I wish to lodge an objection to the proposed development at Rangers Road, Mosman.
The mass, height and visual impact of the proposed development is inconsistent with the surrounding low-rise residential character, and in particular the Holt Avenue Conservation Area which it directly adjoins, and would result in a fundamental and detrimental change to the heritage and streetscape character and urban landscape which characterises the street and surrounding area as well as overshadowing, loss of privacy and a sense of enclosure for nearby properties.
The proposed height and bulk would remove long-established city skyline and Harbour Bridge views from numerous homes, replacing them with the facade and mass of a seven-storey apartment block and the bulk of the design provides no meaningful transition in scale from surrounding existing and long established buildings.
The surrounding streets (Holt Avenue, Rangers Avenue and connecting roads) are narrow, steep and used frequently by pedestrians, schoolchildren and cyclists and are already heavily congested, especially during school and peak periods. A 91-car basement will substantially increase vehicle movements in an area with limited road capacity. The cumulative strain goes beyond traffic, with limited public transport, insufficient street parking, constrained pedestrian pathways and no capacity in the immediate area to absorb a development of this scale.
Although labelled as an “affordable housing” SSD, the project primarily delivers luxury apartments, with the proposed affordable component appearing to have been included simply as a method of unlocking the SSD pathway rather than meeting the need for affordable housing in a realistic and sensible long term manner.

The bulk and scale of this development is not in keeping with the existing area. It is a blight on the landscape and essentially will ruin the local area, particualrly for those living in close proximity to such an over-sized structure. The traffic on Rangers Road at several times of day is already a congestion issue and there is no alternative once you commit past the Oswald Street bend if you are heading towards Military Road. Beyond the obvious traffic issues, the existing public transport system in this area cannot cope as it is, the bus queues for people needing to get to the city are already beyond ridiculous. Driving around Mosman itself and trying to find a park to shop locally is already a full-time job, there is nowhere to add more parking, more roads, more parks, more schools. The current housing crisis in Sydney needs a planned approach. At the moment, property developers are simply buying up land and building monstrosoties with no regard for the people who will live in or around them. This is not a good idea. Where is the town planning? Who is thinking about the best way for the people in the area to live and have access to amenties? Who will be proud to say they let this happen in the years to come? Councils should be working with the Government to come up with an overall plan for their local area that provides additional housing and appropriate infrastructure while maintaining the sense of place that the area has, and that is enjoyed by all residents. I strongly object to this project.

I object to this over development for many reasons. It is listed above as Residential development with in-fill affordable housing.- 11-23 Rangers Avenue, Mosman. This development is not addressing affordable housing, it is about a million dollar view of the Sydney Harbour, Luxury High End Housing and High Profits for the developer. This site is not suitable for the proposed development and I list my concerns below.
1. Traffic Congestion. Rangers Avenue and surrounding streets are narrow and already congested. Entry to Park Avenue is already dangerous and has a high rate of accidents. Park Avenue is a No Through Road any extended road closures or stop/go traffic could and would impact the access for emergency vehicles and the every day access of the residents. There is already limited parking on the street and the proposed development is including a 91- car basement this will substantially increase vehicle traffic. This development will also substantially increase the number of cars requiring street parking.
2.This is a proposed over development which will dominate the surrounding low-rise residential character, resulting in lack of privacy, overshadowing and a feeling of domination and enclosure for the nearby properties.
3. The Visual Impact Assessment omits any mention of Holt Avenue which will be greatly impacted.
4. This proposed development is right beside a C4 Environmental Living, land and area within the Scenic Protection Area. There has been no consideration of the impact this development will have when viewed from the harbour. There has been no consideration for a gradual transition.
5. This development will involve a huge demolition project and and enormous amount of excavation
I do not see how the surrounding roads and foot paths near this proposed site can accommodate a project of this scale. Also I would like to know what testing has be done to ensure the stability of the rock ledge where others homes are to remain next to the proposed site and or remain behind the site.
6. I do not agree with the applicants walking-distance assessment. Independent analysis indicates that safe pedestrian routes to Cremorne Town Centre fall outside the required 800m distance under the Housing SEPP.

PLease see below submission

I am a very close nearby resident and homeowner.

I have not seen a letter box drop or been advised at all via the developer or Urbis. I only found out about this via Mosman Matters.
This developer as such, has no social license in my opinion, and needs far more consultation undertaken with the locals.

There is virtually no community engagement factored into the development's social impact assessment. In all my years, I have never seen such a thin SIA as this 24 page document.
The EIS details in section 5 that it delivered letters to only 27 near neighbours. This is a ridiculous suggestion that engagement has been effective. Renewable energy developers tend to letter-box drop radius' of up to 3km and often includes hundreds of neighbours (and I am referring to projects with a similar CAPEX, so there is demonstrated evidence out there that it is reasonably practicable to letterbox more than what has been done here in such a built-up area). Additionally, the development only did the letterbox drop in mid-October, not leaving sufficient time for neighbours to properly consider the impact and negotiate on neighbour agreements (I haven't even been invited to discuss a neighbour impact agreement, and as a result, I believe I will likely be constantly complaining to council about impacts, if this project is approved as is).
This development most certainly needs to be referred to IPC for the lack of community engagement, if nothing else.

The EIS details in section 2.5 several other developments as justification that this should go ahead, but none of them have been approved, and the cumulative impact of both those developments and this one, have not been adequately considered.

The EIS details in section 2.6 "Failure to proceed would perpetuate the structural imbalance between demand and supply in Mosman and surrounding areas, placing upward pressure on prices and rents, reducing affordability, and undermining the economic and social benefits associated with a more diverse housing mix". If Urbis is confident in this statement, then it would also be fair to say that the development going ahead will then devalue neighbouring properties, which is bad for all the neighbours, and therefore, all the neighbours (within at least 500m of this development" should be compensated via a near-neighbour agreement. I suggest $10,000/year for the expected build life of the development would be a minimum. I believe my claim here, has an equal amount of substance as Urbis' suggestion that not building it will put upward pressure on prices, and would need to see this challenged by the development. My own economic future shouldn't be impacted by this development.
Additionally, I strongly suggest that these appartments will not be "affordable" - they will still be extremely expensive given the views over Mosman Bay. I kindly request that the updated DA provide for the estimated sale price of each of these, otherwise they're just selling $2m units to make money, and not making anything more affordable for anyone, and only devaluing neighbouring properties. These units must all be sold at a capped price of $750,000 each for the largest unit and less for smaller, for the "affordable housing" claim to be genuine, and DPHI should mandate this, to avoid this just being a cash-cow for developers.

All the renders in Appendix B_DA Drawing Set are only from the Rangers Road side. What about Holt Avenue? please update to include these, otherwise that's a 50% job done.

If this were a renewable energy project, the local council would also enforce a Voluntary Planning Agreement (VPA) of at least 1% of CAPEX to go towards public benefit projects, such as park upgrades and improved facilities, etc. Why does this state significant development not need one?

Additionally, I would like to see that this type of development has a life cycle assessment (LCA) conducted, and then C02-e emission offsets are purchased, both for the construction and operational phases. These types of monster developments should be required to reduce their impacts to climate change.

Thank you.

I am writing to ledge a formal objection to the proposed development located at 11- 23 Rangers Avenue, Mosman.

This proposal raises significant concerns regarding its scale, impact on community character, infrastructure strain and environmental considerations.

The proposed part 6 and part 7 storey residential flat building is disproportionate to the surrounding low and mid-rise buildings. The property sits on a ridge and no account has been taken of this: the height should be calculated from the street level. It will dominate the skyline, overshadow neighbouring properties and significantly alter the visual and social character of the neighbourhood. The larger properties further down on Avenue Road are in the gully and as a result, do not stand out.

The development is to extend to within three meters of the eastern and western boundaries and only slightly more on the northern boundary. This does not compare to recent residential developments which are only 4 stories when there are that close to the boundaries. The setbacks should be at least doubled for this development or the building should be stepped on each of the three sides mentioned. Mosman is a vegetation dense area, and the development should be required to have extensive tall and mature plantings and extensive lawn area at least along the northern and southern boundaries.

The development has vehicle access to the garages from Rangers Avenue. Rangers Avenue is already at capacity and chaotic at least twice each weekday and very busy on weekends. Access to the garages should not be from Rangers Avenue, unless the developers make very significant contributions to relieving the traffic issues on Rangers Avenue.

Public transportation is currently near or over capacity during busy times. Additional bus and ferry services are needed to support these additional commuters.

The developers will be demolishing residences years before the end of their useful lives. The developers should contribute a significant amount to a carbon abatements scheme or offset the embedded carbon in the residences they are demolishing.

The existing infrastructure is very old. Such a significant development will put additional load on the system. This raises serious concerns about long-term infrastructure resilience and public health. The developers should contribute a significant amount to upgrading the existing infrastructure is the surrounding area to cope with the additional load that will be generated. Any solution should not include water being released onto the road.

There will be a significant car park cut into the cliff. The vibrations will inevitably damage some of the heritage houses across the lane from the site. As well as making good any damage caused, the developer should be required to use low-vibration and low noise machinery. The hours of use of such tools should be restricted so that neighbours are not subjected to relentless days of vibrations and noise.

Overall, this development is out of sync with the surroundings and will negatively impact the historic Spencer Street and Holt Avenue heritage area. There should be a significant height reduction to mitigate the impacts of this development.

This is a gross overdevlopment which is completely out of character with the area. It will impose additional traffic on an important secondary road, Rangers Ave, which is already congested by bumper to bumper traffic at times. This will in turn force additional traffic onto other local roads which are not designed for, or capable of, supporting the increased traffic. Although some parking is to be provided within the development, the development will inevitably lead to more people (such as visitors, workers, delivery peorple) trying to park in the surrounding streets which are already devoid of any on street parking at times. This development will not do anything to ease the "housing crisis" as it only provides a paltry amount of so-called "affordable housing", a mere 10 apartments which, based on news reports of other developments on the North Shore and Northern Beaches could possibly be reduced to nil or close to nil at the developer's behest. The rest of the 44 proposed luxury apartments will no doubt be sold for multi millions of dollars and will be completely out of reach for all but the wealthy. There is no local demand for this development. It is not answering local needs. Any development of this nature and scale should be restricted to Military Road where it will fit in with the scale and nature of other devlopments lining that road.

I am of the view that the Project's bulk, scale and proposed location are inappropriate.
I list below my immediate concerns.
- There has been very limited consultation with surrounding properties. There has been no consultation with most properties in Park Avenue. We will all be affected by noise, disruption and traffic during construction and increased traffic congestion in the future.
- The limited chance for community engagement is made worse by the most unfortunate inconvenient timing for submissions from 4 to 17 December - A real disadvantage to residents at a time when most families are distracted by end of year obligations.
- The building(s) as described seems principally aimed at a luxury market with a minimal concession to affordable housing for 15 years.
- As someone who has negotiated the traffic and roundabouts affecting egress from Park Avenue into Rangers for 25 years I was deeply surprised by the rosy picture provided in the EIS. Significant congestion and queueing is obvious at peak times and increasingly on weekends and school holidays during the Summer, as Rangers Avenue becomes heavily used for traffic to Balmoral Beach and other locations. This definitely needs more examination than a brief weekday study in September.
- Adding to the traffic problem will be the exit from a 91 vehicle garage directly into the Rangers Avenue traffic. It appears that currently only one of the existing houses uses a vehicle exit onto Rangers Ave; others use Bloxom Lane. This proposal will result in a significantly increased point of congestion.
- Questionably, rubbish bin collection is breezily dismissed as not creating any particular ongoing problem. In a street as increasingly used as Rangers Ave - especially in the narrow congested approach to the roundabout at Park Avenue - collecting the claimed 42 bins each week, rising to 49 each fortnight will inevitably cause disruption and congestion.
- This is also a section of road used by cyclists descending towards Avenue Road, usually in the early morning. Further congestion can only add to hazards.
- Nearby public transport is limited to the 230 bus in Avenue Road.
- The prospect of overshadowing also appears to be treated in a fairly cursory fashion. Buildings in the lower part of Park Avenue already experience overshadowing caused by the natural topography of the area. They should be able to seek some reassurance that this large structure will not exacerbate the issue.

Submission: Objection to DA SUB-102039956 –
11–23 Rangers Ave, Mosman

My property is directly behind this monstrosity.
To the Assessment Panel,
I am writing to strongly oppose the proposed development at 11–23 Rangers Ave (SUB-102039956). As the co-owner of a property directly behind the site, I am deeply concerned about the significant and lasting impacts this project will have on our neighbourhood, our safety, and our quality of life.
1. Unprecedented Excavation – Unaddressed Risks
The development plans call for an extraordinary excavation: 2.5 basement levels, reaching approximately 10 metres deep and spanning nearly the entire 3,594 sqm site.
Shockingly, the application documents do not provide any estimate of the total volume of sandstone, rock, or soil to be removed. My own calculations indicate that around 30,000 cubic metres of material will be excavated—a staggering amount that rivals major infrastructure projects.
The absence of a formal estimate in the documentation is not just an oversight; it is a fundamental failure in risk assessment and transparency.
Without this information, it is impossible to properly evaluate the impact on neighbouring properties, local roads, and the broader community.
2. Traffic Chaos and Safety Hazards
The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) mentions only 10–20 vehicles per day during construction, but this grossly underestimates the true scale of heavy truck movements required for excavation.
Rangers Ave is a narrow, winding residential street with a strict 3-tonne weight limit and a 25 km/h speed limit.
The plan to use heavy and medium rigid vehicles is not only impractical—it is dangerous.
The inevitable increase in traffic will create congestion, threaten pedestrian safety, and disrupt daily life for all residents.
The removal of tens of thousands of cubic metres of material will require hundreds, if not thousands, of truck trips, placing an intolerable burden on our community.
3. Structural Integrity and Geotechnical Oversights
The geotechnical report provided is vague and fails to address the risk of damage to neighbouring homes, the stability of Rangers Ave, and the cliff edge opposite the site.
There is a conspicuous lack of evidence that the deep excavation will not destabilise the slope, potentially leading to rockfalls or landslips that could endanger lives and property.
The application also ignores the engineering challenges of constructing retaining walls capable of withstanding the immense pressure from the land above.
These omissions are not minor—they represent serious threats to the safety and security of our neighbourhood.
4. Loss of Views and Heritage Character
My home, directly behind 23 Rangers Ave, currently enjoys cherished city views from the second floor—views that were a key reason for our extension and have become an integral part of our family’s daily life.
The proposed development will completely block these views, erasing a vital connection to the heritage and character of Mosman.
It is simply unjust to sacrifice the amenity and enjoyment of so many residents for a single development.
The Council must consider the broader impact on community wellbeing and the unique qualities that make our street special.

In summary, this proposal is not just a matter of new construction—it is a test of our commitment to responsible planning, community safety, and the preservation of Mosman’s heritage.
I urge the Council to reject this application, or at the very least, require substantial amendments that address these critical concerns. Our neighbourhood deserves thoughtful development that respects both its people and its history.
Thank you for your consideration.