11A Musgrave Street, Mosman NSW 2088

I object to the proposal to add a third level to 11a Musgrave St.
When we purchased our unit in 2017 we paid for the view, location and level of privacy afforded by the surrounding buildings.
The proposed additional level would breach current building height regulations and adversely impact my view, privacy and the value of my unit.

I am strongly opposed to the proposal to add a third level to 11a Musgrave St.
We purchased our apartment in 2020 and have invested in an substantial renovation due to the fact that we knew we would get a return on our investment due to the uninterrupted views across Mosman Bay.
The proposed additional level would hugely impact our current view and the future value of our unit.
In addition the privacy and level of sunshine in our back garden would also be heavily impacted by another level being added, meaning no one could enjoy this shared area which is frequently utilised by the entire building.

I oppose this development. It would severely impact on light, privacy and views. A third level at 11a Musgrave Street would impact on our unit block and will affect our garden common areas, apartment light, views and potential resale value. We bought the unit a number of years ago as the street is quiet and the views and privacy areas were a selling point. The building of this unit will impact these factors significantly.

Dear Sir or Madam,

We are the owners of 9A and 9B Musgrave Street. We object to the development, with three primary concerns.

1. The application does not provide any details of how traffic will be managed to ensure that we have vehicle access to our properties at all times. There is limited parking in the vicinity of the proposed development and the access road is narrow. Any new development ought to require a traffic manager present at all times during construction to ensure constant access.

2. The development poses additional privacy and overlooking of my garden, pool (approved by Council) and north facing windows caused by the proposed third storey and balcony. This concern could be addressed by deleting the proposed third storey.

3. The proposed third storey and additional height will be visible from my property (from both habitable rooms and my garden areas) giving rise to the appearance of bulk and excessive scale. This concern could be addressed by pulling back the roof line of the third storey to be in line with the building line of 11 Musgrave St.

Sincerely, Craig and Kim Stokeld

Brian& Jillanne Aldridge We are the owners of 15 Musgrave Street, and live next door to the proposed development site.We strongly object to this proposal. 1. The amount of trucks and equipment that would be needed for this development would severely impinge on the safety of the slip road we live on. 2. The road itself is very narrow and there is a large sink hole directly in front of our drive way, which has been repaired multiple times but is getting progressively worse. The weight of construction vehicles and drilling would lead to further instability of the road. There has already been precedent for land slide at the wharf end of our slip road some years ago ,which the Mosman Council must have notes on. 3.The extra level would also impact on our privacy .The light factor is another concern with this extra level. 4.The proposal for extra car parking would also be a danger,as the drilling down into the sandstone could lead to instability in our foundations. 5.I also find it quite strange that the two apartments closest to us that are in the development proposal caught fire last Thursday , and this proposal suddenly surfaces on the weekend. However i would like to note that out of the 3 fire engines that attended only 1 was able to park on the slip road . the other 2 had to park down the bottom of Musgrave Street, there was just not enough room.So how are you going to get all this equipment on this little slip road? Thank you. Yours sincerely , Brian &Jillanne Aldridge.

I object to the proposal to add a third level to 11a Musgrave St.

The proposed additional level would breach current building height regulations and adversely impact, privacy and sunlight to lower homes/ units in the surrounding buildings

I am the Secretary/Treasurer of the body corporate for Strata Plan 1450, 10 Raglan Street, Mosman and my wife is the owner of Unit 4. My particular concerns with the Development Application are as follows:
1. It is not possible to assess, much less estimate the cost of, the geotechnical work required for the proposed underground car park without undertaking detailed sub-surface investigations. JKGeotechnics' geotechnical "assessment" was made on the basis of a desktop study only. I am a professional geoscientist and have managed three separate sub-surface geotechnical investigations of the area along the boundary between 10 Raglan Street and 11B Musgrave Street, abutting 11A Musgrave Street on its southern side, following a rock wall collapse and landslip on our common boundary. Without a thorough physical investigation of the geotechnical conditions underlying the proposed development it is not possible to establish the mitigation measures necessary to protect the site and its neighbours from negative impacts of the excavation.
2. If the non-complying building height is permitted, Unit 4/10 Raglan Street will lose a significant portion of its view of the northern part of Mosman Bay and also privacy of the unit block's communal recreational area, (wooden decking, large table and chairs and barbeque equipment), both leading to a concomitant loss of value of our property.

Dr Gizelle Kaunitz
We live in the lower floor apartment of the duplex at 14a Raglan St and currently enjoy the view of Mosman Bay from our property. The view will be totally eliminated with the increased height of the building which has a land size similar to ours which supports two apartments only. The new building in Musgrave St, will encompass five apartments, 8 car spaces and a height limit over regulation.
It would be a pity if Mosman Council approved a building plan of a proportion which has not been available to any of the surrounding homes and which diminishes the amenity and value of the properties nearby.

I object to the proposal to add a third level to 11a Musgrave St.
When we purchased our unit in 2017 we paid for the view, location and level of privacy afforded by the surrounding buildings.
The proposed additional level would breach current building height regulations and adversely impact my view, privacy and the value of my unit.

Marilyn Gosling
Unit 2, 23 Musgrave St., Mosman

Re; Proposed development at 11A Musgrave St. Mosman.

We object to this development on account of the following issues:
1. The non-adherence to Council's regulations re height and FSR.

2. Our concern relates primarily to the implications of the additional traffic both during construction and on completion with additional residents.

Others have described in detail the existing problems of access along this slip-road. Although our property is not adjacent to the proposal, we consistently have visiting vehicles using our property and driveway to turn to re-enter the main Musgrave St. This has already resulted in damage to our stone retaining wall with subsequent repair required.
Larger trucks cannot turn in the slip-road and therefore reverse into the main Musgrave St., with very limited visibility. This is a most hazardous manoeuvre.

3. We were made aware of the instability of the land along this slip-road when a retaining wall behind our property collapsed. We therefore are most concerned about and object to any further excavation along this street.

As the owners of 14 Raglan St we object to this application.

The height and FSR regulations exist for a purpose and absent a compelling reason for a derogation those regulations should be adhered to, no such compelling reason exists here.

Were this application to succeed it would set a strong precedent for future schemes in the area to exceed the height regulations.

Peter Joy