The scale of this project is problematic for the location which is in close proximity to Middle Harbour Public School and The Manors of Mosman. Both the school and the retirement community drive a significant amount of traffic to Hale & Erith streets & Erith is a rat run from McPherson to Military. The additional traffic that 100 extra dwellings would create would frankly create safety issues for children walking to & from school. Additionally, parking on these streets is already under pressure & the provision for parking for that many dwellings is inadequate & would exacerbate an existing problem.

Subject: Objection to SSD-93787211 – 494–500 and 516 Military Road, Mosman

I am writing to formally object to State Significant Development Application SSD-93787211 for the proposed shop-top housing development at 494–500 and 516 Military Road, Mosman in its current form.

I recognise the need for additional housing in appropriate locations. However, this proposal represents excessive development of the site and would cause significant adverse impacts on the surrounding community, local infrastructure, traffic conditions, neighbourhood character and residential amenity.

My principal grounds for objection are outlined below.

EXCESSIVE HEIGHT, SCALE AND DENSITY
The proposal seeks to increase the maximum permissible building height from 12 metres to 33.8 metres and the floor space ratio from 2:1 to 3.34:1. This is not a minor variation. It represents an almost threefold increase in permissible height and a substantial intensification of the site. A development of up to ten storeys would be visually dominant and out of scale with the surrounding area. It would fundamentally alter the established landscape, streetscape and character of this part of Mosman, including its relationship with nearby heritage buildings and heritage conservation areas. Approval of such a substantial departure from existing planning controls would also create an undesirable precedent for further excessive development along Military Road. The existing height and floor-space controls should be respected, and any redevelopment should be designed within a scale that is compatible with its surroundings.

TRAFFIC CONGESTION AND VEHICLE ACCESS
The proposed development includes 100 apartments, retail premises and 172 parking spaces. This would generate a substantial number of additional vehicle movements on Military Road and surrounding local streets. Military Road is already heavily congested, particularly during morning and afternoon peak periods. Adding vehicles associated with approximately 100 households, visitors, retail customers, deliveries, waste collection and building services would place further pressure on this already constrained transport corridor. The cumulative impact cannot be assessed solely by considering whether vehicles can physically enter and leave the development. The assessment must consider:

- Existing congestion along Military Road and at nearby intersections
- The safety and practicality of vehicles entering and leaving the site
- Increased queuing, delays and conflict between vehicles
- Traffic being redirected into surrounding residential streets
- Pedestrian and cyclist safety
- Delivery, service and waste-collection vehicles
- The cumulative effect of other approved and proposed developments in the area
- The adequacy of local public transport to support this degree of additional density

I request that the Department require a genuinely independent traffic assessment based on realistic peak-hour and cumulative-development assumptions.

PRESSURE ON LOCAL INFRASTRUCTURE AND SERVICES
An additional 100 apartments would increase demand for public transport, roads, schools, childcare, health services, waste services, utilities and public open space. The application should not be approved unless it can be clearly demonstrated that the existing infrastructure has sufficient capacity and that necessary upgrades will be completed before the development is occupied. The cost and consequences of the proposed density should not be transferred to existing residents or Mosman Council.

LOSS OF VALUED LOCAL BUSINESSES
The development would result in the loss of established local businesses, including the automotive business and Honeysuckle Garden nursery. These businesses provide practical and valued services to the local community. The nursery also contributes greenery, visual relief and a distinctive community character to an otherwise busy urban corridor. Generic replacement retail space at the base of an apartment building would not necessarily replace the particular services, employment, community value or character provided by the existing businesses. The social and economic consequences of permanently displacing these businesses should be properly assessed. If redevelopment proceeds in any form, meaningful measures should be required to retain suitable local services and assist displaced businesses.

OVERSHADOWING
The proposed increase from 12 metres to 33.8 metres raises serious concerns regarding overshadowing and loss of sunlight to surrounding houses, gardens and public areas. Access to natural sunlight is an important part of residential amenity, health and energy efficiency. The Department should require detailed, independently verified shadow diagrams covering all relevant times of day and seasons—not only the minimum assessment periods. The proposal should not be approved if neighbouring properties would experience unreasonable loss of direct sunlight, daylight, privacy or outlook. These impacts should be reduced through a substantial decrease in building height and bulk, increased setbacks and a more sensitive building design.

HERITAGE CHARACTER AND VISUAL IMPACT
The scale and height of the proposed development would be incompatible with the established character and heritage context of the surrounding area. A building rising to 33.8 metres would become a dominant visual element and permanently change the existing landscape. The proposal should be assessed not merely on the treatment of individual heritage items, but on its broader effects on the setting, scale, views, streetscape and historic character of the neighbourhood. Housing targets should not automatically justify overriding controls intended to protect local character and heritage. New housing can and should be provided through development that responds appropriately to its setting.

CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS
A project of this scale, including demolition, excavation for three basement levels and construction of buildings up to ten storeys, would cause prolonged disturbance to nearby residents and businesses. Likely impacts include:

- Construction traffic and heavy vehicles
- Road and footpath disruption
- Noise and vibration
- Dust and reduced air quality
- Excavation and potential effects on neighbouring properties
- Reduced access and parking
- Extended working periods
- Stress and loss of quiet enjoyment for surrounding residents

These impacts are not temporary in any meaningful sense if construction continues for several years. Particular consideration should be given to elderly residents, children, people working from home and people with health conditions. If any development is approved, strict and enforceable conditions should govern construction hours, truck routes, dust and vibration monitoring, noise, property-dilapidation reports, complaint handling and penalties for non-compliance.

LOSS OF GREENERY AND ENVIRONMENTAL AMENITY
The existing nursery and associated vegetation provide greenery and environmental relief along Military Road. Their removal would reduce the area’s vegetated character and contribute to a more heavily built and urbanised environment. The landscaping proposed as part of a high-density building should not automatically be treated as equivalent to established planting and open space at ground level. The assessment should consider canopy loss, urban heat, biodiversity, stormwater effects and the long-term viability of replacement landscaping.

CONCLUSION
For these reasons, I ask the NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure to refuse SSD-93787211 in its present form.

At a minimum, the proposal should be substantially redesigned to:

- Reduce its height, bulk and number of dwellings
- Comply much more closely with the existing 12-metre height control
- Protect neighbouring homes from unreasonable overshadowing and loss of privacy
- Reduce traffic generation and provide safe vehicle access
- Demonstrate adequate infrastructure capacity
- Respond appropriately to the area’s heritage and neighbourhood character
- Retain meaningful greenery and landscaping
- Address the loss of established local businesses and community services
- Provide stronger, enforceable controls over construction impacts

The provision of new housing is important, but it must be balanced against sound planning principles, infrastructure capacity, environmental impacts and the legitimate amenity of the existing community. The substantial planning uplift requested for this site has not been adequately justified by the limited public benefits offered, particularly when only three of the proposed 100 dwellings are identified as affordable housing.

Please record this submission as an objection and take each of these concerns into account when assessing the application.

Yours sincerely,
Dimi Hills

Concerns Regarding the Proposed Development

Parking and Traffic

I am concerned that the proposal has not adequately considered the parking impacts on existing residents.

* Parking on Hale Road is already heavily constrained, with residents regularly relying on Mackie Lane for overflow parking. Both are already at or near capacity.
* The proposal appears to underestimate vehicle ownership. It should not assume one parking space per dwelling. Many purchasers of these units are likely to own two vehicles, particularly for larger apartments. Parking requirements should better reflect the number of bedrooms and likely vehicle ownership.
* The existing parking pressures are further exacerbated by the nearby high school, which already places significant demand on on-street parking.
* How will access to Mackie Lane be maintained throughout construction?
* What traffic management plan will be implemented to ensure construction vehicles and contractors do not occupy residential parking?
* Where will tradespeople and contractors park during construction? There is very limited capacity on Lang Street, and parking restrictions on Ourimbah Road provide few alternative options.
* How will Council and the developer monitor and enforce compliance with contractor parking restrictions?

Construction Noise, Dust and Public Health

Construction activities have the potential to significantly affect the health and amenity of nearby residents.

* Independent environmental reports should be publicly available in full. Reports commissioned by developers should not be selectively disclosed if findings are unfavourable.
* Given the site’s history and surrounding industrial uses, how will potentially contaminated dust, including lead and other heavy metals from historic activities such as Midas or Honeysuckle, be monitored and managed?
* Will independent air quality monitoring be undertaken throughout demolition and excavation, with results made publicly available?
* If contamination is detected or nearby residents experience elevated blood lead levels that can reasonably be linked to the development, what compensation or remediation process will be available?
* During particularly noisy construction activities such as demolition, rock breaking or drilling, will the developer provide assistance for residents who work from home, such as reimbursement for temporary co-working facilities?
* Residents who park on the street will experience increased dust accumulation on their vehicles, requiring more frequent cleaning. Has the developer considered compensating affected residents for these additional costs?

Silica Dust Management

Silica dust presents a significant health risk.

* Construction materials containing silica should not be cut on Mackie Lane or in any public area adjacent to residential properties.
* A strict management plan should prohibit cutting, grinding or dumping construction materials in public spaces and include regular compliance inspections.

Pedestrian Safety

Many local residents walk along Hale Road or Mackie Lane to access bus stops on the opposite side of Military Road.

* The increased traffic generated by the development will make this already difficult crossing more hazardous.
* Has a pedestrian safety assessment been undertaken?
* Has consideration been given to providing a signalised crossing or pedestrian bridge to safely accommodate the increased number of pedestrians?

Overall, I request that Council require the developer to provide detailed and enforceable plans addressing parking management, contractor parking, traffic impacts, air quality monitoring, contamination management, silica dust control, construction impacts on residents, and pedestrian safety before any approval is granted.
I’m worried people will Jwalk and get themselves killed crossing Military Road.

Proposed work commencement and Proposed Environmental Officer prior to settlement ensures that all dangerous materials and batteries at Midas are correctly paid and disposed of?

Will this build affect the streets Electricity, Sewerage or Water supply. If so amount of money that Residents will be compensated with?..?

OBJECTION — SSD-93787211, 494–500 & 516 Military Road, Mosman (Honeysuckle Garden Centre / Midas site)
I am a resident of Hale Road, Mosman — a street that will bear the direct traffic impact of this development, as all vehicle access has been forced onto Hale Road after Transport for NSW refused access from Military Road. I formally object to this application. My detailed grounds are set out in the attached submission. In summary:
The proposal seeks to nearly triple the existing height limit (12m to 33.8m, 10 storeys) and lift density from 2:1 to 3.34:1 FSR — and the scheme has grown beyond even those figures at every stage, already exceeding the 3:1 rezoning ceiling. A 10-storey tower with a 3m setback directly across a narrow waste lane from the single-storey Lang Street Heritage Conservation Area provides no genuine built-form transition, and the applicant's own Heritage Impact Assessment concedes the tower would alter the conservation area's visual setting — while being headed with the wrong application number, casting doubt on whether it assessed the current scheme at all.
The proposal exceeds the Low and Mid Rise policy it relies on (which would cap this site at 4 storeys at this distance from a centre), conflicts with Mosman Council's draft Residential DCP (Section 5.5B), and pre-empts an unadopted Masterplan that community feedback may yet reduce. There is no voluntary planning agreement, no public open space, the community garden is lost, and only 3 of 100 apartments (3%) are affordable. All traffic is concentrated on Hale Road, cumulatively with six other nearby developments, with visitor parking falling short of Council's requirements. The site is a former service station with likely fuel tanks and asbestos, yet full contamination investigation is deferred to after approval.
The EIS is also internally contradictory — giving three different figures for car parking, two irreconcilable figures for communal open space, and naming a different applicant than the official notice. The application should be returned for a corrected EIS and re-exhibited before any assessment proceeds.
I ask the Department to refuse this application.

Please find my full objection in the attached document, which also includes further facts and details.
Kind regards
David

Erin Hibbert
10/492 Military Road,
Mosman 2088
[email protected]
0400672432
26/07/2026

NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure
GPO Box 39
Sydney NSW 2001

Objection to State Significant Development Application: SSD-93787211
Project: Shop-top housing development
Location: 494-500 & 516 Military Road, Mosman

To the Assessment Officer,
I am writing to formally object to the proposed shop-top housing development at 494-500 & 516 Military Road, Mosman (SSD-93787211).

As an immediate neighbour, my property directly adjoins the development site. While I acknowledge the need for town centre renewal, the current design inflicts an unacceptable and disproportionate burden on my property's amenity, specifically through the catastrophic loss of solar access and severe local traffic impacts.

Political Donations Disclosure
In accordance with Section 10.4 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, I confirm that I have Not Made any reportable political donations or gifts in the past two years.

My objections are based on the following critical planning grounds:

1. Severe Loss of Direct Sunlight and Solar Access
The excessive height and bulk of the proposed building will completely block direct sunlight to my property. The proposal fails to maintain the mandatory minimum hours of solar access required for neighbouring dwellings under the NSW Apartment Design Guide. This loss of natural light will severely reduce my standard of living, increase my energy costs, and plunge my primary living areas and private open spaces into permanent shadow.

2. Severe Traffic Congestion and Local Road Safety
Military Road is already operating at peak capacity and suffers from chronic gridlock. The injection of a high-density residential and commercial development at this specific bottleneck will severely worsen local traffic congestion. The increased vehicle movements from residents, visitors, and commercial delivery vehicles will create dangerous conflicts at access points, delay public transport, and cause traffic to overflow into narrow, residential side streets.

Conclusion
Due to the direct, severe, and irreversible impacts on my property's sunlight and the unmanageable traffic burden it places on Spit Junction, I urge the Department of Planning to refuse this application.
Any approved development on this site must be significantly scaled back in height, include greater boundary setbacks to preserve solar access, and undergo a rigorous, independent traffic management review.
Thank you for considering the serious concerns of a directly impacted neighbour.

Yours sincerely,
Erin Hibbert

OBJECTION SUBMISSION
Application Reference: SSD-31518413 (Application SSD-93787211)

Proposed Development: 494–500 & 516 Military Road, Mosman (Honeysuckle Garden Centre / Midas site)

Submission Type: Objection

Attn: NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure

I am writing as a local Mosman resident to register my strong OBJECTION to State Significant Development Application SSD-31518413 at 494–500 & 516 Military Road, Mosman.

While I support responsible, high-quality development that aligns with strategic planning controls and local context, this application represents a massive overdevelopment of the site that disregards local heritage, community amenity, traffic safety, and established planning frameworks.

I urge the Department to reject the application in its current form based on the following planning and merit-based grounds:

1. Severe Overdevelopment and Excessive Scale (FSR & Height)
I object to the proposed rezoning and scale. The application seeks to almost triple the height limit (12 m to 33.8 m, ten storeys) and lift density to 3.34:1. The scheme has also grown at every stage — from the 4–8 storey, 29 m, 3:1 building originally scoped, to 5–10 storeys, 33.8 m and 3.34:1 now lodged — exceeding the 3:1 cap the rezoning was meant to respect. This consistent over-reach is unacceptable and the over-scaled bulk should be refused.

2. It overwhelms the Lang Street Heritage Conservation Area — with no real transition
I object to the heritage impact on the Lang Street Heritage Conservation Area. A ten-storey tower set back as little as 3 metres, directly across a narrow waste lane from single-storey heritage cottages, is not a “considered built-form transition” — there is no genuine step-down in scale. The applicant’s own Heritage Impact Assessment admits the tower would be highly visible and alter the setting of the conservation area, and relies on the lane as a “buffer” and on landscaping softening the bulk “over time.” That report is also headed with the wrong application number (SSD-95843710), casting doubt on whether it assessed the current scheme. The heritage impact is unacceptable and the proposal should be refused.

3. The setbacks are inadequate and there is no public open space at the corners
The building is pushed hard to its boundaries. It provides only a 3 m setback to Mackie Lane (opposite the heritage Conservation Area), effectively no setback to Military Road, and no publicly accessible open space at the prominent Hale Road/Military Road and Lang Street/Military Road corners. Yet the EIS claims the rear setbacks “exceed the minimum requirements of the ADG.” A 3 m separation to a one-storey heritage neighbour should be tested carefully against the Apartment Design Guide and the Mosman controls — it does not read as generous, and it leaves no room for a real landscaped transition or corner public domain.
Evidence: EIS p.69 (3 m setbacks ground–L4); EIS p.66 §8.1.3 (claim setbacks “exceed the minimum requirements of the ADG”); Architectural landscape diagrams (built to Military Road frontage; no corner open space).

4. Far bigger than the rules it relies on — and it ignores Council’s draft controls
I object because the proposal defies the very rules it relies on. The Low and Mid Rise policy does not apply to this E3-zoned site, and even where it applies it caps shop-top housing at 4 storeys / 17.5 m / FSR 1.5:1 at this distance (400–800 m from a centre) — the proposal is 10 storeys / 33.8 m / 3.34:1, more than double. The proposal is also contrary to Council’s draft Residential DCP (new Section 5.5B setback, zone-interface and heritage-conservation-area controls), which is expressly intended to protect Mosman’s character, and the EIS does not assess against it. It further pre-empts the draft Mosman Masterplan, which is unadopted, still changing and likely to be reduced after community feedback. Draft controls that may shrink are no basis for maximum massing now; the rezoning should await the finalised, precinct-wide controls.

5. No real public benefit — no agreement, no public open space, community garden lost
I object because the proposal provides no genuine public benefit to offset its scale — no voluntary planning agreement, no public open space (the communal areas are private and resident-only), and it removes the Mackie Lane Community Garden. Given the density sought, the public should receive real open space in return. At a minimum, the community garden land should be dedicated back to the community as public open space. Without a commensurate public benefit, the concessions sought are not justified.

6. Almost no affordable housing
I object because the affordable-housing offer is inadequate. Only 3 of 100 apartments (3%) are affordable, and they are the smallest units — a token return for an extraordinary increase in height and density, and lower than comparable local developments. This limited benefit does not justify the planning concessions sought.

7. Overshadowing and lost sunlight are understated
I object because the overshadowing and solar impacts are understated. The shadow analysis is limited to the winter solstice, and the EIS concedes some apartments will not get direct mid-winter sun, yet it never discloses the proportion of apartments meeting the Apartment Design Guide’s solar criteria. The application should not be approved without full, worst-case shadow diagrams and clear evidence of solar compliance for the new apartments and neighbouring homes.

8. Traffic and parking funnelled onto Hale Road
I object to the traffic and parking impacts. All access is forced onto Hale Road because access from Military Road was refused, concentrating traffic on local streets, and this must be assessed together with the six other large developments recently approved nearby. Visitor parking also appears to fall short of Council’s own rate. The traffic and parking impacts are unacceptable and inadequately assessed. Crucially, Hale Road is home to Mosman Public School, creating an unacceptable safety risk for hundreds of young students, parents, and pedestrians during peak morning drop-off and afternoon pick-up times. Funnelling the vehicular traffic of 100 apartments—alongside commercial servicing—directly past a primary school zone creates severe pedestrian hazards and traffic gridlock. Furthermore, this concentrated volume must be assessed cumulatively alongside the six other large developments recently approved nearby. Visitor parking also falls significantly short of Council’s requirements (providing only 15 spaces against the 25 required), which will inevitably overflow onto surrounding residential streets and further compound local safety and parking congestion. The traffic, safety, and parking impacts—particularly in immediate proximity to the local public school—are unacceptable, dangerous, and inadequately assessed.

9. Contaminated land and groundwater — clean-up deferred to after approval
I object because contamination and groundwater risks are unresolved. This former service-station and auto-repair site likely contains underground fuel tanks, asbestos and contaminated groundwater, yet the full investigation and remediation are deferred until after approval, and the deep excavation would pump contaminated groundwater to stormwater beside heritage homes and a retirement community. Consent should not be granted until a complete site investigation and remediation plan demonstrate the land can be made safe.

10. Tree and vegetation loss is greater than the “8 trees” headline
I object to the loss of trees and vegetation. The “8 trees” figure understates the true loss because the arborist groups vegetation — for example a row of 25 plants counted as one hedge item — and includes three Council street trees, with only 8.8% of the site retained as deep soil. The real loss of established canopy in this leafy area is greater than stated and is not adequately offset.

11. Misleading and inaccurate documents
I object because key documents are inaccurate and misleading. The site is shown in the wrong location on the public-transport map (Figure 12) and the Masterplan map (Figure 20); the Design Report depicts a bus stop at the site frontage when the nearest stop is about 300 m away; and the EIS characterises Mosman as a “high-capacity growth area” despite a Government target of only 500 homes over five years. The Heritage Impact Assessment even cites the wrong application number. Residents and the Department cannot rely on documents containing errors that consistently favour the proposal, and it should be returned for correction and re-exhibition.

12. The EIS contradicts itself — its numbers can’t be relied on
I object because the EIS is internally inconsistent and unreliable. It gives conflicting figures for car parking (residential spaces variously 113, 122 and 140; total 137, 145 and 172), for communal open space (467 sqm and 888 sqm, with impossible percentages) and for the number of basement levels, and it names a different applicant (“Military Rd Developer Pty Ltd”) than the official notice (“Aurora Blue Pty Ltd”). A proposal cannot be properly assessed on figures that contradict each other; the application should be returned for a corrected, consistent EIS and re-exhibited.

13. A fast-track process that sidelines the community and the Council
I object to the process. Using the Housing Delivery Authority pathway removes this large rezoning from Mosman Council’s assessment and the normal, transparent local planning process. The EIS also records that an official did not brief the HDA due to a declared conflict of interest. I ask the Department to address the probity of the recommendation openly and to assess this rezoning through the proper LEP-making process rather than as a one-off concession.

Conclusion
I strongly request that the Department refuse application SSD-31518413

I am objecting because this proposal would have a direct and lasting impact on my home, my family and the community in which we live.

Mosman is valued not only for its location but also for its village character, established homes, greenery, local businesses, and strong sense of community. A ten-storey, 33.8-metre development of this scale would fundamentally change the character of this part of the suburb. It would feel visually overwhelming beside the low-scale Federation and Inter-War homes surrounding the site, particularly those within the Lang Street Heritage Conservation Area.

I am very concerned about the effect that years of demolition, excavation and construction would have on everyday life. The proposed excavation of three basement levels would involve constant heavy machinery use, truck movements, noise, dust, and vibration. This would affect residents’ ability to sleep, work from home, spend time outdoors and peacefully enjoy their homes. For families with children, older residents and people dealing with health concerns, the prolonged disruption and uncertainty could be especially distressing.

The traffic impacts are also deeply concerning to me. All vehicles connected with the development would be directed through Hale Road, including resident cars, visitors, retail deliveries, service vehicles and construction trucks. This is a street used daily by children and families travelling to and from Middle Harbour Public School. I worry about the increased risk to children crossing the road, walking along the footpath or being dropped off and collected during already busy school periods.

The loss of Honeysuckle Nursery would also be personally upsetting. It is not simply another retail tenancy. It is Mosman’s only dedicated nursery and an established local business that residents rely on for plants, advice and gardening supplies. It contributes to the character and identity of the area. Replacing it with unspecified future retail premises would not replace what the community is losing.

I am equally concerned about the loss of the Mackie Lane Community Garden. Since 2011, it has provided residents with a place to grow food, learn about sustainability and connect with one another. It is a genuine community space and an increasingly rare area of accessible greenery. Private communal gardens available only to future apartment residents would not compensate for the loss of a public community garden.

The removal of mature trees, hedges and established vegetation would further change the local environment. These plants provide shade, habitat, privacy and relief from surrounding roads and buildings. Once removed, their environmental and visual value could take decades to replace, if it can be replaced at all.

I am also concerned about the emotional and psychological burden this proposal places on existing residents. Living with prolonged uncertainty about noise, dust, traffic, excavation, overshadowing and changes to neighbourhood character creates real stress. Residents should not be expected to simply accept a major deterioration in their living environment without the impacts being properly acknowledged and addressed.

The proposal offers very limited public benefit in return for these substantial losses. Only three of the 100 apartments would be affordable housing, there is no planning agreement, and the proposed communal spaces would be private. In my view, this does not justify the loss of the nursery, the community garden, established vegetation and the amenity currently enjoyed by local residents.

This proposal is not just a set of planning figures. It would affect how people live, move around, raise their children and enjoy their homes every day. I ask the Department to consider the human impact of the development and not assess it only in terms of housing numbers and development capacity.

For these reasons, I strongly object to the proposal in its current form.

I object to the process. The use of the Housing Delivery Authority pathway removes a significant rezoning from Mosman Council's ordinary assessment process and from the more transparent local planning framework that would otherwise apply. I am also concerned that the EIS records that an official did not brief the HDA because of a declared conflict of interest. That makes it all the more important that the probity of the recommendation be addressed openly, and that any rezoning of this scale proceed through the proper LEP-making process rather than by way of a one-off concession.

I object to the traffic and parking impacts. As access from Military Road has been refused, all vehicular access is forced onto Hale Road, concentrating additional traffic on local streets that are already under pressure. Those impacts should not be looked at in isolation, but together with the other major developments recently approved nearby. I am also concerned that visitor parking appears to fall short of Council's own rate. In my view, the traffic and parking consequences have not been adequately assessed and are unacceptable in their present form.

I object because the EIS is internally inconsistent and difficult to rely upon. It gives conflicting figures for car parking, communal open space and the number of basement levels, and it names a different applicant from the one identified in the official notice. A proposal of this scale should be supported by clear and consistent material. Where the key figures do not align, the application cannot be properly assessed and should be returned for correction and re-exhibition.