I would like to set clear my objection to the proposed development at 35-39 Darley Street East, Mona Vale NSW 2103.

Firstly the proposed development would immediately impact the privacy within the area. In a typically low-rise characterised street, the proposal stands out of place and impacts not one neighbouring property at the proposed height, but multiple. In addition to the loss of privacy, the loss of light to surrounding properties would be significant. It has been scientifically proven the impact that low light areas have on mental health compared to those of full natural light.

Furthermore, the density of the property will impact an already highly populated street with higher road traffic and foot traffic. With parking an ongoing issue, the main intersection to access the street one that regularly has traffic incidents and public transport lines around Mona Vale making headlines, the proposal would only further contribute to these issues. Additionally the high foot traffic is already at risk with the footpath only connecting to the beach on one side of the road, whilst the other side of the road has a footpath that ends at the local cafes before it becomes unsafe for pedestrians crossing driveways, families pushing prams up and down curbs and not to mention non wheelchair friendly.

Mona Vale is a community based area known for the local camaraderie. As we look to add value to our community, we need to prioritise upholding the character. This proposal does not uphold the character of Mona Vale due to its size, bulk and scale. It sets a dangerous precedent and I strongly urge you to reconsider something more in line with the current low-rise scape of our beautiful street.

I support the proposed residential development at 35–39 Darley Street East, Mona Vale NSW 2103.

As a long-term local resident, I believe Mona Vale needs well-designed new housing to meet the needs of our growing community. Thoughtfully planned developments like this can help provide more housing choice while also supporting local businesses, encouraging investment in the village, and creating a more vibrant and active town centre.

I believe this proposal aligns with the NSW Government's low- and mid-rise housing policy and represents a positive step for the future of Mona Vale and surrounding suburbs.

Please count me as a supporter of this application.

Thank you,

I strongly object to SSD-113872990 in its current form. While I support genuinely affordable housing, I do not support affordable housing provisions being used to justify an eight-storey, maximum-density development that is overwhelmingly out of scale with this part of Mona Vale. The proposal extracts virtually every available height and floor-space bonus, yet provides only nine affordable apartments out of 53, secured for a minimum period of 15 years. The affordable housing benefit is limited and temporary, while the excessive building bulk, overshadowing, loss of trees, visual dominance, traffic pressures and impact on neighbouring properties would be permanent.

The development is not in keeping with the established two- and three-storey character of the surrounding neighbourhood and would impose an unfair burden on nearby residents. The application also contains unresolved inconsistencies relating to traffic generation, driveway access, solar access and other technical matters, while failing to adequately demonstrate that local roads, services and infrastructure can accommodate this scale of development.

New housing should be appropriately designed for its location and should not come at the expense of existing residents or the character and liveability of Mona Vale. I therefore request that the proposal be refused or substantially reduced and redesigned, with the upper four storeys removed and the amended application independently reviewed and publicly re-exhibited.

I am an owner occupier of a property adjacent to the proposed development, the proposed Residential Flat Building with in-fill affordable housing at 35-39 Darley Street East, Mona Vale (SSD-113872990) being an 8 storey building will lead to a significant increase in vehicle traffic in a street which is already overly congested and provided insufficient parking for the additional demand caused by this project. Furthermore, the 8 storey building will cast shadow over the neighbouring properties and obstruct the entitlement of a view to the ocean and surrounding natural beauty for the existing neighbouring residents. Additionally, there will be a protracted disruption caused by the associated works including the demolition of existing buildings earthworks, excavation, site preparation, tree removal construction and landscaping. This is an unnecessary development in a beautiful street in Mona Vale and will only lead to a significant increase in congestion, damage to local environments and disruption to a peaceful environment.

Application Number: SSD-113872990

Proposal: Residential flat building with in-fill affordable housing (35-39 Darley Street East, Mona Vale)

Objector Location: Townhouse 12/34-36 Golf Avenue, Mona Vale

Position: Object

Specific Grounds for Objection:

1. Severe Cumulative Overshadowing & Loss of Solar Access (12/34-36 Golf Avenue)

- Direct Impact from Shadow Diagrams: The submitted shadow diagrams clearly demonstrate that the proposed 8-storey development projects severe, direct overshadowing onto our property at Townhouse 12/34-36 Golf Avenue.

- Pre-existing Impact & Cumulative Loss: Our townhouse already suffers from restricted light due to the neighboring development at 32 Golf Avenue. The introduction of an eight-storey mass at 35-39 Darley Street East creates a critical cumulative loss of solar access, removing remaining sunlight during key daylight hours.

- Loss of Amenity: This compounded shadowing will severely degrade thermal comfort, natural lighting, and overall residential amenity in our living areas and outdoor space.

2. Local Traffic Gridlock & Restricted Emergency Vehicle Access

- Seasonal Traffic Bottlenecks: Darley Street East and Golf Avenue are major access routes for Mona Vale Beach and Basin. During summer and warm weekends, these narrow residential streets regularly experience total gridlock from beachgoer traffic and street parking.

- Severe Risks to Emergency Response Times: Mona Vale Beach frequently requires urgent response from emergency services—including ambulances, police, and surf lifesaving vehicles—due to ocean rescues, water drownings, and coastal accidents.

- Compounded Hazard: Adding 124 vehicle spaces exiting directly onto Darley Street East will severely exacerbate local congestion. In peak conditions, this increased volume risks blocking or critically delaying emergency vehicles attempting to navigate Darley Street East and Golf Avenue to reach the beach and surf club, creating a major public safety hazard.

3. Excessive Bulk, Height, and Scale

- An eight-storey building over three basement levels represents an extreme jump in density and height that is visually dominant and completely out of character with the existing 2-to-3 storey coastal residential precinct along Golf Avenue and Darley Street East.

I strongly object to SSD-113872990. I live in the area and there are some days even now that I cannot get parking in the area. I also live in the area and have almost my whole life, and there is no way I can afford a house in this area, therefore, this offering of only 9 dwellings and only for 15 years is ridiculous. I've just come from visiting family in Sweden, and their community housing initiatives are incredible. The GREED here is disgusting and not at all for the average community members, it's for the rich. 9 dwellings should be increased and there should not be a limit of 15 years.
Next, I object to the excessive height, scale and density of this proposal. It should be a max of 3 or 4 levels high. There is nothing like this in the area and it will be an eyesore and will overshadow buildings in the area and be way out of character for the area. This is not Dee Why.
As I already stated, currently getting parking in the area is challenging. Something needs to be done about this.
I object to 37 of 42 trees being removed. Creating a canopy that is mature and developed is difficult. This is unacceptable. Trees and shrubs are not just about decoration, they are a habitat and you are destroying them.
In conclusion, Mona Vale can accommodate new housing without accepting a maximum-yield, eight-storey form that overwhelms its immediate setting and pushes unresolved impacts onto existing residents and public infrastructure. This proposal should be refused or fundamentally redesigned and re-exhibited.

I wish to lodge a formal objection to the proposed development on the following planning and community impact grounds. While I support responsible development that provides additional housing and contributes positively to the community, I believe this proposal exceeds the capacity of the surrounding neighbourhood and will have significant adverse impacts on residents, local infrastructure and the established character of the area.

1. Traffic Generation and Road Safety

The proposed development will inevitably generate a substantial increase in vehicle movements within the local road network. The surrounding streets already experience significant congestion, particularly during peak commuting periods, and the additional traffic will further reduce the efficiency and safety of the area.

Of particular concern is the right-hand turn movement from Darley Street onto Barrenjoey Road. This intersection is already difficult to negotiate due to heavy traffic volumes and limited opportunities to safely enter the traffic stream. Increasing the number of vehicles using this intersection will elevate the risk of collisions and near misses for both motorists and pedestrians.

The same occurs in the right-hand turn from Barrenjoey Road onto Wakehurst Parkway, which already heavily congested, is particularly an issue during peak periods. Vehicles regularly experience extended waiting times before being able to complete the turn safely. Any increase in traffic associated with this development will further compound congestion, increase driver frustration, and heighten the potential for unsafe manoeuvres and accidents.

The development should not be approved unless it can be clearly demonstrated, through an independent traffic assessment, that the existing road network can safely accommodate the projected increase in traffic without compromising public safety.

2. Insufficient On-Street Parking Capacity

Street parking within the surrounding neighbourhood is already at or near full capacity for much of the day and evening. Residents, visitors and local businesses already compete for the limited available spaces.

Even where developments provide parking in accordance with minimum planning requirements, experience has consistently shown that overflow parking occurs due to multiple vehicle ownership, visitors, tradespeople, delivery services and service providers. This results in increased parking demand spilling into surrounding residential streets.

Further pressure on street parking will inconvenience existing residents, reduce accessibility for emergency services and service vehicles, and diminish the amenity of the neighbourhood.

Unless parking demand can be fully accommodated on-site without reliance on surrounding streets, the proposal should not proceed.

3. Capacity of Existing Water and Sewer Infrastructure

The proposal raises concerns regarding the capacity of existing water supply and sewerage infrastructure.

Residents should have confidence that essential services are capable of supporting additional population density without compromising existing service levels.

Specific concerns include:

reduced water pressure experienced by existing residents during periods of peak demand;
increased loading on ageing sewer infrastructure;
greater likelihood of sewer overflows or maintenance issues;
increased future infrastructure costs ultimately borne by the community.

Approval should only be considered after the relevant utility authority has independently confirmed that existing infrastructure has sufficient capacity, or that appropriate upgrades will be completed before occupation of the development.

4. Excessive Height and Incompatibility with the Existing Streetscape

The proposed building height is inconsistent with the established character of the surrounding area.

The existing neighbourhood generally comprises buildings of a more moderate scale that contribute to an attractive and cohesive streetscape. The proposed development introduces a building form that is visually dominant and out of character with neighbouring properties.

Development should respect the existing built form rather than overwhelm it.

In my opinion, any redevelopment of the site should be limited to a maximum of four storeys. A four-storey building would:

provide opportunities for increased housing supply;
achieve a more appropriate transition between neighbouring properties;
reduce visual bulk and overshadowing;
better preserve neighbourhood character; and
maintain consistency with the established streetscape.

Higher buildings would create an imposing visual presence that permanently alters the character of the locality and sets an undesirable precedent for future developments.

5. Cumulative Impact

While each of the concerns identified above is significant individually, the cumulative effect is even more concerning.

Additional traffic, parking shortages, pressure on ageing infrastructure and excessive building height collectively reduce the liveability of the neighbourhood. Planning decisions should consider not only the benefits of increased housing density but also the long-term impacts on existing residents and the capacity of local infrastructure.

Good planning requires balanced development that enhances communities rather than placing unreasonable strain on public infrastructure and residential amenity.

Conclusion

For the reasons outlined above, I respectfully request that Council refuse the application in its current form.

Should Council determine that redevelopment of the site is appropriate, I strongly encourage that any approval be substantially modified to:

limit the development to a maximum height of four storeys;
require comprehensive traffic and intersection safety improvements;
ensure all parking demand is accommodated on-site;
require independent confirmation that water and sewer infrastructure has adequate capacity or will be upgraded prior to occupation; and
ensure the final design is compatible with the existing character and scale of the surrounding neighbourhood.

I ask Council to give careful consideration to the long-term impacts this proposal will have on the safety, amenity and character of the local community before making its determination.

Due to the late nature of this submission, I reserve the right to expand further on these items.

From: Maryanne 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.

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.
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.
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 Maryanne Clay

Submission — Objection to SSDA 113872990
35–39 Darley Street East, Mona Vale
I object to SSDA 113872990 in its current form.
I support additional housing and genuinely affordable housing, but this proposal is excessive for its location and has not adequately addressed neighbourhood amenity, transport capacity or essential infrastructure.
1) Excessive height, bulk and scale
The proposal is for an eight-storey building containing 53 apartments, three basement levels and 124 parking spaces. The EIS itself acknowledges that the immediate area is generally characterised by two- and three-storey residential development.
An eight-storey building would be visually dominant and create an abrupt transition from the existing neighbourhood. The proposal also exceeds the six-storey, 22-metre low- and mid-rise outcome by relying on the affordable-housing bonus.
The building should be reduced in height and bulk, with greater side, rear and upper-level setbacks.
2) Loss of amenity
The development would significantly affect surrounding residents through:
• visual bulk and enclosure;
• overlooking and loss of privacy;
• overshadowing and reduced solar access;
• increased traffic, noise and construction disruption;
• loss of outlook; and
• removal of established vegetation.
The EIS acknowledges that the proposal will significantly change the neighbourhood and that increased density inevitably creates adverse impacts.
The fact that higher density is permitted does not mean that these impacts are automatically reasonable.
3) Affordable housing does not justify the scale
Only nine of the 53 apartments are proposed as affordable housing. The remaining 44 apartments are market housing.
The EIS also contains inconsistent statements about whether the affordable housing will be provided for only 15 years or in perpetuity.
A temporary affordable-housing benefit should not justify the permanent additional height and density. Any affordable housing should be legally secured in perpetuity, and the Department should consider whether the same outcome could be achieved within a smaller six-storey development.
4) Roads and public transport
The proposal provides 124 parking spaces, demonstrating that future residents are expected to remain heavily dependent on private vehicles.
Mona Vale has no rail or rapid-transit service and relies on a constrained road and bus network. Additional density will increase pressure on Barrenjoey Road, Pittwater Road, Mona Vale Road, local intersections and bus services.
The EIS concludes that the traffic impact will be minimal, but this assesses the proposal largely in isolation.
The cumulative impact of the Government’s wider plan for substantial population and housing growth must be assessed before developments of this scale are approved.
5) Water, sewage and utility infrastructure
The EIS states only that Sydney Water and Ausgrid confirmed connection requirements.
This does not demonstrate that the wider water, sewerage and electricity networks have sufficient capacity to support this development together with the many other developments expected in Mona Vale.
The water-management assessment mainly addresses stormwater and on-site detention, rather than potable water and downstream sewer capacity.
The Department should require formal confirmation of:
• water-supply capacity;
• sewer-main and pumping-station capacity;
• sewage-treatment capacity;
• electricity-network capacity;
• necessary upgrades, funding and delivery dates; and
• cumulative impacts from other planned developments.
Requested outcome
I request that the application be refused in its current form or substantially redesigned to:
1. reduce the building height and number of storeys;
2. reduce the floor space, footprint and visual bulk;
3. increase side, rear and upper-level setbacks;
4. better protect neighbouring privacy, sunlight and amenity;
5. secure the affordable housing permanently;
6. provide a proper cumulative transport assessment; and
7. demonstrate adequate water, sewerage and utility capacity before approval.

This objection is not against housing growth. It is against an oversized development that delivers limited affordable housing while imposing permanent amenity and infrastructure impacts on the Mona Vale community.

I live 80 metres east of the proposed development and across the road is a proposal for a 6-story building – I am worried by all the high-rise developments proposed for Mona Vale.
We will all be affected – visitors and residents – by what happens in Mona Vale .
The State Significant Development (SSD-113872990) at 35–39 Darley Street East is of serious concern.
The developer proposes demolishing 18 existing townhouses to construct an 8-storey residential building comprising 53 apartments (44 luxury units and 9 designated 'affordable' units) with 124 car parking spaces.
My objections are as follows :
1. Planning, Scale, and Bulk of development
• Excessive Height: An 8-storey building is completely out of character for an area currently dominated by 1, 2, 3, and occasional 4-storey structures.
• Unjustified 'Future Character': The proposal relies on a projected future character that assumes up to 50 surrounding sites will eventually redevelop into high-rises, rather than respecting the existing established character.
• Visual Impact & Massing: This is a really poor design , it consists of one massive, continuous 8-storey block across the site without breaks to share light, air, or visual amenity with neighbouring properties.
• Prominent Topography: Situated on the crest of the hill on Darley Street East, the building will stand out prominently on the ridgeline when viewed from surrounding areas and headlands.
2. The 'Affordable Housing' Fallacy
• Unrealistic Financials: With a stated construction cost of ~$93M (excluding land value), the cost per unit exceeds $1.8M. Setting rent at 30% of market rates will still place essential workers (nurses, police, paramedics) under severe rental stress (exceeding 50% of income).
• Abuse of Density Bonuses: Developers leverage a small fraction of 'affordable' units to claim extra height bonuses (moving from 6 to 8 storeys). If genuine affordability cannot be delivered to local support workers, the extra storeys should not be granted.
• Temporary Scheme vs. Permanent Building: Affordable rentals are only retained for 15 years under the scheme, whereas the extra physical height granted to the developer remains permanently.
3. Traffic, Parking, and Beach Precinct Impact
• Cumulative Traffic Impact: Evaluating single developments in isolation hides the true impact. Adding 53 high-density apartments to a street already suffering heavy beach and local traffic will severely choke the network.
• Inadequate Parking Assumptions: The 124 proposed spaces (approx. 2 per unit) do not account for larger 3- and 4- bedroom luxury layouts with multiple adult drivers per household, overflowing onto local street parking.
• Exaggerated Transit Hub Claims: Walking distances to major transport hubs (like the B1 bus line) are significantly longer than implied in the developer's submission.
4. Safety, Emergency Access, and Evacuation Risks
• Bushfire Evacuation: Mona Vale relies on very few access/egress roads (Barrenjoey Road, Mona Vale Road). Uncontrolled over-densification creates severe risks during emergency evacuations.
• Fire & Rescue Limitations: High-rise structures require specialized aerial ladder appliances (stationed far away in Manly or Hornsby). Narrow coastal streets and tight boundary setbacks make manoeuvring emergency vehicles extremely difficult.
5. Environmental & Infrastructure Concerns
• Utilities Capacity: High-density developments strain local sewerage (Warriewood Treatment Plant) and already weak water pressure systems when multiplying bathroom counts sixfold on a single site.
• Excavation & Groundwater: Excavating over 10 metres down (3 basement levels) right up to boundary lines poses risks to groundwater, localized flooding, and structural stability of neighbouring properties.
• Loss of Trees & Canopy: Opposition was strongly voiced against removing mature native trees.
6. I am also concerned by the following:
• A sewage system that regularly spews untreated sewage onto our coast where our kids swim.
• Traffic congestion in the village and the two streets in & out of the peninsula.
• The fear of clogged evacuation routes in case of a major bushfire event.
• Struggling water pressure.
• State government promises no money for infrastructure until everything is built. This is putting carts before horses.
• The negative effect on affordability of $3-4m dollar luxury apartments.
In conclusion, this is not development - this is a transformation and an irresponsible, irreversible destruction of our coastal centre without proper planning and infrastructure management. Good planning is essential .
As you rightly pointed out in your speech, in the South of France, despite a large population, there is density in some areas but many other natural areas are preserved .
Our Pittwater Peninsula has a world-class environment and should be protected and preserved, not sacrificed at the altar of developers’ profits.
Like many other residents , I am very angry and feel betrayed by our government .
Their lack of care and disregard for our communities is arrogant and disrespectful.
We have lost our voices in council – twelve of NBC’s fifteen Councillors do not represent Pittwater – which has been disempowered from making decisions thanks to their new laws. A few remote bureaucrats can now make life affecting decisions on these significant developments.