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
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
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

I would like to tender my objection to the application on the following grounds:
- the proposal represents an enormous escalation in height and overall size for the street and neighbourhood
- it represents an overdevelopment of a very restricted site
- it would constitute a major visual blight on the Balmoral slopes
- with 106 car parks, it would lead to a significant increase in motor traffic in local streets
- it would be substantially inconsistent with the architecture of the surrounding neighbourhood.

Regards
Neil


Neil Schafer
2B Wolseley Road
Mosman 2088
Ph: +61 403 227 667

1. This is an outrageous assult on amenity. The building as depicted is an architectural eyesore. First impressions would describe it as a warehouse.
2. The soon to be completed 22 Redan Lane ($125 development) will already add over 30 new residents and 15-20 carspaces.
3.The picturesque laneways of Mosman were put in place for horse and buggy access over 100 years ago. Not intended for right of way for endless lines of SUV's.
4. As residents of Redan St for nearly 20 years, visitors have always been able to park nearby. This will become impossible.
5. Redan St. has become a diversion for through traffic seeking to avoid the centre of Mosman village. This high- traffic flow will be exacerbated.
6. Access to Military rd from Upper Almora St. will see traffic queued down the hill as far as Redan Street. There is a pedestrian crossing at Military rd which will slow progress further. Similarly with the Mandelong rd. access to Military rd. Two new sets of traffic lights will be mandatory.
7. Access to Military Rd at Mosman Junction (Raglan St. lights) is already a nightmare on Summer weekends with traffic banked up from the Esplanade.
8. No provision has been made for open play areas for children, who will be forced to play in Redan Street.
The building's shadow will project right across Redan St. for most of the afternoon.
9. If the building height limit is 8 levels this should be measured from Redan Street as this will be the effective ground level after excavation (for the entire allotment)
10. The impact on Council rates, home insurance, vehicle insurance is all open ended.
11. The so called affordable bedsits will be targeted by superannuation speculators asking exhorbitant rents.
Meanwhile the other (luxury) apartments will be targeted by wealthy absentee Asian investors seeking a turnkey property to lie unoccupied for years .
12. What other development approvals in the general vicinity have been received and what is the attitude of the authorities to proceeding to development.

27th March 2026

The Senior Planning Officer
Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure

Dear Sir/Madam,

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

By way of introduction, my name is Cristiana d’Agosto Ford and I have been a property owner and a resident of Mosman since November 1996.

My husband (Patrick) and I own two properties in Mosman; 4/934-936 Military Road, Mosman and also 36/560 Military Road, Mosman.

Both of these properties are tenanted; however, we choose to live at 3/77 Muston Street, Mosman (Balmoral Slopes). We can be described as 'rentvestors'.

We had many reasons for moving to Mosman, but to summarise:

1. A 'village' atmosphere and lifestyle.
2. Beautiful beach, harbour and district views from many separate areas of Mosman.
3. A quieter, more peaceful lifestyle.
4. Access to amenities and services with a minimum of overcrowding.
5. The presence of many heritage properties, providing gracious streetscapes and neighbourhoods.
6. Ease of transport and commuting, by car, public transport or as pedestrians.

A few of our reasons for objecting:

. Height and bulk: The proposed 10 storey development at 40-48 Redan Street (Time & Place Property Developers) will irreversibly impact and (in our opinion) destroy the very essence
of this area of Mosman. The proposal is out of scale with Mosman’s low-rise character. Planning concessions were stacked to go beyond the framework of the policies: the LMR Housing Policy + 30% height uplift from in-ill affordable housing incentives + a clause 4.6 height variation…

. Heritage and character: Redan Street reserve is listed as a local heritage item in the Mosman LEP. The site to the immediate south at 36-38 Redan Street containing a pair of semi-detached houses and to the east at 29 Redan Street containing a house are also a listed local heritage item. It is a fact: the site falls within a Scenic Protection Area…!

. Visual and environmental impacts: In the case of our apartment block (77 Muston Street, Mosman), the sweeping views that we all enjoy of Balmoral Beach, Manly, North Head and the ocean beyond, will be replaced by “sweeping views” of a ten storey apartment block abutting Redan Lane, less than 30 metres from our balconies. There will be a significant loss of sunlight and irreversible loss of privacy.

. Traffic, access and infrastructure constraints: There is no existing footpath or pedestrian access path on Redan Lane, raising numerous safety concerns for people seeking access, especially in light of the fact that the proposal includes car spaces for 106 cars. Redan Lane will assuredly be very busy and at times most likely to be chaotic for residents and pedestrians alike.

The proposed project is a 10 storey high-rise building comprising 53 apartments, including two basement levels with parking for 106 cars.

The proposal also discloses that 11 of these apartments will be described as 'affordable', meaning that the overall development is actually a thinly disguised luxury apartment scheme
which seeks to exploit a loophole in the current legislation.

The size of the dwellings classified as “affordable housing” are extremely small - 2 bedrooms on a 57 m2 (!?) - and 8 of them have their entrances off Redan Lane…the rear service laneway…a 'poor door', rather than a front door off Redan Street. Our understanding of Australian values and ethics is that we do not encourage a 'class system' and do not have an underclass in our society. How can this arrangement possibly be seen as inclusive to all residents?

If this development is approved as a State Significant Development (SSD), this will undoubtedly set a precedent for many more of these sorts of developments to be approved in future.

The emotional stress and in many cases the significant financial losses to property owners impacted will be substantial and should not be trivialised or overlooked.

These are not, for the most part 'rich, entitled Mosmanites having a whinge'. In our apartment block (directly behind the 40-48 Redan Street proposal), none of the owners and
residents are originally from Mosman.

In our block of five apartments, the residents hail from England, Scotland, Latvia, Brazil, Newcastle, Cessnock and Goulburn. All have come here as a personal choice to enjoy
the benefits we have mentioned above.

In most incidences (and as is usual for many families), purchasing their home is by far the largest financial investment that they will make in their lifetimes.

What plans are in place to compensate residents for loss of lifestyle, loss of views, increased pressure on all amenities and utilities, massively increased demolition and construction noise, potential structural damage to nearby buildings given the scale and depth of excavation proposed, and the general stress and upheaval to residents affected?

After a recent inspection of our block by agents from Raine & Horne Mosman, we were informed that if the Redan Street development were to proceed as outlined, the valuations of all
apartments in our block would be reduced by approximately thirty percent; this equates to $1 Million dollars per apartment.

What plan does the Minns Labor Government in New South Wales have in place to compensate owners for this loss, or are we just going to be told to 'suck it up' at the same time as wealthy property developers exploit this loophole to become even richer at our expense?

Why should tone deaf, short sighted, sanctimonious politicians be able to ride roughshod over Mosman residents and their fervent desires, simply to indulge wealthy property developers who seek to flout the legislation? On what planet is this in any way fair or reasonable to the existing residents of Mosman?

For these reasons (to name just a few), we believe it would be unfair and unconscionable for the 40-48 Redan Street development to be approved. We object to it wholeheartedly and would like to ask the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure to refuse the Development Application SSD-93020230 at 40-48 Redan Street, Mosman NSW.

Yours Sincerely,

Cristiana d’Agosto Ford and Patrick Ford.
[email protected] and [email protected]

Hi,
I’m writing to formally object to the proposed development at 40–48 Redan Street, Mosman.

To be honest, I find the whole proposal pretty shocking, and I don’t think it aligns at all with what these planning changes were supposed to achieve.

The entire basis of the rezoning and the newer planning policies is to increase housing supply and deliver meaningful affordable housing. But this proposal doesn’t really do that in any genuine way. Instead, it feels like it’s using those policies as a way to push through a much larger and more intensive development than the area was ever intended to support. That’s not in the spirit of the policy at all.

More broadly, it’s hard to believe how something like this could be considered acceptable given how planning laws have always worked. For decades (really, for as long as planning systems have existed), the whole point has been to protect existing homes — their outlook, their sunlight, their privacy, and their overall amenity. This proposal effectively throws all of that out the window.
For people who live nearby, this isn’t just an inconvenience — it’s a permanent and irreversible change to their homes and their lives. People have invested their savings into these properties, whether recently or over many years, and this kind of development has the potential to significantly reduce the value of those homes in ways that are impossible to quantify. That’s a huge impact that shouldn’t be taken lightly.

On top of that, the scale of the proposal is completely out of character with the surrounding neighbourhood. Mosman is defined by low-rise housing, established streetscapes, and a very specific local character. Dropping buildings of this size into the middle of it will fundamentally change the landscape forever. Once something like this is built, there’s no going back.
There are also some very real, practical concerns:

Traffic: Redan Street and Redan Lane are both narrow, local residential streets. They are simply not designed to handle the level of traffic this development would generate, especially during construction. The number of trucks required for excavation, removal, and construction will put enormous pressure on these streets and create safety issues for residents and pedestrians.
Construction impacts: Excavating around 7–10 metres down through sandstone for a multi-level basement is a massive undertaking. This isn’t a small residential build — it’s essentially a large-scale engineering project in the middle of a quiet suburban street. The noise, vibration, and disruption will be ongoing for a long period of time and will be extremely difficult for nearby residents to live with.
Risk to neighbouring properties: Deep excavation of this kind carries real risks. We’ve already seen examples in areas like Rose Bay in the Eastern Suburbs, where similar basement excavations in sandstone conditions have resulted in cracking and damage to neighbouring homes. That’s not a theoretical concern — it’s happening in real life, and it’s exactly the kind of risk this proposal introduces.
Overdevelopment of the site: The site is being pushed well beyond what it can reasonably support. Between the height, the excavation, the density, and the servicing requirements, it feels like every constraint is being stretched to its limit.
Loss of amenity: This development will have major impacts on surrounding properties in terms of overshadowing, privacy, noise, and general outlook. These are core planning considerations that shouldn’t just be brushed aside.

Overall, this proposal is completely out of proportion for the site and the area. It sets a really concerning precedent and undermines the planning principles that have protected neighbourhoods like Mosman for so long.

I strongly object to the proposal and ask that it be refused.

Having lived in Mosman for more than 24 years,I strongly object current application concerning 40 - 48 Redan Street Mosman. During this period of time the suburb has become increasingly less livable, which is more than unfortunate, given that this was one of our primary motives for choosing to live here.

Whilst I fully accept that there is a profound need for an increase in affordable housing, I failed to see how this project fulfils the objectives of the government. It is important that those who provide either essential services or facilitate the functioning of our daily lives, whether that be in hospitals, dental practices, podiatry, retail and cafes are able to live in decent housing that doesn’t involve spending hours commuting. It is not sustainable to expect people who are earning minimum wages to spend a fast proportion of that time and money on transport fares because they simply cannot afford to live near their place of work.
Mosman is certainly a suburb of privilege. The cost of housing is amongst the most expensive in the state. However, it cannot function as a genuine community, without all the people who currently make it a vibrant hub, rather than a privileged ghetto.
The State government in its attempt to make planning submissions speedier and more straightforward has effectively allowed developers to potentially rip the heart out of local communities, by putting profit above all other considerations.
The submission in question, would seem to be a brilliant example of taking advantage of every concession that has been made for example…..

Any attempt to suggest it provides genuine affordable housing, is cynical in the extreme. The benefit of the few units that will be provided,only lasts for a limited period of time, whereas is the building is permanent.How does the prospect of providing a ‘poor door’ for the few units that are proposed fit with the Australian sense of fairness? This is the sort of gesture that encourages division within communities and is something that must be avoided at all costs, especially in the current politically divided environment
The sheer size of the proposed development is bulky and would have a huge visual impact upon a heritage streetscape. The applicant claims that the site is on the ridgeline of Balmoral,which is clearly inaccurate.
There is both an under supply of proposed parking and a failure to recognise the impact this project would have in terms of the additional congestion. It would add further to Military Road congestion, which during peak hours of the day, is more akin to a car park, rather than it means of travelling from point A to point B.
The claim to have undertaken genuine community consultation is cynical in the extreme, with insufficient time allocated and questionable attempts to canvass opinions having genuinely taken place.

I have a number of concerns regarding the proposal, particularly in relation to its scale, impact on the surrounding area, and how it has been presented.

The overall height and bulk of the building feel excessive for this location. At ten storeys, it appears out of keeping with the predominantly low-rise character of the surrounding streets and would likely dominate the immediate area.

I am also concerned about the extent of excavation proposed. Digging up to 10 metres into sandstone, particularly so close to site boundaries, raises questions around potential ground movement, vibration, and the risk of damage to neighbouring properties.

There are also clear heritage considerations. Redan Street has a distinct and valued character, and the proximity to heritage-listed properties at numbers 36 and 38 makes the scale of this proposal feel particularly intrusive. It risks diminishing the setting and integrity of these buildings.

In addition, the site falls within the Scenic Protection Zone, which is intended to preserve important views to and from Sydney and Middle Harbours. It is difficult to see how a development of this height aligns with those objectives.

From a practical perspective, traffic and access are also concerning. Redan Lane is very narrow, with no pedestrian infrastructure, and does not appear suitable to accommodate increased use by service, waste or emergency vehicles.

There are broader infrastructure questions as well. It is unclear whether local emergency services, particularly given the reliance on a single nearby fire station are adequately equipped to support a development of this scale.

I am also concerned about how the proposal has been described. While it exceeds established height controls and relies on a Clause 4.6 variation, it is still presented as “compliant,” which feels somewhat misleading.

The approach to affordable housing also raises concerns. The use of separate laneway access suggests a division that may not support inclusive or equitable design outcomes.

Finally, the consultation process itself feels limited. The exhibition period was short, some documentation was unclear or incomplete, and awareness of the consultation session appeared low. There are also questions around whether the development genuinely meets the required “safe walking distance” criteria under the LMR zoning.

The height, bulk and overbearing nature of this development is completely out of keeping with such a traditional heritage, sea-side location.
If anyone cares to look at this particular precinct it's really obvious how ridiculous a ten story building looks compared to every neighbouring street - which is suburban family homes
Plenty of other areas in Mosman where a ten-story development would make sense - but not in these areas.

Submission to NSW Department of Planning Regarding Proposed DA for 40-48 Redan Street, Mosman
I understand that the DA proposes to demolish five properties 40 to 48 Redan Street Mosman and replace them with twin apartment towers up to 12 storeys high, containing 53 apartments. This would include 42 luxury apartments ranging from 129 to 321 sqm and 11 "affordable" apartments (for 15 years).
In this submission I make three main points heavily critical of this proposed development.
First, the development will have severe detrimental local heritage and environmental impacts. There will be a loss of three heritage listed houses and severe negative impacts on heritage-listed properties at 36 and 38 Redan Street. The development extends across almost the full site width, presenting as a continuous facade along Redan Street. The visual impacts on neighbouring properties are likely to be severely negative. The peace, greenery, and amenity of many residents in this beautiful street will be severely downgraded. Development that creates such significant detriment to neighbouring properties should not be permitted.
To provide additional context I note that the site sits in the Scenic Protection Zone. This long-standing zoning has been in place since the 1960s to protect the foreshore views both to, and from, Balmoral slopes and Sydney Harbour. The DA does not meet the standards of the Scenic Protection Zone.
Second, the claim that the development will provide 11 affordable apartments is completely false and misleading. The standard approach to affordable housing is the “30/40 guide”. The housing costs should be less than 30% of gross household income and this should apply to the bottom 40% of household income earners.
Suppose: household income: $120,000/year (around median full-time household range), then affordable housing cost = 30% → $36,000/year ($3000 / month). At current mortgage conditions, around 6% interest, and 30 years repayment, $3,000/month supports a loan of about $500k–$550k. With a 20% deposit → total house price ≈ $620k–$700k. Thus, the claim that this development would create 11 units of affordable housing is nonsense. There would be no affordable housing.
The third issue is the precedent. Presumably, if this DA were allowed, then under normal planning process any similar DA in a similar location would be allowed. This is not a single decision. It is a fundamental planning decision for the area. I write this as someone who has (in the past) spent 13 years on the Mosman Council dealing with DAs. A fundamental feature of good planning is that it is based on consistent uniform principles and standards, NOT on exceptional cases and exceptional decision making.
Further, to provide planning perspective, Mosman has one of the highest population and building densities in Sydney. At the 2021 household Census, Mosman had a population density of 32 persons per hectare which was almost three times the average of 12.7 persons per hectare across Greater Sydney. And units comprised 52% of the dwellings in Mosman, which was almost double the 27% over Greater Sydney. Also, Mosman has major traffic issues. It is a major thoroughfare for the Northern Beaches traffic and Taronga Zoo and Balmoral Beach are two major visitor destinations in Sydney.
As NSW Planning is aware, Mosman Council is currently engaged fulltime and at considerable expense to develop a revised Strategic Masterplan to try to develop a quality residential plan for the area, with high rise development to the top of the ridges, to limit view obstruction, provide a level walk to transport and shops, and a better traffic flow. I understand that this should be available in a few months.
Acceptance of this massive DA in Redan Street would set a profoundly poor planning precedent for both process and outcome.
Hon. Professor Peter Abelson
3 Wolger Road, Mosman
Mosman Council 1979-87 and 2012-17. Mayor 1983-85 and 2012-17.
Disclaimer. I have no personal relationship to this DA.

I am writing about the proposed development Ref: SSD-93020230 in at 40-48 Redan Street, Mosman.
5 houses to be demolished to provide space for 53 apartments of which 11 are in-fill affordable housing apartments and parking spaces for 106 cars.
I have lived for 13 years with my husband at 32a Redan Street, a few houses south of the proposed development. We much enjoy the beauty and peace of the area with the convenience of shops, a wonderful beach and walking areas.

I object to this development for the following reasons:

1. This is an area of mainly gracious Federation houses with two heritage listed cottages immediately adjacent to the site. The gross over-development will ruin the area for generations. I think the title of State Significant Development does not apply in this case. Only 11 in-fill affordable apartments in a development of 53 apartments. And the in-fill apartments only have to be there for 15 years after which they can be converted to regular apartments.

2. The development will ruin the houses behind in Muston Street by blocking their views and being overlooked for ever after. Many houses on Redan Street will also be overlooked.

3. The area is a naturally beautiful one with lovely gardens and many trees. I cannot imagine it becoming a concrete jungle. It falls within Mosman Scenic Protection Area which should be preserved for the future and is one of the reasons we moved here. The Redan Street verge is Heritage listed.

4. The excavation needed will be enormous and very likely to cause problems and damage to surrounding properties. Drainage could well be a massive problem. There are several run-off channels in Redan Lane. There is a development not far away down the hill that suffered greatly from heavy rain and flooding.

5. Redan Lane is narrow and unsafe at times. Deemed unsafe for walking by Mosman Council. Trucks sometimes cannot get around the double bend and have to reverse out again. There is an ever-increasing number of parcel, supermarket and food delivery vehicles. Another 53 apartments in the area will hugely exacerbate this. And where will over 100 extra garbage bins go?

6. Parking – Only 2 spaces per apartment is underestimated. Where do visitors park for 53 new apartments? Redan Street is parked out on sunny days with beachgoers. There is virtually no parking at all in Redan Lane.

7. If this development was on the ridge line it would not impact the area so much but as it is two streets down from the ridge line it will be unbelievably ugly and have a devastating impact on other properties. The visual impact from the harbour will also be severely impacted.

8. I find that the State Government are being very heavy-handed in taking away any control for this type of development from the Mosman Council who strive so hard to keep development appropriate for the area.

I object to the development for the above reasons. I feel that developer has taken poetic licence with the idea of affordable housing to justify massive over-development to improve their financial state. If this type of development is approved by the State Government it will turn Mosman into a mini-Gold Coast.

Phillippa and Colin McLachlan
32a Redan Street, Mosman