I object to the bulk and scale of the project. It is out of character with its surroundings. There are issues with overshadowing and loss of direct sunlight to neighbouring properties. There is too little provision for visitor parking. It will generate additional traffic down a singly access street and make it difficult for access by emergency vehicles should they be needed. Apart from all these issues, there has not been a complete flood assessment, when the proposed development sits in a known flood-affected catchment area, and no explanation of how flood water might be kept out of the proposed basement parking.

To whom it may concern,

I am writing to object to the proposed development at 159–167 Darley Street West, Mona Vale.

I live in a nearby suburb with my wife and young family. Both my parents and my in-laws live in Mona Vale, along with other close family members. Mona Vale is where our family support network and much of our day-to-day life are based, and it is the area we hope to remain close to long term.

I am not opposed to development in principle. My concern is about the scale of this proposal on this particular site, especially given the flooding history in this part of Mona Vale and the pressure already on local roads.

I have had direct, real-world experience dealing with stormwater and flooding issues on the Northern Beaches. During a recent heavy storm, I helped deal with flooding in the basement of the townhouse complex where we live. Even with several pumps operating, water still built up and extra portable pumps were needed. Despite that, some flooding still occurred.

That experience showed me how easily systems can be overwhelmed during intense rainfall, even in relatively modern buildings.

This site sits in a low-lying area that collects runoff from surrounding land, and the proposal includes multiple basement levels. From a practical point of view, that raises real concerns about how the site would cope in major storm events, power outages, or pump failures. When basement systems fail, the impact is not minor — it can be sudden and disruptive.

Traffic is another issue. Mona Vale already becomes congested, and in wet weather conditions it can slow even further. More vehicles in the area, combined with reliance on underground infrastructure, increases overall risk in bad weather.

Construction is also a concern. Darley Street West is a narrow one-way street, and from what I have seen on other projects, construction vehicles often end up waiting or circulating in nearby streets. In wet conditions this can create safety issues as well as congestion.

My wife and I are trying to stay close to our families in Mona Vale. Like many young families, we are looking for housing that keeps us connected to our support networks and workplaces. Large apartment developments like this do not usually provide realistic options for families like ours and can replace more suitable housing types.

Based on my firsthand experience with flooding and stormwater issues, and my regular time spent in Mona Vale, I do not believe this development is suitable for this site or at this scale.

For these reasons, I respectfully ask that the application not be approved in its current form

Submission opposing DA 159-167 Darley St, Mona Vale
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the DA for 159-167 Darley St Mona Vale. I am a Northern Beaches Councillor in Pittwater Ward, for which this development is proposed. I am therefore making this submission to support the many hundreds of residents who have attended at least three public meetings strongly objecting to the plans.

Many of these residents have recently bought properties that would be impacted by the proposed development.

Location
This site is located within an area that was once wetlands - very close to the current Winnereremy Bay on Pittwater. The area is subject to flooding and Northern Beaches Council has had to improve stormwater drainage once already during the last four years that I’ve been on council, installing larger diameter pipes carrying water underground along nearby Park St.

Yet Mona Vale still floods when there is heavy rain - for example, recently on January 17, when it caused flash flooding.

In fact, the Biodiversity report even mentions the waterway that crosses along the back of the property, which is in fact an underground creek. Excavation for the development could potentially change the hydrology of the site, leading to more flooding on the property itself or for neighbours.

Due to this flood risk, the idea of a three storey underground carpark seems inappropriate, and in some situations could even be a danger to residents.

Another hazard that must be considered is bushfire risk. The whole of the Pittwater Ward was subject to ember attack during the 1994 bushfires due to the extensive bushland surrounding the area. Evacuations were difficult even then due to the limited routes out of Pittwater - Mona Vale Rd, Wakehurst Parkway and Pittwater Rd. Each of these was gridlocked and closed by flames at some point during those fires.

The site for this proposed development is less than 4km from Ingleside, where multiple homes were lost during the 1994 fires. In January, the Climate Council noted that it is only a matter of time before suburbs on Sydney’s outskirts experience bushfires similar to those on the fringes of the city (see https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-01-06/bushfire-risk-australia-climate-council-report/106199356).

This proposed development would add to those risks for current and future residents.

Height
The suburb of Mona Vale will be subject to a significant increase in density under the NSW government’s Low to Mid Rise Housing Policy, with local planners estimating up to an extra 8,000 residents likely to live in the suburb as a result.

This site zoned R3 for Medium Density Residential is limited to 17.5 metres in height. However, the DA proposes three buildings with a maximum height of 21.17 metres. The DA justifies this 30 per cent variation with the offer of 10 per cent “affordable housing”.

However, the height and bulk of these buildings will be grossly oversized compared to other single storey homes and even units in the area. Residents have objected that the additional height will overshadow their properties, destroying privacy in nearby unit blocks, and block sunlight to their living spaces and solar panels. This is particularly unfair for residents who have outlaid the expense to electrify their homes.

Many residents have told me they are not wholly opposed to increased density in Mona Vale but believe the four storey limit should be enforced.

Further, the median unit rent in Mona Vale is more than $800 per week with newer apartments asking more like $1,300 to $1,400 per week. For example, one reasonably new three bedroom unit was advertised for rent in Darley St, Mona Vale, close to this site, during January at $1,350 with a bond of $5,400. With these high rental prices, it seems unlikely that new units in Mona Vale will be affordable.

Infrastructure and Services
I am particularly concerned about the lack of infrastructure in Pittwater generally, and Mona Vale in particular, that will be needed to service the proposed 81 units.

Darley St is already a busy road and another 81 units will simply increase the traffic into and across Mona Vale’s town centre - which is already congested and short of parking.

My other significant concern is that the Warriewood Sewage Treatment works, which provides only secondary treatment, has reached capacity, with frequent overflows when it rains. That capacity should be increased and treatment upgraded to tertiary level before any further development occurs in Mona Vale - for the health and safety of all Pittwater and Narrabeen residents and to prevent polluting the ocean at Turrimetta Beach where the outfall is located.

Tree Removal
I believe the removal of 58 of the 88 trees from the site and transplanting of another two is insupportable, especially for a development that claims to be ecologically sustainable.

Additionally, the Arboricultural Impact Assessment report indicates that further trees will be affected by construction of concrete pathways, stormwater trenching, and possible trenching for services.

Whilst not all 88 trees at the site are local natives (endemic species), such a large area of tree canopy provides many functions, such as reducing the heat island effect and cleaning the air, absorbing rainfall and runoff in the earth below, and providing habitat for wildlife. Both native and non-native trees contribute to these functions.

Planting new trees that will not mature and provide significant canopy in less than 50 - 70 years will not replace the immediate loss of this established canopy. All wildlife currently present will be well and truly lost by then.

Biodiversity
I note the claim in the biodiversity report that:
“Additionally, the Study Area is within one km of a substantial tract of bushland, which exhibits limited connectivity to vegetation within Ku-ring-gai National Park.” In fact, there is connectivity between that tract of bushland and the Ingleside escarpment, which connects to Ku-ring-gai Chase National Park (via a wildlife bridge across Mona Vale Rd), Garigal National Park, and eventually to Narrabeen Lagoon.

Further, Mona Vale is one of the suburbs on the Northern Beaches with the greatest loss of tree canopy, so the trees on these blocks are precious. (Arborists at the 2025 Treenet conference estimated that some mature trees may be worth hundreds of thousands of dollars to the community in terms of cooling for homes, footpaths and roadways with savings on electricity, environmental and health impacts (including mental health.)

Our council’s Tree Canopy Plan emphasises the importance of retaining tree canopy where it exists, including on private land, and the loss of close to 60 trees does not accord with this policy.


Conclusion

I believe developing these blocks of six storey units in Mona Vale as proposed is inappropriate and unsustainable development. The location would expose residents to flood and bushfire hazards; the bulk and height will reduce privacy for existing residents and the “human scale” of Mona Vale; and it would contribute to overloading local roads and the Warriewood Sewage Treatment Works - polluting a local beach and endangering human health. Finally, the loss of 58 trees from the site - and threats to others - does not correspond with the council’s Tree Canopy Plan and should be prevented.

Finally, I strongly believe we need more affordable housing on the Northern Beaches but not at the costs outlined above to local residents and the environment.

These are just a few of the complaints I’ve heard from residents and/or that I have been independently concerned about as a local councillor. I believe submissions by residents and Northern Beaches Council will raise many other objections and concerns.

Yours faithfully,
Miranda Korzy
Pittwater Ward Councillor
Northern Beaches Council

It is regrettable that the timeframe for submissions has included the Xmas break a time when many people have been absent from their usual homes.
Notwithstanding I make this submission on the last day of the notification period.
Overall the project is totally out of context with the surrounding residential streetscape in Mona vale and particularly Darley St West.
In relation to a previous much smaller application for this site a key issue was the traffic danger being created at the Darley st intersection with Pittwater Road. This issue was not resolved even at the Panels hearing and was to receive further attention from the applicant. This application does nothing to give a realistic impact statement on this intersection. The traffic movements have clearly been understated to give the impression of minimal impact on this intersection which is currently dangerous without a dedicated right hand turn from the west in Darley St West. We may not have had a death which would have improved the warrant for traffic improvements. There are so many near misses from traffic travelling west into Darley ST West and cars travelling east because of the uncertainty of where vehicles are going to travel. Understating the level of additional traffic movements will result in a more dangerous situation. I note the applicant seeks to consider Construction Traffic at a later date but the impact of large trucks and perhaps trucks and dogs moving through this intersection will exacerbate the traffic safety situation and must be considered now. 11m excavations are not done in a day so the impacts will be over some time. This aspect of the application requires independent assessment not desk top planning.
Affordable housing - it is noted the applicant benefits in FSR and height because of the allocation of affordable housing in the development. It was my understanding that these apartments are to be integrated and not "mixed and balanced" as stated on page 38 of their submission. In this application the apartments are clustered within the central part of the lower block effectively isolating these occupiers from other occupants. Is this intentional to segregate occupants of a lesser status to others in the development.
Height of building - concession re the height of the building above 17.5 to over 21 m must surely be considered on the basis of the impact on existing streetscape (2 storey) and existing amenity and not only affordable housing considerations. The apartments are too high in relation to existing development in the vicinity. The comment in section 6.3.1 that the development will have "moderate" visual impact is ridiculous. It is noted the bland and homogenous appearance of the new building bulk does add little to the streets appearance
OSD's - I have a concern that Cahill Creek will be inundated and thereby overspill into the golf course precinct. The impact of stormwater on the golf club needs further consideration.
Waste Bin Collection - 72 bins being collected will have an adverse impact on the acoustic amenity of the local area and residents of the new development. Perhaps a more integrated system with less larger bins is appropriate.
In relation to travel distances to public transport I note the applicants assertion that the route to Maxwell St is satisfactory. I walk it most days and it is 45 metres of mud and ground that is not level as well as unlit. It is not safe to walk at night and is certainly not suitable for a person with a disability. It is also noteworthy that shelter facilities in this location are totally unsatisfactory
As far as the 554m to the town centre on page 43 of the submission - when did the rear entry to Woolworths become the centre of Mona Vale.
It does seem that the applicant is treating Council with contempt in section 5.3 in terms of their comments re visitor parking, setbacks and their matters requiring attention under their planning scheme Local Strategic Planning Statement. It also does not seem that Design Principles in Section 3.4 are considered in any way.

The approval of this application is not in the public interest as it is totally out of character with the surrounding residential amenity in relation on to bulk and Scale
Please may I reserve the right to add to this submission given the tight timeframes

REgards

Gary Thomson

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

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 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