My wife Judy and I live at 2 Moruben Road, Mosman - a heritage-listed stone residence known locally as the Tower House or Castle — and have done so for many years. We are part of the same Federation-era precinct that this development would permanently and irreversibly overwhelm. We are not opposed to development. We are opposed to the exploitation of planning provisions designed for a different purpose to justify a luxury tower in a heritage streetscape.
What is proposed at 40–48 Redan Street is, in my assessment, one of the most structurally opportunistic development applications I have encountered. The applicant has pulled every available lever in the State planning system simultaneously — the Low and Mid-Rise Housing SEPP, a 30% affordable housing height bonus, a Clause 4.6 variation, and the SSD pathway — to extract a building height five times what the Mosman LEP permits. The most telling detail is that a Clause 4.6 variation is still required even after all of those concessions have been applied. This application has exhausted everything the planning system offers and then asked for more.
The affordable housing justification does not bear scrutiny. Eleven units out of 53 - 8 of them bedsits tucked along Redan Lane, accessed through a segregated 'poor door' entrance separate from the market building, reverting to full market housing after 15 years. The community is being asked to accept the permanent destruction of a significant heritage precinct in exchange for that. It is not a reasonable trade-off.
The impacts documented in my attached objection are severe and permanent: irreversible damage to one of Mosman's most intact Federation precincts; conflict with the Scenic Protection Area; elimination of views to Manly, North Head, South Head and Middle Harbour; near full-day overshadowing for Redan Lane on 21 June; permanent loss of privacy through close-range elevated overlooking; a canyon-effect acoustic environment along Redan Lane; and structural traffic overflow onto roads not built for a 53-apartment building. None of these impacts can be conditioned away. They are inherent in the scale of the building.
The Panel is not required to approve everything the planning framework technically permits. It is required to assess the public interest. This proposal does not serve it, and I urge the Panel to refuse it.

I strongly object to SSD-93020230 — a proposed 12-level, 53-apartment luxury residential building at 40–48 Redan Street, Mosman, which would rise to approximately five times the maximum height permitted under the Mosman Local Environmental Plan. (Please refer to the attachment for my formal objection).

The applicant has stacked every available State-level planning mechanism: the Low and Mid-Rise Housing SEPP, a 30% infill affordable housing bonus, a Clause 4.6 variation, and the SSD pathway to reach this height. The fact that a Clause 4.6 variation is still required after all these concessions is telling: this proposal exceeds the planning framework even by the most generous available standards.

The affordable housing justification does not withstand scrutiny. Of 53 dwellings, only 11 are nominally affordable – eight of which are bedsits accessed via a segregated back-lane 'poor door' entrance, separate from the market apartments. The obligation expires after 15 years, after which all units may revert to market housing. This is not genuine housing diversity. It is the exploitation of affordable housing provisions as a planning lever.

The proposal gives rise to multiple serious and unacceptable impacts, each of which independently warrants refusal: permanent and irreversible damage to one of Mosman's most intact Federation-era heritage precincts; direct conflict with the Scenic Protection Area controls; elimination of iconic views to Manly, North Head, South Head and Middle Harbour for properties along Redan Lane, Muston Street and Almora Street; effective total devastating solar loss for dwellings in Redan Lane on 21 June; severe and irremediable privacy impacts through close-range elevated overlooking; a permanent canyon-effect acoustic environment along Redan Lane; and structural traffic and parking overflow onto a local road network not designed for a development of this scale. These impacts are permanent. They cannot be resolved by conditions or design modifications. They are a direct consequence of the scale of this very high-end luxury apartment complex – designed for an ultra-high-net-worth, exclusive target market.

Having regard to s.4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 - and in particular to consistency with applicable planning instruments, the likely impacts on the natural and built environment, and the public interest - I submit that this application should be refused.

This is a high net worth boomer luxury apartment development masquerading as addressing affordable housing and SSD.
this development has NOTHING to do with addressing affordable housing and is nothing to do with state significant.
Rather it is a blatant manipulation of the SSD process and its intents - to create a development play catered to wealthy boomers seeking Balmoral Beach views.

a few comments:
a) The overarching SSD process has been linked to close proximity to public transport corridors and creating "infill" opportunity whereby existing public infrastructure can be more efficiently used. However to show what a farce this development proposal is - parking for 106 cars is incorporated in the development being over 2 cars per apartment. That is, this has nothing to do with utilization of pubic transport corridors or efficient use of existing infrastructure. Rather it is to cater to the wealthy boomer 2-car retirees. Indeed it is simply overloading the existing clogged road infrastructure with more vehicles and congestion. The building with its count of apartments and its clearly designed car friendly approach - will only introduce additional traffic and clogging of already clogged lower north shore road network. Already military road is not capable of handing traffic in peak hours. The approval of this development will only open the way to this and future developments - creating significant further ongoing load of car traffic in the area.

b) the building is totally out of keeping with the surrounding residential suburbs. the nearest developments are all 2 and possibly 3 story residential housing. Instead. This development will be 10 story and will lead to destruction of the fabric of what is an essential federation suburb. it will overshadow and dwarf all family houses surrounding. it will dominate the skyline and cast shadows over many heritage listed houses in the area. it is not just this development, but other developments that will follow on from the approval of this development.

c) Its luxury boomer apartment development masquerading as a SSD is further evidenced by the key features of the property. Firstly, only a token number of affordable apartments are included in the development. Secondly the luxury views are reserved for the front facing non-affordable apartments. In effect creating a two class development and society. This affordable housing component of the development is an inconvenient token thrown to attempt to manipulate the SSD process.

In summary this is a manipulation of the SSD process.
it is a luxury block of flats with a token "poor" component.
It is positioned as "infill" of existing infrastructure - however it is actually just loading additional vehicles and congestion onto an already congested Miltary road and surrounds.
it will lead to further such developments - destroying the fabric of a key feature of Sydney - its federation suburbs and houses.

I feel that the project location is entirely unsuited to the designated area. Apart from being out of visual character for the vicinity, I feel it would better suited adjacent to a transport route with better access to shops and transport. I acknowledge the current necessity for higher density housing, but think it will cause social discord in the vicinity and of course the very adverse impact on nearby home views which will also impact negatively on resale market values. If the project goes ahead it will solve some current housing issues but most certainly create more negative issues in the short and long term. Surely a more suitable and practical location can be sourced. Hopefully common sense will prevail. Kind regards, Rob Henderson

This proposed development is of excessive height and bulk and is completely incongruous with the character and heritage aspects of Mosman. It will dwarf the surrounding residential housing and will be a permanent eyesore.
This area forms part of the scenic landscape leading to Balmoral Beach, an area used and enjoyed by many not only for its natural beauty but for the character of the built environment. A development of this scale and bulk will ruin the amenity for local residents and many others who come to Mosman to make use of local attractions.
Developments should be in line with the nature of the surrounding area, not of a scale more suited to commercial city areas.

ATTN: Edwina Ross
Senior Planning Officer
[email protected]

Development Application SSD-93020230 at 40–48 Muston St, Mosman - OBJECTION

Dear Ms Ross,
I’m writing to object to the proposed development at 40–48 Redan Street. I support
growth that genuinely improves our community, but this proposal creates serious and
avoidable impacts for the people who already live here.
> Safety for local residents:
Redan Lane is already unsafe — no footpath, tight two-way traffic, and heavy use by
families walking to Mosman Public School and Mosman High School. Adding more
vehicles and activity without proper pedestrian infrastructure puts children and
everyday walkers at real risk.
> Privacy Issues:
The design includes elevated windows and balconies that look straight into
neighbouring yards and living spaces. There’s not enough separation or screening, and
the layout doesn’t reflect even basic privacy expectations for surrounding homes.
> Overshadowing and natural light-flow
The proposed height will cast long shadows over many surrounding homes, reducing
natural light in both indoor and outdoor areas. This directly conflicts with planning
guidelines that require developments to protect solar access for neighbours.
> Significant view loss
The scale of the building would permanently remove established views that are part of
the area’s character and everyday amenity. The proposal doesn’t demonstrate fair
view-sharing or any real sensitivity to the existing landscape.
> Noise Impacts
Construction noise and ongoing activity will significantly increase disturbance for
nearby homes. With properties sitting so close to the site, noise spillover into early
mornings, evenings, and weekends is almost guaranteed — and the plans don’t oƯer
meaningful mitigation.
> Recommended Changes:
The design needs a rethink. Under the LMRH, the tallest buildings should sit between
the Post Office land and the upper side of Muston Street, with heights stepping down
naturally toward Balmoral.
The Redan Street section should be capped at five levels maximum to maintain
sunlight, privacy, and some level of outlook for existing homes while still allowing
balanced development across the precinct.
> Summary
For these reasons, I request that the development application be refused or significantly
amended. In its current form, the proposal doesn’t reflect responsible,
community-minded planning and would create long-term negative impacts for local
residents.

I have lived in Mosman for 75 years. I am familiar with the area of the planned development 40-48 Redan Street because my husband's cousin lived at 35 Almora Street, corner of Redan Lane, and for many years and I delivered Meals-On-Wheels to residents in Redan Street using Redan Lane for easier access to their properties. I object to the development for the following reasons.
The 10 storey concrete block is inconsistent with the surrounding neighbourhood buildings. We call this area Balmoral slopes and it was considered important enough to include it in the Mosman Scenic Protection Area. Houses have been renovated, gardens landscaped, new apartment buildings are 3 storeys near Military Road and the private girl's school closer to Balmoral Beach was rebuilt to blend in with the contours of the area. This proposed development has no redeeming features that connect it to the surrounding area or the local character that is Mosman.
Affect on nearby properties. I have heard residents directly affected by this proposed development speak at public meetings. I can sympathise with their distress at the thought of a massive 10 storey concrete block looming over their properties. Once they had an open vista, perhaps harbour views, gardens to look at, thoughts of never being built out, privacy. Now they have loss of privacy, 10 storeys of neighbours or maybe a concrete wall, overshadowing, loss of landscaping and at least 100 extra cars to contend with.
Excavation for foundations and car parking. Will the excavation cause movement affecting surrounding properties? What recourse do property owners have? This is apparently a very deep excavation into sandstone. SMH article (27/03/26) reports on sections of a heritage building in Rose Bay collapsing due to excavation works. The developer said it was a "freak accident" due to "flawed geotechnical advice" and they had followed all the required guidelines! And still it happened. Same article reports houses in Botany and Kensington having to be evacuated due to nearby excavations "compromising the integrity of the properties". This could happen in Redan Street and surrounds.
What is the trade off for Mosman with this Redan Street development? I see nothing positive for Mosman. There seems to be nothing given back to the area if this development goes ahead. The schools are full (not everyone in apartments are empty nesters), traffic is already increasing (remember we have Balmoral and the Zoo), parking is difficult and public transport does its best. The sewage system is old and much work has been done in my area (north of Ourimbah Road) recently repairing collapsed pipework deep in the ground. Will it hold up with all these extra bathrooms etc? We have seen mains burst in Cremorne this month.
In my opinion this proposed development is a gift to developers from the state government to the detriment of the residents of Mosman.
I'm sure others will address the affordable housing part of this development. For me affordable housing in Mosman is surely an oxymoron.

I strongly object to the proposed tower development at 40-48 Redan St, Mosman. As a resident of 32 Redan Street for 11 years, where I live with my partner, our home is four lots south of the site and has frontage onto Redan Street, with car access to our double garage via Redan Lane.

While I am not against development in principle, it should fit the location and preserve the area's character. The proposed design, SSD-93020230, is demonstrably excessive in height, bulk, and scale, leading to much higher density for both residents and vehicles.

Unsympathetic Design Concerns
The plan for a 10-storey building with two basement levels and 106 parking spaces does not match the current streetscape, which traditionally features low-rise homes with large setbacks and landscaped gardens. Adjacent properties, including the heritage semidetached houses at 36 and 38 Redan Street, would suffer from loss of light, overshadowing, visual disruption, and reduced amenity. Similarly, properties at 50 and 52 Redan Street would be overwhelmed by the massive scale of the new building.

Community View Disruption
Our area offers stunning views of Middle Harbour, Manly, and Sydney Heads, enjoyed by residents, numerous visitors and tourists. The disproportionate scale in terms of height and width of this development will obliterate these views for not only residents but a far greater number of people who visit the area.

Heritage Considerations
Balmoral slopes are recognised for their heritage value and fall within the Mosman Scenic Protection Area, an important part of the Sydney Harbour landscape. Since the 1960s, both state and local authorities have protected Mosman’s foreshore. The Scenic Protection Zone exists for preservation; changing it for one unsuitable development cannot be justified.

Impact on Traffic and Safety
Other developments are also proposed for Redan Street, Redan Lane, Upper Almora Street, and Muston Street. Approving all of these would bring in far more residents and vehicles than Redan Lane could handle—it is already too narrow for two vehicles and lacks a footpath for pedestrians. With 53 new dwellings and increased car numbers, pedestrian safety will be severely compromised. Our property is located immediately adjacent to the dog leg bend in Redan Lane and waste management trucks and other large vehicles struggle to manoeuvre the double bend. Two regular sedans cannot pass this bend and reversing by one vehicle is necessary. Additional traffic would make these movements impossible. Walking or driving we currently exit our garage with extreme care due to poor visibility; a “fish-eye” traffic mirror providing only meagre assistance with visibility. More vehicles, pedestrians, and construction activity would create serious safety risks that must not be ignored.

Exploitation of Affordable Housing Guidelines
The inclusion of eleven so-called affordable housing components should be called out as a blatant and cynical exploitation of guidelines to expand the scope and scale of the development. I understand the NSW Infill Affordable Housing pathway allows a 30% height increase if 15% of apartments can be deemed "affordable" for a minimum of 15 years. This equates to 11 of the 53 apartments. After 15 years, those units can be reassigned by the developer to whatever category they want.

Excavation, Sandstone, and Groundwater Risks
The proposal calls for deep excavation for two basement parking levels (106 spaces), raising concerns about altered water flow, especially given existing stormwater runoff issues in Redan Lane and a nearby sinkhole. Rainfall already increases runoff, and the planned excavation could make this problem worse.

In summary, the proposed development for 40-48 Redan Street should be rejected. I appreciate the opportunity to submit my objections.