I am writing to formally lodge my strongest objection to the State Significant Development application SSD-93020230 for the site at 40-48 Redan Street. I was a resident at 46 Redan Street for 40 years. Over these four decades, I have seen this street maintain its identity as a quiet, suburban sanctuary. The proposal to demolish five existing dwellings—including my immediate neighbors—and replace them with a 10-story tower is a catastrophic overdevelopment that ignores the fundamental character of this community.
My objection is based on the following critical grounds:
1. Gross Non-Compliance with Local Planning Standards
This proposal seeks to bypass Mosman Council’s local controls by using the "In-fill Affordable Housing" pathway. While I recognize the need for housing, a 30% height and floor space ratio (FSR) uplift in a quiet suburban street is entirely disproportionate. A 10-story building is not a "mid-rise" addition; it is a high-rise imposition that sets a dangerous precedent for the total destruction of the Redan Street streetscape.
2. Excessive Visual Bulk and Heritage Impact
The sheer scale of two 10-story towers atop a three-story podium is an assault on the visual amenity of our neighborhood. This site is within a Scenic Protection Area, yet this design offers no sympathy to the topography or the surrounding low-rise homes. Furthermore, the demolition of Federation-era homes at numbers 40, 42, and 44 erases a century of local history that can never be recovered.
3. Devastating Impact on Solar Access and Privacy
As the resident of 46 Redan Street, my home and private open space will be directly impacted by the massive shadow footprint of this development. After 40 years of enjoying natural light, this 10-story wall will plunge neighboring properties into darkness for significant portions of the day. The "overlooking" from 53 new apartments—many featuring balconies directed toward the existing homes—represents a total loss of the privacy I have maintained for four decades.
4. Safety and Infrastructure Strain
Redan Street is a narrow residential road, not a thoroughfare designed for high-density traffic. The addition of 106 basement car spaces and the associated construction vehicles will create a permanent safety hazard and a traffic bottleneck. The reliance on Redan Lane for affordable housing access is also poorly conceived and will lead to significant logistical issues in an already cramped laneway.
5. Inadequate Transition and "Poor Door" Design
There is no "step-down" transition in this design to respect the existing residential boundary. Furthermore, the clustering of affordable units with separate laneway access is an exclusionary design practice that does not support a cohesive community.
Conclusion
I have invested 40 years of my life into this street. To see it targeted for such an aggressive, high-density "super site" is distressing. I urge the Department to reject this application and demand a design that respects the height limits and residential amenity of the Redan Street community.
I look forward to your response and request to be notified of any public hearings regarding this development.
Sincerely,
David

As a Mosman resident, I am increasingly concerned about the scale and nature of the developments being proposed across our suburb, and this application is a clear example of why.

A 10-storey building with 53 apartments in this location is simply too much. It is completely out of scale with the surrounding low-rise streetscape and will dominate the area in a way that permanently alters the character of the neighbourhood. This isn’t a gentle increase in density. It is a significant and jarring change.

I am also troubled by how this development is being presented. The proposal exceeds the existing height controls, yet it is being described as “compliant” through a planning variation. That does not feel transparent to the community, and it undermines confidence in the process.

The construction itself brings genuine risk. Excavating up to 10 metres into sandstone, right up to the boundaries, is a major undertaking. The potential for ground movement, vibration and damage to neighbouring properties cannot be dismissed, and residents should not be expected to carry that risk. Proposed parking for 106 car spaces highlights the enormity of the proposed development.

Traffic and access are real concerns as well. Redan Lane is narrow, just over four metres wide, with no footpaths, and is not designed to handle increased traffic, service vehicles, waste collection or emergency access. Making the affordable housing entry from the laneway highlights significant safety implications.

There are also important heritage and character concerns with this development. Redan Street has a distinct feel, and the nearby heritage listed homes at 36 and 38 Redan Street will be completely overshadowed by a development of this size. Once that setting is compromised, it cannot be undone. Of course, the destruction of five Federation homes to make way for this development will negatively impact the ongoing nature and character of the street and remove yet another slice of history.

The impact on the Scenic Protection Zone is another serious issue. This area exists to protect key views to and from Sydney and Middle Harbour. A 10-storey building of this scale conflicts with the intent of that protection and risks permanently altering those views.

There are also broader infrastructure questions. With limited local emergency services, including only one fire station servicing the area, it is hard to see how the existing infrastructure can adequately support a development of this size.

The affordable housing component also raises concerns. Separate access via the laneway feels like a “snub” arrangement – the “ poor” can only use the back door access via the laneway, whilst the extremely wealthy will use the main front entrance in Redan Street. How does this reflect genuine inclusivity? This development is not about providing affordable housing.
The proposal offers 40 three-bedroom residences and two four-bedroom penthouse residences with unobstructed Balmoral harbour views – this development is aimed at the wealthy, and the 15% affordable elements ( some only 57m2 ) are a token measure to enable the proposal to slide in under the State Government’s Significant Development.

Finally, the consultation process has felt rushed and unclear. The exhibition period has been limited, documentation has been difficult to navigate, and I, like many in the community, have been unaware of the consultation sessions. There are also questions about whether the site truly meets the safe walking distance requirement under the LMR framework.

In a nutshell, this proposal feels like an overreach. It places too much strain on local infrastructure, compromises neighbourhood character, and sets a concerning precedent for future development in Mosman.

For these reasons, I strongly object.

I write to formally object to the proposed development at 40–48 Redan Street, Mosman. The proposal is inconsistent with the established heritage character of the area, fails to meet key planning controls, and will result in significant and irreversible impacts on the local environment, streetscape, and residential amenity.

Redan Street is a designated Heritage Road, with its verge also heritage-listed, forming an important and protected streetscape. The proposed development is positioned immediately adjacent to heritage-listed properties at 36 and 38 Redan Street, effectively placing it between two recognised heritage items and behind a protected heritage road reserve. This context makes the scale and form of the proposal fundamentally incompatible with the surrounding heritage setting.

The site is also located within a Scenic Protection Area, a statutory planning control that requires the preservation of identified scenic values. Development within such an area must not compromise important public views. The proposed twin 12-storey towers would rise prominently above the Balmoral slopes and be visible from Balmoral Beach, the harbour foreshore, and surrounding public vantage points. The developer’s own Visual Impact Assessment confirms that the proposal will materially impact these views. On this basis, the development is inconsistent with, and potentially contrary to, the applicable scenic protection provisions.

The proposed parking provision is inadequate for a development of this scale and likely resident profile. The allocation of 106 spaces for 53 predominantly large, luxury apartments will not meet demand and will result in overspill parking into Redan Street and surrounding local roads, which are not designed to accommodate sustained increases in vehicle load. This will lead to ongoing congestion, reduced accessibility, and a permanent erosion of local amenity.

Recent experience on Redan Street demonstrates the validity of these concerns. A development of only six units resulted in the full occupation of available on-street parking for extended periods during construction. The current proposal, being substantially larger, will generate significantly greater disruption. The construction phase alone is likely to severely restrict access to Redan Street for an extended duration, while the long-term traffic and parking impacts will be enduring and irreversible.

Construction access arrangements further compound these impacts. Reliance on a single driveway for all construction vehicles and deliveries will result in frequent obstruction of Redan Street. Given the narrow configuration of the road and the absence of alternative access routes, this presents material risks to resident access, service delivery, and emergency response.

The community consultation undertaken by the developer has been deficient and does not constitute genuine engagement. Notification was limited and inconsistently delivered, with many directly affected residents receiving no communication. In some instances, notice of consultation activities was provided with less than 12 hours’ lead time, precluding meaningful participation. For many residents, the first formal notification was issued by the NSW Department of Planning rather than the proponent. This process fails to meet reasonable expectations of transparency and inclusivity.

The developer’s response to issues raised by Mosman Council lacks substance. Following Council’s identification of concerns relating to scale, heritage, traffic, landscaping, sandstone character and stormwater, the proponent provided only a generic statement asserting that matters had been addressed within technical reports. No specific responses, amendments, or commitments were provided. This does not constitute an adequate or accountable response to identified planning issues.

The consultation outcomes presented are not representative of community views. A total of 43 survey responses and six focus group participants is insufficient to demonstrate community awareness or support for a development of this magnitude. These figures more accurately indicate limited engagement rather than endorsement, and should not be relied upon in the assessment of community impact.

The proposal also presents significant and inadequately addressed risks associated with excavation. There is documented precedent for structural damage to neighbouring properties resulting from prior construction activity on Redan Street. The proposed development involves extensive excavation, including two basement levels across a large site area, representing a scale of works not previously undertaken in this location. The Environmental Impact Statement does not provide sufficient detail regarding mitigation measures, nor does it include firm commitments to vibration monitoring, pre-construction dilapidation surveys, or clear liability provisions. The risk to adjoining properties, including heritage dwellings, is therefore substantial and insufficiently managed.

The design and access arrangements for the proposed affordable housing component are inappropriate. Eight of the eleven affordable units are accessed via Redan Lane, an unpaved service laneway lacking basic pedestrian infrastructure, including footpaths and adequate lighting. This arrangement raises legitimate safety and amenity concerns and fails to provide equitable access conditions for future occupants.

Finally, the justification for exceeding established height controls relies on the provision of affordable housing, yet this claim is unsupported by evidence. While the proponent acknowledges high levels of rental stress within the local area, no financial modelling has been provided to demonstrate that the proposed units will be affordable to households in need. There is no information regarding rental levels, eligibility criteria, or accessibility for those experiencing housing stress. In the absence of such evidence, the affordable housing justification is unsubstantiated, and the associated planning uplift cannot be properly assessed.

For the reasons outlined above, the proposal represents an overdevelopment of a highly sensitive site and fails to adequately address fundamental planning, heritage, traffic, and community impact considerations. It is therefore respectfully submitted that the application should be refused.

I am a supporter of affordable housing where it is appropriate to the suburb's landscape and not against providing more housing in the area, in meeting the government's agenda. However, to butcher up the character and appeal for the suburb, by allowing skyscrapers on Balmoral slopes is scandalous, when there are plenty of other sites which achieve the government's strategy, whilst not disturbing the suburb's DNA.
This project is a disaster for the following reasons:
1. Excessive height and bulk, with a 10-storey building that is clearly out of scale with the surrounding low-rise streetscape and will dominate the area

2. Overdevelopment and structural risk, including excavation of up to 10 metres into sandstone to the site boundaries, creating risks of ground movement, vibration and damage to neighbouring properties

3. Heritage impacts, particularly to Redan Street itself and adjoining heritage-listed properties at 36 and 38 Redan Street, where the proposal would overwhelm their setting and erode the existing character of the street

4. Conflict with the Scenic Protection Zone, which applies from the waterline to the 60 metre contour and is intended to protect significant views to and from Sydney and Middle Harbours. A 10-storey building is difficult to reconcile with these objectives

5. Traffic, access and safety concerns, including reliance on Redan Lane, which is only a little over 4 metres wide, has no footpaths, and is not designed for increased service, waste or emergency vehicle use

6. Lack of supporting infrastructure, with concerns that local emergency services, including a single fire station, may not be equipped to service developments of this scale

7. Non-compliance and misleading claims, where the proposal exceeds height controls and relies on a Clause 4.6 variation, yet is described as “compliant”

8. Affordable housing design and access concerns, including separate laneway access, raising concerns about a “poor door” style arrangement and whether the development supports inclusive housing outcomes. This is not an affordable housing development - clearly it's for the wealthy, many of whom will not be residents. As for nurses, carers, local staff - totally inappropriate

9. Process and consultation concerns, including the limited exhibition period, missing or unclear documentation, low awareness of the community consultation session, and whether the development meets the required 400 metre “safe walking distance” under the LMR zoning

I object to SSD-93020230 on the basis that the proposed development is not an appropriate planning outcome for this site when assessed under section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, having regard to its scale, impacts, unresolved risks and the limited public benefit delivered.

The proposal seeks approval for a part 10-storey / part 5-storey residential flat building comprising 53 dwellings, including 11 affordable dwellings for a 15-year period. The development relies on multiple planning concessions, including exceedances of the uplifted building height control and a variation to wall height controls.

While the provision of affordable housing is acknowledged, the proposal goes materially beyond what is required to achieve that outcome and results in a built form that is excessive and inconsistent with the site context.

Key grounds of objection are as follows:

Excessive scale and built form
The proposal represents a significant intensification of development (FSR ~2.86:1; up to 10 storeys) in a location characterised by low-rise housing and sensitive topography. The scale, bulk and height exceedances are not minor and cannot be adequately mitigated through design.
Unjustified planning variations
The development exceeds the uplifted building height control (28.6m) and requires a variation to the 7.2m wall height control. These variations are fundamental to achieving the proposed yield and are not justified in a site-specific context.
Heritage, scenic and visual impacts
The site is adjacent to heritage items, fronts a heritage-listed streetscape and sits at the edge of Mosman’s Scenic Protection Area. The proposal introduces a building that will dominate and erode the existing character and landscape setting. These impacts are permanent and not capable of meaningful mitigation.
Traffic, access and local infrastructure constraints
The surrounding road network is narrow and constrained. The scale of the development (including 106 car spaces) will increase traffic, servicing and parking pressure across local streets, including adjacent residential streets such as Almora Street. These impacts are cumulative and not fully mitigable.
Excavation, construction and stormwater risks
The proposal involves significant excavation and basement construction in a steep sandstone environment. Key stormwater and hydraulic design elements were not fully resolved at exhibition. This introduces material risk to surrounding properties and infrastructure that has not been adequately addressed.
Disproportionate public benefit
The proposal provides 11 affordable dwellings for a 15-year period. This limited and time-bound benefit does not justify the scale of planning concessions sought or the permanent impacts created by the development.
EIS adequacy and consultation
There are inconsistencies in the way compliance is presented and key technical matters were not fully resolved at the time of exhibition. Community consultation appears limited relative to the scale and impact of the proposal.
Cumulative and precedent impacts
Approval would contribute to a broader shift in built form intensity on the Balmoral slopes and set an undesirable precedent for further overdevelopment in a sensitive locality.

Conclusion
The proposal results in environmental, built form and infrastructure impacts that are not acceptable in the context of the site and are not adequately mitigated. The public benefits relied upon do not outweigh these impacts.

For these reasons, the application should be refused or, at a minimum, require a substantially reduced and redesigned scheme.

A detailed submission expanding on these matters is provided in the attached PDF.

Please see submission attached below

Dear SSD Board,

A proposed 10-storey high-rise development of 53 apartments at 40–48 Redan Street, Mosman (Application Number SSD-93020230) is inappropriate and should not be approved. Its scale, height, bulk and intensity are fundamentally inconsistent with Mosman’s established low-rise character and would set a damaging precedent for overdevelopment in the area.

Mosman is defined by predominantly low to mid-rise residential buildings, supported by planning controls designed to preserve neighbourhood character and streetscape harmony. A 10-storey building is excessive compared to the typical 2–6 storey developments in the locality. Such a structure would visually dominate the area, overshadow neighbouring properties, reduce sunlight access, and erode the human-scale environment that is central to Mosman’s identity.

The building’s height and bulk would also have significant impacts on local amenity, particularly through the loss of views. Mosman’s setting near Sydney Harbour makes scenic views a key environmental and social asset. A development of this scale would block or substantially diminish harbour and district views enjoyed by surrounding residents, resulting in permanent loss of amenity and potential devaluation of nearby properties.

The proposal represents clear overdevelopment of the site. Accommodating 53 apartments would create excessive density relative to the land size, reducing opportunities for meaningful landscaping, tree canopy, and open space. This would contribute to increased urban heat, reduced privacy, and a more congested built environment, contrary to planning objectives.

Traffic and access issues are also significant. Redan Street and surrounding roads are narrow and already experience congestion. Additional vehicle movements from residents, visitors, deliveries and services would increase traffic pressure, worsen parking shortages, and create safety risks for pedestrians and cyclists.

Mosman’s heritage character must also be protected. The area contains important historic streetscapes and architectural consistency. A large, out-of-scale building would be visually intrusive and undermine the cultural and historical integrity of the neighbourhood.

Local infrastructure is not equipped to support this level of intensification. Mosman is served by a small fire station established in 1919, with two engines and no extension ladder trucks capable of reaching a 10-storey building. Even if such equipment were introduced, the suburb’s narrow streets and constrained access would limit emergency response effectiveness. A single police station services approximately 25,000–30,000 residents, raising concerns about capacity to manage increased demand. Essential services—including gas, water, and sewer —have not been significantly upgraded and are unlikely to cope with additional demand. Much of the electrical infrastructure, whether overhead or underground, requires modernisation. Roads, pavements and curbs are already in need of improvement, and the primary thoroughfare Military Road frequently operates at near standstill during peak periods. Increased density would exacerbate congestion and could critically delay emergency services.

Equally concerning is the process by which such developments are being pursued. The system designed to protect and serve local residents appears to have been bypassed. Private, for-profit developers are increasingly able to circumvent elected local councils—bodies made up of and accountable to ratepaying residents—in favour of State-level approvals. This undermines the role of local government and its charter under the NSW Local Government Act 1993, which emphasises community leadership, engagement, and stewardship of public assets. It sends a troubling message that commercial interests are being prioritised over the voices of the local community.

Approving this proposal would act as a Trojan horse, opening the door to further high-rise developments and triggering a developer-driven transformation of Mosman. The suburb risks becoming a high-density enclave, similar to places like Broadbeach, where towering developments sit alongside older low-rise homes. This “Broadbeach-ing” of Mosman would irreversibly change its character and erode the qualities that residents and the community value.

In conclusion, this proposal is excessive, incompatible with local planning intent, damaging to amenity and heritage, unsupported by infrastructure, and undermines proper planning processes. It represents clear overdevelopment and should be refused.

Approving this development would set a dangerous precedent for further high-rise proposals, gradually eroding Mosman’s character.

I object to the development and submit a “No" to SSD proposal on 40-48 Redan Street (Application Number SSD-93020230).


Resident 2088, Balmoral Beach