I wish to strongly object to the proposed development at 35-39 Darley Street East.
As a resident of 12/59 DSE this will clearly affect me greatly and set a poor precedent for the future of DSE and Mona Vale village. This needs to be looked at in context to broader development.
I implore you to look beyond the lure of the mighty dollar and see Mona Vale for what it really is - a village, a haven and a unique natural environment that lacks the infrastructure to support the proposed increase in development.
This will have an impact on me personally as follows
•increased congestion in a road that is already at capacity with commuter and resident vehicles struggling to find street parking. With increased traffic volume comes safety issues. There’s a large aged population in DSE with a big retirement village and aged care facility. Many residents who rely on walking to get around.
.•a proposed 8 story building of excessive height, scale and bulk that is completely out of keeping with not only the area but the current 2-3 story blocks of apartments, units and townhouses.
•DSE services an additional 4 streets that are in closer proximity to the beach and not accessible from Barrenjoey Rd. All this current volume of traffic flows (not smoothly) through a small right hand turn bay off Barrenjoey Rd. It’s the scene of regular accidents as people run the gauntlet to rush in front of oncoming traffic. Clearly this situation could only worsen with increased vehicular traffic.
•increased traffic and eventual gridlock in a village that already experiences traffic snarls especially around school drop off and pick up times.
Additionally concerns
•severe lack of infrastructure for the inevitable increased load on ageing sewerage and water systems.
•being so close to the bush we are at increased risk of bushfires. There is one road in and one road out. Current residents already at risk of being stranded if fires close these roads. This happened in 1994.
•no rail, no light rail, no rapid transit system. Just a pretty average bus service.
•no local hospital anymore, a massive mistake in closing Mona Vale hospital.
•the farce that is ‘affordable housing’ - nothing but a giant loophole for developers. There’s nothing affordable about a 3-4 million dollar luxury apartment.

What we are after is planning transparency and the hope we might be able to reduce the height of these buildings to 4 storeys. A more breathable density for our unique little village.

I reserve the right to add an addendum to this submission.
With thanks
Kristen Van Der Meer

SOS MONA VALE
Objection to Proposal `35–39 Darley Street East` (SSD-113872990)
I wish to object to this proposal and that it be rejected on the following grounds”
I live at 16 Darley St East been there since 2006, (in Mona Vale for 48years +)
Which is over the road from the proposed Developement
1.Traffic congestion, parking will be an issue as it is already full, as some park down the
beach car park. I swim at 6.30 in the morning down at the rock pool/beach , at that time
the car park is nearly full. We have a problem with getting our bins emptied due to no
space, as everyone is fighting for a car spot.
Getting out of our driveway is becoming more dangerous due to the increase traffic flow,
choking the network as there will be an overflow onto the local street parking.
2. Excessive height of the proposed development building is located on the crest of the
hill, will cast morning and evening shadows on neighbouring homes north, south, east &
west creating cold damp spots. I will lose my afternoon sun, which is needed for my
health. Also once a month you see the moon set.
This does not fit into the area and will be the biggest eye sore on the Peninsula.
3. Stormwater and sewage will not be able to cope as it is already under stress. The
Warriewood treatment plant is at its capacity now and cannot handle more. Go to the
headland on a wet day and you can visually see the outfall. On a southerly it washes up
on Mona Vale beach.
4. Water pressure in the street is low, as it’s been low for the past 12 years.
5. There is no infrastructure mentioned as going to the shops is chocked.
6. I do not want to see this becom a mini “luxury gold coast”
"I reserve the right to add an addendum to this submission."

I write to formally lodge an objection to the State Significant Development (SSD) proposal at 35–39 Darley Street East, Mona Vale. Increasing housing supply and delivering genuinely affordable housing across Greater Sydney is a critical policy objective. However, successful housing policy depends on strategic site selection, infrastructure readiness, and contextually sensitive design.

As a first-home owner residing immediately adjacent to the subject site, I submit that this proposal represents an improper application of affordable housing incentives. The development seeks an 8-storey built form that mischaracterises standard planning terminology, ignores topographical amplification, severely compromises neighbouring amenity, and exceeds the capacity of local hydraulic, road, and emergency service infrastructure.

1. Planning Integrity, Policy Application, and Genuine Affordability
1.1 Statutory Limits of the Housing SEPP and Policy Mischaracterisation
While Chapter 6 of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing) 2021 (Housing SEPP) establishes mechanisms for density and height bonuses near town centres, these provisions set an absolute statutory ceiling—not an automatic development entitlement. Under Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act), the consent authority retains full power to refuse or modify an application where site constraints render the maximum theoretical scale unsuitable. Furthermore, characterising an 8-storey high-rise structure as "mid-rise" misapplies standard urban design terminology when inserted into an established 2-to-3-storey coastal precinct.

1.2 Net Yield vs Displaced Affordability
The proposal leverages bonus floor space under affordable housing provisions. However, the assessment must evaluate the net public benefit under Section 4.15:

Displacement of Existing Stock: Demolishing existing housing that currently provides market-rate, relatively affordable rental accommodation.

Sunsetting Affordability: Affordable units delivered under in-fill provisions are typically bound by temporary covenants (e.g., 15 years), after which they revert to market-rate assets.

Information Request: The Department should require a detailed economic impact statement demonstrating the net long-term gain in affordable floor space once displaced dwellings and temporary terms are accounted for.

2. Built Form, Height, Bulk, and Topographical Impact
2.1 Topographical Amplification
The allotment sits on an elevated landform in Darley Street East. An 8-storey building on this site will present an effective visual height significantly greater than its measured structural height, creating an imposing presence visible across the Mona Vale basin.

2.2 Numeric ADG Setbacks vs. Site-Specific Merit
While stepping setbacks from 6m at lower levels to 9m at upper levels reflects numerical guidelines under Part 2H of the Apartment Design Guide (ADG), numerical compliance does not equate to acceptable design merit. Due to site topography, a 3m upper setback shift is wholly insufficient to mitigate visual dominance and loss of solar access for immediately adjoining 2-storey residences at 41–49 Darley Street East. Under Section 4.15(1)(a) of the EP&A Act, proposals must be assessed against the existing built context—not speculative assumptions about future redevelopments on neighbouring private allotments.

2.3 Proposed Alternative Scale
A maximum height in the order of 4 storeys—with genuine, deeply stepped upper-level transitions—represents the maximum development intensity this site can absorb.

3. Direct Amenity Impacts on Adjoining Properties (41–49 Darley Street East)
As an immediate neighbour at 14/41–49 Darley Street East (The Cove), the proposed building envelope creates severe, unmitigated amenity impacts:

Overshadowing and Solar Access: Material reduction in direct sunlight to primary living areas and private open space (front patio) during the winter solstice, compromising thermal efficiency under ADG Section 4A.

Loss of Outlook and Visual Dominance: Open sky and mature tree canopy replaced by an unbroken 8-storey concrete form along the western boundary.

Acoustic and Visual Privacy: High-density balconies facing directly onto established low-rise homes introduce unmitigated visual privacy loss and domestic noise.

4. Essential Utility Infrastructure Deficits (Sewerage and Water)
The proposal increases site intensity from 18 existing bathrooms to 104 bathrooms, representing a nearly 500% increase in hydraulic demand on a single allotment.

Wastewater System Strain: Mona Vale’s reticulated sewerage network was planned for low-density loads and already experiences operational strain during peak rainfall events.

Mains Water Pressure: Localized water distribution suffers from reduced pressure during peak periods. As a directly adjoining resident, I routinely experience this deficit firsthand: concurrent household water use within my unit (such as running a shower alongside a washing machine or dishwasher) results in a severe drop in water flow. Adding 104 bathrooms onto this exact localized line will severely compound these pressure drops. Maintaining reliable water pressure is a fundamental baseline of residential amenity under NSW planning principles.

Information Request: Mandate a comprehensive, independent Hydraulic Infrastructure Capacity Assessment from Sydney Water prior to determination.

5. Emergency Services, Life Safety, and Evacuation Risks
5.1 Fire Appliance Capability
Mona Vale Fire Station does not house an aerial ladder appliance. In the event of a multi-storey structural fire requiring high-level rescue or suppression, specialized aerial appliances must be deployed from Manly or Hornsby, introducing unacceptable response delays along congested corridors.

5.2 Regional Emergency Evacuation
Funneling high-density residential developments into peninsula side-streets severely degrades network resilience during bushfire, storm, or flash-flooding evacuation events.

Information Request: A formal referral and assessment from Fire and Rescue NSW (FRNSW) addressing aerial appliance response times and high-density evacuation capability.

6. Traffic, Transport, and Construction Safety
6.1 Localized Network Bottlenecks
Darley Street East serves as the primary collector road connecting Barrenjoey Road to Mona Vale Beach. The intersection of Barrenjoey Road and Darley Street East is already heavily congested during peak periods.

6.2 Construction Logistics, Observed Bottlenecks, and Cumulative Impacts
Real-world evidence demonstrates that Darley Street East lacks capacity for construction logistics of this scale. During recent preliminary site investigations, a single truck reversing into the access point caused immediate traffic queuing back through the signalized Barrenjoey Road intersection (refer to attached photographic evidence).

Significantly, the vehicle in this incident was a relatively small service truck—substantially smaller and far more maneuverable than the heavy rigid vehicles required for an 8-storey build. Furthermore, a second major multi-storey development is concurrently proposed nearby at 20 Darley Street East. Concurrent construction across both sites will multiply heavy vehicle movements along the primary beach-access route, creating an intolerable safety hazard.

6.3 Public Transport and Regional Bottlenecks
Southbound B-Line services operate at or near maximum capacity by Dee Why during morning peaks, and arterial road access remains constrained by the Spit Bridge bascule span.

Information Request: An independent peer review of the traffic impact assessment modeling cumulative construction vehicle impacts and real-world parking generation.

7. Environmental, Geotechnical, and Excavation Risks
Groundwater and Sub-Base Excavation: Multi-level basement excavation near property boundaries poses risks to local hydrology, groundwater movement, and structural stability of adjoining footings at 41–49 Darley Street East.

Loss of Deep Soil and Canopy Cover: Eliminating deep soil zones prevents retention or planting of mature canopy trees, accelerating the urban heat island effect and increasing stormwater runoff.

Information Request: An independent geotechnical and hydrogeological peer review assessing structural impacts on adjoining foundations and groundwater disruption.

Summary of Required Independent Technical Evidence
Before determination, the assessing authority must require independent, peer-reviewed evidence covering:

Hydraulic Capacity: Certified load modeling from Sydney Water for 104 bathrooms.

Emergency Response: Written confirmation from FRNSW regarding aerial appliance deployment times.

Cumulative Traffic & Construction: Independent micro-simulation modeling incorporating concurrent local developments (including 20 Darley Street East).

Geotechnical Stability: Dilapidation and hydrogeological mapping for adjoining boundary structures.

Conclusion
The proposed 8-storey development at 35–39 Darley Street East is fundamentally incompatible with the physical, geographical, and infrastructural constraints of Mona Vale. While the Housing SEPP provides mechanisms for density, maximum bonuses represent an upper ceiling subject to site merit under Section 4.15 of the EP&A Act. On this elevated allotment, the proposal misapplies planning provisions to justify excessive bulk, compromises neighbouring amenity, and introduces unmanaged infrastructure risks.

I respectfully request that the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure refuse the application in its current form, or mandate a comprehensive redesign that reduces the scale to a maximum of 4 storeys with appropriate setbacks, deep-soil provision, and verified infrastructure capacity.

Yours sincerely,
Corinne Winkler

1. Way to high ,big & dominant, Does not fit with surrounding existing structures. The proposal is based on future look , not current Buildings & streetscape.

2. Excavation to 3 levels below street and its approximation to the boundary, Will be a major risk of damage to exiting neighboring properties with subsidence and geotechnical impact.

3. Mona Vale is not any where near rapid transport relying on buses on already over flowing in a congested road to the city.

4. There are 57 apartments and a number of 4 bed apartments – the provision on 2 car spaces per apartment is not enough so overflow of extra cars will be parked on a street which already has no capacity for more parking

5. With Darley Street East being the main feed into Barrenjoey Road. The traffic report does not consider the impact of future developments, the review has been done in isolation of the total plans for Mona Vale

6. The development is not providing affordable housing as the location is close to Mona Vale beach with substantial ocean views, its is on the highest point in Mona Vale meaning the sale price of the units will be way above any affordable housing price as the approval of this type is meant to be based upon.

Infrastructure

7. Sewerage – previous only 18 bathrooms , now 104 bathrooms in this development, without the other new developments being pushed. The Sewerage system already is not designed to cope with existing population in Mona Vale, this is additional overload on the infrastructure.

8. Water – Mona Vale already has level of extreme low water pressure currently , the infrastructure is not able to take on major developments.

9. Fire & Safety, the local fire station does not have a ladder truck, if a fire in a high rise the ladder truck would need to come from Manly or Hornsby. Lives will be lost if a fire occurred in this development.

Summary Points

10. Privacy , Noise , Overshadowing, the balconies and windows overlook adjacent properties impacting light through shadowing and privacy. This will impact mental and physical health. The noise from a major increase in residential balconies overlooking neighboring properties will also have an impact on existing homes and privacy that previously existed.

11. The contribution to the new residency /property targets set by NSW government were already being achieved in the Northern Beaches, with continued low rise development. This site could be developed as 4 story and Northern Beaches will continue to grow and meet targets. Excessive 8 stories with the multiple levels having uninterrupted ocean and regional views is the obvious attraction along with high sales prices not affordable as is to what this development is proposed to provide.

I object on the following grounds;
+The Limited Safe Exit routes from the area in times of Emergency such as Bush Fires.

There is no consideration given for the geographical position of the Mona Vale area which sits on the coast at the base of a populated peninsula & only has two exit roads to the south, one being unfinished. In the case of a fire emergency, exit would probably have to be via Pittwater Road only as Mona Vale Road runs through timbered areas. In addition, the current road system in Mona Vale is already clogged & will not be able to safely cope with increased population & cars. This one building will contain 53 units & 124 car spaces.
Darley Street East is a very narrow short street, as are many in Mona Vale, with the Surf Club car park at the east end & a very busy intersection at Barrenjoey Road at the west end. The street is fully built both sides with 2 & 3 storey buildings & cars are parked both sides of the street making progress along it very slow & difficult. This congestion will be magnified in the future if this development is passed because the developer will have set a precedent for future developments.
+The inadequate & lack of Services in the area at the present time.

The water service, which comes from Warragamba Dam, is old & inadequate. Supply is constantly lost to dwellings & the pressure is low. The sewerage system at Warriewood does not cope with floods & there is no long outfall to the ocean which causes contamination on the beaches & offensive air. The fast transport service to the city is already stretched in peak times. The area will not cope with any additional population because the current services are not working well enough.
+The proposed development is excessive in size, bulk & character.

The proposed building is too high & does not blend with any of the buildings in the area between Golf Avenue & Bassett Street. A one tower building is bulky & produces a poor visual outcome & causes detrimental loss of light & sight for neighbouring buildings.

I have been a resident of Church Point for 46 years & know & love this area. I would like to downsize from my small old single dwelling in Church Point to a unit in Mona Vale but I could not even afford an "affordable" unit in this building.

I do hope you will reject this Development because to pass it will really change & damage the environment.

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

Yours sincerely,
Janet Tinkler.

This project should not proceed as proposed. I believe it should be rejected as is. The Planning Authority should require significant changes to this DA.

I am concerned about this DA for many reasons. There are a few items and assumptions in this DA which deeply trouble me. These are:

#1- The developers use of the "affordable living places" card to ask that the DA be granted with the requested increased height, mass, and number of units. The maths do not not work out. The real world cost of the new units will be beyond the manageable range of the targeted population. A much greater percentage of the any development should be directed to real affordable housing. This is a considered ploy by the developer to "game" the system. We, the citizens, read about these things often in the news. The results of decisions by relevant planning authorities on projects such as this where the overwhelming local and regional sentiment is that it should not happen makes me feel that my voice is being ignored.

#2- I am worried about the cascading effect of the recently approved DAs of similar multi-storied, large buildings ( over strenuous local and regional residents objections ). Previous poor decisions about these DAs seem to be encouraging developers to request more and more relief from planning rules. They state " We are only doing what the government wants us to do." I beg to differ. The government is selected be the citizens. The citizens of the Northern Beaches do not want this sort of over-development.

#3- The local infrastructure of all sorts -transport, water pressure, fire safety regulations, climate change effects such as intense rainfall over short periods, waste control, emergency services, parking and environmental management and all the others- are compromised by developments such as this one. There are problems currently in the area with water pressure on particular streets. Parking is a pain now and will get worse. Because of the success and popularity of the B1 line the state government and developers seem to assume the transport problems are solved. Far from it. They will get worse. The current transport services will be inadequate for an area too densely peopled because of sub-standard planning guide lines.

#4- The cost to the local environments, both our leaf green and ocean blue, should not be relegated to third place. It must be included in the weighing up of the pros and cons of this and any future DAs like this.

There are many other poor results/outcomes to be discussed by others. I want this DA to be rejected.

I request and expect the right to add additional comments to my submission as further information is provided by the Planning Authority and the project's developer.

I object to this proposal and ask that it be refused.

I am an adjoining resident and, unlike many developments that people read about in the newspaper, this proposal will directly affect my family every day. I support appropriate development and I recognise the need for additional housing in Sydney, including genuinely affordable housing. However, I do not believe this proposal represents good planning or achieves an appropriate balance between public benefit and the impacts on existing residents.

My primary concern is that the affordable housing justification does not appear to warrant the significant increase in height and density being sought. The proposal demolishes 18 existing townhouses to construct a building containing 53 apartments, of which only nine are designated as affordable housing. My understanding is that these affordable housing provisions apply for only 15 years, while the additional height and density granted under the Housing SEPP will remain permanently. Before such significant planning concessions are granted, I believe there should be clear evidence that the community will receive a genuine and lasting affordability benefit.

I am also concerned about the scale of the proposal. An eight storey building is inconsistent with the established character of this part of Mona Vale and will be particularly prominent because the site sits on one of the highest points in the suburb. The proposal appears to rely on a projected future character rather than respecting the existing built form. If similar developments are approved across Mona Vale using the same planning pathway, the cumulative impact on the suburb will be significant.

The proposal also raises serious questions about infrastructure capacity. I have not seen convincing evidence that local roads, sewerage, stormwater, water supply and other essential services have sufficient capacity to accommodate this level of additional density. Independent technical assessment should be required before any approval is considered.

Traffic is another concern. As someone who uses Darley Street and the surrounding road network every day, I do not believe the assumptions regarding vehicle ownership and parking reflect the reality of living in Mona Vale. Existing congestion during school, commuter and beach periods is already noticeable, and additional visitor parking demand is likely to spill into surrounding residential streets.

As the adjoining neighbour, my family will also bear the direct impacts of years of demolition, excavation and construction, followed by the permanent loss of privacy, increased overlooking, additional noise and a building that will dominate the outlook from our home. These impacts are significant and should be carefully weighed against the public benefits claimed by the proposal.

I respectfully request that the consent authority require independent review of the affordable housing outcomes, traffic modelling, infrastructure capacity, environmental impacts and geotechnical risks before any decision is made. In my view, the application should be refused or substantially redesigned to better reflect the existing character of Mona Vale and the capacity of the surrounding infrastructure.

A detailed submission has been attached for your consideration.

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

I wish to make my objections to this proposal and ask that it be rejected. I have outlined some of my reasons below:
1. EMERGENCY ACCESS & EVACUATION
With the example of bush fire acceleration across the world, I live in Golf Ave, Mona Vale and I am surrounded by bushland with very limited access and exit roads: Barrenjoey Road, Mona Vale Road and Wakehurst Parkway (both surrounded by dense bushland and all prone to flooding. Over population makes this a very terrifying scenario.

In Europe people drowned in the ocean flleeing bush fires created by ember attacks in areas never before effected by bush fires. My coastline is often large surf, rips and shark infested.

2. ENVIRONMENT & INFRASTRUCTURE CONCERNS
Already Warriewood Sewerage Treatment Plant is out of date and not coping with the current population and development. Water pressure was non-existent in many areas not the Northern Beaches peninsula in the 2017 bushfires and is still weak in most areas. Mona Vale is already being badly effected with bad water pressure.
Three basement levels will affect the groundwater already experienced in construction in this area. This creates threats to neighbouring and down hill properties.
The removal of mature native trees is also a problem in an area already lacking deep.soil native plant protection.
Traffic is already at grid lock with beach traffic choking my street as well as Darley. The is nowhere for residents to park let alone their visitors. Walking distance to the B1 has not been correctly represented with nowhere to park already in the shopping and business centre of Mona Vale or near transport hubs.

Also this project is not genuinely affordable housing. 30% off income for essential workers will not make these apartment affordable. Therefore extra series should not be granted for this project. Not Affordable Rental is on only guaranteed for 15 years! 4 Storeys should be the limit for MonaVale East. Six plus storeys is out of character for this area.

I object to this project for the following reasons:
1/ Traffic congestion in Darley St East and flow on impact to the north and south of Mona Vale. Darley St East is a narrow street with lots of units, Darley House Aged Care Residence (visitors parking ~12 spaces and they have ~18 staff), Armchair Collective Cafe, Bacino Espresso, The Basin Dining Room, The Brightside Cafe, Mona Vale Surf Life Saving Club and Apex Park. An additional 53 Units will greatly add to the traffic congestion. If the units are 8 stories, the excavation required and the number of trucks to take the soil away is totally unfeasible. You will bring the Northern Beaches to a halt.
People will not be able to park to get to the beach or Apex Park with children. Emergency services such as police and ambulance may be restricted in responding to incidents.
2/ Excessive height and scale of the proposed development which is not in line with the current landscape of Mona Vale. In 1985 the Delmege Building was approved (8 stories and 255 parking spaces). It remains an ugly monstrosity on our landscape that saw us separating from Warringah council and forming Pittwater Council. We can not under any circumstance do this again. This proposed development is surrounded by newer, well designed builds; it does NOT fit in. There is no transition plan from our current landscape to this future state.
3/ There is no provision to our existing infrastructure. The impact on our water, sewerage and roads can not be ignored. You approve one development without any obligation to improve the infrastructure of the Northern Beaches then there will be no turning back. Learn from what you allowed to happen in Warriewood Valley, where since 1997, 2544 dwellings have been built without any significant improvement to the existing 1 lane each way, Macpherson and Garden Street.
4/ Public Transport - Mona Vale is not a transport hub. I suggest you try and catch a B-Line home Monday - Friday from 4pm-6:00pm. You will be greeted by a huge line.
5/ Fire and Safety risk to our community. There are two roads in and out of Mona Vale. If there is a bush fire and Mona Vale road is closed then we have one road. If the development is 8 stories, we don't have a fire truck that can reach to this height.

In closing I reserve the right to add to the comments I have made above.

l object to the proposed development on the following grounds and l also reserve the right to add an addendum to this submission at a later date.
1. The bulk and scale of the building will completely dominate the streetscape due to its proposed height,8storeys.The highest existing building is a one building of 4 storeys. The typical existing development in the street comprises either 2 storey townhouses or 3 storey flat buildings. The impact of the building height is made worst due to the fact it located at the highest point in Darley St.
2. The building will overshadow at least 4 properties that immediately adjoin the property and they all will lose direct sunlight during the course of the day i.e. property to the west, morning sun and property to the east afternoon sun.
3. The building will overlook adjoining property, particularly from the 3 lower levels where the new apartments will look directly into the existing neigbouring buildings.
4.The property will comprise 44 luxury apartments and 9 affordable apartments on the ground floor. The apartments from level5 to level 8 will have panoramic elevated views north to Mona Vale headland and the Basin, east directly over Mona Vale Beach and to the south Mona Vale Beach, Warriewood Beach and Mona Vale Golf Course. These apartments will not be affordable and will only be able to be bought by the wealthy.
5. At present there are a total of 311 residences/apartments in Darley St East. The proposed development will add 53 new apartments in one building. The building and the many others that are planned for the Mona Vale Town Centre will be a disaster for all the residents in Mona Vale as the existing infrastructure which was constucted in the 1960s will not be able to provide adequate water, sewerage and electricity services. The NSW Govt has not planned for the upgrading of any of these existing services which are already at capacity.
6.Mona Vale is serviced by three major roads no of which is a significant arterial road. One road ,Wakeurst Parkway is closed at least 10-15 times a year due to flooding. These roads are all at full capacity now and will not cope with the large increase in residents planned for Mona Vale and the rest of the Northern Beaches. The Northern beaches has no Metro service and none has ever been contemplated.
7. The fact that there are only three major roads servicing Mona Vale could lead to major loss of property and lives if there is a significant increase in the number of new residents come to Mona Vale as result of the LMR Housing policy . Mona Vale is completely surrounded to south, west and north by the very large Garrigal and Kur Ring Gai National Parks. The size and location of these parks poses a very dangerous fire trap. A taste of what could happen came in the 1994 fires and since that time fires have only become larger and more dangerous.
8. This development and the others that will inevitably follow will cause traffic chaos due to the large increase in vehicles. There is no street parking available in Darley St East now. The Mona Vale Beach car park, located at the southern end of Darley St East is at full capacity now in Spring ,Summer and Autumn. There is no excess parking capacity at Mona Vale Village located within 300 metres of Darley St East. More development will only make this situation worse.
9. One of the key aims of the LMR is to create more affordable housing, however is doing exactly the opposite as it is demolishing old affordable flats and houses and relacing it with large luxury apartments that only the wealthy can afford. Look at the numbers for 35-39 Darley St
existing affordable housing 18 apartments replaced by 9 new "affordable"apartments a net loss of 9 apartments.
the number of new luxury apartments is 44.
This madness is reducing affordable stock not growing it!

l object to the proposed development and tell the applicant to start again redesign the building and provide at least 100 affordable apartments.

Steve Eccleston
69a Elimatta Rd
Mona Vale