Residential Flat Building with in-fill affordable housing - 35-39 Darley Street East, Mona Vale

I have had little time to properly peruse these plsns owing to the 14 day response timeframe, but I am opposing the above proposed SSD on the following grounds :
1. 7+ storeys above ground is out of character with Mona Vale - I appreciate that more developments of this type will/may come to Mona Vale but the height restrictions should be 4 storeys bearing in mind that most of our suburb is 2 storey homes, townhouses & apartment blocks;
2. There is not enough infrastructure at Mona Vale to cope with the extra cars associated with these types of new developments, parking is at a premium already, the roundabouts in the shopping centre are jammed up, the Park & Ride parking at the main B1 bus stop is full on a working week day by 7.15am. The overflow parking at Kitchener Park is full before 9am leaving no parking for the sports fields activities;
3. Darley St East is the main thoroughfare to Mona Vale beach and its associated car parking, available street parking is already full from the overflow of current residents cars, commuters to the city on the bus and visitors to the beach. Exiting driveways with almost nonexistent line of sight is already difficult but will be impossible with further anticipated developments;
4. The overshadowing from this proposed 7+ storeys building will make life a misery for those to the east & south;
5. Where is the "affordable housing" component? I'm guessing that they are the 2 bedroom apartments? We have all seen the press coverage explaining that the affordable housing component of these SSD projects is a joke and that Developers simply pay a fee rather than supply the affordable component. What with a swimming pool and rooftop seating and (what looks like) spas it can only be described as a "luxury" development. Nothing new at Mona Vale is affordable and not likely to be in the future unless of course our village vibe suburb is ruined by over density making Mona Vale a ruinous hellhole like Dee Why;
6. The residents/ratepayers of Mona Vale and its surrounding suburbs paid a lot of money for a tree filled village atmosphere which is being taken away in a very quick moving State Labor Government led takeover. It would appear that the only ones who knew about these changes beforehand where the Developers;
7. Mona Vale Road widening was promised to us in the 1960's, it's still not done. We are being promised that the widening will be completed in the next couple of years - this is of course only being done so that all this extra overdevelopment can take place;
8. Please reconsider your plans, 4 storeys is more in keeping with housing progression on the Northern Beaches and you should still be able to make a nice profit.

Kim Roberts
Mona Vale 2103

OBJECTION TO SSD-113872990 – 35–39 DARLEY STREET EAST, MONA VALE

I object to this proposal and ask that it be refused. Alternatively, the applicant should be required to remove the bonus upper two storeys and publicly re-exhibit a redesigned scheme supported by corrected, independently reviewed reports.

I support well-planned and genuinely affordable housing. My objection is to using a limited, minimum 15-year affordable-housing component to justify a permanently oversized building, out of scale with its two- and three-storey surroundings, with acknowledged visual, shadow, traffic, tree-loss and cumulative impacts.

1. Excessive height, bulk and density

The proposal is for 53 apartments (44 market and only 9 affordable), a height of 28.6 metres over eight storeys, an FSR of 2.86:1, 7,659 square metres of gross floor area, three basement levels and 124 parking spaces. It would replace 18 dwellings on a 2,679.4 square metre site.

This is not a modest response to the new controls. It uses the full 30% affordable-housing height and floor-space bonuses and comes within only 4 square metres of the calculated maximum GFA. The Low and Mid-Rise Housing (LMR) base controls are 22 metres, six storeys and an FSR of 2.2:1, while the Pittwater LEP height control is 8.5 metres. Appendix 3 also records that the local density control would permit 13.39 dwellings and that the proposal exceeds this by 39.61 dwellings, requiring a clause 4.6 variation.

The immediate area is described in the applicant's own material as generally two and three storeys. Northern Beaches Council stated that eight storeys in this setting would have a “significant impact on the existing streetscape and character”. The proposal identifies no completed eight-storey precedent in the immediate locality. The nearby development at 159–167 Darley Street West is six storeys, while the seven-storey proposal at 20 Darley Street East was deemed refused and is under appeal. An unbuilt approval and a refused proposal do not establish that this eight-storey building is compatible.

The broad façades, long form and stacked upper levels would read as an institutional or hospital-style building, not Mona Vale's fine-grained, landscaped coastal residential character. A theoretical entitlement to bonuses does not mean every bonus must be consumed. Permissibility is not planning merit. Section 20(3) of the Housing SEPP still requires compatibility with desirable local or desired future character.

2. Visual impact is acknowledged, not resolved

Appendix 29, the Visual Impact Assessment, records that 87% of the building would be visible from Viewpoint 6 and 92% from Viewpoint 7, with both impacts rated moderate-to-severe. At Viewpoint 8, 63% would be visible and the impact is rated moderate. The VIA accepts that a multi-storey proposal in a two- to three-storey context would ordinarily have a significant local-scale visual impact, but treats that impact as acceptable largely because the maximum envelope is permissible. That reasoning is circular and does not establish design quality or compatibility.

Approval would create a harmful precedent cited by future applications as “future character”. Change should be directed by a coherent precinct plan, infrastructure program and graduated built-form strategy.

3. Overshadowing is substantial

The suggestion that shadow impacts are insignificant is contradicted by the submitted documents. Council stated that the shadow impacts are significant. Appendix 7A expressly acknowledges that the upper two bonus storeys “will cast additional shadow”. The EIS concedes unavoidable effects on 28–30 and 32 Golf Avenue and 25–31 and 33 Darley Street East, with afternoon shadow extending to 34–36 Golf Avenue. Shadow drawings PLA-DA-4100 and PLA-DA-4101 show new shadow across neighbouring land between 9 am and 3 pm on 21 June.

The detailed analysis focuses on 33 Darley Street East and shows only four of five living rooms meeting the two-hour benchmark. The EIS claims a six-storey option would be similar but provides no clear, independently verified comparison.

Before determination, the Department should require an independent peer review of the shadow model, results for every affected dwelling and area of private open space, and a comparison with the upper two levels deleted. Additional shadow cannot be dismissed because a bonus is available.

4. Traffic assessment is inadequate and inconsistent

Darley Street East is a constrained local street carrying residential, aged-care, golf-course and beach traffic. It is heavily congested during summer weekends and holidays, conditions not tested by a generic weekday calculation.

Appendix 31 reports no observed Darley Street traffic counts, Barrenjoey Road intersection or queue modelling, weekend or summer surveys, or cumulative development scenario. It estimates the existing 18 dwellings at 55 daily trips and the proposed 53 dwellings at 81 daily trips, a net increase of 26 daily trips. It relies on a lower per-dwelling trip rate for the denser building to claim peak increases of only three AM trips and one PM trip.

There are serious contradictions. Appendix 7A says the Traffic Impact Assessment confirms 28 additional AM trips and 17 additional PM trips, whereas Appendix 31 gives only 10 total AM and 8 total PM trips for the completed development, with net increases of 3 and 1. Both cannot be correct. Appendix 31 describes the driveway as 5.5 metres wide, then later says it is 6.1 metres and satisfies a 6-metre minimum. Council required no more than a 5% gradient for the first 6 metres, while Appendix 7A admits that the proposed 8:1 gradient does not comply with AS/NZS 2890.1. Waste collection would also require a Council truck to stop in Darley Street while bins are serviced.

Do not determine the application without reconciled figures, compliant access and independent assessment using observed weekday, weekend and peak-summer traffic, queue, pedestrian and cycling data, including cumulative development.

5. Infrastructure and cumulative impacts

The EIS broadly claims that infrastructure and community facilities can accommodate growth, but provides no quantified assessment of health services, schools, open space, emergency access or local transport capacity. The traffic report does not model surrounding approved or proposed developments.

This matters because acute services at Manly and Mona Vale hospitals were consolidated or reconfigured when Northern Beaches Hospital opened. The NSW Parliament Public Accounts Committee tabled a report on that hospital in July 2026. Population growth needs transparent evidence of health-service and infrastructure capacity. Sydney Water connection advice is not a cumulative study of the Mona Vale growth pipeline.

6. Limited, temporary affordable-housing benefit

Only 9 of 53 apartments are affordable; the other 44 are market housing. The affordable dwellings are concentrated on Level 1 and secured for only the minimum 15 years. The extra height, mass, shadow and precedent are permanent. Any revised scheme should provide more affordable housing, distribute those dwellings equitably throughout the building, and secure them as affordable housing for substantially longer than 15 years or in perpetuity.

7. Tree loss and report errors

The proposal removes 37 of 42 assessed trees, retaining only five. Replacement planting will take years to restore the lost canopy, habitat, screening and cooling benefits and cannot adequately soften a maximum eight-storey building.

The reports also contain errors that undermine confidence: the VIA summary says 55 apartments although the application has 53; Appendix 3 incorrectly states that 38 of 53 apartments is 67.9% and below the 70% solar benchmark, while the EIS and Design Report correctly identify 71.7%; and the traffic, driveway-width and gradient statements conflict. A consolidated corrections schedule and revised technical reports are required, with re-exhibition if changes are material.

REQUESTED OUTCOME

Please refuse SSD-113872990. If it is not refused, require deletion of the upper two storeys; a maximum six-storey/22-metre envelope with further reductions where needed; smaller separated building forms and greater setbacks; independent shadow, visual, traffic, access and cumulative-impact reviews; representative summer and weekend traffic surveys; a compliant driveway; substantially greater mature-tree retention and deep soil; a stronger and longer-term affordable-housing commitment; and public re-exhibition of the redesigned proposal and corrected reports.

Mona Vale can accommodate additional housing without accepting a maximum-yield eight-storey building that overwhelms its immediate setting and transfers unresolved impacts to neighbours and public infrastructure.

John Dorrington
Mona Vale resident

I believe it's far better to provide more homes in places where people already want to live than to keep expanding into undeveloped land. Building more homes in established town centres means people can walk to shops, cafés and public transport, spend less time in their cars, and make better use of the infrastructure that's already there. To me, that's a more sustainable way to grow our community, and it's one of the reasons I support this proposal.

I would ask that the following points be considered:
1. Traffic and road capacity
Mona Vale's local road network was not designed for the cumulative volume of traffic now proposed across multiple concurrent developments in the village (including this site, 159-167 Darley Street West, and 1-18/20 Darley Street East). The traffic and transport assessment for this DA should not be considered in isolation — it needs to account for the combined impact of all approved and pending developments in the immediate precinct. Existing pinch points and intersections in the village are already under pressure at peak times, and I have serious concerns this application understates the compounding effect of concurrent developments across the suburb.
2. Emergency vehicle access
There is an aged care facility in the vicinity that relies on clear, unobstructed road access for ambulances. A substantial increase in resident and visitor vehicle numbers from this development raises real risk to emergency response times. I ask that the applicant and Department demonstrate, with modelling specific to this corridor, that emergency vehicle access will not be compromised at peak periods, particularly given the aged care facility's reliance on timely ambulance access.
3. Parking provision for affordable housing component
I understand the affordable housing units in this proposal may not include dedicated car parking. Given Mona Vale's limited public transport options, this is likely to push parking demand onto already-stretched street parking, and disadvantages the very residents the affordable housing scheme is meant to support.
4. Affordability rationale does not match outcome
This development is being progressed partly under the state's affordable housing incentive scheme, which grants developers additional height and floor space in exchange for a proportion of affordable units. In this case, that proportion is 9 of 53 units. The remaining 44 units are expected to sell at price points in the vicinity of $3 million or more. The net effect of this "affordability" mechanism is the demolition of an existing 18-unit building — likely more affordable than what replaces it — to build a development that is overwhelmingly unaffordable, while a small number of affordable units are used to justify approval of the whole. This does not address housing affordability in Mona Vale; it accelerates the displacement of existing lower and middle-income residents in favour of high-value stock. If the policy intent is genuinely to improve affordability, the ratio and mechanism used to justify height and density concessions needs scrutiny, not just the headline inclusion of the word "affordable."
5. Bushfire and evacuation risk
Mona Vale sits adjacent to national park bushland with recognised bushfire risk. I have personally experienced a bushfire event where Mona Vale Road was closed and the area was effectively isolated — no one could leave, and no one could enter, including presumably emergency services needing to reach the area from outside. The Pittwater peninsula is served by only two arterial routes — Mona Vale Road and Pittwater Road — both narrower than comparable arterial roads elsewhere in Sydney. While the Mona Vale Road East upgrade was completed in 2024, the western section (Terrey Hills to Ingleside) is not due for completion until approximately 2029. I am concerned that approving substantial population increases in Mona Vale now, ahead of that upgrade's completion, and without cumulative assessment against the other developments proposed in the village, does not adequately account for the area's demonstrated vulnerability to total isolation during a bushfire emergency.
I ask that these matters be given genuine weight in the assessment of this application, in the context of cumulative development pressure across Mona Vale as a whole, not just this site considered in isolation.

Dear NSW Department of Planning and Housing Delivery Authority,

I am writing to formally lodge my strong objection to the proposed residential development at 35-39 Darley Street East, Mona Vale (SSD-113872990). While I acknowledge the need for diverse housing options, the scale and density of this specific proposal are entirely inappropriate for this location.

I object to the development based on the following critical points:
- Incompatible Scale and Character: A seven-to-eight-storey building is completely out of character with the existing streetscape of Darley Street East and the broader Mona Vale area. This massive height and bulk will visually dominate the neighborhood, ruin the local street appearance, and set a damaging precedent for overdevelopment in a beachside suburb.

- Severe Traffic Impacts: Darley Street East is already an incredibly busy road that struggles with peak-hour congestion and safety hazards. Introducing a 53-apartment complex will inject a massive volume of additional vehicles onto a highly constrained local road network, exacerbating traffic delays and reducing safety for motorists and pedestrians.

- Loss of Local Amenity: The sheer size of the complex will result in a significant loss of privacy, overshadowing, and visual amenity for surrounding single-dwelling and low-rise neighbors, fundamentally changing the coastal village feel of the community.

For these reasons, I request that the Housing Delivery Authority reject the current application and require the developer to submit a heavily scaled-back design that respects local planning controls, height limits, and neighborhood character.

Thank you for considering my feedback.

It’s a fabulous part of Mona Vale without doubt.

Having lived in 35-39 Darley Street East for 8 years, I can honestly say that the odd car (not multiple vehicles) coming and going from the block could sometimes be impossible.

Dangerously impossible. Passer byers would often be traffic directors for those leaving .. and would stop the traffic.

It is on the crest of the hill.

Impossible. I can supply incident reports.

I urge you to be considerate.

In addition to my previous submission I add the following reasons for my opposition.
1, The surrounding buildings are substantially lower than this proposal (The majority are new buildings hence will not be demolished in the near future ) ).Consequently neighbouring properties have a privacy issue (off set windows as suggested by the architect will not be satisfactory ) as well cross ventilation and solar loss .Whilst the developers consultant believes this not be be an issue .This (as well of some other issues signed off by the consultant team should be verified by an independent consultant .I also note these are currently on the limit in relation to design standards .So much for the design excellence the consultants say have been used !
2, Thompson nursing home is opposite ,special consideration needs to be given here , for example there appears to be a rooftop pool area/entertaining area .No acoustic treatment has been noted there, along with noise originating from balconies and the ground floor pool/public area .
3.For safety reasons there should be seperate entrance and exits for vehicles into the basement (the site is on a crest of a hill )
4.The roof is at maximum height is there pergolas and solar panels etc that will exceed this height .Due to our community and council being against this development these regulations must be strictly enforced .Additionally the intent of THe LMR isn't to have rooftops as useable space etc
5 Garages should not be lockable as it only encourages storage and cars parked in a heavily congested street .
6.Policing of affordable housing .I note there is a letter of support from a operator but not a contractor .What guarantees this will reain affordable into the future and who will police this
7.Chapter 1 in sear states that affordable housing requires 6.5 parking spaces but Table 4 (page 23) compliance summary says they are only supplying 5
8 Item 7.14 affordable housing the site is not on the map yet.Shouldn't this be finalized prior to consideration .
9 The planning secretary environmental assessment and requirements state that contribution and public benefit along with engagement ,environment visual impact etc must be considered ,Whilst the consultant team (paid by the developer )in there reports say all is good .If this is the case why is the local community strongly against this development .
9 Urbaine consultants report on visual impact is incorrect .There premise is that the other building will in the future be taller so there is no issue .The site is on the crest of a hill close to a beach and 6 stories higher than the surrounding buildings have they actually visited the site !
10'The traffic management plan is in correct in certain areas (Truck on wrong side of road etc ) In addition due to congestion all deliveries and removal should be from within the site i,e no construction zone and no stopping of the current 2 way traffic with a stop go procedure using one lane only.
11.The transport impact assessment lack credibility and needs to be independently checked ,to assume we have adequate public transport and base your conclusions on this is incorrect if not dishonest.

Submission Regarding Proposed State Significant Development – 35–39 Darley Street East, Mona Vale
Objection Relating to Solar Amenity, Overshadowing and Residential Amenity Impacts

I provide this submission in relation to the proposed development at 35–39 Darley Street East, Mona Vale. While I acknowledge the need for additional housing within appropriate locations, I object to the current proposal due to the unacceptable impacts arising from the scale, bulk and orientation of the development, particularly in relation to overshadowing and loss of solar access to surrounding residential properties.

My concerns relate primarily to the impacts demonstrated within the submitted Solar Amenity Assessment and associated shadow diagrams, specifically the existing and proposed shadow comparisons provided on pages 21 and 22 of the report.

1. Inadequate Assessment of Solar Amenity Impacts on Existing Residential Properties
The shadow diagrams on pages 21 and 22 demonstrate that the proposed development will result in a material increase in overshadowing impacts on nearby residential apartments within the Golf Avenue precinct.

The comparison between existing and proposed shadow conditions indicates that the additional building mass introduced by the development will cast substantially increased shadows over surrounding residential properties, particularly during the winter assessment period when access to sunlight is most critical.

The assessment should not only consider whether the proposed development achieves minimum solar access requirements for future residents, but also whether the impacts on existing neighbouring properties have been appropriately minimised.

The Apartment Design Guide recognises that development should protect reasonable levels of solar access for neighbouring properties where achievable. The current proposal appears to prioritise the density and built form outcome of the site over the protection of existing residential amenity.

2. Winter Solar Access and Loss of Midday Sunlight
The winter shadow diagrams are particularly concerning because winter sunlight represents the most constrained period of the year.

The proposed development results in additional shadowing over neighbouring apartments during the middle of the day, which is the period when solar access has the greatest value for residential amenity.

The loss of direct sunlight during winter months has implications for:

* natural daylight within apartments;
* the usability of balconies and outdoor living areas;
* thermal comfort and passive heating opportunities;
* overall residential liveability.

The applicant’s assessment should provide a more detailed analysis of exactly which existing apartments, windows and private open space areas experience a reduction in solar access and whether reasonable design amendments could reduce those impacts.

3. Failure to Demonstrate That Overshadowing Has Been Minimised Through Design

The current proposal represents a significant increase in height, bulk and massing compared with the existing development pattern.

The shadow impacts shown in the submitted diagrams appear directly related to the scale and configuration of the proposed building envelope. Alternative design measures should be investigated, including:

* increased upper-level setbacks;
* reduction of massing on affected elevations;
* greater building articulation;
* stepping of upper floors;
* improved separation distances.

The applicant has not sufficiently demonstrated that the current design represents the best planning outcome or that all reasonable opportunities to reduce overshadowing have been exhausted.

4. Impact on Existing Residential Amenity
Existing residents surrounding the site have a reasonable expectation that redevelopment will occur in a manner that balances increased density with protection of established amenity.

The proposed development will permanently alter the solar environment experienced by surrounding properties. Unlike temporary construction impacts, overshadowing is a permanent consequence of the built form and must therefore be carefully justified.

The impacts shown in the shadow diagrams represent a significant change from the existing conditions and should be given greater weight in the assessment process.

5. Need for Independent Review of Solar Access Assessment
Given the scale of the proposal and the demonstrated impacts shown within the shadow diagrams, I request that the Department undertake a careful review of the applicant’s solar assessment methodology and conclusions.

The assessment should confirm:

* whether all affected neighbouring apartments have been accurately identified;
* whether impacts on existing private open space have been properly considered;
* whether the reduction in sunlight has been assessed against the objectives of the Apartment Design Guide;
* whether alternative building forms could reasonably improve outcomes.

6. Request for Design Amendments
I request that the applicant be required to reconsider the design and provide amendments that reduce impacts on surrounding residential properties.

This should include consideration of:

* reduced building height and bulk;
* increased setbacks from neighbouring residential properties;
* greater articulation of upper levels;
* improved solar access outcomes;
* additional privacy and amenity protections.

The provision of additional housing should not occur at the expense of unreasonable impacts on existing residents. The shadow diagrams provided on pages 21 and 22 demonstrate that the proposed development will significantly alter the existing solar environment for surrounding residential properties.

I request that the Department carefully consider the demonstrated overshadowing impacts and require further design refinement to achieve a more appropriate balance between housing delivery and the protection of existing residential amenity.

Thank you for considering this submission.

I am writing to formally express my strong objection to the State Significant Development Application (SSD-113872990) proposing an 8-storey residential flat building at 35–39 Darley Street East, Mona Vale. I have a series of concerns for this development listed below.

1. Inadequate local infrastructure to support the development
The surrounding infrastructure on Darley St East cannot accommodate the density generated by 53 dwellings and 124 vehicle spaces on a narrow street. The proposed development introduces immense pressure on roads and local traffic and will cause severe bottlenecking and local traffic congestion affecting local residents, beach goers and visitors and will most certainly pose greater safety issues on Darley St East. On-Street parking will become overwhelmed on an already busy road and the proposed 3 story basement car park will be far from sufficient for such a massive influx of residents and visitors.

2. Severe Loss of Privacy and Sunlight for Immediate Neighbours
An 8-storey building on an elevated, prominent site creates severe off-site amenity impacts. This includes loss of light and privacy to neighbouring properties. The extreme height will cast extensive shadows over adjacent lower-density residential properties, depriving neighbouring homes and gardens of essential sunlight. The height and sheer elevation will also result in direct and invasive overlooking into private living areas and backyards of neighbouring properties, drastically reducing their visual privacy. Replacing the current 2-storey property with an 8-storey structure creates a wall of visual mass that degrades the amenity of neighbouring residents. It is absurdly beyond the current streetscape and it is completely out of character for the area.

3. Failure to Align with Community Guidelines & Strategic Planning
The proposal bypasses local planning standards and ignores established community planning frameworks. The scale relies on state-level overrides to force development that local council controls explicitly protect against. This proposal disregards community plans and expectations for Mona Vale and it's residents who want to prioritize low-to-medium rise coastal character that balances growth with environmental sensitivity.

This application represents a excessive overdevelopment of a coastal residential site. The benefit to developers and the shallow promise of nine temporary affordable housing units does not justify the permanent destruction of local street character, loss of residential amenity, and infrastructure strain. I fail to see how this proposal aligns with community guidelines and wishes or even comes close to improving the current state of Mona Vale. I strongly urge the Department and Assessing Authority to refuse application SSD-113872990 in its current form.

Submission – Proposed Development at 35–39 Darley Street East, Mona Vale
Application: SSD-113872990

To the NSW Department of Planning,

I wish to lodge my objection to the proposed residential development at 35–39 Darley Street East, Mona Vale \(SSD\-113872990\).

I recognise that Mona Vale needs appropriate housing and that development has a legitimate role in meeting housing demand. However, I consider the scale, height, density and resulting impacts of this particular proposal to be inappropriate for this site and its surrounding neighbourhood.

1. Excessive height and scale

The proposal for an approximately 28.6-metre-high, eight-storey building represents a substantial change in scale from the established character of Darley Street East and the surrounding Mona Vale residential area.

The building would have a significant visual presence and would be inconsistent with the predominantly low- and medium-rise character of the immediate neighbourhood.

I am concerned that approval of a development of this scale would establish an undesirable precedent for further substantial redevelopment in the surrounding streets.

2. Traffic and pedestrian safety

Darley Street East is already subject to significant local traffic, particularly because of its connection to the beach, surrounding residential streets and Mona Vale town centre.

The addition of 53 apartments and associated resident, visitor, service and delivery traffic is likely to increase vehicle movements and pressure on the local road network.

I ask that the Department carefully assess:

* existing traffic volumes and congestion;
* the cumulative impact of other developments in the area;
* vehicle access and egress from the site;
* pedestrian safety;
* sightlines and visibility;
* visitor and service vehicle movements;
* construction traffic; and
* the impact on surrounding streets and intersections.

The assessment should consider actual peak-period conditions rather than relying solely on theoretical traffic modelling.

3. Parking and cumulative congestion

Although the proposal includes basement parking, the adequacy of the proposed parking provision should be assessed against the actual needs of 53 dwellings, visitors, tradespeople, deliveries and service vehicles.

Any overflow parking is likely to place additional pressure on surrounding streets.

I ask that the Department consider the cumulative effect of this development alongside other approved, proposed and foreseeable developments in Mona Vale rather than assessing the site in isolation.

4. Impact on local character

The scale of this proposal is out of keeping with the established residential character of Darley Street East.

Mona Vale has a distinctive village and coastal character, and development should respond sensitively to the existing built environment rather than simply maximising the development potential of individual sites.

The proposed building would materially alter the streetscape and the visual character of the locality.

5. Privacy, overlooking and amenity

The height and number of apartments proposed raise significant concerns regarding overlooking and loss of privacy for neighbouring properties.

The Department should carefully assess:

* direct and oblique overlooking;
* balcony and terrace locations;
* bedroom and living-room privacy;
* separation distances;
* visual bulk;
* overshadowing; and
* the cumulative effect of the building’s height on neighbouring properties.

Appropriate screening and setbacks should be required wherever necessary to protect neighbouring residential amenity.

6. Overshadowing and loss of sunlight

The proposed eight-storey form has the potential to cause significant additional overshadowing of adjoining and nearby properties and public areas.

I request that the shadow diagrams and solar-access assessment be carefully scrutinised, including the cumulative effects of the development’s height and bulk.

7. Construction impacts

The construction phase could have a substantial impact on nearby residents.

A project of this scale is likely to involve prolonged excavation, including three basement levels, heavy construction vehicles, demolition, excavation noise, dust, vibration and increased traffic.

Any approval should include stringent conditions governing:

* construction hours;
* truck routes;
* excavation and rock-breaking;
* noise and vibration;
* dust and air quality;
* pedestrian safety;
* site deliveries; and
* protection of neighbouring properties.

8. Infrastructure and cumulative development

The proposal should not be considered in isolation from the broader amount of development occurring or proposed in Mona Vale.

The Department should satisfy itself that local roads, pedestrian infrastructure, drainage, sewerage, electricity, waste services and other essential infrastructure have sufficient capacity to accommodate the cumulative increase in population and density.

9. State Significant Development should not diminish proper local assessment

I am concerned that the State Significant Development pathway may result in a development being considered at a scale that is not appropriate to the established character and infrastructure capacity of the locality.

The fact that a proposal may qualify for assessment under the State’s planning framework does not, in itself, demonstrate that the proposed scale is suitable for this particular site.

The development should be assessed on its actual impacts on Mona Vale and surrounding residents.

10. Request for refusal or substantial redesign

For the reasons above, I respectfully request that the Department refuse SSD-113872990.

If the Department is minded to support development on the site, I request that the proposal be substantially redesigned to reduce its height, bulk and density and to provide a form that is more compatible with the surrounding neighbourhood.

At a minimum, any revised proposal should satisfactorily address traffic and pedestrian safety, parking, privacy, overshadowing, visual bulk, infrastructure capacity, construction impacts and the cumulative impact of development in Mona Vale.

I ask that this submission be considered in full as part of the assessment of SSD-113872990.

Yours sincerely,

Michael Maitland
11/155-157 Darley St West Mona Vale NSW 2103
30/07/2026

SUBMISSION
a written submission by way of objection

MINISTER FOR PLANNING AND PUBLIC SPACES
THE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING, HOUSING AND INFRASTRUCTURE THE DEPARTMENT)
4 PARRAMATTA SQUARE,
12 DARCY STREET,
PARRAMATTA NSW 2150

CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL
2/33 DARLEY STREET EAST
MONA VALE NSW 2103
30/07/26

RE: SSD-113872990
35-39 DARLEY ST EAST MONA VALE NSW 2103
WRITTEN SUBMISSION: LETTER OF OBJECTION
SUBMISSION: MICHAEL

Height & Bulk:
SSD-13872990 is a monolithic 8 storey building on the crest of the South side of Darley St East overpowering the 2 storey neighbouring properties and over dominating the streetscape & totally out place with the neighbourhoods existing character.
This Development is 28.6m high & approx. 58-60m in length directly facing & less than 6m from our shared boundary. We get the full visual impact of the structural mass with no variation or break in the façade.
Height needs to be reduced to ADG specifications.

SSD 113872990 has not been designed to respond to the neighbouring properties as quoted in Planning Ingenuity EIS report on 7/07/26.

Narrow Block:
33 Darley St on the Eastern boundary of the proposed development is 18.29m front 18.595m back & 70.49m long. Plus Studio has assumed future built form (desired future character) at 33 Darley St as a 4-5 storey building considering an infill housing component this would require setbacks of 6m on both sides leaving a 6.29m wide space to build 4-5 storeys plus purchase of 5 modern 3-bedroom apartments where residents moved into a newly built premises 8 years ago. It is highly unlikely this will be financially viable or suitable for future development and will not be developed to LMR controls leaving it 2 storeys.

Affordable Housing:
18 affordable apartments to rent or purchase are to be demolished and replaced with 9 infill units a net loss of 9 affordable? apartments.

Transport:
There is 1 option the Bus, no rapid transport-metro or rail, no light rail or ferries. B1 city bus is approx. 650m from proposed development. The B-line bus last drop off is opposite the village green before Park St it does not operate past this point.

Specifications:
Plans are not detailed & lack materials specifications.
Private plunge pools for the Penthouses as reported in the press are not on the Plus Studio plans.
The roof line does not reflect the lift overruns, air-conditioning plants, potentially proposed Private Penthouse Plunge pools, and potential resident’s amenities. This will exceed the maximum height. Plus Studio shows on the Northwestern Elevation on page 26 that the maximum height is already breached.

Overshadowing & Solar Access:
Our apartment is behind the front apartments in the block, all our living spaces and private outdoor space face to the west straight at the towering bulk of the proposed development.
Our solar access will be severely compromised by this development. On the Winter Solstice 21st June we will not get the required direct 2hrs of sun as agreed by Planning Ingenuity into our indoor living spaces all our afternoon sun will be blocked & we will be in deep shadow with loss of solar access & daylight and all the afternoon sun streaming in till the sun goes and the beautiful sunsets we enjoy will be lost, all this is critical to our residential amenity bringing in light and warmth into our living areas as it reduces our reliance on artificial light and heating improving energy and environmental efficiency. Refer ADG SEPP
Our living spaces and private open space will be totally unusable as it faces the development to the west. We are overlooked by 8 storeys of balconies, windows and terraces all looking down on and at us, we will not be able to raise our living space blinds or open the windows due to these privacy issues and acoustic noise, this will affect our health and well-being.
Greater side and front setbacks need to be increased to allow for more winter sunshine.

At present we have total privacy from our neighbours.

Visual Impact:
When viewed from our apartment to the west towards the proposed development on our shared boundary the impact is massive. The full force of the scale 28.6m high and 58m-60m in length is overpowering, no attempt has been made to consider the significant impact of this monolithic building on us. There is no modulation of the build no break in the façade to aid air flow, no break in the middle to share the amenity of air, light & sun it’s just one giant edifice. It is less than 6m setback from our boundary as large window boxes supposedly to add privacy protrude approx. 1.5m into the 6m’s set back leaving 4.5m to the boundary. This increases the buildings closeness, bulk and dimension. It is less than 7.5m from our kitchen window and less than 9m from our lounge/dining room. It comprehensible fails to comply with ADG regulation with the likelihood of 33 Darley remaining 2 storey warrants additional 3m set back to 12m separation as it is a transition zone. This is an overbearing presence and very claustrophobic with a sense of enclosure and dominance.
Night light spill & outdoor security lighting will have a major impact on our neighbouring apartment.

The 4th storey (5th Level) balconies go around the entire building; they should be at least 9m from our western boundary not 6m.

Landscape
On the east side of the proposed development there are 3 ground floor apartments with raised plunge pools and raised steps & no indication on the Plus Studio plans as to the height of these. One is situated directly outside our living room. The area is mainly hard paved surface area with potential outdoor BBQ’s amplifying noise and as no deep soil planting will be possible to provide adequate screening between properties as the concrete roof of the 3-level underground cark park extends to our shared fence line making deep soil planting impossible.
The visual impact needs to be softened with increased canopy cover & trees and greater side setbacks to the basement area to allow for deep soil planting of trees along the complete east side boundary to 33 Darley St.
37 trees and palms are to be removed & 5 to be retained, more critical trees should be retained. Minimal planting is shown on the plans.

We request for increased setback of the car park to allow for adequate deep soil planting.
As the 3-level underground car park will be excavated on our boundary fence (3m from our kitchen) this will increase the risk of damage to both our property and the .9m existing water easement extending along the length of the shared fence line.

Wind: Request an assessment of the wind effects of this 8-storey monolithic edifice along the proposed developments eastern boundary with 33 Darley St corridor as LMR 8 storey apartments drastically change local airflow and blast neighbouring low rise residential housing ADG.

Traffic: Darley St E is the main access road to beach. It is already congested only one lane each way with double unbroken lines. In summer parking is almost impossible. Being on the crest of the hill motor vehicles entering and exiting the proposed development will present a safety hazard on a busy street. The number of excavation and construction vehicles entering and exiting the site will block the street to emergency and service vehicles and create bottlenecks to general traffic.

Affordable:
18 affordable apartments to rent or purchase are to be demolished and replaced with 9 infill units a net loss of 9 affordable apartments.

Sewerage /Water/Fire
The Warriewood sewerage system has not been upgraded and cannot cope in times of heavy downpour releasing the overflow into the ocean creating a health risk. Infrastructure needs to be upgraded before a development of this magnitude and future development adds to the load.
Water pressure in Darley St E has been downgraded & we suffer low water pressure now, any additional development will put huge pressure on the system.
Fire: There is only one fire vehicle on the northern beaches that is in Manly that has a large enough ladder for fire emergencies in higher buildings.
We are bush fire prone with Kuring-Gai National Park on our doorstep. If Mona Vale Rd is cut our only access out is Pittwater Rd. It would be a disaster if such an event as loss of life and property occurred. Adequate infrastructure should be in place to protect all citizens in the area.

In conclusion: I seek amendments that lower the height bulk and scale of the proposed development, increase setbacks, improve landscape outcomes and better resolve all amenity impacts (overshadowing and visual privacy, noise levels) to our property.

I reserve the right to add an addendum to this submission

Sincerely
Chris Michael

I strongly object to the proposed 7-storey development at **35–39 Darley Street East, Mona Vale**.
In my view, this proposal is an example of overdevelopment that prioritises housing yield over good planning, infrastructure capacity and the long-term interests of the Mona Vale community. It is inconsistent with the character of the area and will have significant and lasting impacts on the amenity, safety and liveability of the suburb.
While additional housing is an important objective, it should not come at the expense of thoughtful planning or the quality of life of existing communities. Development must be supported by appropriate infrastructure, respect the character of its surroundings and deliver a genuine public benefit. This proposal fails to achieve that balance.
## 1. Excessive Height and Overdevelopment
The proposed seven-storey building is excessive in height, scale and bulk for this location.
It is visually dominant, out of proportion with surrounding development and inconsistent with the established character of Darley Street East and the broader Mona Vale locality. Rather than complementing the existing streetscape, the proposal overwhelms it and establishes an undesirable precedent for further high-rise development.
This is not context-sensitive planning. It is an attempt to maximise development yield at the expense of neighbourhood character and residential amenity.
## 2. Loss of the Village Character of Mona Vale
One of Mona Vale's defining qualities is its coastal village atmosphere. It has developed as a community with a distinctive character that is very different from the high-density centres elsewhere in Sydney.
Approving developments of this scale will progressively erode that character. A seven-storey building is entirely inconsistent with the village feel that residents value and visitors enjoy.
Once this character is lost, it cannot be recovered. Every approval of excessive height and density brings Mona Vale closer to becoming another overdeveloped urban centre rather than the unique coastal community it has always been.
## 3. Loss of Privacy and Residential Amenity
The height and design of the proposed building will significantly reduce the privacy currently enjoyed by neighbouring residents.
Upper-level balconies and windows will overlook adjoining properties, resulting in direct views into homes and private open spaces. This loss of privacy cannot be adequately mitigated and will permanently diminish the amenity of surrounding residents.
## 4. Overshadowing and Loss of Sunlight
The height and bulk of the building will also result in increased overshadowing of neighbouring properties.
Reduced access to natural sunlight will affect private open spaces and living areas, particularly during winter months, reducing the quality and enjoyment of neighbouring homes.
The protection of residential amenity should remain a fundamental planning consideration.
## 5. Traffic, Parking and Beach Access
Darley Street East is not simply a residential street. It is one of the principal access routes to Mona Vale Beach and already experiences substantial traffic congestion.
During weekends, public holidays and throughout the summer period, traffic volumes increase significantly as residents and visitors travel to the beach. Parking demand regularly exceeds available spaces and congestion is already a significant problem.
A development of this scale will generate additional vehicle movements every day, increasing pressure on an already constrained road network.
The proposal will contribute to:
* increased traffic congestion;
* greater competition for on-street parking;
* reduced safety for pedestrians accessing the beach;
* additional delays for residents travelling within the area.
These impacts are entirely foreseeable and should not be dismissed as insignificant.
## 6. Cumulative Impact of Development
This proposal cannot be assessed in isolation.
Mona Vale is already experiencing substantial redevelopment, with numerous medium and high-density developments proposed or approved throughout the suburb.
The cumulative impact is increasingly evident through:
* worsening traffic congestion;
* increased parking shortages;
* pressure on existing infrastructure;
* loss of tree canopy;
* declining residential amenity; and
* the gradual erosion of the character that makes Mona Vale a desirable place to live.
The planning system must consider these cumulative impacts rather than treating each development as though it exists independently of every other approval.
## 7. Failure to Provide Essential Infrastructure and Protect Community Safety
I am deeply concerned that the NSW Government continues to support significant increases in residential density in Mona Vale without ensuring that the infrastructure needed to support that growth is planned, funded and delivered.
In my view, it is neither responsible nor sustainable planning to approve large-scale developments in an area where there is no clear strategy to address existing deficiencies in:
* road capacity and traffic congestion;
* parking for residents, visitors and local businesses;
* public transport services;
* sewage treatment infrastructure, including the existing pressure on the Warriewood Wastewater Treatment Plant;
* water supply and other essential utilities.
Infrastructure should precede development, not follow it. Yet residents are continually being asked to accept higher densities while the infrastructure needed to support those additional residents falls further behind.
The cumulative effect of approving numerous large developments throughout Mona Vale is placing increasing pressure on services that are already struggling to meet existing demand. Planning decisions should not consider each development in isolation but should recognise their combined impact on the community.
Equally concerning is the lack of consideration given to emergency management.
Mona Vale is situated on a peninsula with limited road access. In the event of a major bushfire or other emergency requiring evacuation, there are very few routes available for residents to leave the area safely. Increasing the local population through high-density development without first ensuring that evacuation routes and emergency planning are adequate creates an unnecessary public safety risk.
The devastating bushfires experienced in Australia in recent years, together with the catastrophic wildfires affecting parts of Europe, demonstrate that governments must plan for increasingly severe natural disasters. Population growth must not outpace a community's capacity to respond safely in an emergency.
These are not simply planning matters. They are issues of public safety, public health and government responsibility.
## 8. Affordable Housing
I also question the justification for the affordable housing component of this proposal.
The development is being marketed as luxury apartments in a premium coastal location within walking distance of Mona Vale Beach, shops and services. Mona Vale is one of Sydney's most expensive residential suburbs.
It is difficult to understand how a development promoted as luxury coastal living can make a meaningful contribution to housing affordability. If only a small proportion of dwellings are designated as affordable housing, while the overwhelming majority are sold at premium market prices, the claimed public benefit is significantly outweighed by the permanent impacts on the existing community.
The NSW Government should carefully examine whether the affordable housing component genuinely delivers homes that are affordable for the people who need them, or whether it is simply being relied upon to justify a development that is otherwise excessive in height, scale and density.
## Conclusion
For all of these reasons, I strongly urge the NSW Government to refuse this proposal.
The development is excessive in height and bulk, incompatible with the established character of Mona Vale, and will have unacceptable impacts on privacy, solar access, traffic, parking and the amenity of neighbouring residents.
More broadly, it represents another step in the incremental overdevelopment of Mona Vale without the infrastructure, transport, utility services and emergency planning needed to support continued population growth.
A seven-storey building on a key beach access corridor is inappropriate, excessive and contrary to orderly, sustainable and responsible planning.
Until the necessary transport, parking, infrastructure, emergency evacuation capacity, water supply and sewage treatment issues are comprehensively addressed, it is neither responsible nor in the public interest to continue approving developments of this scale.
I respectfully request that this application be refused.

I am a resident and owner of a nearby property and have lived here for 11 years. Darley Street East is a very busy street and is only 2 lanes with significant double lines. It is only one of two roads to areas on the beach side east of Barrenjoey Rd in Mona Vale. Allowing an additional 53 units would add to an already pressured traffic flow. Nosing out onto the street in your vehicle when leaving home is already perilous. Some of the units will have a large number of bedrooms and one should assume that there will be examples of numerous occupants and multiple vehicles.
The token (9) number of “affordable” units has the appearance of an attempt to pretend to address the severe lack of such housing in Sydney. Will they be really affordable for the people who need such help? I think this is fanciful.
The visual threat of an eight storey building which will tower over existing stock I find alarming. It will adversely affect residents nearby by blocking light and views and create audio intrusion. No gaps in the way the building presents to the street is objectionable. And there is a loss of existing tree cover. Will there be any scope for replacing what will be lost?
Building close to the boundaries may impede access for fire fighting equipment.
The basement is proposed to be at three levels which will raise the high risk of collapses at boundaries not to mention water intrusion.
Taking a broader, future-oriented approach to the development of Mona Vale is essential. Infrastructure including sewage, water supply and road patterns is what it is - stretched. Allowing extensive height increases and population levels across the suburb well above the existing dense levels is building in unavoidable problems for the future. Consideration of this development in this light presents an opportunity to put a peg in the ground and making it at least feasible to manage growth in the longer term.
Lastly I hope we can be spared at least some respite from the noise and heavy vehicle activity on our narrow street where we live out our relatively quiet lives.
I reserve the right to submit an addendum to this submission.

From: Grant Clay
Address: 41-49 Darley Street East
Suburb: Mona Vale NSW 2103

RESIDENTIAL FLAT BUILDING WITH IN-FILL AFFORDABLE HOUSING – 35 – 39 DARLEY STREET EAST, MONA VALE

I strongly object to the proposed development for application no: SSD-11372990.
Address: 35-39 Darley Street East, Mona Vale NSW 2103
Description of proposal: Residential flat building with in-fill affordable housing including:
• demolition of existing structures
• construction of an eight-storey building over three basement levels, comprising:
• 53 apartments (including nine affordable housing apartments)
• 3 basement levels with parking for 124 cars and vehicular access from Darley Street East
• rooftop private open space areas and swimming pools
• communal open space, swimming pool and gymnasium at ground level
• associated works including earthworks and excavation, site preparation, tree removal and landscaping.

The whole requirement for affordable housing in NSW is to make housing affordable to most and not to disguise these developments effectively replacing them with luxury apartments that are not all affordable in practice at all. I object to this proposal.
The major objection to this development is the size of an eight-story development application and the blanket rezoning across Mona Vale, resulting in increase of traffic and the resulting safety issues. This development will create for existing residence in Darley Street East and visitors to the area, major traffic congestion not only in the affected street of this development, but throughout Mona Vale CBD, the suburb, including surrounding roads in proximity. Access to Mona Vale Beach will be extremely poor and dangerous. Major infrastructure for improved traffic management has not been delivered over recent years to match the population growth. There is no regard or interest in providing for the existing residents in the area.
1.Major Traffic, Road Safety and Parking Issues in Darley Street East
Darley Street East has been created over time as the major street leading to Mona Vale Beach. General parking and access in the street is to its capacity. The street is full of general traffic accessing Mova Vale beach and cafes, residence vehicles, trades vehicles, delivery vehicles during weekdays to perform their work, suffocating the street.
Residents already report near misses in the street making it difficult exiting driveways due to poor line of sight due to abundance of parked and slow-moving vehicles creating major safety issues.
This development and potentially further developments at 35-39 Darley Street East, Mona Vale will add more vehicles to an already congested local street & intersection off Barrenjoey Road, not to mention the chaos created during its construction.
Barrenjoey Road / Darley Street East intersection & Darley St are unsafe and very congested. More traffic from this development and future developments will deliver “gridlock” on our roads. Increased Bus activity over the years already clog up this intersection with heavy traffic. This traffic activity will increase and be unsafe with an approved development application.
The Mona Vale CBD and its roads will be more congested and unsafe and lead to an increase in pollution and noise. The existing traffic modelling is outdated.
Additional impacts and concerns of this development application include:
2.Over Development & Visual Impact
The proposal development at 35-39 Darley Street East, Mona Vale represents an overdevelopment in this residential part of Mona Vale, and the proposed building does not fit with the character of the street (which is a lower scale height development, with landscaped spaces and a coastal feel etc). Already there are over 300 residents in Darley Street, East. It can’t take anymore.
There are inadequate setbacks to the surrounding residential buildings, proving the application is an overdevelopment, which would lead to an excessive building in terms of bulk, scale and effect on neighbours and the street character.
Grossly out of scale with surrounding 1, 2 & 3 storey housing. Inconsistent with the existing character of Darley Street East provides a dangerous precedent for widespread eight-storey plus development across Mona Vale.
Overshadowing: Health Impacts, including increased fumes & noise, loss of sunlight, overshadowing from high structures.
As a result, this leads to destroying a major part of Mona Vale’s neighbourhood character.
The States Affordable Housing Assessment group has an obligation to control potential overdevelopment in Mona Vale.
3.Significant disruption to Water & Electricity Supply
Still, significant water supply issues, lack of water pressure and electricity supply disruptions are constantly encountered in the street.
During the development of no 24-26 Darley Street East – Darley House Nursing Home, by Thompson Health Care during 2024, a three-storey health care facility with underground parking. During this lengthy development, the road, footpath and nature strips were ripped up on numerous occasions on both sides of the street with major disruption to the streets function due to the surge of building and maintenance teams, road crews etc in the street. During this development, water supply and electricity was disrupted for days while “concrete cutting” in the street happened, into the early mornings. There were issues for over 12 months with a “large sinkhole” outside 41 -49 Darley St East where the digging was carried out.


4.Major Emergency Evacuation Risks:
This area of Mona Vale has extremely limited entry and exit roads. When a major bush fire occurs which is evitable, potentially life’s will be lost. The increased density would severely compromise evacuation capacity. Compromising the emergency vehicle assess is a dangerous precedent, you will be approving this by accepting the development proposal.
With future Residential Affordable housing projects of various sizes to be rolled out in the coming months/years, this will be a disaster for this area if not controlled. More consideration must be given to lower affordable residential housing (not eight level plus, as is proposed for this site. Scale back to three or four storey). A rapid transformation of the Northern Beaches area can’t sustain this. In future, all development applications both Local and State should be reviewed to include any recent applications by both parties which could be approved.

In conclusion, I strongly object to the proposed development for application no: SSD-11372990, 35-39 Darley Street East, Mona Vale. It is fundamentally incompatible with the existing character of our neighbourhood. Over the course of this submission, I have demonstrated:
1. The “Traffic Management Issues” that this development will create, and its overdevelopment of the above site, whilst failing to address issues regarding traffic management.
2. The “Over Development and Visual Impact” High density and height must be reviewed and not delivered to satisfy the greed of property development. Also, noise, overshadowing, privacy and loss of sunlight must be addressed and reduced.
3. The “Significant disruption to Water & Electricity Supply”
4.” Major Emergency Evacuation Risks”
I acknowledge the need for housing, but it must not come at the cost of the amenity and the safety of all current residents. I reserve the right to add an addendum to this submission.

Please refuse this development application.

Regards
Grant Clay – Mona Vale Resident in Darley Street, East.

I strongly object to the proposed development at 35-39 Darley St East Mona Vale.
The excessive height (8-storey) will change the streetscape significantly, in a predominantly 2-storey townhouse/apartment area, with the occasional 4-storey unit block.
The current proposal is for one solid block, with no gaps for sunshine, light, or ventilation - this will significantly affect the privacy, ambient light and noise for my unit block which diagonally adjoins this proposal, as well as everyone else in the surrounding blocks. In addition, the construction time with limited access will continue for years, with a 3-level subterranean carpark excavation and 8-storey apartment block with rooftop pools - a major inconvenience to all surrounding neighbors.
The traffic implications, during construction as well as after completion, is a safety concern, with 124 new car spaces planned for this sight. Entering and exiting this site on a single-lane road at the crest of the hill on double lines - a road which is the main access for vehicles to Mona Vale Beach, as well as for pedestrians and school kids on bikes. The traffic congestion will also bank back to Barrenjoey Road, the main road in Mona Vale, with its small dedicated right turn lane into Darley Street East.
In addition, there is an Aged Care Facility less than 50m from this proposed site - how will these residents manage with the increased traffic? It is an accident waiting to happen. We do not have a Rapid Transport System in Mona Vale - there is only 1 way in and out!
In addition to the concern of additional traffic, is the pressure on the local infrastructure. How will this massive complex handle the pressure on sewerage and waste? How will the residents of 53 high-rise apartments manage in the event of a fire? Does the local fire department have the necessary equipment for an 8-storey residential building, or the required water pressure? Are you willing to risk life just to get as many apartments as possible onto this block?
I am also appalled by the removal of mature Trees - this development proposes to build to its boundaries.
The developer has allegedly added 8 'affordable housing' units to this development, so that he can build an extra 2 storeys over what The Premier Chris Minns offered in his housing reform (6 storeys). These alleged 'affordable housing units' only need to be affordable for 15 years, but we are stuck for life with these 2 additional floors towering over the nearby residents. In addition, what is the 'price' for affordable housing? I have no doubt that these units will not be considered affordable once the development is completed and the developer needs to make his profit. The remaining units will likely be purchased by rich people as holiday apartments, as the price will be very high - this is NOT helping to provide more accommodation for the people of Sydney.
I urge you to reconsider this proposed development - it is based completely on the Developers planned future character, rather than the current character.

Objection to Proposed 8-Storey Development at 35 Darley Street East Mona Vale
I strongly object to the proposed 8-storey development due to the significant and unacceptable impacts it will have on the surrounding area, existing residents, local infrastructure, safety, and the established character of the neighborhood.

The excessive height, scale and bulk of the proposed development are wholly inconsistent with the surrounding two-storey townhouse complexes. Positioned at the crest of the hill, this oversized structure will dominate the existing streetscape, create a significant visual intrusion, and fundamentally alter the established character and amenity of the area. The proposed development is out of scale with the surrounding built environment and will become an imposing and inappropriate feature within the neighborhood.

As a resident of the adjoining townhouse complex, I am particularly concerned about the significant impact on my property and quality of life. The proposed development is likely to result in reduced access to natural light, loss of privacy, overlooking, and a diminished outlook. I also have concerns regarding increased noise, traffic activity, and ambient light spill associated with both the construction phase and the ongoing occupation of such a large residential development.

I have serious concerns regarding the proposed excavation required for this development, reportedly to a depth of approximately 10 metres and in close proximity to the boundary of our complex. This raises significant concerns regarding potential impacts on the structural integrity and stability of neighboring properties. These risks require thorough independent assessment before any approval is considered.

There are also significant concerns regarding traffic, parking and pedestrian safety. Darley Street East consists of a single traffic lane in each direction, with on-street parking already extremely limited. Parking demand is particularly high on weekends, during summer months and in the evenings, making it difficult for existing residents and visitors to find available parking.

The proposed development comprises four-bedroom luxury townhouses with only two allocated parking spaces per dwelling. It is reasonable to anticipate that many households of this size may have more than two vehicles, particularly where multiple adults or adult children reside in the property. This will place additional pressure on an already inadequate supply of on-street parking and further impact existing residents.

Accessing and exiting our townhouse complex is already difficult and, at times, hazardous due to current traffic conditions on Darley Street East. The additional vehicle movements generated by this large-scale development will further increase congestion and create additional risks for residents entering and leaving the complex.

I am particularly concerned about pedestrian safety, including the safety of children crossing Darley Street East. The road already services multiple connecting streets, yet there appears to be insufficient pedestrian and traffic infrastructure to safely accommodate the increased traffic volumes that would result from this development.

The increased traffic congestion and additional parked vehicles may also restrict access for emergency vehicles, including fire trucks and ambulances, potentially compromising emergency response times and community safety.

The substantial increase in residents associated with this development will also place additional strain on existing local infrastructure. The area already experiences low water pressure, and I am concerned that existing services may not have sufficient capacity to support the increased demand generated by this development.

Given the bushfire risk within the area, I have further concerns regarding emergency evacuation capacity and access for emergency services. In the event of a bushfire or other emergency, the existing road network may not be capable of safely accommodating increased traffic volumes, evacuation movements, and emergency vehicles requiring access.

For these reasons, I strongly oppose the proposed 8-storey development. The scale and intensity of the development are inappropriate for this location and will have unacceptable impacts on neighboring residents, local character, safety, privacy, infrastructure capacity and the overall amenity of the area.


Clair Cheel
18/41-49 Darley Street East
MONA Vale

The proposal is totally out of character for the Darley street and in particular the location in Mona Vale, being on the highest point in Darley Street East it is also the highest point on the beachside of Mona Vale and will have spectacular ocean views and views to Bayview which are uninterrupted for the top 5 floors, this will be some of the most valuable real estate in Mona Vale - I understand this is not the objective of the SSD, as the main focus is affordable housing. The 18 units being replaced are valued at a lower price point and more affordable than any of the units in this proposed development.
The proposal changes the entire skyline at Mona Vale beach and will be a out of proportion source of light and sound overlooking the suburb. The bulk of the proposal building will stand out as an example of planning gone wrong for the personal gain of the developers.
Other concerns raised by all the community include additional cars on already crowded streets with no ability to expand Darley Street East. The study by consultants only looks at the current development not the overall current and future developments. The rubbish collection with a large development needing lots of bins on Darley Street – The onsite handling of rubbish has not been addressed.
Local Infrastructure – the sewerage system, water supply and ability to address evacuation if a fire event occurs has not been addressed. A fire in a 8 story building in Mona Vale cannot be addressed with current fire resources, no ladder trucks are within 30 mins of Mona Vale, the loss of life will be responsibility of the NSW Government. The SSD planning approach works in greenfield areas when new roads and infrastructure can be developed alongside high-rise and residential development, but this does not work when location is a peninsular with limited access and traffic all focused on one road.
The B1 buss system is already fully loaded during perk hour and is impacted by traffic along the current road to the CBD being Spit Bridge & Military Road. This is not a rapid transport system that can support the proposed development.
Relying on road and transport studies provided by consultants to developers (who are paid by developers) is naive in thinking these are realistic and reflect the true conditions and challenges that exist at Mona Vale.
Privacy , Noise , Loss of Light ( shadowing ) , the balconies and windows overlook adjacent properties will impact light through shadowing and visual privacy. This will impact mental and physical health. The noise from a major increase in residential balconies overlooking neighbouring properties will also have an impact on existing homes and privacy that previously existed.
I am submitting this as I am totally against this development as it is currently being proposed. I reserve the right to add an addeemed to this submission.

Residential Flat Building with in-fill affordable housing - 35-39 Darley Street East, Mona Vale
Submission (SUB-136550988) to SSD 113872990

I would like to put forward my objection and comments to this proposed development for multiple reasons, including that as one of the early submissions for SSD review, there will be additional similar development proposals for this immediate area.
Introduction for my objections.
* Mona Vale is at one end the start of a small peninsula of hills and bounded by the sea and Pittwater less than a couple of kilometres in width in most places.
* The area is not serviced by any public rail, metro, tram, ferry into or out of the area.
* The bus service is unable to cope when there are any incidents between the terminus and the city. Times to major hubs are 35-60 minutes
* Infrastructure has not kept pace with current planned expansion of the area including (but not limited to) roads, water, sewerage, utilities, and emergency services.

Mona Vale is unique and it’s a special case that should be used in determining the future of a unique part of Australia.

Growth is inevitable and planning for the growth in consultation with the residents to garner a consensus of ideas as how best to develop an area should be the prime objective of any government authority whether federal, state or local.

This consultation process has not happened and as the early adoption of these out of character type of developments proceed, the entire peninsula will be forever altered. The community, where people have raised families for generations, will become a place of expensive short-term rentals, vacant executive holiday homes and the existing retirement villages will become their own gated communities.

As a local resident. My wife and I moved into Mona Vale 2 years ago after 30 years living in Wollstoncraft. We chose this area as our retirement home, which was built 3 years ago, is 2 stories in height and underground parking. There are 22 apartments with 44 car spaces and is designated as a development for persons over 55 years of age. The residents have become a great part of the community. This type of apartment complex has been replicated in the area as housing stock becomes available.

The Darley Street East development proposal, if approved, will be the stake in Mona Vale village that alters what the community values – a beach side low-rise medium density community that continues to evolve and develop within a limited (if not confined) space.

What this proposal does is not what has been developed in this area. It is not a suitable solution in keeping with the local scene which people from all over the greater Sydney area come for, to spend time as they always have for unique and laid-back lifestyle, not to be the Gold Coast of Sydney.

The local approvals of other SSD developments near us and their impact on the services we use have made us aware of the issues we will face in the future.

This development is way out of proportion as to the surrounding area and what can be safely created in Darley Street East. The first thing that people will see is the building from all direction as the proposed development is to be built on the crest of the hill. The height dominates the area. The developers will leverage the views as a reason for demanding a premium value for the development and it’s going to be a luxury building with affordable accommodation included for those lucky few who qualify.

There is only one way to drive into Darley Street East from the south – a right-lane turn off Barrenjoey Road. This lane currently back-ups blocking the right lane every afternoon and most weekends. The reason is simple. Darley Street East is also the only access for north bound traffic to access 9 other streets located to the east of Barrenjoey Road with over 200 other residences. This development will compound the access and on-street parking problems for the entire area.

As this is one of the first SSD developments to be approved, more buildings of this bulk will no doubt be submitted for approval with developers wanting to establish more similar structures on the street and around the immediate area. The results will be further congestion within the immediate area,

There are 2 roads into and out of Mona Vale, all roads are congested when conditions are good. They’re even worst when there’s rain, flooding, fires and accidents on any road that’s within 10 km of Mona Vale.

The environment of Mona Vale reflects the infrastructure that the state and councils have put into providing services to this area. It has always been considered a back water or at best somewhere to live the “Home and Away” experience of an easy, laid-back existence.

If we are to believe what the science is telling us and our world view on climate change, things are going to get worst for the environment, higher risks of flooding and fires and Mona Vale is in the bullseye of a low-lying bowl with forests to the east and water everywhere.

It’s irresponsible of NSW government officials, both elected and appointed not to heed the views of constituents who have a wealth of local knowledge and include subject matter experts who they’ve not bothered to listen to.

Let’s have a discussion before approving this development.

Finally, I reserve the right to add an addendum to this submission.

I object to the currently proposed re-development of 35-39 Darley St East Mona Vale NSW.
The proposal represents an overdevelopment in this residential part of Mona Vale and the proposed building does not fit with the character of the street (which is lower scale, with landscaped spaces and a coastal feel). There is inadequate proposed landscaping to reduce impacts to the neighbours and the street, largely due to extensive excavation and deep soil zones that are non-compliant and misrepresented on the plans.
Extent of excavation
• The building involves extensive excavation effectively to the boundary of the neighbours to the north (our property) and south, and to the street. The result being there are no deep soil zones along those boundaries, thereby preventing any meaningful landscape planting that would provide privacy and landscape amenity to the neighbours and street.
Non-compliant deep soil zones and inadequate landscaping
• Apartment Design Guide - The deep soil zones do not comply with the Apartment Design Guide which requires a minimum of 7% of site area, with the zone defined as needing a minimum width of 6m in any direction (which requires an area of 188 m2). The documentation in this regard is incorrect and claims compliance based on defective information. For example, the deep soil zone shown on Landscape Plan sheet SSDA_202 is substantially less than that shown on SSDA_201. It is SSDA_202 which appears correct and illustrates that the ADG requirement is not met, with the actual deep soil area being approximately 156 m2. The outcome being there will be inadequate areas to establish landscape planting that will reduce visual and privacy impacts to neighbours, including our property.
• Tree Canopy Guide for Low and Mid Rise Housing - Deep soil zones also do not comply with the Tree Canopy Guide for Low and Mid Rise Housing which is applicable and requires a minimum of 15% of deep soil (defined in this policy as at least 3m x 3m wide). Landscape Plan SSDA_202 also shows that the deep soil area is about 156m2, rather than the required 402m2.
• Housing SEPP - Under the non-discretionary development standards (Chapter 2, part 20) 30% of the site area has to be landscaped. The plans appear to show no clear evidence that this is achieved.
In summary, the proposed re-development is non-compliant and excessive in scale. The impact of the scale of the structure will be exacerbated by its location close to the highest point on Darley St East (esp in respect of visual impact and shadowing effects etc). Furthermore, this proposed development would detrimentally contribute to the area in many ways including the adverse impact on existing infrastructure, increased traffic and the associated safety risks. It is also difficult to envisage how a development of this style in this location will achieve the stated objective of providing affordable housing.

Objection to the Proposed Development at 35–39 Darley Street East, Mona Vale

I am writing as a local resident to strongly object to the proposed development at 35–39 Darley Street East.

I am not opposed to appropriate development or additional housing. My objection is to the excessive height, scale and density proposed for this particular location, and to the additional pressure it would place on a part of Mona Vale that is already struggling with parking, traffic, public transport and infrastructure.

EXCESSIVE HEIGHT AND IMPACT ON THE CHARACTER OF MONA VALE

My strongest concern is the height and visual impact of the proposed building.

Darley Street East rises from Barrenjoey Road to a high point near the proposed development and then descends towards the beach. Because of this topography, a building of the proposed height would not simply sit among surrounding development. It would occupy one of the most prominent points in the street and would appear to dominate the hill.

A seven-storey structure in this elevated position would be highly visible from surrounding streets and from the main route leading towards Mona Vale Beach. In my view, it would look completely out of proportion with the coastal and residential character of the area.

The issue is not just the number of storeys when measured from the site. The assessment must consider how the building would appear within the wider landscape. Placing such a large structure at the top of the rise would exaggerate its height and bulk and make it a dominant feature of the local skyline.

This development would significantly change the appearance and character of Darley Street East.

Approval may also encourage further developments of similar height and scale, resulting in the gradual transformation of the street without adequate consideration of the cumulative impact on the suburb.

PARKING AND TRAFFIC

Parking in Darley Street East and surrounding streets is already under considerable pressure.

Residents regularly have difficulty finding street parking, and this becomes substantially worse during weekends, summer and busy beach periods. The street is used by local residents, visitors, beachgoers, Thompson aged care workers, Keolis bus depot drivers, delivery vehicles and people accessing the Mona Vale town centre.

A development containing more than 50 apartments would introduce a large number of additional residents, vehicles, visitors, deliveries, tradespeople and service vehicles. Even where basement parking is provided, experience shows that visitor vehicles, additional household cars, delivery drivers and contractors still rely heavily on street parking.

The proposal would therefore increase competition for an already limited public resource. It would also add more vehicle movements to a street where traffic volume is already an issue.

Darley Street East is a main route towards the beach. Increased traffic entering and leaving a large apartment development would affect residents, pedestrians, cyclists and other road users. The cumulative traffic impact of this development, together with other developments proposed in the area, should be considered rather than assessing this site in isolation.

PRESSURE ON PUBLIC TRANSPORT

The additional population created by a development of this size would also place more pressure on the local bus network.

Bus services in Mona Vale are already crowded or unreliable at busy times, and residents regularly experience long waits, missed connections and limited capacity. Adding a substantial number of new residents without a corresponding improvement in bus frequency and capacity would make the existing problem worse.

This commuter shortfall accentuates at Warriewood and beyond due to already overcorwded or non-available buses departing Mona vale.

Encouraging higher-density housing without first ensuring adequate public transport will also increase dependence on private vehicles, which would further contribute to traffic and parking pressures.

OLDER AND VULNERABLE RESIDENTS

Darley Street East is also home to older residents who can afford the high cost of residences,and including aged-care residents from the Thompson aged care home.

Increased traffic, construction activity, noise, heavy vehicles and reduced access to nearby parking would have a particular impact on elderly and less mobile people. Their safety and ability to move around the street should be given proper consideration.

The construction phase would also involve an extended period of excavation, truck movements, dust and disruption. The effect on nearby older residents should not be treated as a minor or temporary inconvenience.

SEWAGE, DRAINAGE, AND OCEAN HEALTH

I am concerned about the capacity of existing sewerage and drainage infrastructure to support development of this scale, particularly when combined with the other higher-density developments proposed for Mona Vale.

Mona Vale is a coastal suburb, and stormwater from its streets and developed areas ultimately drains towards local waterways and the ocean. Increased development creates more hard surfaces, more waste, more traffic-related pollutants and greater pressure on drainage systems.

Any failure, overflow or inadequacy in sewerage and stormwater infrastructure may affect the beach and surrounding marine environment. Before approving further density, there should be clear evidence that the existing infrastructure can safely accommodate the additional demand without increasing the risk of pollution entering local waterways or the ocean.

ADDITIONAL CONCERNS

I also ask that the following matters be fully considered:

Overshadowing and loss of sunlight to surrounding properties and public spaces.
Loss of privacy and increased overlooking.
Noise from balconies, vehicles, waste collection, mechanical ventilation and air-conditioning equipment.
The number of rubbish bins required and the effect on street access and appearance on collection days.
The capacity of local water, sewerage, stormwater and electricity infrastructure.
The cumulative impact of this proposal and other major developments planned for Mona Vale.

I support sensible and appropriately scaled housing development. However, this proposal is too tall, too visually dominant and too intensive for such a prominent position at the top of Darley Street East.

I ask that the proposal be refused in its current form, or substantially reduced in height, bulk and density so that it respects the landscape, the coastal character of Mona Vale and the capacity of existing local infrastructure.

I reserve the right to add an amendment to this submission.