Objection to Development Application SSD-93020230 at 40–48 Redan Street, Mosman
I am a local resident, property owner in Mosman since 1985.
I object to this application on the basis that it is a gross interpretation of the SSD guidelines and seeks to push the boundaries to an overweening extent. In my opinion it is a completely unsuitable design for the context of Redan Street, and does not fulfil the spirit of the SSD guidelines.
It would be a joke if it were not such a serious issue.
Additionally, the amount of time allocated for members of the pubic to make submissions – two weeks – is ludicrous given the extent and scope of the proposal, which would have had extensive resources applied in its creation. The lack of an authentic opportunity for community consultation smacks of hubris in the extreme. What is being brushed under the carpet by the rush??
One of the great pleasures of my (retired) life is wandering the tree-lined and landscaped streets of Mosman and some of my objections reflect this, as follows:
• Inappropriate setting – a 10-storey building is completely out of context in Redan Street. The Street is a beautiful area comprised of lower scale homes, some of which are heritage listed. This HUGE building would stick out like a sore thumb and the developers’ own renditions of the building in the landscape show this very clearly. It would completely overshadow and dominate the neighbourhood, to its very real detriment.
• Scenic destruction – a development such as this would destroy the cohesive, integrated nature of the area as it currently stands. The balance of low-rise built environment with precious vegetation would be totally undermined and would create a dangerous precedent. The loss of mature vegetation would have a huge impact on soil quality, air quality, visual quality, the very vital element of quality of life.
• Heritage trampling – the development seeks to destroy 5 homes that currently fit into their setting tearing at the heritage fabric of the locale. The mix of old and new in Mosman is one of its great assets. In the past development, has trampled over the beauty of the place, but this has been addressed with a more considered approach with two goals: 1. Preserve heritage built environment where appropriate and 2. Allow medium-high density housing to be built, where appropriate. This bi-focal approach needs to continue to preserve the fabric of Mosman
• Deep excavation – the scale of the development which includes two basement levels is VERY concerning. What will happen to the neighbouring heritage listed properties. How will it affect their stability and integrity. What about drainage, run-off, groundwater. Implications for council going forward?

The above concerns are not just about the residents of Redan Street. They concern all Mosman residents who appreciate the great beauty and amenity of the area, Sydney-siders who flock here at all times of the year, international visitors drawn to this beautiful and precious shared environment.
Finally, I believe the proposal is cynical to the utmost degree with its design of the affordable housing component, which the SSD Guidelines mean to be inclusive and for the benefit of essential workers and the public in general.
• In the first place, the “affordability” expires after 15 years. An expiry date on social inclusion??
• Secondly, the accommodation is tiny, comparable to a bed sit. How does this help the very real housing crisis affecting young couples and families?
• Thirdly, and most reprehensibly the affordable accommodation is accessed via a SEPARATE entrance, in Redan Lane. Public benefit!? Inclusion!? The lane is not even a pedestrian thoroughfare, but a service lane primarily for waste collection. The very idea of an apartheid of tenants is disgusting and conjures up dystopia reminiscent of the South Korean Academy Award -winning film “Parasite”.
In all seriousness, I strongly oppose this insensitive and excessive development and request that the planning board refuse approval.
Thank you for reading my submission.

1. Summary

The purpose of this submission is to express my strong objections to this development at 40-48 Redan Street Mosman, which would see agroupof fine homes demolished to make way for a 10 storey high rise, comprising 53 apartments ( including 11 in-fill affordable housing apartments) two basement levels with parking for 106 cars, communal open space & associated works, which would include site preparation& excavation at 40-48 Redan St.

I have owned my property at 6/76 Muston Street since 2008, & have lived in the area for 29 years. My property is behind & above the proposed site, & I would be impacted by the development proposal in a number of ways, including the excessive height & scale, the impact on heritage, loss of view & the adverse effect on traffic & congestion.

I object to the application because it represents an excessive & unsuitable form of development for the site & its setting. The development does not meet the 400 metre safe walking distance as required by the LOW Rise a7 Mid-Rise Housing Policy, &, as explained in more depth below,I believe its height, bulk, visual presence & basement excavation , along with the desecration of its heritage setting, make it an unsuitable site for this proposed development.

The proposed development is supported by 'expert' submissions, paid for by the applicant, with no attempt at independence or objectivity.
However, the submissions do not provide an unbiased assessment of for the Authority to make its decision, & should be given limited weight. I believe natural justice is not well served by the process, as the short time frame that I had to respond meant tha yit seriously restricted my ability to get independent expert advice.

2. Height, Bulk, Scale & Suitability of the Site.

Redan Street & its surrounds are characterised by lower scale residential dwellings , with landscaped setbacks, so a 10-storey building with two basement levels & 106 car spaces would be a jarring escalation in height, bulk & intensity. It would result in the overdevelopment of a constrained site; a site which is outside the 400 meter LMR pathway using the safe waling trail mandated by Mosman Council, which is measured from the front of the Country Road Building, NOT through the back alley as proposed by this development.

3. Scenic Protection & Broader Visual Setting

Balmoral is an area of striking beauty which has inspired many artists, including grrerat painters such as Arthur Streeton & Ethel Carrick Fox. Redan Street is not an isolated suburban street but forms part of the wider harbour area.

Any development in this setting should preserve the visual qualities of the foreshore slopes, including the balance between vegetation and& built structures. Th proposal would replace that balance with a large, dominant building which is inconsistent with the scenic values of the area.

Of particular significance is that the site falls within the Mosman Scenic Protection Area, which Mosman Council describes as an integral part of the Sydney Harbour landscape, because it can be viewed from across the harbour. & from surrounding waterways. In what would be an abuse of decades of carefully create environmental protection, this proposal seeks to to move the scenic protection area for the convenience & financial benefit of development.

4. Heritage, Streetscape & Neighbourhood Character.

The proposal should be assessed for its impact on the character of the streetscape, including the heritage setting. . In order to proceed, this development would require the demolition of five homes : 40 & 42 Redan Street are both Federation buildings, circa 1902, while 44 Redan Street is a Federation Queen Anne structure, circa 1900. The development adjoins heritage listed properties at 36 & 38 Redan Street. This development would overwhelm these beautiful heritage buildings , destroying much of their visual setting & running the risk of severely damaging the character of the street.

5. Views & Visual Impact

The proposal, for a long ten story high rise structure running across multiple blocks of land, would have a major impact on the outlook from my living room & kitchen. It would have the effect of a large wall blocking my view of the harbour & see.

My property, at 6/76 Musonn Street, currently has a beautiful, scenic outlook with views if the harbour, Manly & the ocean. It is a view which is stimulating & constantly changing enabling me to observe the daily passage of cruise ships in & out of the harbour & the constant movements of sailing craft. It is indispensable to my pleasure of where I live.
Under the proposed development, which has caused me a greta deal of anxiety & stress, instead of seeing natural beauty I would be confronted by a large masonry structure which would completely block my view of harbour & sea & all maritime activity. This would substantially damage the character & amenity of my outlook.

6. Deep Excavation, Sandstone, Basement & Groundwater risk.

A further concern is the scale of the excavation required for the proposed basement structure. This would entail deep excavation & substantial sub ground works, which risks ground movement, vibration & potential damage to neighbouring properties.

7. Traffic, Access & Pedestrian Safety

The traffic snarls in Redan Street while this development is under construction would be horrific. The proposal is on a massive scale & would require large numbers of construction & trades people, with their vehicles. The construction phase, requiring very frequent deliveries. & sue of equipment such as concrete trucks & cranes, is likely to severely impede the vehicular use of Redan Street. Once completed, the development would permanently intensify traffic in Redan Street, Redan Lane & Upper Almora Street.

8. Affordable Housing , Pathway, Public Benefit & Inclusive design.

The project seeks to get approval under the NSW Government's State Significant Development legislation, claiming that it includes 11 "affordable" dwellings. It is simply absurd to propose that this luxury development could be given the go ahead under the guise of affordable housing, when two apartments in the same street sold for just under $20 million in 2024 each. This development proposes two penthouse apartments , with uninterrupted views over Balmoral & the harbour, expected to sell for around $20 million.

I do support the construction of affordable housing in Mosman. but I cannot support this type of construction. The affordable hosing component, which only lasts for 15 years, comprises eight studio style units with separate access from the laneway, & three larger affordable units which are virtually underground. Unlike the luxury apartments, which have entry access via the front of the building, the only access for the studios is from Redan Lane, a narrow rear service laneway with no footpath & very poor lighting. This introduces a 'poor door' system, effectively preventing residents of these modest dwellings form mixing with residents of th luxury apartments, introducing a de facto two class system, which would be most deleterious to Mosman's social cohesion image.

Subject: Objection to SSD-93020230 – 40–48 Redan Street, Mosman

I am writing to object to the proposed development at 40–48 Redan Street, Mosman.

I understand the need for more housing, including affordable housing, but this proposal doesn’t feel appropriate for this location and raises a number of concerns for me.

One of my biggest concerns is that this feels like luxury housing being presented as affordable housing, without clear transparency around how that is being delivered. There doesn’t appear to be any detailed or accessible financial modelling to support the affordability claims, which makes it difficult to understand the true intent and long-term outcome of the development.

I also understand that the proposal may include separate access or entrances for residents in the affordable housing component. If this is correct, it raises serious concerns. Having different entrances based on housing type feels inherently unequal and creates a clear social divide within the same development. This approach has been criticised in other developments as creating a “two-tier” system, and it does not align with the intent of inclusive and integrated communities.

I am also very concerned about the loss of heritage in the area. Federation homes and the existing character of Mosman are a significant part of what makes the suburb unique. Developments like this risk eroding that identity, and once that heritage is lost, it cannot be replaced.

The height, bulk and overall scale of the proposal feel excessive and out of proportion with the surrounding area. It does not integrate with the existing streetscape and instead feels oversized and incompatible with the character of Redan Street and the broader Mosman environment.

There are also practical concerns around infrastructure. Parking in the area is already limited, and this development is likely to increase pressure significantly without any meaningful upgrades to infrastructure. This raises concerns not only about convenience, but also safety and accessibility for residents.

Traffic and access are also key issues. Streets in this part of Mosman are already constrained, and an increase in density of this scale is likely to lead to congestion and reduced safety for both drivers and pedestrians.

I also question whether this is the right location for this type of development. From what I understand, there are planning expectations around proximity to services and safe walking distances, and it is not clear that this site meets those requirements. If that is the case, it further weakens the justification for a development of this scale.

There are also concerns regarding the Scenic Protection Zone and whether the proposal adequately respects the intent of protecting important views and the broader visual character of the area.

Finally, I want to highlight concerns with the process itself. Being given only around 10 days to review and respond to a major project of this scale does not feel fair or reasonable. It limits the ability for residents to properly understand the proposal, seek advice, and provide considered feedback. There are also concerns around the level of community awareness of consultation opportunities.

On a personal level, developments like this do have a real impact. It’s not just about buildings on paper — it’s about how a place feels to live in day-to-day. Changes to outlook, increased activity, noise, and the overall shift in the environment can affect quality of life. There is also a level of stress and uncertainty that comes with significant changes to an established neighbourhood.

Overall, I do not feel this proposal is appropriate for this site. The scale, impact on the streetscape, heritage concerns, infrastructure pressure, and broader planning issues all point to a development that is not well suited to its location.

For these reasons, I object to the proposal and ask that these concerns are properly considered in the assessment process.

I make this submission in objection to the proposed development at 40-48 Redan Street MOSMAN
The proposal is fundamentally inconsistent with the planning framework. The Low and Mid-Rise Housing Policy is directed toward development in the order of 2–6 storeys. A 12-storey building is plainly outside that contemplated scale and constitutes a material overdevelopment of the site. The reliance on multiple concessions, including the affordable housing uplift and the State Significant Development pathway, together with the need for a Clause 4.6 variation, demonstrates that the proposal exceeds the development standards even when the planning framework is applied at its most generous. We also note that the site is MORE than 400m from the town centre.
It is well established that a Clause 4.6 variation requires the demonstration of sufficient environmental planning grounds that are particular to the site, and not merely the assertion of a general public benefit. No such site-specific justification has been provided in this instance.
The purported public benefit is limited and does not justify the extent of the departure from the applicable controls. The provision of 11 affordable housing units for a limited 15-year period is not proportionate to the permanent impacts of a 12-storey development. The balance of the proposal comprises large, high-end residential apartments, indicating that the affordable housing component is not the primary driver of the development. In these circumstances, the principle of proportionality is not satisfied.
The bulk, scale and form of the development will result in a built outcome that is incompatible with the existing and desired future character of the locality. The building presents as a continuous and visually dominant form, exacerbated by substantial excavation and podium construction, which materially increases its apparent height. The applicant’s own assessment acknowledges severe visual impacts, which are not adequately resolved.
The proposal will give rise to significant and unacceptable privacy impacts. The arrangement of multiple levels of balconies and habitable rooms will result in direct and repeated overlooking into adjoining properties. The Environmental Impact Statement fails to properly assess these impacts, including the cumulative effect of multi-level overlooking and the consequences of the site’s mid-slope position.
The site is located within a sensitive heritage and scenic context, being situated on a designated Heritage Road, adjoining heritage-listed properties, and within a Scenic Protection Area. Development of the scale proposed will adversely affect the heritage setting and materially compromise scenic values, including views from and towards the Balmoral area. Such impacts are inconsistent with the statutory planning controls applicable to the site.
The proposal will also result in unacceptable traffic, parking and construction impacts. The level of parking provision is inadequate having regard to the scale and nature of the development, and will lead to overspill parking within surrounding streets. The construction phase will involve significant disruption to a narrow local lane, with consequential impacts on access and amenity.
The consultation undertaken by the applicant has been deficient and does not constitute meaningful community engagement. Affected residents were not adequately notified, and concerns raised by both the community and the local council have not been substantively addressed.
There are also material risks associated with the proposed excavation works. Given the scale of excavation and the known history of damage to nearby properties arising from similar works, the absence of detailed and enforceable mitigation measures gives rise to a legitimate concern as to potential structural impacts on adjoining land.
Further, the ongoing uncertainty and anticipated impacts of the proposal have already had a significant adverse effect on the amenity and wellbeing of neighbouring residents, including my household, resulting in stress-related health impacts. This is a relevant consideration in assessing the broader amenity impacts of the development.
Finally, the affordable housing justification is not supported by sufficient evidence. In the absence of financial modelling demonstrating that the proposed units will be genuinely affordable to households in housing need, the asserted public benefit remains unsubstantiated.
Conclusion
For the reasons set out above, the proposal represents an excessive and unjustified departure from the applicable planning controls and will result in unacceptable environmental, amenity and character impacts. The limited and unverified public benefit does not warrant the extent of non-compliance.
The application should be refused.

I am writing to register my strongest possible objection to this application. I urge and appeal to State Planning to reject this application. There are substantial reasons for my objection which I have given below.
1. Landscape
Mosman LGA contains unique topographic and geographic features which have not been appropriately addressed on the eastern side of Military Road and have clearly not been addressed by this application. This application is completely inconsistent and out of keeping with the landscape of the area. The bulk and height are totally incompatible with the terrain. Any application in the Mosman LGA at this location requires a fully informed knowledge of and respect for the topography. The building that is the subject of this application is definitely and absolutely not appropriate for the sloping location at 40-48 Redan Street.
2. Traffic
Redan Street is a narrow road and Redan Lane is an exceptionally narrow lane and has no footpaths and historically only designed for sanitary collection. It is completely unrealistic for the increased amount of vehicular traffic to use Redan Lane as an access point.
In addition, the additional number of vehicles that the proposed building will add to traffic in Almora Street and then subsequently in Military Road is going to make traffic in the area considerably worse. There have clearly not been traffic studies carried out with any acuity, nor has there been well researched projections and in-depth analysis made in relation to increased vehicular traffic as a result of a building such as this. The section of Military Road between Spit Junction and Mosman Junction is not in any sense a transport corridor but rather an already narrow and congested feeder road. The prospect of greater residential density adjacent to this section of Military Road such as the one proposed in this DA for Upper Almora Street will have an adverse impact on traffic and will exacerbate the traffic issues.
3. Bulk and Scale
A building such as the one in the application possesses excessive bulk and scale and will negatively affect neighbouring residents by creating shade and blocking sunlight, creating wind tunnels, and reducing privacy. These impacts will conflict with and fail to allow comfortable, healthy, and visually harmonious communities to be maintained. The application is completely unacceptable.
4. Views
The proposed building is the antithesis of aesthetic harmony with its situation. It has no sense of being thoughtfully integrated with its natural surroundings and neighbouring structures. This incompatibility will result in negative impact on the scenic views of neighbouring
26 March 2026
properties which should be preserved as a matter of fairness and of justice to the owners of those properties. The concept of view sharing is a fundamental principle that has not been applied in this application.
5. Neighbourhood Character
This building is too massive and lacks proper scale compared to its location and is therefore completely inappropriate. Developments need to transition between high- and low-density zones. The proposed building does not in any way compliment the landscape or the neighbourhood character in which it is placed and has no sense of architectural balance.
6. Car Access
The access for the entry and exit of vehicles to this property is completely inappropriate for a residential apartment block. Redan Lane as the access point is not safe and there is high risk of vehicular collisions and personal injury. Vehicles using Redan Lane is a high risk to pedestrians.
7. Heritage Character
The site lies next to heritage properties. The proposed building is completely incompatible
with these heritage homes. The homes preserve the historical and cultural identity of this
area. Homes such as these act as living monuments and cultural time capsules and help our
community appreciate architecture from previous eras. The proposed high rise building is
incompatible and incongruous and would severely negatively impact the character of the
area. These homes offer psychological comfort and act as anchors to place and a sense of
continuity and belonging which go beyond being physical structures. The proposed building
would be completely inappropriate in this location.
8.
9.
Posterity
The proposed building would be a scar on this beautiful landscape and be there for all
succeeding generations. It will dishonour the past and be disdained in the future and seen as
an act of vandalism.
Affordable Housing
It concerns me that the building has complete separation between those in the affordable
housing and those in the rest of the building. This kind of design is not acceptable and out of
character with the inclusive character of Australian society.

We wish to lodge an objection to the development at 40-48 Redan Street which also backs onto a very narrow Redan Lane.
The Proposed 10 storey high-rise building consisting of 53 apartments on top of two basement levels with 106 car parling spaces.
1. We object to the short notice of 30th March as there is insufficient time to assess the volume of material available & find the missing information. Please extend the objection date to allow a fair assessment.
2. As a resident who chose to live in a Heritage area, we are staggered that such a large out of place development disguised as an attempt to solve the housing problem including low-income affordable housing (Only required for 15 years) would be considered. Redan Street is Heritage listed & a 10 storey building of such volume & height will severely impact the streetscape & the structural risk to the low-rise heritage houses either side.
3. Low-income affordable housing in Mosman that discriminates by offering access by a rear lane is not acceptable & should not be supported by Government using the SSD. How could the SSD support developers that provide only 11 affordable units with three units below ground level that have no sunlight & a draconian tradesman type entrance.
4. Having previously experienced an overdevelopment on Balmoral Slopes before the New State Significant Development (SSD) were introduced we are aware that it set a precedent for the developers to look for loopholes to overbuild on Balmoral Slopes for Profit. SSD is now their go to with the affordable housing bonus.
Massive excavations for car parking & bulky high-rise developments = Profit.
5. We object to the proposed development of 53 apartments with 106 car spaces. It is so bulky it will overshadow the surrounding houses & cause more traffic in an already congested Redan Street & Redan Lane.
6. Approving this will only assist the other SSD developments that are currently seeking approval in Redan Lane & Muston Street that also backs onto Redan Lane.
7. We object to the view capture within a Scenic protection area by such a bulky proposal & feel for the surrounding properties that will lose their views as well as devaluing their properties.
8. The proposed development fails to comply with the 400 meters from the Mosman Council offices as defined by the SSD.
9. The proposed development sits within the 60-meter contour requirement & its bulk is not consistent with the overall visual setting of Balmoral Slopes.
We are concerned that the proposed development will set a new precedent in forcing people out of their homes & into the developers' hands as they push the SSD boundaries to pass this unsuitable, noncompliant development that is excessive in bulk & height.

We are in a housing crisis for which the solution is to build more homes. This is more homes, and better yet, super close to the city, with half hour access to the CBD using the B line and other bus routes that operate on high frequency during the day, and easily close enough to cycle to various destinations throughout inner and north Sydney. The inner suburbs of Sydney have not been providing opportunities for housing for far too long, pushing people out West where there is objectively less opportunity, infrastructure, amenity and more. It's time to build lots of housing where people want to live, so this project should go ahead.

I object to the project because the site is not close to a transport hub as defined by the government. A bus is not defined as a transport hub. As it is, the buses are full when they reach Mosman as they service the northern beaches. The size of the development related to its neighbours is out of all proportion for a neighbourhood. The developers are the only winners. Why did the developers go to Balmoral slopes? To get the expensive views of course with no concern for ruining a loved and iconic part of Sydney, loved by Sydneysiders and tourists alike.
Thank you for your consideration.

I am writing to formally object to the State Significant Development application SSD-93020230.
While I acknowledge the strategic need to increase housing supply and diversity, this proposal represents an overdevelopment of the site that is inconsistent with the established character of the locality and is not supported by adequate infrastructure capacity. The application does not satisfactorily demonstrate that the scale of development can be accommodated without unacceptable impacts on amenity, transport, and the surrounding road network.
My objection is based on the following planning grounds:
1. Incompatible Building Height and Scale
The proposed building height and bulk are inconsistent with the prevailing built form of the surrounding area and do not provide an appropriate transition to adjacent low- and mid-rise development. This is contrary to established “context and setting” principles of good design under NSW planning frameworks.
The proposal will result in material impacts on solar access, visual privacy, and overall residential amenity for neighbouring properties. The application does not adequately demonstrate that these impacts have been avoided or minimised.
Furthermore, the extent of the height and floor space uplift sought is not supported by a commensurate public benefit. In its current form, the proposal prioritises development intensity over compatibility with the existing urban fabric.
2. Inadequate Public Transport Capacity
The application relies on the site’s proximity to bus services within a 400-metre radius. However, it does not adequately assess the operational capacity of these services. Bus routes along the Military Road corridor are already subject to peak-hour crowding, delays, and service unreliability, with regular instances of full services and passenger pass-ups.
While the application references the B-Line service, the nearest stop is approximately 850 metres from the site and therefore falls outside commonly accepted walking catchments for high-frequency public transport.
Critically, the Environmental Impact Statement does not include detailed peak-hour load analysis or demonstrate coordination with transport authorities to confirm that additional demand generated by the proposal can be accommodated. In the absence of such evidence, it cannot be concluded that the existing public transport network has the capacity to support the development.
3. Escalation of Local Road Congestion and Safety Impacts
The proposal will generate a significant increase in vehicle movements within an already constrained local road network. Intersections connecting to Military Road experience regular congestion during peak periods, and the surrounding street network is not designed to accommodate substantial increases in traffic volumes.
The traffic assessment appears to rely on limited data collection and does not adequately reflect cumulative or peak-period conditions. As such, it is likely to underestimate the true impact of the development on traffic flow and intersection performance.
Of particular concern is the proximity to local schools, including Mosman Public School and Mosman High School. Increased traffic volumes in this context raise legitimate pedestrian safety concerns, particularly during school drop-off and pick-up periods when pedestrian activity is highest.
The application also overstates the viability of cycling as an alternative transport mode, given the fragmented and incomplete nature of cycling infrastructure connecting Mosman to the Sydney CBD. As such, reliance on mode shift to mitigate traffic impacts is not realistically supported by existing conditions.
4. Misalignment with Affordable Housing Objectives
The application seeks to justify additional height and floor space through the provision of affordable housing. However, the evidence suggests that the resulting rents would remain inaccessible to very low-, low-, and moderate-income households, as defined under NSW Government criteria.
Based on publicly available rental data, even discounted rents are likely to require household incomes well above the threshold for housing stress (generally defined as housing costs exceeding 30% of gross income). This indicates that the proposed “affordable” units would not be genuinely affordable to the intended target groups.
This raises concerns that the proposal does not deliver affordable housing outcomes consistent with the intent of the relevant policy framework. Rather, it appears that the affordable housing provisions are being used to support increased development yield without delivering a proportionate and meaningful community benefit.
Conclusion
For the reasons outlined above, I respectfully request that the Department refuse application SSD-93020230.
The proposal is inconsistent with key planning principles relating to context, amenity, and infrastructure capacity, and does not demonstrate that the additional development intensity is justified by an appropriate level of public benefit.
In the alternative, the application should be subject to substantial redesign to reduce height and scale, align with infrastructure capacity, and ensure that any affordable housing delivered meets the needs of very low-, low-, and moderate-income households in a meaningful and genuine way.
I confirm that I have not made any reportable political donations in the previous two years.