Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
Mona Vale
,
New South Wales
Message
Re: State Significant Development Application SSD -91496458
159 – 167 Darley Street West, Mona Vale NSW 2103
Introduction and Basis of Submission
I am a resident at 13/125 Darley Street West, Mona Vale.
This submission is made in response to the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS lodged for the above State Significant Development application no SSD-91496958)
While I acknowledge the broader policy objectives relating to housing supply and the provision of affordable housing, I contend that the proposed development does not equitably or transparently apply those objectives across the site and would result in unreasonable and unacceptable impacts on residential amenity.
This submission focuses on matters of direct relevance to the site interface, supported by reference to the proponent’s own documentation
1. Flooding, Stormwater and Groundwater Impacts
The proposal raises serious concern regarding the adequacy of the flood, stormwater and groundwater assessment, given the site’s known hydrological constraints and the history of flooding and drainage surcharge within Darley Street West.
The documentation acknowledges an existing overland flow path traversing the site and notes that approximately 70% of peak 1% AEP flows are proposed to be diverted via the new access driveway to Darley Street West. Post-development modelling indicates increased flood depths within the street.
Darley Street West already functions as a collection point for overland stormwater during heavy rainfall events and lacks dedicated stormwater infrastructure capable of managing extreme events including an easement which delivers stormwater from properties located in Park Street.
There is no stormwater drain in the gutter, from the brow of the hill above the SSD to the bottom of the cul-de-sac. All stormwater flows down the gutter to the bottom of the hill, including stormwater delivered from Park Street.
Of particular concern is the alignment of the proposed driveway, which may allow surcharged gutter flows in extreme deluges to be diverted toward basement access points.
The proposal relies on basement pumping systems and uninterrupted operation during extreme rainfall. Recent events within the street have demonstrated pump failure and surcharge, requiring emergency response attendance. These real-world conditions are not adequately reconciled with modelling assumptions.
Architectural drawings indicate that Building C is located over an underground watercourse and drainage easement. The long-term implications of placing permanent built form over an established drainage corridor, including maintenance and obstruction risk, are not meaningfully addressed.
The Groundwater Impact Assessment confirms deep excavation, permanent groundwater interception and reliance on a drained basement system. The cumulative implications of groundwater drawdown altered subsurface flows and reliance on pumping infrastructure are not fully examined in terms of downstream impacts or resilience under extreme rainfall scenarios.
Residents in many Darley Street West properties have experienced flooding in their garages on numerous occasions in the last 15 years including the most recent event which occurred on the evening of 17th January when 4 RFS units attended Darley Street to help pump water from several unit blocks in the street.
I consider that flood, stormwater and groundwater risks have not been adequately resolved.
2. Transport, Parking and Accessibility
This submission raises concern that the proposal does not align with the strategic intent of the Low and Mid-Rise Housing reforms, which are designed to concentrate density around genuine transport hubs.
While the site is serviced by bus routes, the main one being the B-line which constitutes an enhanced bus service, not a rapid or high-capacity transport hub. Services operate at moderate frequencies, without dedicated bus lanes or 24-hour operation.
The other bus routes mentioned in the proposal are actual low frequency suburban shopping routes. The nearest bus stop involves several minutes’ walk up hill to arrive at the stop in an adjacent street. The Transport Impact Assessment relies on theoretical mode-shift assumptions without site specific evidence.
The proposal includes 164 resident parking spaces but provides no off - street visitor parking, placing demand onto an already constrained local street.
Darley Street West is a narrow cul-de-sac functioning as a local access street. Even modest increases in traffic volumes materially affect safety, access and residential amenity. The assessment focuses on intersection capacity rather than local street function and cumulative impacts. If does not address the impact on existing residents of Darley Street attempting to enter or exit their properties, which currently is not always safe due to the number of vehicles parked in the street reducing visibility.
3. Application of Affordable Housing Incentives and Height Controls
I acknowledge the importance of affordable housing but contend that the proposal applies affordable housing incentives in a manner that is disproportionate and inconsistent with policy intent.
All ten (10) affordable housing apartments are located within Building C, while Buildings A and B contain no affordable housing. Despite this, the proposal applies the full height and density incentives across all three buildings.
This proposal represents the first State Significant Development in Mona Vale to rely on affordable housing incentives and will materially influence future application of these provisions.
I question whether it is reasonable for Buildings A and B—particularly Building A, which directly impacts adjoining properties—to receive additional height and bulk where no affordable housing is provided within those buildings. The proposal does not demonstrate a clear nexus between the incentives applied and the public benefit delivered.
In the absence of such a nexus, the proposal risks setting an undesirable precedent whereby affordable housing incentives are leveraged to justify site-wide bulk and scale outcomes for units in the luxury & boutique market without commensurate affordable housing benefit.
4. Community Engagement
While the EIS outlines engagement activities, the process did not constitute meaningful two-way consultation.
A proponent-led webinar was conducted with microphones disabled and written questions not visible to participants. The webinar recording was not made available to attendees. Residents subsequently reported that questions submitted were not answered.
The Community Engagement Table summarises concerns at a high level and responds with generic references to compliance, without demonstrating how site-specific issues influenced the proposal. There is no evidence of targeted engagement with immediately adjoining properties.
5. Other Matters Raised for Consideration (Point Form)
Without limiting the above, the submitter raises the following additional matters:
· Built form, height and bulk relative to local context
· Visual dominance and elevated outlook impacts
· Waste management practicality
· Construction impacts and duration
· Biodiversity and landscaping outcomes
· Climate resilience and extreme weather performance
· Emergency access and safety
· Cumulative impacts across all technical disciplines
These matters are raised to preserve the ability to provide further supporting information if required.
Conclusion
For the reasons outlined above, I object to the proposed development in its current form.
The proposal has not adequately demonstrated that key impacts relating to residential amenity, flooding and stormwater, transport and parking, application of affordable housing incentives and community engagement have been satisfactorily resolved.
Given the scale of the development and its proximity to existing dwellings, further design refinement, technical assessment and meaningful mitigation are required before the proposal could be considered acceptable.
I respectfully request that the consent authority give careful consideration to the matters raised in this submission.
SC
159 – 167 Darley Street West, Mona Vale NSW 2103
Introduction and Basis of Submission
I am a resident at 13/125 Darley Street West, Mona Vale.
This submission is made in response to the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS lodged for the above State Significant Development application no SSD-91496958)
While I acknowledge the broader policy objectives relating to housing supply and the provision of affordable housing, I contend that the proposed development does not equitably or transparently apply those objectives across the site and would result in unreasonable and unacceptable impacts on residential amenity.
This submission focuses on matters of direct relevance to the site interface, supported by reference to the proponent’s own documentation
1. Flooding, Stormwater and Groundwater Impacts
The proposal raises serious concern regarding the adequacy of the flood, stormwater and groundwater assessment, given the site’s known hydrological constraints and the history of flooding and drainage surcharge within Darley Street West.
The documentation acknowledges an existing overland flow path traversing the site and notes that approximately 70% of peak 1% AEP flows are proposed to be diverted via the new access driveway to Darley Street West. Post-development modelling indicates increased flood depths within the street.
Darley Street West already functions as a collection point for overland stormwater during heavy rainfall events and lacks dedicated stormwater infrastructure capable of managing extreme events including an easement which delivers stormwater from properties located in Park Street.
There is no stormwater drain in the gutter, from the brow of the hill above the SSD to the bottom of the cul-de-sac. All stormwater flows down the gutter to the bottom of the hill, including stormwater delivered from Park Street.
Of particular concern is the alignment of the proposed driveway, which may allow surcharged gutter flows in extreme deluges to be diverted toward basement access points.
The proposal relies on basement pumping systems and uninterrupted operation during extreme rainfall. Recent events within the street have demonstrated pump failure and surcharge, requiring emergency response attendance. These real-world conditions are not adequately reconciled with modelling assumptions.
Architectural drawings indicate that Building C is located over an underground watercourse and drainage easement. The long-term implications of placing permanent built form over an established drainage corridor, including maintenance and obstruction risk, are not meaningfully addressed.
The Groundwater Impact Assessment confirms deep excavation, permanent groundwater interception and reliance on a drained basement system. The cumulative implications of groundwater drawdown altered subsurface flows and reliance on pumping infrastructure are not fully examined in terms of downstream impacts or resilience under extreme rainfall scenarios.
Residents in many Darley Street West properties have experienced flooding in their garages on numerous occasions in the last 15 years including the most recent event which occurred on the evening of 17th January when 4 RFS units attended Darley Street to help pump water from several unit blocks in the street.
I consider that flood, stormwater and groundwater risks have not been adequately resolved.
2. Transport, Parking and Accessibility
This submission raises concern that the proposal does not align with the strategic intent of the Low and Mid-Rise Housing reforms, which are designed to concentrate density around genuine transport hubs.
While the site is serviced by bus routes, the main one being the B-line which constitutes an enhanced bus service, not a rapid or high-capacity transport hub. Services operate at moderate frequencies, without dedicated bus lanes or 24-hour operation.
The other bus routes mentioned in the proposal are actual low frequency suburban shopping routes. The nearest bus stop involves several minutes’ walk up hill to arrive at the stop in an adjacent street. The Transport Impact Assessment relies on theoretical mode-shift assumptions without site specific evidence.
The proposal includes 164 resident parking spaces but provides no off - street visitor parking, placing demand onto an already constrained local street.
Darley Street West is a narrow cul-de-sac functioning as a local access street. Even modest increases in traffic volumes materially affect safety, access and residential amenity. The assessment focuses on intersection capacity rather than local street function and cumulative impacts. If does not address the impact on existing residents of Darley Street attempting to enter or exit their properties, which currently is not always safe due to the number of vehicles parked in the street reducing visibility.
3. Application of Affordable Housing Incentives and Height Controls
I acknowledge the importance of affordable housing but contend that the proposal applies affordable housing incentives in a manner that is disproportionate and inconsistent with policy intent.
All ten (10) affordable housing apartments are located within Building C, while Buildings A and B contain no affordable housing. Despite this, the proposal applies the full height and density incentives across all three buildings.
This proposal represents the first State Significant Development in Mona Vale to rely on affordable housing incentives and will materially influence future application of these provisions.
I question whether it is reasonable for Buildings A and B—particularly Building A, which directly impacts adjoining properties—to receive additional height and bulk where no affordable housing is provided within those buildings. The proposal does not demonstrate a clear nexus between the incentives applied and the public benefit delivered.
In the absence of such a nexus, the proposal risks setting an undesirable precedent whereby affordable housing incentives are leveraged to justify site-wide bulk and scale outcomes for units in the luxury & boutique market without commensurate affordable housing benefit.
4. Community Engagement
While the EIS outlines engagement activities, the process did not constitute meaningful two-way consultation.
A proponent-led webinar was conducted with microphones disabled and written questions not visible to participants. The webinar recording was not made available to attendees. Residents subsequently reported that questions submitted were not answered.
The Community Engagement Table summarises concerns at a high level and responds with generic references to compliance, without demonstrating how site-specific issues influenced the proposal. There is no evidence of targeted engagement with immediately adjoining properties.
5. Other Matters Raised for Consideration (Point Form)
Without limiting the above, the submitter raises the following additional matters:
· Built form, height and bulk relative to local context
· Visual dominance and elevated outlook impacts
· Waste management practicality
· Construction impacts and duration
· Biodiversity and landscaping outcomes
· Climate resilience and extreme weather performance
· Emergency access and safety
· Cumulative impacts across all technical disciplines
These matters are raised to preserve the ability to provide further supporting information if required.
Conclusion
For the reasons outlined above, I object to the proposed development in its current form.
The proposal has not adequately demonstrated that key impacts relating to residential amenity, flooding and stormwater, transport and parking, application of affordable housing incentives and community engagement have been satisfactorily resolved.
Given the scale of the development and its proximity to existing dwellings, further design refinement, technical assessment and meaningful mitigation are required before the proposal could be considered acceptable.
I respectfully request that the consent authority give careful consideration to the matters raised in this submission.
SC
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
COLLAROY
,
New South Wales
Message
My sister and brother-in-law live in Darley Street West just up the road from the proposed development. As a result, I am quite familiar with the area of the proposed development and surrounds. I am also familiar with the actual traffic flows and parking density in the street. I believe my sister and brother-in-law will be significantly affected by the proposed development, as will all their neighbours in the street.
I object to the Application/Development Proposal for the following reasons:
1. Increased traffic
2. Increased on-street parking density
3. Potential safety issues in Darley Street West and the intersection with Pittwater Road
4. Increased congestion in and around Mona Vale Village
5. There is no funding for additional infrastructure should it be required.
Specifically, my concerns, once construction is complete, are that:
1. The proposal is for 82 new dwellings with 164 on-site car spaces and a total of 220 bedrooms (26 x 2 bedrooms + 56 x 3 bedrooms). If each main bedroom accommodated 2 people and each other bedroom just one person each this would result in an additional 302 residents in this quite short and narrow street.
2. Any dwelling with a requirement for more than 2 parking spaces will have to park additional vehicles on the street. This could be anything from an additional 40 to 100 vehicles.
3. There is no allowance for visitor parking spaces on site which means all visitors to the subject site will also need to park in the street. Pittwater 21 DCP minimum parking requirement calls for 27 visitor spaces. Just because the SEPP (Housing) 2021 does not specify a requirement for visitor parking doesn’t mean it is not needed. Where will visitors park?
4. Whilst unrestricted kerbside parking is permitted along the majority of Darley Street West, on any given day, most of the said kerbside parking is currently used/taken. On a weekend, Christmas Day, Easter, Australia Day etc finding a parking spot on the street can be very difficult.
5. Where are all the additional cars going to park?
6. Currently, with cars parked both sides of the street, it is a very tight squeeze, requiring some manoeuvring, for cars travelling in the opposite direction to pass each other. If a larger vehicle is involved it cannot be done and the street is effectively reduced to one-way traffic with vehicles having to pull over to allow vehicles travelling in the opposite direction to pass. If both kerbsides of the street are fully utilised for parking (which they will be) there will be no room to do this necessitating a vehicle to reverse to a point at which the oncoming vehicle can pass. This could be a significant safety issue, particularly if vehicles are reversing towards the Pittwater Road intersection whilst vehicles are turning into Darley Road West from Pittwater Road.
With respect to the demolition and construction phase of the project, I am concerned with Napier & Blakeley’s Registered Quantity Surveyor’s Estimated Development Cost (EDC) Report which estimates that there will be an average of 210 workers per day on site with a peak of 311 workers per day. Whilst the Traffic and Parking Assessment Report by CJP Consulting Engineers states that workers will be encouraged to use public transport to access the site, the fact is that most workers will drive. I have already demonstrated the shortage of kerbside parking in Darley Street West. Where will these additional 100+ vehicles park?
The movement of heavy vehicles to and fro, on Darley Street West, together with the movement of worker vehicles to and from will cause both significant congestion issues on Darley Street West, Pittwater Road and surrounding streets/roads as well as increased safety issues commensurate with such increased traffic.
I object to the Application/Development Proposal for the following reasons:
1. Increased traffic
2. Increased on-street parking density
3. Potential safety issues in Darley Street West and the intersection with Pittwater Road
4. Increased congestion in and around Mona Vale Village
5. There is no funding for additional infrastructure should it be required.
Specifically, my concerns, once construction is complete, are that:
1. The proposal is for 82 new dwellings with 164 on-site car spaces and a total of 220 bedrooms (26 x 2 bedrooms + 56 x 3 bedrooms). If each main bedroom accommodated 2 people and each other bedroom just one person each this would result in an additional 302 residents in this quite short and narrow street.
2. Any dwelling with a requirement for more than 2 parking spaces will have to park additional vehicles on the street. This could be anything from an additional 40 to 100 vehicles.
3. There is no allowance for visitor parking spaces on site which means all visitors to the subject site will also need to park in the street. Pittwater 21 DCP minimum parking requirement calls for 27 visitor spaces. Just because the SEPP (Housing) 2021 does not specify a requirement for visitor parking doesn’t mean it is not needed. Where will visitors park?
4. Whilst unrestricted kerbside parking is permitted along the majority of Darley Street West, on any given day, most of the said kerbside parking is currently used/taken. On a weekend, Christmas Day, Easter, Australia Day etc finding a parking spot on the street can be very difficult.
5. Where are all the additional cars going to park?
6. Currently, with cars parked both sides of the street, it is a very tight squeeze, requiring some manoeuvring, for cars travelling in the opposite direction to pass each other. If a larger vehicle is involved it cannot be done and the street is effectively reduced to one-way traffic with vehicles having to pull over to allow vehicles travelling in the opposite direction to pass. If both kerbsides of the street are fully utilised for parking (which they will be) there will be no room to do this necessitating a vehicle to reverse to a point at which the oncoming vehicle can pass. This could be a significant safety issue, particularly if vehicles are reversing towards the Pittwater Road intersection whilst vehicles are turning into Darley Road West from Pittwater Road.
With respect to the demolition and construction phase of the project, I am concerned with Napier & Blakeley’s Registered Quantity Surveyor’s Estimated Development Cost (EDC) Report which estimates that there will be an average of 210 workers per day on site with a peak of 311 workers per day. Whilst the Traffic and Parking Assessment Report by CJP Consulting Engineers states that workers will be encouraged to use public transport to access the site, the fact is that most workers will drive. I have already demonstrated the shortage of kerbside parking in Darley Street West. Where will these additional 100+ vehicles park?
The movement of heavy vehicles to and fro, on Darley Street West, together with the movement of worker vehicles to and from will cause both significant congestion issues on Darley Street West, Pittwater Road and surrounding streets/roads as well as increased safety issues commensurate with such increased traffic.
Colleen Gilbert
Object
Colleen Gilbert
Object
Mona Vale
,
New South Wales
Message
I object to the proposed development at 159–167 Darley Street, Mona Vale.
I strongly believe the size of this proposed development is too large for the Mona Vale area.
I live in Darley Street west and am concerned about 5 broad areas:
1. The impact on our street during construction
2. Once constructed – the immediate traffic impact on our street(Safety and accessibility).
3. Broader community and infrastructure impact.
4. Poor community engagement.
5. Lack of alternatives considered.
1. During construction ( which I assume will take approx. 2 years).
The building/construction trucks and tradie traffic will be unbearable and be a real hazard for those of us who currently live on the street. Darley street is already relatively narrow with bare minimum on street parking – With an additional ~200 people on site during construction street parking will be significantly adversely impacted and the safety of motorists, pedestrians and cyclists will be compromised significantly.
2. Traffic Impact on our street (safety and accessibility).
The extra car traffic from 164 car spaces is significant – I do not accept the EIS report (page 81) where it says one extra car every 5 – 7 mins in peak times.
I believe an independent analysis of traffic impact is required.
The EIS does not mention the impact on surrounding streets.
Also the fact that there are no onsite visitor parking provided in the proposal is totally unacceptable – this will drive many additional cars on to street parking which is already limited.
3. Broader community impact – very minimal analysis and the commentary provided was superficial.
This is the first of many development proposals in the area, I think it is niave to not have a broader analysis required for this proposal.
It appears that there is very little, if any, medium and longer term town planning. What about congestion in shopping centres and in the main street (Bungan st) once subsequent development are approved.
4. Community engagement very poor.
I attended a webinar with my husband and I felt like they were simply ticking a box to say they had spoken to the community… The Webinar was one sided with no chance for them to hear us. During the webinar:
• We could only ask questions by message.
• They did not respond to all questions provided by message.
• The responses they provided in the webinar were very superficial.
5. Lack of alternatives considered….On page 9 of the EIS it says it looked at alternatives – but it failed to provide any detail of the “alternative designs” and superficially said that the proposed design was the only viable option. I strongly reject this and insist that alternative designs be considered – specifically, designs that have a significantly reduced volume of overall units while still providing “alternative housing”.
Regards,
Colleen Gilbert
I strongly believe the size of this proposed development is too large for the Mona Vale area.
I live in Darley Street west and am concerned about 5 broad areas:
1. The impact on our street during construction
2. Once constructed – the immediate traffic impact on our street(Safety and accessibility).
3. Broader community and infrastructure impact.
4. Poor community engagement.
5. Lack of alternatives considered.
1. During construction ( which I assume will take approx. 2 years).
The building/construction trucks and tradie traffic will be unbearable and be a real hazard for those of us who currently live on the street. Darley street is already relatively narrow with bare minimum on street parking – With an additional ~200 people on site during construction street parking will be significantly adversely impacted and the safety of motorists, pedestrians and cyclists will be compromised significantly.
2. Traffic Impact on our street (safety and accessibility).
The extra car traffic from 164 car spaces is significant – I do not accept the EIS report (page 81) where it says one extra car every 5 – 7 mins in peak times.
I believe an independent analysis of traffic impact is required.
The EIS does not mention the impact on surrounding streets.
Also the fact that there are no onsite visitor parking provided in the proposal is totally unacceptable – this will drive many additional cars on to street parking which is already limited.
3. Broader community impact – very minimal analysis and the commentary provided was superficial.
This is the first of many development proposals in the area, I think it is niave to not have a broader analysis required for this proposal.
It appears that there is very little, if any, medium and longer term town planning. What about congestion in shopping centres and in the main street (Bungan st) once subsequent development are approved.
4. Community engagement very poor.
I attended a webinar with my husband and I felt like they were simply ticking a box to say they had spoken to the community… The Webinar was one sided with no chance for them to hear us. During the webinar:
• We could only ask questions by message.
• They did not respond to all questions provided by message.
• The responses they provided in the webinar were very superficial.
5. Lack of alternatives considered….On page 9 of the EIS it says it looked at alternatives – but it failed to provide any detail of the “alternative designs” and superficially said that the proposed design was the only viable option. I strongly reject this and insist that alternative designs be considered – specifically, designs that have a significantly reduced volume of overall units while still providing “alternative housing”.
Regards,
Colleen Gilbert
Corinne Winkler
Object
Corinne Winkler
Object
MONA VALE
,
New South Wales
Message
Project Name: Residential with in-fill affordable housing - 159-167 Darley Street West Respondent Status: Resident of Darley Street East, Mona Vale (First Home Buyer)
To the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure,
I am writing to formally lodge my strong objection to the proposed State Significant Development at 159-167 Darley Street West, Mona Vale. As a resident of Darley Street and a recent first-home buyer, I am deeply invested in the long-term viability of this community. While I support the provision of genuine affordable housing, this proposal is fundamentally flawed in its strategic merit and fails to account for the unique geographical and infrastructural constraints of the Pittwater region.
My objection is based on the following critical points:
1. Erosion of Character and Undermining of First-Home Investment
The "in-fill" nature of this proposal sets a dangerous precedent that threatens to destroy the established character of Mona Vale. As a first-home buyer, I invested in this area specifically for its identity as a "leafy beachside village."
The Irony of Affordability: The objective of this proposal is to deliver affordable housing, yet it simultaneously undermines the equity and community value of young residents who have worked for years to enter the market.
Character Precedent: Turning a low-density village into a high-rise commuter hub is a permanent change. Once the soul of this place is killed by over-development, the very quality of life that makes it an "asset" to Sydney is lost forever.
2. Disastrous Cumulative Impact on Transport Infrastructure
Mona Vale is not a rapid transport hub. The assumption that this area can support significant density increases is a fallacy based on a lack of understanding of Northern Beaches geography.
The B-Line Constraint: The B-Line is our only high-capacity link to the city. Currently, buses are often at capacity by the third or fourth stop (Dee Why). Increasing the population at the "top" of the line in Mona Vale will render the service unusable for everyone further down the peninsula.
The Spit Bridge Bottleneck: Our primary arterial link to Sydney features a bascule lift bridge. This is an inherently unreliable and frequently congested choke point.
Failure to Consider Cumulative Growth: This proposal cannot be viewed in isolation. When combined with the massive planned developments in Brookvale, Frenchs Forest, Dee Why, and Westfield Warringah Mall, the lack of a rail link or significant road upgrades makes this level of density not just inconvenient, but mathematically impossible to sustain.
3. Threat to a National Treasure and Sydney’s Tourism Asset
The Northern Beaches and the Pittwater area are unique in the world—a tranquil retreat bordered by the Ku-ring-gai National Park and the Pacific Ocean.
The "Tranquil Undercurrent": The appeal of this region lies in its low-density, calm activity. People do not visit Palm Beach or Avalon to see a train-less high-rise hub 15 minutes away.
Economic Risk: By "urbanising" the gateway to the upper Northern Beaches, the State risks killing the very "soul" that drives tourism and local business. We are a coastal peninsula, not a metropolitan rail corridor.
4. Lack of Infrastructure-Led Planning
To increase the population of a geographically isolated peninsula significantly without any planned investment in heavy rail or new road bypasses is a failure of responsible planning. It places the long-term costs of congestion and reduced amenity solely on the residents while allowing developers to extract short-term profit.
Conclusion
This proposal is neither careful nor fair. It is a "top-down" mandate that ignores the physical realities of the Pittwater area. I urge the Department to reject this proposal in its current form and instead focus on development that respects local zoning, preserves our unique village character, and—most importantly—is preceded by the necessary infrastructure to support it.
Sincerely,
Corinne Winkler
To the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure,
I am writing to formally lodge my strong objection to the proposed State Significant Development at 159-167 Darley Street West, Mona Vale. As a resident of Darley Street and a recent first-home buyer, I am deeply invested in the long-term viability of this community. While I support the provision of genuine affordable housing, this proposal is fundamentally flawed in its strategic merit and fails to account for the unique geographical and infrastructural constraints of the Pittwater region.
My objection is based on the following critical points:
1. Erosion of Character and Undermining of First-Home Investment
The "in-fill" nature of this proposal sets a dangerous precedent that threatens to destroy the established character of Mona Vale. As a first-home buyer, I invested in this area specifically for its identity as a "leafy beachside village."
The Irony of Affordability: The objective of this proposal is to deliver affordable housing, yet it simultaneously undermines the equity and community value of young residents who have worked for years to enter the market.
Character Precedent: Turning a low-density village into a high-rise commuter hub is a permanent change. Once the soul of this place is killed by over-development, the very quality of life that makes it an "asset" to Sydney is lost forever.
2. Disastrous Cumulative Impact on Transport Infrastructure
Mona Vale is not a rapid transport hub. The assumption that this area can support significant density increases is a fallacy based on a lack of understanding of Northern Beaches geography.
The B-Line Constraint: The B-Line is our only high-capacity link to the city. Currently, buses are often at capacity by the third or fourth stop (Dee Why). Increasing the population at the "top" of the line in Mona Vale will render the service unusable for everyone further down the peninsula.
The Spit Bridge Bottleneck: Our primary arterial link to Sydney features a bascule lift bridge. This is an inherently unreliable and frequently congested choke point.
Failure to Consider Cumulative Growth: This proposal cannot be viewed in isolation. When combined with the massive planned developments in Brookvale, Frenchs Forest, Dee Why, and Westfield Warringah Mall, the lack of a rail link or significant road upgrades makes this level of density not just inconvenient, but mathematically impossible to sustain.
3. Threat to a National Treasure and Sydney’s Tourism Asset
The Northern Beaches and the Pittwater area are unique in the world—a tranquil retreat bordered by the Ku-ring-gai National Park and the Pacific Ocean.
The "Tranquil Undercurrent": The appeal of this region lies in its low-density, calm activity. People do not visit Palm Beach or Avalon to see a train-less high-rise hub 15 minutes away.
Economic Risk: By "urbanising" the gateway to the upper Northern Beaches, the State risks killing the very "soul" that drives tourism and local business. We are a coastal peninsula, not a metropolitan rail corridor.
4. Lack of Infrastructure-Led Planning
To increase the population of a geographically isolated peninsula significantly without any planned investment in heavy rail or new road bypasses is a failure of responsible planning. It places the long-term costs of congestion and reduced amenity solely on the residents while allowing developers to extract short-term profit.
Conclusion
This proposal is neither careful nor fair. It is a "top-down" mandate that ignores the physical realities of the Pittwater area. I urge the Department to reject this proposal in its current form and instead focus on development that respects local zoning, preserves our unique village character, and—most importantly—is preceded by the necessary infrastructure to support it.
Sincerely,
Corinne Winkler
Bette Lakin
Object
Bette Lakin
Object
Mona Vale
,
New South Wales
Message
I strongly object to the planned overdevelopment at 159-167 Darley Street West, Mona Vale.
Traffic congestion in Mona Vale will be a MAJOR outcome if this development is allowed to proceed.
There are two primary schools within 400m. People who live further away often drive their children to/from school, in the mornings and afternoons. Residents of Church Point, Bayview and the area around Cabbage Tree Road, Mona Vale drive along Pittwater Road, often having to stop at lights at the Darley Street West intersection, before attempting to turn right into Park Street.
Similarly, Pittwater High School is within 400m. Again, drop offs/pick ups/driving to and from school, plus buses, cause a build up of traffic before and after school, especially at the aforementioned traffic lights. With the additional cars expected to exit from the proposed development, there will be major hold ups, especially if attempting to turn right into Pittwater Road. As it is, the village of Mona Vale already becomes highly congested at peak times, especially at the roundabout on the corner of Bungan Street and Pittwater Road.
I wonder - just how many more cars are the two roads in and out of Mona Vale, i.e Mona Vale Road and Pittwater Road, expected to service?
Clearly, 3 x apartment towers in Darley Street West, consisting of 82 apartments, will play absolute havoc with traffic entering and driving along Pittwater Road.
I have concentrated on just one area of concern I have for this development. However, I seriously question:
1. How these oversized towers will in anyway assist the NSW government’s desire to provide housing for essential workers. Sure, 10 of them may be dedicated to essential workers ….. but at what price? The remaining 72 apartments will sell for between 2 and 3 million dollars each - hardly affordable housing!
2. The overall visual impact this development will have is massively out of character with the surrounding neighbourhood, a cul de sac made up substantially of townhouses just 2 storeys high.
3. As well, I sure have sympathy for the adjacent block of town houses to the east of the planned development, which will suffer from a massive amount of afternoon shadowing.
4.My final objection to this planned development is to do with drainage. Whenever we have a major storm (twice over the past year) the garage of my town house at 151-153 Darley Street West has flooded. Thank goodness the RFS arrived in time to help pump out the storm water, on the last occasion. But will residents at the planned development be happy to find their underground garages flooded??? I think not.
Traffic congestion in Mona Vale will be a MAJOR outcome if this development is allowed to proceed.
There are two primary schools within 400m. People who live further away often drive their children to/from school, in the mornings and afternoons. Residents of Church Point, Bayview and the area around Cabbage Tree Road, Mona Vale drive along Pittwater Road, often having to stop at lights at the Darley Street West intersection, before attempting to turn right into Park Street.
Similarly, Pittwater High School is within 400m. Again, drop offs/pick ups/driving to and from school, plus buses, cause a build up of traffic before and after school, especially at the aforementioned traffic lights. With the additional cars expected to exit from the proposed development, there will be major hold ups, especially if attempting to turn right into Pittwater Road. As it is, the village of Mona Vale already becomes highly congested at peak times, especially at the roundabout on the corner of Bungan Street and Pittwater Road.
I wonder - just how many more cars are the two roads in and out of Mona Vale, i.e Mona Vale Road and Pittwater Road, expected to service?
Clearly, 3 x apartment towers in Darley Street West, consisting of 82 apartments, will play absolute havoc with traffic entering and driving along Pittwater Road.
I have concentrated on just one area of concern I have for this development. However, I seriously question:
1. How these oversized towers will in anyway assist the NSW government’s desire to provide housing for essential workers. Sure, 10 of them may be dedicated to essential workers ….. but at what price? The remaining 72 apartments will sell for between 2 and 3 million dollars each - hardly affordable housing!
2. The overall visual impact this development will have is massively out of character with the surrounding neighbourhood, a cul de sac made up substantially of townhouses just 2 storeys high.
3. As well, I sure have sympathy for the adjacent block of town houses to the east of the planned development, which will suffer from a massive amount of afternoon shadowing.
4.My final objection to this planned development is to do with drainage. Whenever we have a major storm (twice over the past year) the garage of my town house at 151-153 Darley Street West has flooded. Thank goodness the RFS arrived in time to help pump out the storm water, on the last occasion. But will residents at the planned development be happy to find their underground garages flooded??? I think not.
Peter Randazzo
Object
Peter Randazzo
Object
MONA VALE
,
New South Wales
Message
This development is totally inappropriate for this site. While i am not anti development, they must be sympathetic with the environment, infrastructure and local residents. The additional traffic feeding into an already overloaded Pittwater Rd is not sustainable. I challenge the decision makers to visit the Darley St and Pittwater Rd intersection at peak times and school drop off and pick up times.
Then we have these faceless developers making the planning departments look like amateurs by taking advantage of 'affordable housing' exemptions to grossly over develop this site.
Let's look at development in Mona Vale as one, not as a number of individual developments. That way we can have responsible development and still preserve our suburb.
Then we have these faceless developers making the planning departments look like amateurs by taking advantage of 'affordable housing' exemptions to grossly over develop this site.
Let's look at development in Mona Vale as one, not as a number of individual developments. That way we can have responsible development and still preserve our suburb.
JOHN REID
Object
JOHN REID
Object
BAYVIEW
,
New South Wales
Message
The proposal for a 6 storey building - more than 800 meters from central Monavale - is developement overklill. The addition of 160 cars onto a short hilly dead end street is just a disaster with already limited visibility. Currently there is a constant stream which runs underneath this block and you will create a 3 storey parking pool - current buildings run pumps continuously to cope with water flow. Sydney Water sewage is just 200 meters down the hill. It already overflows after heavy rain - WE can only imagine what it would be like with another 80 apts .
A 2/3 storey developement woul;d be acceptable to local residents Thats it!!!
A 2/3 storey developement woul;d be acceptable to local residents Thats it!!!
Allen Telling
Object
Allen Telling
Object
Mona Vale
,
New South Wales
Message
1. Introduction
I object to the proposed development at 159–167 Darley Street West, Mona Vale on the grounds that the traffic, access, and transport impacts have been significantly understated and are incompatible with the physical constraints of the street, the surrounding road network, and the transport limitations of the Northern Beaches.
The proposal will materially worsen congestion, reduce safety, impede emergency access, and place unreasonable pressure on a road system already operating beyond capacity.
2. Darley Street West is fundamentally unsuitable for increased traffic
2.1 The street is narrow, constrained, and heavily parked
Darley Street West is a narrow residential street with cars parked along both sides for most of the day. This reduces the effective carriageway to a single lane in many sections, forcing vehicles to stop and wait for oncoming traffic to pass.
The traffic report fails to acknowledge:
• The reduced lane width caused by constant on street parking
• The limited passing opportunities
• The poor sightlines created by bends and parked vehicles
Any increase in vehicle movements will amplify these constraints and create additional conflict points.
2.2 The site sits within a cul de sac
The development is located near the end of a cul de sac, meaning:
• All traffic must enter and exit via the same constrained point
• There is no alternative routing or dispersal
• Turning movements increase congestion and risk
Cul de sac locations are inherently unsuitable for medium density developments generating higher traffic volumes.
2.3 Traffic increase has been significantly understated
The proponent’s traffic modelling does not reflect real world conditions. It underestimates:
• Peak hour movements
• Visitor and service vehicle trips
• Deliveries, trades, and support services
• The higher car ownership rates typical of senior residents in areas with poor public transport
The modelling assumptions are unrealistic and materially downplay the true impact.
3. Dangerous intersection and traffic light conditions
The intersection at the entry to Darley Street West is already dangerous, with:
• Poor visibility
• High turning volumes
• Drivers accelerating to beat the lights
• Pedestrians crossing without dedicated protection
Adding more vehicles from this development will increase the risk of collisions and near misses.
4. Emergency vehicle access will be compromised
Darley Street West’s narrow, single lane conditions already make it difficult for large vehicles to pass. The increased traffic load will:
• Delay ambulances, fire trucks, and police vehicles attempting to reach properties in the cul de sac
• Increase the likelihood of blockages caused by parked cars, delivery vans, or service vehicles
• Reduce the ability of emergency vehicles to turn around or manoeuvre safely
• Create unacceptable response time delays for elderly residents, who are statistically more likely to require urgent medical assistance
Emergency access is a critical safety issue. Any development that worsens response times places lives at risk.
5. The development is likely to be occupied by seniors – increasing transport pressure
5.1 Steep topography makes walking impractical
The site sits at the bottom of a steep hill, making walking difficult for older residents or anyone with mobility limitations.
5.2 The nearest B Line stop is 1.1 km away (16 minute walk)
A 16 minute uphill/downhill walk is not realistic for seniors, especially in poor weather or with shopping, medical needs, or mobility issues.
5.3 No rail or light rail options exist
Unlike other Sydney regions, the Northern Beaches has:
• No train line
• No light rail
• No scalable mass transit alternative
Residents are therefore forced to rely on cars, increasing traffic volumes through Mona Vale and beyond.
6. Regional traffic constraints will worsen
6.1 More cars travelling north and south
Residents will need to drive for most trips, adding pressure to:
• Newport
• Avalon
• Palm Beach
• Mona Vale town centre
• The arterial routes toward Sydney
More cars and more buses mean more congestion, not less.
6.2 Mona Vale already experiences peak hour gridlock
Traffic regularly comes to a standstill due to:
• Vehicles entering from Powder Works Road
• Mona Vale Road narrowing into a “country lane” beyond the Bahá’í Temple
• Bottlenecks at roundabouts and traffic lights
The network is already at capacity.
6.3 Wakehurst Parkway closures worsen congestion
Wakehurst Parkway is regularly closed due to flooding, forcing all traffic onto Mona Vale Road.
Any additional vehicle load from this development will compound these unavoidable congestion events.
7. Parking shortages in Mona Vale town centre
Mona Vale suffers from:
• Chronic parking shortages
• Drivers circling for spaces
• Traffic backing up as vehicles wait to reverse into spots
• Frequent road rage incidents caused by delays
Adding more residents who must drive to access shops, services, and transport will worsen these conditions.
8. Conclusion
The proposed development at 159–167 Darley Street West presents unacceptable traffic, access, emergency response, and transport impacts that cannot be mitigated within the constraints of the existing road network.
The street is too narrow, the cul de sac location is inappropriate, the traffic increase is understated, and the broader Mona Vale transport system is already overburdened.
The steep topography, distance to public transport, and lack of scalable mass transit mean residents will rely heavily on cars, further worsening congestion, safety risks, and emergency vehicle delays.
For these reasons, the development should be refused on traffic, access, and emergency response grounds.
I object to the proposed development at 159–167 Darley Street West, Mona Vale on the grounds that the traffic, access, and transport impacts have been significantly understated and are incompatible with the physical constraints of the street, the surrounding road network, and the transport limitations of the Northern Beaches.
The proposal will materially worsen congestion, reduce safety, impede emergency access, and place unreasonable pressure on a road system already operating beyond capacity.
2. Darley Street West is fundamentally unsuitable for increased traffic
2.1 The street is narrow, constrained, and heavily parked
Darley Street West is a narrow residential street with cars parked along both sides for most of the day. This reduces the effective carriageway to a single lane in many sections, forcing vehicles to stop and wait for oncoming traffic to pass.
The traffic report fails to acknowledge:
• The reduced lane width caused by constant on street parking
• The limited passing opportunities
• The poor sightlines created by bends and parked vehicles
Any increase in vehicle movements will amplify these constraints and create additional conflict points.
2.2 The site sits within a cul de sac
The development is located near the end of a cul de sac, meaning:
• All traffic must enter and exit via the same constrained point
• There is no alternative routing or dispersal
• Turning movements increase congestion and risk
Cul de sac locations are inherently unsuitable for medium density developments generating higher traffic volumes.
2.3 Traffic increase has been significantly understated
The proponent’s traffic modelling does not reflect real world conditions. It underestimates:
• Peak hour movements
• Visitor and service vehicle trips
• Deliveries, trades, and support services
• The higher car ownership rates typical of senior residents in areas with poor public transport
The modelling assumptions are unrealistic and materially downplay the true impact.
3. Dangerous intersection and traffic light conditions
The intersection at the entry to Darley Street West is already dangerous, with:
• Poor visibility
• High turning volumes
• Drivers accelerating to beat the lights
• Pedestrians crossing without dedicated protection
Adding more vehicles from this development will increase the risk of collisions and near misses.
4. Emergency vehicle access will be compromised
Darley Street West’s narrow, single lane conditions already make it difficult for large vehicles to pass. The increased traffic load will:
• Delay ambulances, fire trucks, and police vehicles attempting to reach properties in the cul de sac
• Increase the likelihood of blockages caused by parked cars, delivery vans, or service vehicles
• Reduce the ability of emergency vehicles to turn around or manoeuvre safely
• Create unacceptable response time delays for elderly residents, who are statistically more likely to require urgent medical assistance
Emergency access is a critical safety issue. Any development that worsens response times places lives at risk.
5. The development is likely to be occupied by seniors – increasing transport pressure
5.1 Steep topography makes walking impractical
The site sits at the bottom of a steep hill, making walking difficult for older residents or anyone with mobility limitations.
5.2 The nearest B Line stop is 1.1 km away (16 minute walk)
A 16 minute uphill/downhill walk is not realistic for seniors, especially in poor weather or with shopping, medical needs, or mobility issues.
5.3 No rail or light rail options exist
Unlike other Sydney regions, the Northern Beaches has:
• No train line
• No light rail
• No scalable mass transit alternative
Residents are therefore forced to rely on cars, increasing traffic volumes through Mona Vale and beyond.
6. Regional traffic constraints will worsen
6.1 More cars travelling north and south
Residents will need to drive for most trips, adding pressure to:
• Newport
• Avalon
• Palm Beach
• Mona Vale town centre
• The arterial routes toward Sydney
More cars and more buses mean more congestion, not less.
6.2 Mona Vale already experiences peak hour gridlock
Traffic regularly comes to a standstill due to:
• Vehicles entering from Powder Works Road
• Mona Vale Road narrowing into a “country lane” beyond the Bahá’í Temple
• Bottlenecks at roundabouts and traffic lights
The network is already at capacity.
6.3 Wakehurst Parkway closures worsen congestion
Wakehurst Parkway is regularly closed due to flooding, forcing all traffic onto Mona Vale Road.
Any additional vehicle load from this development will compound these unavoidable congestion events.
7. Parking shortages in Mona Vale town centre
Mona Vale suffers from:
• Chronic parking shortages
• Drivers circling for spaces
• Traffic backing up as vehicles wait to reverse into spots
• Frequent road rage incidents caused by delays
Adding more residents who must drive to access shops, services, and transport will worsen these conditions.
8. Conclusion
The proposed development at 159–167 Darley Street West presents unacceptable traffic, access, emergency response, and transport impacts that cannot be mitigated within the constraints of the existing road network.
The street is too narrow, the cul de sac location is inappropriate, the traffic increase is understated, and the broader Mona Vale transport system is already overburdened.
The steep topography, distance to public transport, and lack of scalable mass transit mean residents will rely heavily on cars, further worsening congestion, safety risks, and emergency vehicle delays.
For these reasons, the development should be refused on traffic, access, and emergency response grounds.
Attachments
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
Mona Vale
,
New South Wales
Message
Objection to SSD -91496958 159-167 Darley Street West Mona Vale.
Reasons of objection
1. Increased traffic will put pressure on an already congested area. The Mona Vale village currently struggles to provide parking. Where are all the construction workers going to PARK???
2. Safety – Darley Street West is narrow and there will be nowhere for large vehicles to turn. Large vehicles will create POOR visibility and increase safety issues for car drivers and most importantly PEDESTRIANS. I personally walk past this area on a daily walk, and I am afraid the increase of large trucks and construction vehicles will put my safety at MAJOR RISK. If by chance there is an ACCIDENT how are EMERGENCY VEHICLES able to navigate, there is no way safe way to pass cars in this area. TRAFFIC will bank up come to a standstill and if this happens in SCHOOL time drop offs and pickups, MAJOR STRESS for both children and parents. It will IMPEDE response time. I live in the area, and my observation is there are a lot of EVs going through the area on a daily and nightly basis. Traffic management for safety reasons is required.
3. The scale - of the development is way out of proportion to the existing area and the shadow of such a large development that will be created will impact residents - NO SUN from 9am to 3pm, noise from the apartments, AIR CONDITIONERS, TV’S, LIGHT pollution and most importantly LOSS OF PRIVACY. The out of character scale will dominate and have adverse domination of the streetscape
4. Stormwater capacity - may I ask where all the water is going to go in a storm, the area is struggling to cope and the smell from the creek is off putting ALREADY.
The Government’s push for Affordable Housing is not really apparent to me in this application whom may I ask is going to be able to afford to purchase a unit?? Ten units out of 82?? Why only 10? It smacks of collaboration with the developers and to me seems there is NO TRANSPARENCY. It is a way for greedy developers to come into a beautiful area make their money and then hit the road once the damage has been done and for the residents and the people who love the area to be left with the consequences.
I am totally against this development on the grounds outlined above. It is totally out of character for Mona Vale and the infrastructure is not there to support it.
Yours Sincerely
Resident of Mona Vale
31.1.26
Reasons of objection
1. Increased traffic will put pressure on an already congested area. The Mona Vale village currently struggles to provide parking. Where are all the construction workers going to PARK???
2. Safety – Darley Street West is narrow and there will be nowhere for large vehicles to turn. Large vehicles will create POOR visibility and increase safety issues for car drivers and most importantly PEDESTRIANS. I personally walk past this area on a daily walk, and I am afraid the increase of large trucks and construction vehicles will put my safety at MAJOR RISK. If by chance there is an ACCIDENT how are EMERGENCY VEHICLES able to navigate, there is no way safe way to pass cars in this area. TRAFFIC will bank up come to a standstill and if this happens in SCHOOL time drop offs and pickups, MAJOR STRESS for both children and parents. It will IMPEDE response time. I live in the area, and my observation is there are a lot of EVs going through the area on a daily and nightly basis. Traffic management for safety reasons is required.
3. The scale - of the development is way out of proportion to the existing area and the shadow of such a large development that will be created will impact residents - NO SUN from 9am to 3pm, noise from the apartments, AIR CONDITIONERS, TV’S, LIGHT pollution and most importantly LOSS OF PRIVACY. The out of character scale will dominate and have adverse domination of the streetscape
4. Stormwater capacity - may I ask where all the water is going to go in a storm, the area is struggling to cope and the smell from the creek is off putting ALREADY.
The Government’s push for Affordable Housing is not really apparent to me in this application whom may I ask is going to be able to afford to purchase a unit?? Ten units out of 82?? Why only 10? It smacks of collaboration with the developers and to me seems there is NO TRANSPARENCY. It is a way for greedy developers to come into a beautiful area make their money and then hit the road once the damage has been done and for the residents and the people who love the area to be left with the consequences.
I am totally against this development on the grounds outlined above. It is totally out of character for Mona Vale and the infrastructure is not there to support it.
Yours Sincerely
Resident of Mona Vale
31.1.26