The development proposes an eight‑ to nine‑storey building (about 31.6 m) in a street of mostly small houses. It would be dramatically larger than anything around it and would visually dominate Ourimbah Road and its surrounds.

The proposal is excessively tall even taking into account the 30%affordable housing bonus and is an overdevelopment for the site size.

The wall height is around 29.42 m, compared with the 7.2 m limit in the Mosman LEP. This is more than four times the permitted height and represents an extreme departure from local planning controls.

Council’s preferred Masterplan for this area suggests development of around six levels. This proposal is two to three levels higher and inconsistent with the scale Council intended.

The development sits directly beside the small heritage‑listed building at 60 Ourimbah Road and will completely overshadow it and does not respond to the heritage characteristics and does not ensure its visibility.

The heritage report dismisses impacts on the Lang Street and Killarney Estate Conservation Areas by claiming there are no shared view corridors. The real issue is how the building affects their skyline, setting and visual character.
The plan proposes to demolish federation homes with character instead of preserving these in any shape of form for future generations. It is unsympathetic to history and its surrounds.

It appears as if not verified photomontages have been provided from within the conservation areas. These are essential to understand how the upper levels of the building would appear behind their low‑scale streetscapes.

The visual assessment relies on mature trees to hide the building. Trees are not permanent, and the upper levels will always be visible regardless of landscaping.
The proposed building will significantly overlook nearby homes and gardens and impact not only privacy but also the access to light for these homes. They will be completely overshadowed.

Two basement levels mean major excavation beside the heritage item. Enforceable measures need to be put into place to protect the heritage building as well as for groundwater, noise, rock excavation, truck movements, dust and structural monitoring of surrounding homes.

Access for 92 cars is proposed directly from Ourimbah Road, a classified road and bus route. This raises safety concerns for pedestrians, bus users and drivers, especially near the existing bus stop and the overall use of the road which already is severely backed up on most days.

The visual impact should be assessed against the neighborhood as it exists today. Accurate photomontages from nearby streets and heritage areas are needed.

The Department should consider the combined effects of this and other major developments around Spit Junction (including proposed developments in Bond Street), including traffic, excavation, noise and pressure on local infrastructure .
Only 12 of the units would be affordable, and only for 15 years. Permanent height should mean permanent affordable housing. It is also questionable as to whether this is indeed affordable housing in the true sense of the word.

PRELIMINARY COMMENTS
Thank you for reading my submission. It is made in good faith as a resident ratepayer, a close neighbour to the development, and as a concerned citizen of NSW. I hope it contributes positively to your decision-making on this project.

To be honest, I don't expect the review process to result in any major refusal, largely because credible effort has clearly gone into the planning and documentation of this proposal, and the proposed exterior architectural form is not unpleasant, which can't be said for other recent proposals in the Mosman LGA

Nevertheless I would respectfully urge those involved in approving this application to probe a little, and disallow or seek to modify any elements where improvements can be made or the letter and spirit of the appropriate legislation is breached.

WHY DO I OBJECT?
My major concern is that although the project is in a cartographic sense sitting comfortably inside the appropriate gazetted zone, there are limitations to how a blanket zoning system can deliver a good outcome.

I would suggest that the community and social reality is that this location is actually on the NORTHERN BOUNDARY of what is felt as the communally imagined area emanating from Spit Junction.

With this in mind, the proposed development is setting a major precedent in the district, and will shift the "centre of gravity" of this northern part of Mosman in an irretrievable way. This effect will be exacerbated if the project is permitted to go as high as is requested, and I can see no good reason for permitting the 9th Floor, for example. The basic reason implied is little more than "well, we wanna do it because we do", and that's presumably to maximise profit.

IT'S ON A VERY BUSY AND RELATIVELY NARROW ROAD
This sense that the development will have a major rather than minimal impact is further exacerbated by its location EXACTLY at what is arguably the busiest part of an extremely busy Classified Regional Road. The section of Ourimbah Road onto which traffic from the new building will enter, is fed West-bound by the Spit Rd outlet, then by Brady St, Cowles Rd (2 directions) and Bond St. This means that in the morning peak period there is a CONSTANT westward traffic flow, as different traffic lights operate at different times, and the traffic runs very fast.

A disproportionate number of those commuters are also stopping temporarily in side streets to access the retail coffee outlet. This is not a bad thing, but it's a BUSY thing.

In the afternoon peak, traffic flowing East is fed largely by the arterial route, but also from Lang St and Countess St, as well as traffic to and from the tennis courts in Rosebery St.

I would suggest that while traffic is not such an unusual thing in a busy city, the presence of the new development will add both a physical and visual bottleneck to the route. (Please see the attached screenshots taken from the proposal document - the lens effect of these images makes Ourimbah Rd look wider than it actually is. It only has 4 lanes, 2 each way.

I can pretty much guarantee that vehicles leaving the new development will have difficulty getting on to Ourimbah Rd. I know this because some current residents of the houses to be demolished find it much easier to park their vehicles in Rosebery St..

My point then is that this proposed development will have a much greater impact than the relatively modest footprint would suggest. I hope you can keep this in mind as deliberations are made.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROVISION - NOT ENOUGH CAR PARKING SPACES!!
We can hardly blame developers for using the affordable housing offset to earn the right to add another floor. I acknowledge that the in my opinion the architectural visuals are relatively good, but it would be pleasing if there was evident a little more enthusiasm for providing affordable space.

To be honest, I find it outrageous that while the 51 "market apartments" are allocated 72 car park spaces, the 12 "affordable" apartments are allocated ONLY 6 SPACES, and that is in spite of the fact that a significant number of the affordable units have multiple bedrooms.

Would it not be more equitable, and more in the spirit of the legislation and values of social justice and neighbourliness, if the car space breakdown was, say, 63 parking spots for Market Units and 15 parking for Affordable Units.

Thank you in advance for considering my comments.
David English
5/8/2026

I am a resident of Rosebery Street, Mosman, within the area likely to be affected by the proposed development at 40-56 Ourimbah Road. I object to this application and ask the Department to carefully consider its impacts on neighbouring residents, heritage assets and the established character of the area.
While I support additional housing, including affordable housing, I do not believe this proposal achieves an appropriate balance between housing outcomes and local amenity. The proposal represents an overdevelopment of the site and exceeds what can reasonably be accommodated in this location.

Excessive Height, Bulk and Scale
The proposal seeks approval for a part eight-storey, part nine-storey residential building reaching approximately 31.6 metres in height. This would introduce a building of a scale that is dramatically larger than the existing surrounding development and would dominate the streetscape along Ourimbah Road.
The underlying planning controls permit a maximum building height of 22 metres. Even after applying the maximum affordable housing bonus, the permissible height would increase to approximately 28.6 metres. The proposed building would still exceed that bonused height limit by around three metres. This demonstrates that the development cannot fit comfortably within even the maximum planning concessions available and is therefore an overdevelopment of the site.
The proposal also includes wall heights reaching approximately 29.42 metres compared with the 7.2-metre wall-height standard under the Mosman Local Environmental Plan. Parts of the building would therefore exceed the local wall-height standard by more than four times. Such an extreme departure requires exceptional justification, which in my view has not been demonstrated.

Inconsistency with Council's Preferred Masterplan
Although the site falls within Mosman Council's endorsed preferred Masterplan area, the Masterplan generally contemplates development of approximately six storeys along this section of Ourimbah Road. The proposed development would substantially exceed that scale, rising approximately two to three storeys above what Council's preferred planning vision contemplates. This creates a development outcome that is inconsistent with the strategic planning framework that residents have been led to expect.

Reliance on a Speculative Future Context
A significant concern is that many of the proposal's urban design and visual impact conclusions appear to be based on an assumed future context in which surrounding sites are progressively redeveloped into larger apartment buildings. However, planning decisions should be based primarily on the existing and reasonably foreseeable character of the area, rather than on an optimistic redevelopment scenario that may never fully occur.
As a resident of Rosebery Street, I have not seen evidence demonstrating that widespread redevelopment of surrounding properties is either imminent or inevitable. In fact, redevelopment across the broader precinct remains uncertain, and at least one nearby redevelopment proposal has previously been withdrawn, demonstrating that redevelopment outcomes cannot simply be assumed. Many surrounding properties face ownership, market and economic constraints that may limit redevelopment opportunities for many years. In particular, a number of sites do not possess the same redevelopment economics or value drivers that would support large-scale site amalgamation and redevelopment.
My own experience further reinforces this uncertainty. As a property owner on Rosebery Street, I am aware of the practical challenges associated with site amalgamation and redevelopment within the locality. Redevelopment outcomes depend on numerous factors, including landowner participation, market conditions and site assembly, and cannot be assumed to occur within any particular timeframe.
I also note that a nearby State Significant Development proposal affecting properties on Countess Street and Rosebery Street was subsequently withdrawn. This further demonstrates that redevelopment outcomes remain uncertain and that future development assumptions may not materialise within the timeframes anticipated by proponents.
As a result, there is a realistic possibility that the proposed 31.6-metre building would remain surrounded by substantially lower-scale development for decades. If this occurs, the building's visual dominance, bulk, privacy impacts, overshadowing and effects on neighbourhood character would be experienced by existing residents long into the future.
The Department should therefore assess the proposal against the neighbourhood that exists today and the reasonably foreseeable future, not against a hypothetical future streetscape that assumes widespread redevelopment has already occurred. Particular weight should be given to the existing built form and current streetscape character, as these are the conditions that neighbouring residents experience and may continue to experience for many years. Even if further redevelopment eventually takes place, the potentially lengthy interim period during which this building would stand well above its surroundings must be properly considered.
If the Department is minded to support redevelopment of the site, the building should be reduced in height and scale so that its impacts are minimised under both the existing neighbourhood context and any future redevelopment scenario.

Heritage Impacts
The site sits immediately adjacent to the two-storey heritage-listed property at 60 Ourimbah Road and in proximity to the Lang Street and Killarney Estate Heritage Conservation Areas. The applicant's own heritage assessment acknowledges that introducing a large building into an area currently characterised by one- and two-storey dwellings will inherently affect the area. Despite this acknowledgement, the proposal appears to rely largely on setbacks and architectural contrast rather than providing a genuine transition in height, bulk and scale to the heritage item.
The proposed development would wrap around the heritage-listed building at No. 60, creating serious concerns regarding site isolation, the future viability of the property and the preservation of its heritage setting. The Department should carefully examine whether reasonable amalgamation opportunities have genuinely been exhausted and whether the proposal would compromise the heritage item's long-term use and significance.
I am also concerned that the heritage assessment appears to dismiss impacts on the nearby Lang Street and Killarney Estate Heritage Conservation Areas primarily on the basis that there are limited direct view corridors. Heritage impacts cannot be assessed solely through formal view corridors. The proposal's effect on skyline character, visual setting and the broader heritage significance of these areas must be properly considered. Furthermore, it does not appear that verified photomontages have been provided from within these conservation areas. Such assessments should be required before any determination is made.

Privacy, Amenity and Construction Impacts
An eight- to nine-storey building would increase overlooking of neighbouring homes, gardens and private open spaces while affecting privacy, outlook and neighbourhood character. The proposal also includes two basement levels requiring extensive excavation immediately adjacent to a heritage-listed building and near surrounding homes. Independent structural assessments, vibration monitoring and enforceable repair obligations should be required. Construction impacts, including noise, dust, truck movements, traffic disruption and extended construction periods, would affect nearby residents for years and should not be underestimated.

Traffic and Road Safety
The development proposes access to 92 parking spaces from Ourimbah Road, a classified road and bus route.
Given its proximity to an existing bus stop, concerns remain regarding traffic safety, pedestrian movements, sightlines and construction access arrangements.

Affordable Housing Does Not Justify Permanent Impacts
Only 12 of the 63 apartments would be designated as affordable housing, and affordability would be maintained for only 15 years.
In contrast, the additional building height, floor space and neighbourhood impacts would remain permanently. It is difficult to justify permanent departures from planning controls on the basis of a temporary public benefit.

Conclusion
For the reasons outlined above, I respectfully object to the proposed development at 40-56 Ourimbah Road. The proposal exceeds both existing planning controls and Council's preferred Masterplan scale, creates unacceptable impacts on heritage assets and neighbouring residents, relies on a speculative future redevelopment scenario that may never occur, and fails to appropriately minimise its impacts on the existing community. The Department should be cautious about approving permanent departures from planning controls based on future redevelopment assumptions that may not materialise for many years, if at all.
I have attached a screenshot from the NSW Planning Portal showing the withdrawal of a nearby State Significant Development proposal as an example of the uncertainty associated with assumptions of widespread future redevelopment within the locality.
I urge the Department to either refuse the application or require substantial modifications, including a significant reduction in height, bulk and scale, so that the development better reflects the existing character of the area, provides a genuine transition to nearby heritage items and minimises long-term impacts on surrounding residents and properties.

Yours faithfully,
Resident of Rosebery Street, Mosman
Attachment A: NSW Planning Portal Screenshot Showing Withdrawn SSD Proposal (Countess Street / Rosebery Street)

Executive Summary
I write to formally lodge my strong objection to the State Significant Development (SSD) proposal at 40-56 Ourimbah Road, Mosman. While I recognise the critical need for diverse housing supply and affordable infill options across Sydney, the scale of this project represents a severe overdevelopment of the site. The push for a part-eight, part-nine storey high-density structure grossly violates the local environmental planning guidelines, jeopardises neighbourhood safety, and sets a destructive precedent for the Mosman community.
1. Gross Overdevelopment and Excessive Height
• Scale Incompatibility: An 8-to-9 storey apartment complex stands completely at odds with the predominantly low-to-mid rise character of Ourimbah Road and its surrounding streetscapes.
Abuse of Incentives: Exploiting state-accelerated planning pathways to construct a high-rise tower under the guise of "mid-rise affordable housing" constitutes clear planning overreach. Even after application of the maximum 30% affordable-housing bonus, the proposed height of approximately 31.6 metres would still exceed the increased 28.6-metre limit by about three metres. A development that cannot fit within its own maximum bonused height is an overdevelopment of the site.
• Precedent Risk: Approving a 63-apartment complex of this visual bulk strips away the validity of Mosman Council’s local planning controls and opens the floodgates for unregulated high-density zoning.
2. Severe Impact on Local Amenity
• Overshadowing and Solar Access: The building's bulk will cast massive, multi-storey shadows over adjoining properties, blocking natural light from existing homes, private open spaces, and gardens.
• Loss of Privacy: Visual intrusion from the upper levels will directly overlook the yards and windows of neighbouring low-density residences, completely destroying their acoustic and visual privacy.
• Visual Bulk and "Canyon" Effect: Replacing nine traditional detached homes with a single massive building footprint creates an oppressive, concrete visual barrier along Ourimbah Road.
3. Infrastructure and Traffic Strain
• Traffic Congestion: Adding 63 luxury and infill apartments—compounded by basement parking—will inject heavy vehicular traffic into Ourimbah Road, which is already a highly active local thoroughfare.
• Construction Disruptions: The inevitable excavation required for substantial underground parking poses severe risks of structural vibrations, prolonged noise pollution, and hazardous heavy vehicle movements on narrow residential streets.
• Utility Overload: Local sewage, stormwater drainage, and emergency access pathways are not adequately scaled to handle sudden, high-density population spikes.
• Temporary affordable housing for permanent additional height
• Only 12 of the 63 apartments would be designated as affordable housing, and the proposal relies on a minimum affordability period of only 15 years. The affordable apartments should remain affordable in perpetuity, just as the additional building height and floor space would remain in perpetuity.

Conclusion
The proposed design by Doroch Architects for First Quadrant Properties fails to align with the visual, physical, and environmental baseline of the Mosman Municipality. It sacrifices the liveability and safety of long-standing community members for developer yield.
I strongly urge the Department of Planning to refuse this application in its current form. The applicant must be instructed to significantly scale down the height and bulk of the building to integrate safely with the existing neighbourhood character.
Thank you for considering this submission.

I strongly object to the proposed residential development at 40–56 Ourimbah Road, Mosman. This project is extremely concerning and, in its current form, should not proceed. The scale, height, design and overall approach are completely inappropriate for this part of Mosman and would have a significant and unreasonable impact on the surrounding residential area, local traffic, neighbouring properties, heritage items and the character of the suburb.

The scale of the project is far too large. It appears to push well beyond what is contemplated by the applicable planning controls and raises serious questions about the approach being taken by the developer. The proposal gives the impression of something being put forward at such an excessive scale that, even if it is eventually reduced, the resulting building could still be substantially larger and taller than what is appropriate for this location. The planning authority should take a very serious view of a proposal that appears to test the limits of the planning system and rules in this manner.

The proposed building is simply far too large and too tall for its surroundings. It does not provide an appropriate transition between the existing low-rise homes and buildings and the proposed development. Rather than gradually blending into the existing streetscape, it would introduce a building of a scale that is completely out of character with the immediate area.
The developers state that the proposal supports the Mosman Council Masterplan. However, the final draft of the Mosman Council Masterplan has been amended to identify a maximum height of four storeys in this area. This is important because the final draft reflects the need for development to occur gradually, with building heights carefully managed so new development can blend into the existing character of the suburb. It also reflects the views expressed by Mosman residents that development in this area should remain at a lower height and that significant increases in building height should not occur without an appropriate transition.

The proposal does not appear to recognise or follow that principle of gradual transition. As one of the first substantial developments of this scale in the street, it should be setting an appropriate precedent rather than establishing a significantly greater height before the surrounding area has undergone any corresponding change. If development were to occur gradually over time, with appropriately designed two- to four-storey buildings established first over the next 15 years, a larger development may eventually be more compatible with the changing streetscape. At present, however, that gradual transition simply does not exist.

Even the older Masterplan material referred to by the developers does not appear to support the proposed scale. The previous High and Narrow option identified heights of approximately 6–8 storeys, rather than the 9–10 storeys proposed. It is therefore concerning that the proposal presents itself as supporting the Masterplan when its proposed height appears to exceed even the higher range previously contemplated. It is difficult to see how a proposal of nine or ten storeys can reasonably be described as supporting a planning direction that has now moved towards a maximum of four storeys in this location.

The impact on surrounding residents cannot be understated. Consider the properties immediately to the south of the proposed development. These homes currently receive reasonable access to sunlight from the north, and a building of the proposed scale will substantially obstruct that sunlight for a significant part of the day. The proposal would also affect privacy, outlook and the sense of openness currently enjoyed by neighbouring properties. Its excessive height and bulk would make it a dominant feature of the streetscape and could obstruct views and negatively affect the broader visual character of Mosman, including views towards the harbour and foreshore.

The relationship between the proposed development and the heritage-listed shops at the end of the block is another significant concern. A development of this scale and height in such close proximity to a heritage item requires particularly careful consideration. How can a building of this size, bulk and height reasonably be considered an appropriate design response next to a heritage-listed building? A new development should respond sensitively to the scale, character and significance of heritage buildings rather than overwhelming them through its size and visual presence.

I am also concerned about the way the affordable housing provisions are being relied upon to support this development. While the proposal utilises affordable housing provisions, the scale and nature of the development raise legitimate questions about whether the intended objectives of those provisions are genuinely being achieved. Affordable housing provisions should not become a mechanism through which a development can obtain significant additional scale or height while delivering housing that remains unaffordable to ordinary local residents.

If these apartments are genuinely intended to provide affordable housing, there should be clear evidence demonstrating how they will remain affordable in practice. In Mosman, genuinely affordable housing is extremely difficult to achieve, particularly if affordable housing is intended to mean housing costing less than $1 million. In the last 12 months, only approximately 60 properties have reportedly sold for less than $1 million, and none were new-build properties. This raises an obvious question: if the development is intended to provide genuinely affordable housing, how can the apartments be offered at an affordable price while also providing the developer with a commercially viable return and profit?
There is also a concern about the temporary nature of the affordability requirement. If the housing is only required to remain affordable for a limited period, where does that leave the essential workers and other people who rely on genuinely affordable housing once that period expires?

The proposed parking arrangements are also a major concern. Access for more than 90 vehicles is proposed via Ourimbah Road, which is an important traffic route that already carries significant traffic and experiences congestion during parts of the day. Adding an entrance and exit serving this number of vehicles has the potential to create significant traffic-flow and safety problems, particularly during peak periods. The proposed exit onto Ourimbah Road is particularly concerning given the volume and speed of traffic using this road.

There is further concern regarding the nearby bus stop and the potential for vehicle movements associated with the development to interfere with public transport operations or contribute to additional congestion. This is not simply a matter of adding another driveway to a quiet residential street; the development is proposing a substantial number of vehicles accessing a major local thoroughfare.

If the development were reduced substantially in height and scale, the resulting reduction in the number of apartments could also reduce the demand for parking and vehicle access. However, if the number of apartments and parking spaces were reduced too far, residents could instead be forced to rely more heavily on already limited on-street parking in the surrounding streets, creating another significant impact for existing residents. A genuinely appropriate reduction in scale should therefore reduce the overall number of vehicles without simply transferring the parking problem onto neighbouring streets. The proposal should also consider whether a lower level of car ownership and greater reliance on public transport could form part of a genuinely appropriate affordable housing development.

There are also significant concerns regarding the scale of excavation required. This part of Mosman sits on significant sandstone geology, and excavation on the scale required for a development of this size has the potential to affect surrounding properties, roads and infrastructure. The impacts of such extensive excavation need to be properly understood before a development of this scale is approved.

Taken together, the excessive height, substantial bulk, lack of appropriate transition, impact on sunlight and privacy, heritage concerns, traffic and parking issues, excavation requirements and questions surrounding the affordable housing provisions demonstrate that this development is simply too large and too intensive for this location.

If a nine- or ten-storey development is permitted when the final draft of the Mosman Masterplan identifies a maximum of four storeys, it would establish an inappropriate precedent for future development and undermine the principle of gradual change. The community has expressed a preference for lower heights in this area, and the first major development should not leap ahead of the surrounding neighbourhood and then become the justification for further increases in scale.

I therefore strongly urge the planning authority to refuse the proposal in its current form. At an absolute minimum, the development should be substantially reduced in height, bulk and density so that it provides a genuine transition between the existing low-rise residential development and any future development in the area.

103 Awaba Street
Mosman NSW 2088
30 July 2026


Dear Sir/Madam
Re: 40-56 Ourimbah Road Mosman SSD development
I am writing to you as a long term (over 25 years) resident of Mosman, and I grew up in Neutral Bay. I have therefore witnessed how the two suburbs and adjoining areas have changed over the last 60 years.
Generally, homeowners in Mosman have followed the DA rules and renovated or built homes within the Mosman Council guidelines. These guidelines were created with the knowledge of the infrastructure and layout of the suburb, and thus there have been restrictions on heights and numbers of homes that can be built on the blocks of land. The houses along Ourimbah Road, Bond Street and Roseberry Street include Federation homes, Federation terraces and Californian bungalow style homes, as well as blocks of units at the maximum 3-4 storey height level at the intersection of Military Road. Many of the old homes are therefore about 100-130 years old. The units are modest in height, and not to the current new height of many new unit blocks with ~ 3 metre ceilings, so the whole blocks of units are not towering over the neighbouring single/two storey homes.
I have a number of concerns with the proposed development:
1. There isn’t the infrastructure (including roads, public transport, hospitals, water, power grids, internet etc) to service a huge increase in housing in this part of Mosman. There is nothing that the State or Federal Governments will do, or plan to do, to address these issues. The Beaches link road option has been taken away, so there aren’t any current solutions in place. In reality Mosman will never have the infrastructure to cope with all the LMR/SSD housing proposed.
2. Given the bottle necks that Military Road experiences, many cars use Ourimbah Road as an alternate route to avoid Cremorne Junction and Spit Junction. Bringing 96 vehicles on and off Ourimbah Road will cause this current 2 lane each way thoroughfare to significantly slow down/stop as owners access or leave their home in this proposed development. It simply won’t work.
3. The sheer size of the proposed property, both up close as well as the view from places as far away as Cammeray and Northbridge, will be nothing short of an eyesore. If this development is approved then the precedent will be relied upon for many more developments, which will just exacerbate the current issues as a result of the lack of infrastructure.
4. With the current rules being flaunted by including affordable housing, I cannot understand why the developer has proposed to add another 4 metres on top. Nearly 32 metres will make this the tallest building in Mosman.
5. Affordable housing should be affordable for as long as the apartments are standing, not 10 or 15 years. These poorly lit, small apartments will give poor amenity to the residents.
6. All the homes along Bond Street and Roseberry Street, to the south of the proposed development, will lose all their northern sun from their windows and their gardens, leaving just the morning, easterly sun, and maybe a little late afternoon sun at the height of summer. These are homes that have abided by the DA rules of past years and now will have their enjoyment completely removed because they happened to be next door to a 32 metre tower.
7. Whilst the developers are within 400 metre distance rule to the town centre, they are trying to get 6 stories, plus 3 levels of underground parking approved. It will be a slippery slope should this be approved and other developers will follow. Who knows where the 400 metre rule might be used or ignored?
8. There is a lack of cohesion with the surrounding buildings, with large curved balconies and large glass sections across the northern aspect.
9. My last concern is the “affordable housing” card that is being played. There will never be affordable housing in Mosman, so this should not be used as a means for additional levels of apartments.
This development in its current form, with its current bulk and height, should not be approved given the issues above.
Yours sincerely

Catherine Keddie