25 March 2026
Edwina Ross Senior Planning Officer Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure [email protected]
Dear Ms. Ross,
Objection to Development Application SSD-93020230 at 40–48 Redan Street, Mosman
1. Summary
1.1 I refer to State Significant Development Application SSD-93020230, which seeks consent for the “[d]emolition of existing dwellings; [c]onstruction of a 10-storey residential flat building comprising: 53 apartments (including 11 in-fill affordable housing apartments), two basement levels with parking for 106 cars, communal open space; and [a]ssociated works including site preparation, excavation, earthworks, landscaping and installation of services” at 40–48 Redan Street, Mosman (Site) (Development Application).
1.2 I am the owner and long-term resident of 75B Muston Street, Mosman. My property is situated directly behind the Site. I have lived here for 6 years and our home is defined by its integration into the quiet, scenic fabric of this ridgeline. My property will be severely and directly affected by the proposal’s likely impacts on our iconic views, privacy, structural integrity, and the health of my family.
1.3 I object to this application because it represents a gross overdevelopment that prioritises developer yield over the fundamental rights of existing residents. The proposal seeks to externalise its "costs" onto my family in the form of total view loss, destroyed privacy, and significant health risks associated with massive sandstone excavation.
2. Severe Impact on Views and Visual Amenity (The Tenacity Test)
2.1 The proposal would fundamentally and "devastatingly" alter the existing outlook from my kitchen, bedroom, and main outdoor living area. At present, my home enjoys iconic, unobstructed views of Middle Head, Dobroyd Head, and the Middle Harbour interface.
2.2 Under the Tenacity planning principles, the proposed 10-storey tower represents an unreasonable failure of view sharing. This is not a "partial" or "side" view loss; it is the total obscuration of the primary scenic vista that defines the character and value of my home. The developer’s decision to seek a 16.78% height variation above already generous bonuses is a choice that directly results in the "walling off" of my horizon. The Visual Impact Assessment (VIA) admits these impacts are "severe to devastating," yet the proposal offers no meaningful mitigation for my property.
3. Loss of Privacy and Overbearing Visual Bulk
3.1 The sheer scale of a 10-storey structure on the ridgeline creates an unacceptable "sense of enclosure" for my property.
• Overlooking: With 53 apartments replacing a low-density footprint, my private open spaces will be subject to direct overlooking from dozens of balconies. This destroys the fundamental privacy of my family’s backyard.
• Visual Looming: The height of the building—exceeding 33 metres—will dominate the skyward view from 75B Muston Street, creating a "looming" effect that is entirely inconsistent with the intended R3 medium-density transition and the character of the street.
4. Health and Wellbeing: Silica Dust and Acoustic Stress
4.1 A project of this magnitude, involving a 10-metre deep excavation into hard sandstone, poses a direct threat to my family’s health and wellbeing:
• Respiratory Risk: Sandstone excavation generates significant fine particulate matter (silica dust). As we are located directly behind and downwind of the site, our home will be the primary receptor for this dust. This is of grave concern for the health of my six-year-old son.
• Acoustic Stress: The prolonged use of 10-tonne hydraulic rock breakers will create a high-decibel environment for months on end. This is particularly concerning for the ability to maintain a healthy home environment and the mental health of residents subjected to constant vibration.
5. Structural Risk and Ground Integrity
5.1 My property at 75B Muston Street is built on the same continuous sandstone ridge as the Development Site. Sandstone is a highly efficient conductor of vibration.
• Vibration Damage: The use of heavy rock-breaking equipment poses a direct structural risk to the foundations and masonry of my home.
• Zone of Influence: The Geotechnical Report admits the "zone of influence" for potential structural damage extends up to 30 metres from the site perimeter. As a direct neighbour, I have no confidence in "preliminary" mitigation measures and demand a site-specific, independent geotechnical study to guarantee the safety of my property.
6. Incompatibility with Balmoral Townscape Character
6.1 The proposal is a direct assault on the Balmoral Townscape Character Statement, which defines this area as a delicate "amphitheatre" where the ridgeline and upper slopes should contain "one and two storey" housing.
• Breach of Scale: A 10-storey tower is a gross departure from this character, replacing a consistent residential fabric with a "bulky mega dwelling."
• Topographical Destruction: The Statement mandates the avoidance of "excessive excavation." Hollowing out the ridge for a 106-car basement permanently destroys the natural landform that forms the amphitheatre’s base.
7. Traffic, Access and Pedestrian Safety
7.1 The local street and lane network is not suited to this level of intensification.
• Redan Lane Hazards: Forcing waste collection and heavy vehicles into Redan Lane creates an operational conflict with the 90+ pedestrians who use the lane daily.
• Sub-standard Access: The TIA admits the primary "safe" walking route via Melaleuca Lane has a path only 600–700mm wide. This is technically insufficient for prams or residents with mobility aids, proving the site is unsuitable for this density.
8. Scenic Protection, Heritage and Vegetation
8.1 This site falls within the Mosman Scenic Protection Area. The proposal shifts the balance too far toward built form by removing eight trees and a significant group (G1), including a Category A Kentia Palm, simply to accommodate the basement. This destroys the "leafy character" identified as a defining quality of the Balmoral slopes.
9. Affordable Housing Pathway and Social Impact
9.1 I do not oppose affordable housing, but it must not be used to justify unconscionable planning impacts. Furthermore, the proposal’s use of "poor doors" (inferior access via a service lane for affordable units) and tiny bedsits is a regressive design that fails to provide genuine public benefit or social cohesion.
10. Conclusion
10.1 For the reasons set out above, I respectfully submit that the Development Application should be refused. The proposal represents an excessive and unsuitable response to a sensitive Mosman site. The concerns identified—specifically the total loss of iconic views, the health risks to my child from silica dust, and the structural risks to my home—go to the very heart of residential amenity.
10.2 Furthermore, the blatant disregard for the Balmoral Townscape Character Statement renders this development a fundamental threat to the local environment and broader public interest. It is clear that the "affordable housing" component is a tokenistic inclusion. Far from providing a genuine public benefit, the affordable housing pathway is being used as a strategic "free ride" to bypass local planning controls and maximise developer profits at the expense of established residents.
Sincerely,
Jiang Qian 75B Muston Street, Mosman

SSD-93020230 at 40-48 Redan Street Mosman
OBJECT TO DEVELOPMENT
Dear Ms Ross
I am the joint owner and long term resident of 1/77Muston street..I have lived in the area since we bought the property 26 years ago in 2000. I haven’t lived in a residence as long as this.
This was to be our forever home, never in our wildest dreams did we imagine such wicked development be possible allowed to even begin,with proportions utterly reprehensible.

The proposed development is complex, supported by hundreds of pages. I am not an architect so I have asked for help..
There is no pretence of independence in these reports. They are plainly prepared in support of the applicant and not to provide a balanced fair or objective assessment..
Out property is directly opposite the site 20 meters away down hill and we will be directly affected by the impacts on views to the harbour,North Head, Manly, Balgowlah Heights, Clontarf, Balmoral beach,and Middle Head. Basically zero views if this proposal goes ahead.

This development should be on the ridge line ,which is on military Road not Balmoral Slope..

I object to this application, most people do, because it represents an excessive and unsustainable development for the site and setting, and our home will never be the same again.
Natural justice is not served by this process.

Balmoral Slopes and Redan Street with surrounding streets are low scale residential, 2-3 storeys. A 10 storey building with. 2 basement and 106 car spaces is an abrupt escalation in height and bulk. This building is too prominent.
The site falls within the Mosman Scenic Protection Area an integral part of Sydney Harbour landscape. Recognised in both State and Council planning since the 1960s.
The proposal will alter our existing views and privacy dramatically. ZERO.
We have no north facing windows and have always enjoyed the morning sun and with this proposal will be lucky to get 1 hour a day from the east. The complete loss of privacy is utterly catastrophic
It has caused great heartache and stress on me causing me to be forced to take sleeping tablets to get a decent nights sleep.
Much less the stress on one’s marriage.
The loss of value on our property $1 million is devastating not only for us but also our children. My husband is 80 and that loss of value will alter the choice of care in his older age.
What an utter disgrace to blight Balmoral Slopes with this development.
We will be forced to live in a dark sunless apartment for most of the day.
Regards
Merrideth Stone
1/77 Muston Street
Mosman.

Objection to Development Application SSD 93020230
40-48 Redan Street, Mosman

I am a resident, Dianne Essey at Unit 11 76 Muston Street Mosman and have lived in the area for the past 9 years. I strongly oppose the proposed development and firmly believe it would irreparably damage the unique character and liveability of our neighbourhood. The scale and nature of this application are entirely inappropriate for the area.

Although the development is presented as a means to provide affordable housing, it will in fact deliver high-end luxury apartments in one of Australia’s most expensive suburbs on the Balmoral Slopes. These units are beyond the financial reach of 98% of the population, and the proposal includes a segregated rear entrance for so-called affordable units that the ordinary workers will use. This approach is not only inappropriate, but also inconsistent with Australia’s values of social inclusion.

The site represents environmental and structural risks. The scale of excavation of up to 10 metres into sandstone to the site boundaries raises serious concerns about structural risk, including ground movement, vibration, and potential damage to neighbouring properties. The design appears to force the site to suite the building, rather than respecting the natural topography.

The proposed development would dominate and negatively impact the adjoining heritage-listed properties at 36 and 38 Redan Street. Furthermore, it would erode the established character of the Scenic Protection Area, where minimising visual intrusion is a key objective.

Access and safety are also major concerns. Redan Lane is narrow, lacks footpaths and is unsuitable for increased traffic, council trucks and pedestrian use.

Construction impacts would further disrupt access to the well-used Upper Almora Street pedestrian pathway to Balmoral Beach.

Local infrastructure is already under significant strain due to the increasing population in the area including significant traffic congestion we already experience on a daily basis.

Increased density from a large scale building in a steep and constrained location raises legitimate concerns and emergency access and service capacity.

The proposed increase in density, resulting from a large-scale building on a steep and tightly constrained site, raises significant concerns regarding both emergency access and the capacity of local services. The challenging topography and limited space would likely impede first responders in an emergency and place additional strain on already stretched infrastructure.

Furthermore, the proposal appears to be non-compliant with current planning controls. It exceeds the permitted building height and relies on the use of planning variations. Additionally, it does not satisfy the requirement to be within 400 metres of the Mosman centre when measured by safe and legitimate pedestrian routes, further highlighting its inappropriateness for this location.

In light of all these points, I urge that this application be refused. This proposal constitutes an excessive and inappropriate development within a sensitive and iconic part of Mosman. Approving such a development would not only undermine the unique character, amenity and heritage values that define our neighbourhood, but would also jeopardise the liveability and legacy of Mosman to all Australians who live and visit here. Our community deserves thoughtful planning that truly respects its history, environment and people—not a development that threatens to irreversibly damage what makes this place so special for the sake of lining greedy developers’ pockets under the guise of “affordable housing”. This is clearly not in the spirit of the policy and is very evident for all to see.

Dear Senior Planning Officer,

I refer to State Significant Development Application SSD-930202230, which proposes a 10-storey high-rise building comprising 53 apartments, including two basement levels with parking for 106 cars.

I am a long-term Mosman resident of 45 years and the current owner of an apartment in Almora Street, located around the corner from the proposed development. My property, and many others nearby, will be directly impacted by increased noise, traffic, and the broader consequences of this proposal.

This development is causing genuine concern and distress among long-term residents who care deeply about Mosman, its character, its heritage, and its unique relationship to the harbour. For many, this is not simply a planning application, but a proposal that would permanently alter a place they have lived in and contributed to for decades.

However, beyond that concern, this objection is grounded in clear and substantive planning issues.

I object to this application because:

* Excessive height, bulk, and visual dominance
The proposed building introduces a scale of development that is wholly inconsistent with its surroundings. Its height and bulk will dominate the streetscape and surrounding properties, rather than integrate with the natural slope and established built form.

* Incompatibility with established local character
Balmoral and the broader Mosman area are defined by low-rise development that responds to topography and landscape. This proposal represents an abrupt and unjustified escalation in density and scale.

* Conflict with Scenic Protection provisions
The site is located within a Scenic Protection area intended to preserve the visual relationship between the Mosman slopes and Sydney Harbour, including key view corridors.
A development of this magnitude risks interrupting these views and introducing a visually dominant built form that is not secondary to the landscape.

* Impact on heritage character, including Redan Street
Redan Street and adjoining properties contribute to a cohesive and historically significant streetscape. The scale and form of this proposal are not sympathetic to that context and risk eroding its integrity.

* Transport, traffic, and infrastructure mismatch
Parking for 106 vehicles indicates a development heavily reliant on private cars. This location is not supported by high-capacity public transport and is not suited to this level of density. Increased traffic will place additional pressure on local roads and raise safety and congestion concerns.

* Inappropriate scale relative to infrastructure capacity
State Significant Developments are expected to demonstrate strategic merit, including proximity to transport and services capable of supporting increased density. This site does not exhibit those characteristics to a degree that would justify a development of this scale.

* Inappropriate location for affordable housing at this scale
While the delivery of affordable housing is important, it must be located in areas appropriate for increased density and supported by adequate infrastructure.

The Balmoral slopes are a constrained, highly sensitive coastal environment with existing congestion challenges and limited transport capacity. This location is not suited to a development of this scale.

There are more appropriate areas within Mosman where affordable housing could be delivered closer to transport, services, and existing centres without compromising sensitive landscapes or established residential character.

* Bypassing of local planning scrutiny and significant impact on residents
It is of concern that this development is being assessed via the State Significant Development pathway, effectively bypassing the level of scrutiny typically applied by Mosman Council.
Local residents are required to comply with strict controls designed to protect views, streetscape, and neighbourhood character, yet this proposal seeks to depart significantly from those same principles.
This creates an inequitable planning outcome and risks undermining confidence in the planning system.
The impacts on surrounding residents will be significant and enduring. Many stand to lose key views, experience a substantial reduction in amenity, and face a fundamental change to the character of their homes and neighbourhood.

These are not marginal effects, they go directly to the liveability and value of properties in this area. Such losses, imposed without the usual level of local scrutiny, represent a profound and lasting consequence for residents.

* Design quality and façade outcome
The proposed façade lacks the articulation and variation expected in this setting, resulting in a building that reads as a large, dominant form rather than a carefully resolved residential development.
Given the visual prominence of the site, the overall presentation is not consistent with the level of design quality or contextual sensitivity expected on the Balmoral slopes.

In conclusion:
I am not opposed to development in Mosman. Thoughtful, well-scaled projects have contributed positively to the area and demonstrate that growth can be achieved while respecting local character and community expectations.

Recent developments, such as Woolworths Metro, the apartments at the top of Avenue Road, and projects near the Council precinct, show that it is possible to deliver new housing and amenity, in a way that integrates with the surrounding environment.

This proposal does not achieve that balance.

This proposal fails to demonstrate sufficient merit to justify its scale and departure from established planning controls.

It is inconsistent with the character of Mosman, conflicts with Scenic Protection objectives, places pressure on infrastructure not designed for this level of density, and risks long-term impacts on heritage, views, and community amenity.

Once constructed, these impacts cannot be undone.

I strongly urge that this application be refused.

Sincerely,
Kimberly Knox

Objection to 40-48 Redan Street, Mosman Development Proposal

SSD – 93020230 March 30th 2026

Introduction
My family and I live at 14 Balmoral Avenue, 70 metres diagonally across from the proposed development on Redan.
I am not equipped to fully understand the many breaches of planning compliance that are so well articulated and compelling in other objections on this submission portal.
My concerns will simply come from a common-sense perspective of a neighbouring resident and actually for many, many residents of Mosman who will be indirectly impacted by this proposal in their daily lives. This leads me to my first point:

Safety and Traffic;
I acknowledge and support the cases put forward on the inadequacy of Redan Lane to support both the construction and on going traffic impact. Broadening this impact, there are two major points of accessing Redan Avenue and Redan lane;
The junction between Almora Street and Military road
The junction between Raglan Street and Military road
Both are currently huge pinch points at any time of day from volume of traffic whether joining or leaving the Military Road. I have observed on may occasions dangerous driving and enormous congestion as motorists queue for long periods for ingress and egress of these major junctions. If each of the current residences to be demolished have c.2 car parking spaces, that would be a reduction of c.10 cars but the development proposes 106 car parking spaces giving a net increase of residential traffic of 96 cars. This would significantly add to the above junctions’ huge bottlenecks and also the sheer volume of traffic on the Military road in Mosman, particularly the traffic lights at Spit Junction. Add to this, home delivery vehicles, trades, visitors etc and you create enormous strain and congestion on a road system never designed for the current volume of traffic, never mind a further increase. I also strongly believe this will have a material safety impact for the whole of Mosman’s residences traversing the Military road and its associated arterial roads which will inevitably become dangerous rat runs.

Excessive height and scale.
A 10 storey building has to be seen as high density overdevelopment. The offer of affordable housing is absolute lip service and completely a means to an end for a luxury development. The landscape character of Mosman has been protected for generations and whilst I am supportive of change to enable progress, the excessive height and scale is driven by a profit and loss account as opposed to any housing, community or heritage benefits.

Conclusion
As I stated at the start, I cannot add further to the well-articulated and undeniable arguments in other submissions of breaches of Planning consents. The development is driven by greed from developers focused on their bottom line. I acknowledge this is the nature of business, but it needs its constraints. Just as oil and mining companies have to be sensitive to the local environment and communities, if this development is approved it will be travesty of historical proportions for the Mosman community that could not be undone.
I would hasten to add I suspect the owners of these development proposals do not live in this vicinity and they would be the first to complain should something of this nature be built in their neighbourhood.
Whilst you review all the technical aspects of this development, I ask you to come back to my very first point: let common sense and common decency also guide your decision making.
I therefore respectfully ask you to reject this proposal.

Development Application SSD-93020230 at 40-48 Redan Street, Mosman, NSW 2088

I appreciate and thank you for your time to read my submission
For the past 15 years I’ve had the pleasure of living in the suburb of Mosman. During that time, I’ve witnessed many houses, some old and neglected, others old but rather beautiful in design and style, demolished and replaced by new dwellings. Some enriched the street-scape, others did the opposite due to radical differences in architectural style to the neighbouring properties.
However, they all pale in comparison to the proposed development above.
Never before have I seen such an aggressive attack on a suburban area. The only word I could think of when confronted with the visual images of this monstrosity was ‘brutalist architecture’!
This design shows complete disregard to its surrounding environment and neighbouring properties, some of them heritage listed. The proposed development is of such a magnitude in visual impact that it negatively affects the whole hillside.
How can this be allowed to proceed? The projected images of the development represent a monolith of obscene proportions that would tower over its neighbours and the hill slope as an ominous sign of worse to come.
There are other aspects of this development that trouble me deeply, however let me start with the obvious one, the sheer size of the proposed development. At a proposed height of 33.4 metres the development exceeds the maximum legal height of 28.6 metres (which is inclusive of the height bonus for providing affordable housing) by 4.8 metres or 16.78%. The justification for the height violation is nothing else but clever spin.
The width and height of the development would create a visual block to neighbouring properties and of course will also affect wind flow and exposure to light and sunshine to the surrounding properties. The proposed gap in the middle of the development, cynically named ‘relieve view’, would be a sad and depressing reminder to the neighbouring property owners of the views they once had. I wonder how it will affect the value of their properties?
The plans for the development indicate that here will be deep excavations into the sandstone cliff. May God help the adjacent properties, some of them heritage listed, with the resulting damage to their properties due to vibration from jackhammering. The excavations would be partly in order to accommodate over 100 cars in two basement parking spaces. This could lead to serious issues with traffic flow in the area.
There is a proposed secondary entrance to the development from Redan Lane to the affordable housing units. That wouldn’t be segregation now, would it? Or a ‘poor door’ arrangement? Another issue with this entrance from Redan Lane is the fact that the lane is narrow, only 4 metres wide, and has no footpath. It is also used for waste collection. There would definitely be grave safety and security issues here if the development were to go ahead.
There are many other objections to be raised to stop this proposed development. However, I trust that sound judgement will prevail in this matter and the authorities come to the conclusion that this proposed development breaches fundamental controls and is not compliant.
Irreversible damage will be done if developments that take liberties and do not comply with regulations are permitted to proceed. It opens the door for even more opportunistic and damaging developments that we have to live with.

See attachments. In addition, a surveyor's report is being finalised and will be submitted soon. (The two weeks objection period obviously has given little time to digest and respond to the proposed development, hence the delay.) Note: the attached photomantage was prepared by a professional architect who was retained for this purpose.