Please refer to the submission which is attached.
Thank you.
Pamela

Application Number SSD-113872990

Subject: Feedback



Dear Sir/Madam,
We are a resident of U15 41-49 Darley Street East and would like to provide feedback on the proposed development at 35–39 Darley Street East (Application Number SSD-113872990).
We have strong concerns about the proposal in its current form.
In particular, the height, bulk and overall scale of the development appear excessive and out of character with the surrounding area. The proposal introduces a level of density that is not consistent with the existing neighbourhood and would result in a visually dominant built form.
We request amendments to the SSD, that generally lower the height of the proposed development, increase setbacks to a full 15m separation, improve landscaped outcomes, with continuous deep soil zones 5m wide along the boundaries, and to better resolve all amenity impacts to our property.
MAJOR CONCERNS
• building separation
• building height
• setbacks
• built form and urban design
• character & streetscape
• landscape
• earthworks
• heritage impact
• visual impact
• overshadowing
• loss of daylight
• visual privacy
• acoustic privacy
• airflow
• car parking, traffic, public transport capacity
o Multiple bedrooms mean more than 2 carpacks is noy enough.
o Traffic and parking congestion already exists in Darley Street East.
• water & sewerage management
o Original premises has 18 bathrooms, now 104 bathrooms in new development
o Low water pressure already exists. Effects Fire Hydrant pressure
• ground & groundwater conditions
• noise & vibration
• waste
• suitability of site for development
We seek amendments that generally lower the height of the proposed development, increase setbacks, improve landscaped outcomes, and to better resolve all amenity impacts to our property.
We are concerned that a development of this scale sets an inappropriate precedent for the area.
We request that the proposal be reconsidered and reduced in scale to better align with the surrounding context.
Regards
Luke & Lynne Barlow
15 41-49 Darley Street East
Mona Vale

I object to this proposal and ask for it to be rejected on the following grounds:-
1. Excessive height of 8 storeys is not in keeping with the surrounding 1,2,3, and occasional 4 storey buildings in the main access street to Mona Vale Beach. This is also problematic due to the lack of infrastructure in the area with parking, which is blocked during the week with commuters for the B-line and at weekends with beach goers. Living in Golf Avenue (the adjoining street to Darley East, we are well aware of the harsh impact lack of parking has on residents.
2. There is an unrealistic claim by the developer that the development will include low-cost apartments. With a construction
Cost of $93 mil. (excluding land value), the cost per unit exceeds $1.8 mil, which is out of the reach of essential workers such as nurses, paramedics, police etc.). This abuse of the ‘Density Bonuses’ should not be granted.
3.There is a current lack of infrastructure in the Mona Vale area which has already more than 1000 properties without sewerage or town water. Warriewood Treatment Plant is overcome now during rain periods leading to outflow to the ocean. Also, Mona Vale is situated in a bushy area and lacks fire protection facility for bush fires and specifically lacks the equipment to deal with fires in high rise buildings. Mona Vale is situated in a narrow Peninsula so bush fires are a particular hazard for residents with evacuation only available on 2 roads out of the area, one of which is through a fire area.
4. This development, along with others under your legislation, will add to traffic problems well beyond those already existing, with no possibility to increae road construction because of being restricted by the Peninsula.
5. The premise of the B-Line being a mass transit system into the City from the Northern Beaches is a fallacy. It is already overburdened and cannot match Metro and Train services , which provide 20 times the capacity. Also the lack of sufficient parking in Mona Vale for commuters on the B-Line causes considerable problems in the streets around the bus stop area. I live in Golf Avenue, which is full of parked cars by 7.30am on weekdays for the whole day and weekends for the beach traffic.

I object to the proposal

Please refer to attachment.
I reserve the right to add an addendum to this submission.

I object

I object

Please find attached my submission in PDF format

Please find attached my submission

I object to this proposal for the following reasons:
- The extra two stories that would be allowed to the developer by providing “affordable “housing is laughable, if it wasn’t so extremely outrageous. The land cost, plus building costs put the proposed supposedly affordable units way out of reach of local support workers, even at a rent of 30% of their income. The extra two stories absolutely cannot be justified. To add insult to injury, the 15 year limit on the provision of affordable housing is unconscionable- i.e. Temporary “affordability” for 15 years with the extra two stories being a permanent feature on the skyline of Mona Vale - NO, NO, NO - Must not be permitted.

- The current infrastructure for Mona Vale on all fronts - sewage, ground water, tree and canopy cover, roads, traffic density and parking, as examples, is already under great strain and the imposition of a big increase in population impacting the already inadequate infrastructure in this area , will destroy the amenity and the livability of this beautiful suburb.

- Because of the limited access in and out of Mona Vale, bushfire evacuation will be severely impacted. High rise apartments will require specialist firefighting equipment which is not available in this area and will make the firefighting very difficult and potentially dangerous for firefighters and residents alike.

- There will be cumulative traffic impact in this beach precinct with totally inadequate parking and longer distances to the major traffic hubs, all contrary to the Developers’ unrealistic predictions. The big intersection between east and west Darley streets, already problematic, is likely to become even more dangerous.