I object to the proposed development at 35–39 Darley Street East for the following planning reasons.
1. Excessive Scale and Density
The proposal seeks to increase the number of dwellings from 18 apartments to 53 apartments, representing almost a threefold increase in residential density. This level of intensification is inconsistent with the established character of the Mona Vale Basin, which is predominantly low-rise residential development.
The size and bulk of the proposal would dominate the surrounding streetscape and fundamentally alter the character of the area.
2. Out of Character with the Mona Vale Basin
Mona Vale's appeal comes from its coastal village atmosphere, generous landscaping and moderate-density housing.
A development of this magnitude risks creating an urban form that is more appropriate in larger metropolitan centres than within this established beachside neighbourhood.
Approving this proposal could set a precedent for similarly oversized developments throughout the Basin.
3. Traffic Congestion
Darley Street East already experiences significant traffic from:
Mona Vale Beach visitors
Local businesses
School traffic
Residents accessing Barrenjoey Road
Introducing 53 apartments will substantially increase vehicle movements despite the provision of basement parking.
This additional traffic is likely to:
increase congestion
lengthen waiting times at intersections
reduce pedestrian safety
increase conflict with cyclists.
4. Parking Impacts
Although the proposal includes 124 basement car spaces, visitor demand and service vehicles may still result in overflow parking into surrounding streets.
Parking is already under pressure during weekends and holiday periods because of the beach precinct.
5. Overshadowing and Loss of Solar Access
The increased building height and bulk have the potential to overshadow neighbouring properties.
Reduced sunlight would adversely affect:
private open space
gardens
balconies
living areas
particularly during winter.
6. Loss of Privacy
Upper-level apartments, balconies and communal areas may overlook adjoining homes and apartments.
This would reduce the reasonable expectation of privacy currently enjoyed by neighbouring residents.
7. Noise
The proposal introduces a much larger resident population together with communal facilities including:
swimming pool
gym
wellness areas
communal outdoor spaces
These facilities have the potential to generate ongoing noise extending into evenings and weekends.
8. Removal of Existing Landscaping
The existing site contains mature vegetation that contributes to the leafy character of the Mona Vale Basin.
Removal of mature trees would:
reduce urban canopy
diminish wildlife habitat
increase urban heat
reduce visual amenity.
Replacement planting cannot compensate for the immediate loss of mature canopy.
9. Construction Impacts
The demolition of the existing complex and construction of a significantly larger development will likely continue for an extended period.
Residents will experience:
construction noise
dust
vibration
heavy vehicle movements
disruption to local traffic
reduced pedestrian safety.
10. Pressure on Local Infrastructure
An additional 35 apartments over the existing development will increase demand on:
local roads
drainage infrastructure
public transport
parks
beaches
community facilities.
It is not evident that supporting infrastructure has capacity to accommodate this increase.
11. State Significant Development Process
The proposal appears to be seeking assessment as a State Significant Development. While housing supply is important, local residents should retain a meaningful opportunity to have their concerns fully considered.
A project of this scale should not diminish the importance of local planning objectives or community input.
12. Inconsistent with Local Character Objectives
The proposal should be carefully assessed against the objectives of the applicable planning controls, particularly regarding:
neighbourhood character
building scale
setbacks
landscaping
residential amenity
transition to neighbouring properties.
The apparent increase in scale suggests the proposal may exceed what the surrounding locality can reasonably accommodate.
Conclusion
I support well-designed housing that respects Mona Vale's established coastal character. However, this proposal represents an excessive increase in density, height and building bulk for the site. It would have unacceptable impacts on traffic, parking, privacy, solar access, neighbourhood character and local infrastructure.
For these reasons, I respectfully request that this application is rejected in its current form or require substantial redesign to reduce its scale and better align it with the established character of the Mona Vale Basin.

Submission uploaded in attachment

I am a member of SOS Mona Vale and I wish to object to this development application.
One would have to be blind not to see that there is a growing and overwhelming wave of community concern in Mona Vale over the number of INAPPROPRIATE large-scale development proposals popping up everywhere, this being one of them. I am familiar with all the concerns of our community and, in relation to this particular project, all the specific concerns of local, neighbouring property owners . I support each and everyone of those concerns. Putting all that aside, and looking at the local scene from a more wholistic viewpoint, my understanding is that the target under the NSW Government’s Low and Mid-Rise (LMR) Housing Policy for the broader Northern Beaches is 5,900 new homes over 5 years. Why then is Mona Vale being singled out and totally saturated by a tsunami of developers? It's because they recognise the potential the building of high end, totally unaffordable apartments in an attractive beach side suburb has. It is going to garner them huge profits, something that is no longer available to them out west because of building costs and population demographics . The way things are headed, there will ultimately be an over supply of these high rise apartments with a large percentage sitting vacant. With the exception of millionaire investors, nobody will be able to afford to buy these apartments, let alone rent them. As for affordable housing, that is quickly proving to just be a guise to enable developers to reach for the sky in terms of number of floors/over-all height. Translating all that into an area that is basically a peninsular surrounded by ocean on one side and ocean bays and a huge national park on the other, then one can only imagine how much more vulnerable a larger population is going to be to climate change disasters such as bushfires (you only need look at evacuation levels in Europe right now), flooding, hospital access, travel times to work/commuting, traffic and, overall, an infrastructure (including water and sewerage) that has been left way behind. The stupidity that is occurring with this knee jerk reaction to resolving the so called "housing crisis" is mind boggling! The latter has been brought about by continued failures of current and past Governments, both at a State and Federal level. This method of addressing the problem is another failure of Government. I strongly oppose this development application and call upon the State Government to remove Mona Vale from the LMR immediately before any more damage is done to this pristine part of Sydney. Let other areas pick up the slack. We have done our bit already!

I object to the development for several reasons.
1. You just denied an application for 20 Darley St. Mona Vale which would only have had 20 units yet you are considering this one for 53 units and parking for 124 cars. This application has included No. 20 as proof that there will be other similarly high developments in the street. Well, there won't be, will there ,because you have rejected it?
2. Darley St. is extremely busy already as the main road to Mona Vale Beach. Adding another 124 cars plus those who own 2 cars plus visitors will make the street a nightmare. The council already cannot cope with the number of potholes and repairs needed to the area's roads. What do you think these extra cars will do to the roads? I have already had to pay for 2 new tyres in the past 2 years by going over pot holes which have yet to be repaired.
3. A development of this size, with multiple pools etc. and its height will overshadow units around it AND across the road, affecting existing residents' use of their own properties.
4. The infrastructure for this many extra people, plus those who will move into other new developments, does not exist. The developers have noted Mona Vale Hospital as a plus. This hospital is mainly a rehab hospital and does triage for emergencies only. Otherwise, people have to go to Northern Beaches Hospital, which services people from Palm Beach to Dee Why, Belrose, Allambie Heights, Hornsby and Ku-ring-gai areas and neighbouring western upper North shore and Forest areas. This is a huge area to deal with. The waits to see doctors and specialists in this area are already extremely lengthy. The schools will not be prepared for any school age children who may move in. You can't assume that only childless couples will move into these units.
There has been no preparation for all these new developments. no extra schools, no extra doctors, we struggle to attract doctors here already, no extra capacity at the hospital. No extra police. There is no fully functioning police station between Mona Vale and Palm Beach. We have only one small station at Mona Vale, one at Dee Why and one at Frenchs Forest to cover all of the Northern Beaches. We only have 4 ambulance stations at Avalon, Mona Vale, Belrose and Balgowlah. Recently, a friend of mine fell over in the street in Mona Vale, broke her hip and had to wait 3 hours in the rain, in the middle of the street for an ambulance. I do not see it getting any better, do you?
5. Just because you CAN put up these buildings doesn't mean you SHOULD.
6.There are so many of these new units going up that I am sure we will end up with a glut of units which cannot be sold. The starting prices of these new units is way beyond anyone I know who lives here. The strata fees alone would be prohibitive. You will not be providing affordable housing for young families who are already in the area. These units will just push housing more and more out of the reach of the average person. We are already losing valuable personnel, such as teachers, who are moving out of the area due to lack of affordable housing I thought these reforms were meant for people like my son, who wants to be a police officer. He cannot afford anything on the market, even the smallest. oldest unit on the northern beaches. He will probably have to follow his friends out of the area. So what will these builds achieve? A lovely retirement for people with money from the Eastern Suburbs, The Upper North Shore and Mosman? That is not what I have spent my life paying taxes and rates in this area for. We want to keep our children close if we can. I have one child . If he moves, what have I achieved in my life?
7. Also, I think this process is quite the sham. We all know that these developments are already approved due to the fact that they are State Significant Applications. That is also a sham. What makes them state significant? The fact that the developers will be spending at least $75 million on them? Seriously? And we all know how the developers get around 'the affordable housing' requirement. They don't sell them initially. They rent them out for the 15 years then sell them on the open market. Only people with that kind of money will then buy them.
8. This rush to use the Low and Medium Rise rules to suit the developers goes against the spirit of the new rules. What happens if a High Rise rule comes in? How many floors will you approve then? We all moved into this area for a reason, working hard to afford it. That was our choice and we paid big bucks to do it. Why are we being punished now? I have worked hard all my life to live in a nice area after a horrible childhood and marriage. I have worked all my life, from the age of 16, in some shape of form and I am still working at 68.No one has given me anything and I have not expected anything except the right to live in my home in an area that I love, where I have friends and a community, without being harassed constantly by developers and people whose main aim is to make money. Think about the rest of us. We are the ones who voted you in, not the developers and not the people who will be buying these units. We voted you in for a reason, because you promised to fight for the people of Pittwater and to preserve the way of life we hold so dear. The developers will come and go. They have no attachment to the area or to us. If you keep approving everything and do not fight for us, I, for one, in the next elections, will be voting for someone who will. This is important to us. Don't do the popular thing, do the right thing for the people of Pittwater.

We write with strong opposition to the proposed development of 35-39 Darley Street East, Mona Vale SSD-1138 72990.

We are very concerned about the over-development in Mona Vale and our main concerns for this particular development at the beach end of Darley Street are:

Size and Scale:
* The size and scale is excessive and incompatible with the surrounding land use, causing over-shadowing and privacy issues for the adjacent properties.

* Developers are being allowed the “affordable housing” avenue in beachside suburbs to build luxury apartments totally out of scale and height for the area. Providing affordable housing is a myth in these cases. An apartment may be rented under this scheme initially but down the line none of these will be affordable. It is not fixing the problem for people who need it long-term. It is absolutely infuriating to think that these bad planning laws are allowing developments which are detrimental to the environment and safety of our community for no purpose other than lining developer’s pockets.

Bushfires/coastal erosion/flooding:

* We understood the Pittwater Peninsular to be a protected area because of its position between the coast (coastal erosion - such as we have witnessed at Colleroy) and national park (bushfires). There are not many routes out of this strip of the Northern Beaches and with overdevelopment this could lead to future disasters for residents. This is alarming. It concerns us that our streets could be grid-locked if we needed to evacuate because of bushfires or flooding.

Traffic:
* Constructing over-development will create a significant traffic problem
* We also are concerned that Mona Vale is a village without the infrastructure to cope with this overdevelopment. How on earth are all these new people to the area expected to get to work on public transport? We have no train line, just the bus service which already is full to capacity at peak times. Everyone has seen on the televised news the queues of workers trying and failing to board the buses once they reach Dee Why/Brookvale area. If we have all this overdevelopment of Mona Vale and then residents of these developments trying to get to their places of work, how are they expected to get there via the public transport route available? The buses will be at capacity when they leave Mona Vale and just providing more buses creates another road traffic problem along the already busy route towards the city.

3.Summary:

The current over-development being proposed in Mona Vale is unconscionably bad planning of a vulnerable environment/community where there isn’t the infrastructure to cope with an influx of new residents in these numbers. We understand the current housing shortage and are not opposed to reasonable thought-out development, but luxury structures of this size and scale in Pittwater with limited access are dangerous and irresponsible, and definitely don’t even come close to solving the housing crisis for those in need.

Bring on the election next year!!

I am writing as a resident of the local area to object to the proposed development at 35–39 Darley Street East.
I recognise the need for additional housing and I am not opposed to reasonable development in Mona Vale. However, I believe the height, bulk and density proposed for this site are unsuitable for its position and would create unacceptable impacts on the surrounding neighbourhood.
EXCESSIVE HEIGHT AND VISUAL IMPACT
My main concern is the proposed seven-storey height and the effect this would have on the appearance and character of the area.
Darley Street East rises steeply from Barrenjoey Road, reaches a high point near the development site and then falls towards Mona Vale Beach. A building of this scale would therefore be positioned close to the crest of the hill, making it appear even larger and more prominent than it would on a flatter site.
The proposed building would be visible from a wide area and would become a dominant feature when travelling along Darley Street East towards the beach. In my opinion, a development of this height would sit heavily above the surrounding area and would not reflect the existing coastal and residential character of Mona Vale.
The visual impact cannot be assessed only by counting storeys from the ground level of the site. The elevated position, overall building mass, rooftop structures and the way the development would appear against the skyline must also be considered.
I am concerned that approval of a building of this scale at the top of the rise would set a standard for further oversized developments along Darley Street East. The combined effect of several similar projects could permanently alter the appearance and feel of the street and the wider beachside area.
PARKING AND TRAFFIC PRESSURE
Parking and traffic are already significant problems in Darley Street East and the surrounding streets.
On many days, available street parking is limited. The situation becomes considerably worse during summer, on weekends and whenever the beach is busy. Parking is also required by existing residents, visitors, aged-care staff, bus depot employees, local workers, tradespeople and delivery vehicles.
A development of more than 50 apartments would add a substantial number of new residents and vehicles to the area. It would also generate regular visitor parking, deliveries, removal vehicles, maintenance contractors and service vehicles.
Although the development may provide basement parking, this will not prevent additional pressure being placed on the street. Visitors, households with more vehicles than allocated spaces, contractors and delivery drivers will still depend on public parking.
Darley Street East already carries regular traffic between Barrenjoey Road, the town centre and Mona Vale Beach. Additional vehicle movements entering and leaving a large residential building would increase congestion and create further risks for pedestrians, cyclists, elderly residents and other road users.
The traffic assessment should take account of current conditions, seasonal beach traffic and the combined effect of other proposed developments. This proposal should not be considered as though it is the only major increase in residential density planned for the area.
PRESSURE ON PUBLIC TRANSPORT
The increase in population would also place additional pressure on local bus services.
Bus services through Mona Vale are already heavily used, particularly during peak periods. Passengers frequently experience crowded services, delays and long gaps between buses.
Higher-density development should be supported by adequate public transport capacity. Without improved bus frequency and reliability, many new residents will continue to rely on private vehicles, adding further pressure to local roads and parking.
MONA VALE BEACH OCEAN HEALTH
I am also concerned about whether the existing sewerage and stormwater systems can cope with the level of development being proposed across Mona Vale.
A building containing so many apartments would place additional demand on sewerage, water and drainage infrastructure. This must be considered together with other developments planned or under assessment in the area.
Darley Street East drains towards the coast. Rubbish, sediment, oil and other pollutants from streets and building sites can enter stormwater drains and ultimately reach local waterways and the ocean.
Before this level of density is approved, there should be clear and independent evidence that the infrastructure has sufficient capacity and that the proposal will not increase the risk of sewer overflows, stormwater pollution or harm to the marine environment.
LOSS OF TREES AND HABITAT
I understand that all but three trees on the site are proposed to be removed.
The removal of almost all existing trees would result in a significant loss of vegetation, shade and habitat. Mature trees provide environmental benefits that cannot be immediately replaced by new landscaping or small planted trees.
They help absorb stormwater, reduce heat, soften the appearance of buildings and provide food and shelter for local birds and wildlife. The cumulative loss of mature trees from redevelopment sites is gradually reducing the green and coastal character of Mona Vale.
OTHER AREAS OF CONCERN
• Overshadowing and loss of natural light.
• Increased overlooking and reduced privacy.
• Noise from balconies, vehicles, air-conditioning systems and mechanical equipment.
• Excavation close to neighbouring properties.
• Construction traffic, dust, vibration and road disruption.
• Increased waste generation and the number of bins placed on the street.
• Noise and access problems associated with rubbish collection.
• Emergency access and bushfire evacuation capacity.
• Pedestrian safety, particularly for elderly and less mobile residents.
• Pressure on water, electricity, sewerage and drainage infrastructure.
• The cumulative effect of other large developments proposed for Mona Vale.
• Loss of existing vegetation, bird habitat and tree canopy.
I support housing development that is appropriate to its location and supported by adequate infrastructure. In my view, this proposal is too tall, too bulky and too intensive for such a prominent site near the top of Darley Street East.
I ask that the development be refused in its current form or substantially reduced in height, scale and density.
I reserve the right to add an amendment to this submission.

2nd August 2026.
I ask that this proposal (35-39 Darley St East, Mona Vale) is rejected on the following grounds, and also that the Minister for Planning and Public Spaces directs a public hearing to be held for this particular development.
The main reasons for my objection are:

THE SIZE OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND THE IMPACT CAUSED BY THIS PROPOSED DWELLING.
THERE ARE CURRENTLY NO 8 STOREY DWELLINGS IN THE ACTUAL MONA VALE CENTRE, AND TO PROPOSE ONE TO BE BUILT IN A TOTAL RESIDENTIAL AREA IS OUTRAGEOUS!
The proposed height of these 8 storeys is an excessive, opportunistic over development from an “out of area” developer (Inca Byron Bay) for this site. It does by no way, fit the current landscape with being double the height of ANY building in the basin area and 4 TIMES the height of neighbouring properties (including where I reside). This will drastically change the landscape, and character of Mona Vale (and the immediate surrounding area).
It will greatly impact on the area, infrastructure, utilities, surrounding neighbours and traffic.

The sight itself:
• Affordable Housing – 53 Apartments
(44 Luxury, 9 so called Affordable) proposed.
A % market value rent for these apartments will not be affordable for our public servants or people in need of affordable housing. These are being built to maximise ocean views. The % of current market rent cost of a new luxury 1 bedroom apartment in this location is NOT affordable. This is actually a contradiction, by knocking down existing, affordable housing and building completely unaffordable housing.
• The definition of “town centre” – is conveniently placed so this development is just within 15m of the 400m. It is flawed. The B1 bus stop needs to be the definition, and then this development would sit outside the 400m.
• Excavation – 3 levels of basement carpark right to the boundary. I have grave concerns over the impact on stability of the land, wastewater and flood water. I have experienced 5 floodings in 12 years in my reside at 13/28-30 Golf Ave Mona Vale and this major excavation will only impact the weak land that we are on currently. (Also, there is a development currently happening at 32-34 Golf Avenue, which will be placing more duress on the instability of land with the excavation going on there).

• Overshadowing issues.
Referring to ADG (Apartment Design Guide) is relevant to the overshadowing principles that include:
1. Overshadowing of neighbouring properties should be minimised.
2. Existing neighbour’s homes should retain reasonable solar access.
3. If a neighbouring property already has limited sunlight, a new development should generally not reduce that solar access by by more than 20%. This is a design criteria used in assessing developments.
(NSW Planning)
My self and 4 other neighbours in 28-30 Golf Ave will have our solar access reduced to at least 90%!!
• Dangerous traffic issues – due to cars entering and exiting the car park of this building. It is at the crest of the hill and often there are close calls for cars so adding a huge development there is going to be a concern for road safety. This road is the main way to access the entire Mona Vale Basin.
• Parking – 124 spots for 53 apartments. This leaves 18 spots for visitors.
This will result to more parking needed on the street. During weekends and summer this street is already under huge stress and have already 311 residents on this one small stretch of street. There is no traffic plan in place yet for Mona Vale either.
• Building and Bush Fire Risk –
Access to fire resources like a ladder truck and water supply and pressure issues are of significant concern. If a fire happens on this proposed dwelling all neighbouring properties will be affected because of the scale of it, without the correct resources. When a bush fire happens – we are at risk of an ember attack even though we live near the beach because of how close the dense bushland line is to Mona Vale.
• Water Supply and Water Pressure – this is already an issue in this area and
the infrastructure struggles already, because of the lack of investment in our infrastructure. There are 11,000 residents in Mona Vale but have over 60,000 people that Mona Vale services daily!
* The development corner Bungan and Waratah St, resulted in 1 death, 2 gas pipes damaged, resulting in gas leaks, in its development.
* Multi storey excessive developments will completely change Mona Vale and what that entails for the health and safety of this area and our own health and safety, personally.
• Health/Sea/Sewerage – The Warriewood Treatment Plant cannot cope with the current population and waste. There are still 1000 homes in the area, that are not connected to the sewerage system yet. There is an overflow going straight out into our surf and swimming area of the ocean, impacting the health of our community. How long can this system be overload even currently, without upgrading it?
Upgrading the utilities need to be first priority.
• Evacuation Routes – only 2 roads in and out of this area. They are surrounded by bush and in the past have been closed with bushfires. In a catastrophic fire event, the whole of Pittwater peninsula would be trying to evacuate through Mona Vale and via single lane roads that would likely also be shut. Building such high buildings and increasing the population at this rate is putting public safety at risk. Also, Mona Vale Road has not been completed, Wakehurst parkway has no funding to be upgraded, and Pittwater Road is often a stand still at the best of times!
• Trees – removal of trees and only leaving 3 trees and the potential damage to the only trees that will be kept. The developers will also hack into my Lilly Pilly’s that are growing over the fence. The impact to the bird and wildlife life will be HUGE. I currently have magpies, currawongs, kookaburras, king fishers, noisy minors and 2 family of possums. Many butterflies and a blue tongue lizard that visit my garden currently.
• Noise and privacy – from balconies and rooftop open space areas and swimming pool.
I will be strongly impacted, not only by the lack of sun, but will also be subjected to loss of privacy. Multiple appartements will be able to look straight into my garden, my loungeroom, my dining room, my bedroom and even my bathroom!
The noise from residents being on the rooftop open space and swimming pool will have a direct impact on my serenity and my living enjoyment of peace and privacy.
• Noise, privacy, health and animal impact –
Working from home -
The noise that will be created by the excavation and construction of this proposed development will be very impacting on myself personally. The majority of my work is from home. I have been through 2 renovations/major repairs and the sound of jack hammering, had previous huge impacts on my work ability. I will also have lack of privacy in my back yard.
Health -
The amount of dust and dirt from this construction (that is in the middle of residential homes) will also have a great impact on our daily health, as well as people that will be walking past the site during construction.
It will also ruin any outdoor furniture and harm plants (along with wildlife).
Animals -
This also impacts the 3 of us from U13, 12 and 10, as we have dogs and cats, (along with other neighbours whose pets will be directly impacted). The noise will cause great distress to our animals also, being subjected to loud sounds of destruction from the work sight.
All of these points will greatly impact on my peace, privacy and wellbeing.
• Ambient light at night –
I will be directly impacted with the amount of light that this dwelling will be omitting directly into my bedroom and my dwelling.

I, like many other residents, would accept 4 storeys but we feel strongly against 8, as per the above reasons mentioned.
I have lived in Golf Avenue for 12 years, and strongly object to this development.
Attached is photographic evidence taken at 10am Sunday 2.8.26.

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

Linda Dadic
U 13, 28-30 Golf Ave, Mona Vale, NSW, 2106.
De Stress Express Bookkeeping
BAS Service Provider: 25323820
ABN 81 278 710 119
Po Box 788
Newport, NSW 2106
Ph: 0417 681 105

I object to this proposal going ahead and ask that it is rejected on the following grounds.
*Mona Vale doesn’t have the infrastructure to support this. There is already so much traffic and especially getting to and from the beach.
*Residents don’t want or need this extra strain on their living conditions.
*We don’t want Mona Vale looking like another Gold Coast, or Dee Why for that matter
I reserve the right to add an addendum to this submission.

We live in unit 11/ 28-30 Golf Ave, this puts us on the boundary fence with the proposed development in Darley Street. 
We have a vested interest in the development directly involving the following points.

1.Levels 1-3 demonstrate multiple breaches to the 6m setback requirement.  Developer to revise building documentation so that the building is contained within their development areas. Such breaches could lead to building precedences that future Developers could lean on therefore, setting a new building standard. Allowing such a breach in policy in the first development of this nature could be dire for neighbouring properties and the well-being of residence.
Having angled windows 4.5 metres from our boundary is unnecessary, when the building could be pushed back to comply.

2.Development is encroaching on the structural root zone of the existing tree T30. The overall building is encroaching on the tree protection zone. How is the Developer treating this encroachment on the tree canopy?
The preservation of the jacaranda tree which  currently gives us wonderful privacy, would not be possible if the building proposed is so close to the boundary.
We are also concerned that the root system would not survive the vibrations from excavating the 3 levels for car parking.
The even closer proximity to trees will further reduce their survival or growth of new ones.
We have a very healthy wildlife population that call this ‘home’

3.Shading of the new development will negatively affect the current neighbouring residence. Developer needs to resolve the shading, privacy, and height effects of this new development on existing conditions, not future developments that are not yet built.
We dispute the shading diagrams provided as inaccurate, considering the height of the development and close proximity to our apartment.
Please provide a more detailed image showing elevation views of shadow diagram. 
Not only do we currently get a lot of sunlight into our apartment, but on our second level we are bathed in sunlight all year round. On the sound side of our apartment we face a solid two storey blank wall. the sun coming from the north, bounces off this wall and lights our south facing rooms and stairwell all year. We will loose that light but will not show up on your shading.
Many people living in this area having downsized from family home and are retired. We are very much home bound, due to medical and disability issues, as many in this area are. With practically no sunlight and/or privacy our home will no longer be our sanctuary.

4.Terrace roof structures are encroaching on height restrictions. The developer should reduce the height of building structure and all building setbacks, so the building is contained within their development areas.
Also, floor plans of Basement 1-3 do not reflect the elevations / sections. Basement on floor plans clearly encroach on the 6m building setback.

5.The placement of the substation on our boundary fence is of grave concern.
How is fencing and protection to neighbouring property treated for substation?
The substation should be located in the building basement.

We can not move to a more suitable apartment now, as the value of our home has dropped so much due to this development, that we can no longer afford to buy in the area, where we have lived for 25years. Even if we wanted to sell, no one will buy due to this development. Our next door neighbour is proof of that.

We appreciate your consideration and action on these matters.

We reserve the right to add or addendum to this submission, regarding- garbage collection, lack of parking provided, common ground level grassed area

I oppose the development proposal SSD-1138729990 at 35-39 Darley St. East, Mona Vale and ask that it is rejected on the following grounds:

Traffic
Mona Vale is already gridlocked with too much traffic at certain times like school pickup or during holidays. Darley St East is a narrow street which provides one of only two ways to access Mona Vale beach. There is no opportunity to widen this road or to improve traffic flow through Mona Vale. With the increase of population through these State Significant Developments, the access to Mona Vale Road towards the West and Barrenjoey Rd. which is the only other major road South will be severely restricted.

Lack of Infrastructure
-There is no plan for additional infrastructure. Our existing waste water treatment plant is already unable to cope with the current volume of sewage and raw sewage is regularly diverted straight into the ocean without an adequate ocean outfall system.
-The only available hospital is the Northern Beaches Hospital which already struggles to provide adequate care for our residents. Since the closure of both Mona Vale and Manly Hospitals the local medical care has been depleted and cannot cope with any additional population.
- Infrastructure needs to be in place before a significant increase in population, not implemented as a band-aid solution after the fact.

General Amenity
This development proposal is totally out of character for Mona Vale. It is inappropriate for a small village and is reminiscent of a Gold Coast like holiday town, which Mona Vale is not.

I reserve my right to add an addendum to this submission as residents have been given very little time to prepare objections.

Yours sincerely
Caroline Birch