourimbah Road is particularly concerning given the volume and speed of traffic using this road.
There is further concern regarding the nearby bus stop and the potential for vehicle movements associated with the development to interfere with public transport operations or contribute to additional congestion. This is not simply a matter of adding another driveway to a quiet residential street; the development is proposing a substantial number of vehicles accessing a major local thoroughfare.
If the development were reduced substantially in height and scale, the resulting reduction in the number of apartments could also reduce the demand for parking and vehicle access. However, if the number of apartments and parking spaces were reduced too far, residents could instead be forced to rely more heavily on already limited on-street parking in the surrounding streets, creating another significant impact for existing residents. A genuinely appropriate reduction in scale should therefore reduce the overall number of vehicles without simply transferring the parking problem onto neighbouring streets. The proposal should also consider whether a lower level of car ownership and greater reliance on public transport could form part of a genuinely appropriate affordable housing development.
There are also significant concerns regarding the scale of excavation required. This part of Mosman sits on significant sandstone geology, and excavation on the scale required for a development of this size has the potential to affect surrounding properties, roads and infrastructure. The impacts of such extensive excavation need to be properly understood before a development of this scale is approved.
Taken together, the excessive height, substantial bulk, lack of appropriate transition, impact on sunlight and privacy, heritage concerns, traffic and parking issues, excavation requirements and questions surrounding the affordable housing provisions demonstrate that this development is simply too large and too intensive for this location.
If a nine- or ten-storey development is permitted when the final draft of the Mosman Masterplan identifies a maximum of four storeys, it would establish an inappropriate precedent for future development and undermine the principle of gradual change. The community has expressed a preference for lower heights in this area, and the first major development should not leap ahead of the surrounding neighbourhood and then become the justification for further increases in scale.
I therefore strongly urge the planning authority to refuse the proposal in its current form. At an absolute minimum, the development should be substantially reduced in height, bulk and density so that it provides a genuine transition between the existing low-rise residential development and any future development in the area.
Catherine Keddie
Object
Catherine Keddie
Object
MOSMAN
,
New South Wales
Message
103 Awaba Street
Mosman NSW 2088
30 July 2026
Dear Sir/Madam
Re: 40-56 Ourimbah Road Mosman SSD development
I am writing to you as a long term (over 25 years) resident of Mosman, and I grew up in Neutral Bay. I have therefore witnessed how the two suburbs and adjoining areas have changed over the last 60 years.
Generally, homeowners in Mosman have followed the DA rules and renovated or built homes within the Mosman Council guidelines. These guidelines were created with the knowledge of the infrastructure and layout of the suburb, and thus there have been restrictions on heights and numbers of homes that can be built on the blocks of land. The houses along Ourimbah Road, Bond Street and Roseberry Street include Federation homes, Federation terraces and Californian bungalow style homes, as well as blocks of units at the maximum 3-4 storey height level at the intersection of Military Road. Many of the old homes are therefore about 100-130 years old. The units are modest in height, and not to the current new height of many new unit blocks with ~ 3 metre ceilings, so the whole blocks of units are not towering over the neighbouring single/two storey homes.
I have a number of concerns with the proposed development:
1. There isn’t the infrastructure (including roads, public transport, hospitals, water, power grids, internet etc) to service a huge increase in housing in this part of Mosman. There is nothing that the State or Federal Governments will do, or plan to do, to address these issues. The Beaches link road option has been taken away, so there aren’t any current solutions in place. In reality Mosman will never have the infrastructure to cope with all the LMR/SSD housing proposed.
2. Given the bottle necks that Military Road experiences, many cars use Ourimbah Road as an alternate route to avoid Cremorne Junction and Spit Junction. Bringing 96 vehicles on and off Ourimbah Road will cause this current 2 lane each way thoroughfare to significantly slow down/stop as owners access or leave their home in this proposed development. It simply won’t work.
3. The sheer size of the proposed property, both up close as well as the view from places as far away as Cammeray and Northbridge, will be nothing short of an eyesore. If this development is approved then the precedent will be relied upon for many more developments, which will just exacerbate the current issues as a result of the lack of infrastructure.
4. With the current rules being flaunted by including affordable housing, I cannot understand why the developer has proposed to add another 4 metres on top. Nearly 32 metres will make this the tallest building in Mosman.
5. Affordable housing should be affordable for as long as the apartments are standing, not 10 or 15 years. These poorly lit, small apartments will give poor amenity to the residents.
6. All the homes along Bond Street and Roseberry Street, to the south of the proposed development, will lose all their northern sun from their windows and their gardens, leaving just the morning, easterly sun, and maybe a little late afternoon sun at the height of summer. These are homes that have abided by the DA rules of past years and now will have their enjoyment completely removed because they happened to be next door to a 32 metre tower.
7. Whilst the developers are within 400 metre distance rule to the town centre, they are trying to get 6 stories, plus 3 levels of underground parking approved. It will be a slippery slope should this be approved and other developers will follow. Who knows where the 400 metre rule might be used or ignored?
8. There is a lack of cohesion with the surrounding buildings, with large curved balconies and large glass sections across the northern aspect.
9. My last concern is the “affordable housing” card that is being played. There will never be affordable housing in Mosman, so this should not be used as a means for additional levels of apartments.
This development in its current form, with its current bulk and height, should not be approved given the issues above.
Yours sincerely
Catherine Keddie
Mosman NSW 2088
30 July 2026
Dear Sir/Madam
Re: 40-56 Ourimbah Road Mosman SSD development
I am writing to you as a long term (over 25 years) resident of Mosman, and I grew up in Neutral Bay. I have therefore witnessed how the two suburbs and adjoining areas have changed over the last 60 years.
Generally, homeowners in Mosman have followed the DA rules and renovated or built homes within the Mosman Council guidelines. These guidelines were created with the knowledge of the infrastructure and layout of the suburb, and thus there have been restrictions on heights and numbers of homes that can be built on the blocks of land. The houses along Ourimbah Road, Bond Street and Roseberry Street include Federation homes, Federation terraces and Californian bungalow style homes, as well as blocks of units at the maximum 3-4 storey height level at the intersection of Military Road. Many of the old homes are therefore about 100-130 years old. The units are modest in height, and not to the current new height of many new unit blocks with ~ 3 metre ceilings, so the whole blocks of units are not towering over the neighbouring single/two storey homes.
I have a number of concerns with the proposed development:
1. There isn’t the infrastructure (including roads, public transport, hospitals, water, power grids, internet etc) to service a huge increase in housing in this part of Mosman. There is nothing that the State or Federal Governments will do, or plan to do, to address these issues. The Beaches link road option has been taken away, so there aren’t any current solutions in place. In reality Mosman will never have the infrastructure to cope with all the LMR/SSD housing proposed.
2. Given the bottle necks that Military Road experiences, many cars use Ourimbah Road as an alternate route to avoid Cremorne Junction and Spit Junction. Bringing 96 vehicles on and off Ourimbah Road will cause this current 2 lane each way thoroughfare to significantly slow down/stop as owners access or leave their home in this proposed development. It simply won’t work.
3. The sheer size of the proposed property, both up close as well as the view from places as far away as Cammeray and Northbridge, will be nothing short of an eyesore. If this development is approved then the precedent will be relied upon for many more developments, which will just exacerbate the current issues as a result of the lack of infrastructure.
4. With the current rules being flaunted by including affordable housing, I cannot understand why the developer has proposed to add another 4 metres on top. Nearly 32 metres will make this the tallest building in Mosman.
5. Affordable housing should be affordable for as long as the apartments are standing, not 10 or 15 years. These poorly lit, small apartments will give poor amenity to the residents.
6. All the homes along Bond Street and Roseberry Street, to the south of the proposed development, will lose all their northern sun from their windows and their gardens, leaving just the morning, easterly sun, and maybe a little late afternoon sun at the height of summer. These are homes that have abided by the DA rules of past years and now will have their enjoyment completely removed because they happened to be next door to a 32 metre tower.
7. Whilst the developers are within 400 metre distance rule to the town centre, they are trying to get 6 stories, plus 3 levels of underground parking approved. It will be a slippery slope should this be approved and other developers will follow. Who knows where the 400 metre rule might be used or ignored?
8. There is a lack of cohesion with the surrounding buildings, with large curved balconies and large glass sections across the northern aspect.
9. My last concern is the “affordable housing” card that is being played. There will never be affordable housing in Mosman, so this should not be used as a means for additional levels of apartments.
This development in its current form, with its current bulk and height, should not be approved given the issues above.
Yours sincerely
Catherine Keddie