To the Assessment Officer,
I am writing to formally lodge my objection to the proposed State Significant Development (SSD [State Significant Development – Large-scale projects assessed by the state government rather than local council]) at 93–107 Cecil Avenue and 9–10 Roger Avenue, Castle Hill.
As a resident of Olola Avenue for over 23 years, I have witnessed the evolution of Castle Hill firsthand. While I acknowledge the strategic importance of increasing housing density near the Metro, I believe the scale and height of this specific proposal represent a significant over-development that fails to account for existing infrastructure constraints and community safety.
My objections are based on the following critical points:
1. Severe Cumulative Traffic Impact and Existing Gridlock The current road network is already at a breaking point. Specifically, exiting Cecil Avenue or Crane Road onto Terminus Street, as well as exiting Francis Avenue onto Old Northern Road, are all heavily congested. This is no longer restricted to weekday peaks; it is increasingly problematic throughout the entire weekend and every afternoon.
• The Issue: The addition of 615 apartments will introduce upwards of 1,000 additional vehicle movements daily.
• The Request: I urge the Department to require a cumulative traffic study that accounts for "real-world" weekend and afternoon peaks, rather than relying on idealized weekday morning models. Without significant upgrades to the Terminus Street and Old Northern Road intersections, this project will result in total neighborhood gridlock.
2. Direct Safety Risks to Hills Adventist College (K–6) The subject site is located directly opposite the Hills Adventist College (Castle Hill Campus), which serves primary school students and early learning toddlers.
• The Issue: The proposed density is incompatible with a school zone. The construction phase alone involves years of heavy vehicle movements (trucks and machinery) that pose a high-level risk to young children during peak drop-off and pick-up hours.
• The Request: Any approval must consider the safety of these "vulnerable road users." A 25-storey high-density complex is fundamentally at odds with the safe operation of a junior school environment.
3. Inappropriate Scale and Lack of Transition A 25-storey tower is a CBD-scale (Central Business District [The main commercial and business centre of a city]) skyscraper being placed in what is currently a low-to-medium density transition zone.
• The Issue: This height exceeds the reasonable expectations of "in-fill" (Building within existing urban areas) development. It creates a harsh visual impact, significant overshadowing, and a loss of privacy (amenity [The pleasantness or attractive features of a place]) for the surrounding residential homes.
• The Request: I request a significant reduction in the maximum building height to ensure the project provides a "stepped" transition that respects the existing character of the Hills District.
Conclusion I ask that the Department refuses the current application and directs the applicant to submit a revised plan with lower density and reduced height. The community's safety and the basic functionality of our local roads must be prioritized over developer yield.
Thank you for considering the feedback of a long-term Castle Hill resident.
Sincerely,
Sunny Lee 12 Olola Avenue
Castle Hill NSW 2154

Objection to Development Application SSD 93020230
40–48 Redan Street, Mosman
I am a resident, Maria Psalts, of Muston Street, Unit 2/ 76 Muston Street and have lived in the area for 60 years. I strongly object to the proposed development.
This project is fundamentally out of character with the Balmoral slopes. Its excessive height and bulk would permanently disrupt the scale and visual harmony of the area, creating a dominant and intrusive structure visible from across Balmoral BeachO.
Despite being presented as “affordable housing,” the development is likely to deliver high-end apartments beyond the reach of ordinary workers, while introducing a segregated rear entrance for so-called affordable units. This “poor door” approach is inappropriate and inconsistent with Australia’s values of social inclusion.
The proposal would significantly impact established views to the Heads and Balmoral Beach, causing distress to long-term residents who have enjoyed these outlooks for generations.
The scale of excavation—up to 10 metres into sandstone to the site boundaries—raises serious concerns about structural risk, including ground movement, vibration, and potential damage to neighbouring properties. The design appears to force the site to suit the building, rather than respecting the natural topography.
The development would also overwhelm nearby heritage-listed properties at 36 and 38 Redan Street and undermine the character of the Scenic Protection Area, where visual intrusion is meant to be minimised.
Access and safety are major concerns. Redan Lane is narrow, lacks footpaths, and is unsuitable for increased traffic, service vehicles, and pedestrian use. Construction impacts would further disrupt access to the well-used Upper Almora Street pedestrian pathway to Balmoral Beach.
Local infrastructure is already limited. Increased density, combined with a large-scale building in a steep and constrained location, raises legitimate concerns about emergency access and service capacity.
Finally, the proposal appears non-compliant. It exceeds height controls and relies on variations, while not meeting the 400-metre proximity requirement to the Mosman town centre when measured via safe, legitimate pedestrian routes.
For these reasons, I urge that this application be refused. The proposal represents an overdevelopment of a sensitive and iconic area and risks causing lasting harm to the character, amenity, and heritage of Balmoral and its surrounds.

See attachment.

See attachment.

See attachment.

Refer to attached objection on behalf of Chris & Rhae Shaw, owners of No. 73 Muston Street, Mosman.