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

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.

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.

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!!!

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.

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

I strongly object to the SSD 91496958 which I am positive will irrefutably change the character and landscape of the peaceful cull de sac I moved into several years ago. I object for the following reasons.
1. With 181 car spaces provided for the proposed SSD, the parking in Darley Street West and the traffic getting out of this street at the intersection of Pittwater Road will be a problem. Navigating our street when cars are parked either side and E bikes are whizzing up and down the street is already dangerous although infrequent at present. Getting out of our driveway is also going to be more difficult. and more dangerous. There are only 2 roads into and out of Mona Vale and they will suffer congestion in peak hour as parents ferry their children to and from school. More buses will be required and these will also increase traffic congestion
Mona Vale shops will be far more crowded where parking spots are already difficult to find.
2. There are already drainage problems in our street after heavy rain. For example, on Saturday night, the 17th of this month, most garages of units and town houses on the southern side flooded and had to be manually pumped out by residents. Next door to the proposed development (where there is an underground creek) the flooding was so bad they needed help from fire fighters.
3. The smell of sewage is detectable down the lower end of our cull de sac and especially strong after rain so with all 81 units situated right at the lower end, each occupied by possibly 2 or more people how will the sewage situation be dealt with? Hopefully the Water Board can alleviate this problem despite nothing having been done in all the years I have lived here.
4. I understand the need for more housing but I doubt whether Mona Vale will ever be 'affordable' for young families. Baby boomers who have chosen to downsize are the demographic in this street and many other Mona Vale streets where units and townhouses prevail. How does the developer get to have 3x 6 storey buildings and yet only one building will have so called affordable units for sale? Investors on high salaries are more likely to purchase the affordable units and as rents have to be kept low for 15 years will gain enormous tax benefits from negative gearing. The greedy developers and the wealthy investors are the main beneficiaries while we suffer the consequences of this inappropriate development.
For these reasons I am totally opposed to this SSD.
Diane Franklin

Submission concerning Environmental Impact Statement SSD 91496958
159-167 Darley Street West Mona Vale

by
Bruce Lakin of 2/151-153 Darley Street West Mona Vale 2103


I wish to strongly object to the SSD 91496958 development for many reasons.
I seek your consideration of the following comments and request your rejection of this project.

STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT - 5.0

Despite the Trustees claims, under Appendix D&G, there has been minimal contact with affected residents in Darley Street West.
There has little evidence of this consultation
The Community information flyers appear to have been distributed at distance from the site of the development
NO email feedback has been received by Darley Street West residents
NO resident has disclosed the telephone survey. The report provided gives no detail of actual sample size.
However there was a webinar conducted on 2 October 2025 between 1880 -1900.
NO detailed project presentation was provided to Residents, beyond a Powerpoint summary showing an artist’s impression of the building profiles. The slides were not made available post webinar.
During this webinar the representatives of the Trustees announced that this session would satisfy the SSD legislative consultation requirement.
Many issues were raised by the approximately 40 attendees.

Significantly, NO modifications to the project are evident and many issues are acknowledged but remain unresolved.


RESIDENTIAL AMENITY - 6.2

NO INCREASE IN INFRASTRUCTURE
The project, as represented in Appendix B, gives no regard to the fact that
Darley Street West is a small cul-de-sac with a busy inspection with Pittwater Road and bounded
on the northern side by Bayview Golf Course.
There is
NO planned increase in the capacity of essential services, for example
NO increase in water supply,
NO increase in sewerage management,
NO increase in electricity supply,
NO increase in internet capacity
NO increase in onstreet parking

However there is a planned increase of 82 residences and extra 215 residents.
This will effectively double the population of a relatively small one way street!

TRAFFIC & PARKING - 6.4

INCREASE IN TRAFFIC, REDUCTION IN AVAILABLE CAR PARKING
The traffic study, under Appendix M, suggests an increase in traffic movement of 3 vehicle per house in AM peak and 3 vehicles per hour in PM peak.
It could be presumed that these are the same vehicles leaving and returning.
What are the users of the other 161 carparks in the development doing??

The Darley Street West/Pittwater Road intersection is very heavily used through the daylight hours. This development will apply much pressure to the existing load and there appears no planned action to manage this.

There is NO visitor parking included in this development!
The Trustees acknowledge that the Pittwater DCP requires 27 car parks for a development of this size but they incorrectly state that there is onstreet parking to accomodate the visiting parkers.
My complex of 12 residences provides 5 off street visitor car parks.
The limited available car parkingon Darley Street West is used by golfers attending the Bayview Golf Club, commuters using the Pittwater Rd bus stop, plus children in residence (who own cars) and visitors of residents.
There is NO capacity to service the requirements of this development.




WASTE MANAGEMENT - 6.9

The Trustees have offered a plan, under Appendix O, which under estimates the difficulty of managing waste bins in Darley Street West.
When the garbage trucks are operating, the street is effectively closed because there is no room to pass.This development will cause major disruption for the 24 hour period of bin collection.

My complex of 12 residences utilises the Council standard allocation of
4 x Red general waste, 2 x Yellow glass/plastic waste, 2 x Blue paper waste and 6 x Green green waste, totalling 14 bins for 12x 3 bedroom residences.
This development proposes the use of 72 bins for 82 residences.

This is clearly insufficient.


PROJECT JUSTIFICATION - 7.0

OVERDEVELOPMENT
This development is excessive and a imposition on the land and its community.
Darley Street West is a small one way street of mainly 2 storey town houses.
The density proposed is grossly in excess of what the domain can accomodate.
The Northern Beaches Council has conducted many studies to develop its LEP and DCP.
Notwithstanding the stated amendment to the density limit, the Council has previously rejected
development on this land for reasons of over development.

The community does not oppose development but any project should be consist with the existing landscape and definitely not of the size and scale of this project.

CONCLUSION - 8.0

MISLEADING STATEMENTS
There are many statements made in the EIS that do not represent the
current reality.
I suggest that these are made to conceal and/or minimise concern over certain elements of the project.

I am hopeful that examination by qualified personnel from NSW Planning will ensure that these are addressed.

Submission to Northern Beaches Council concerning DA 2026/0033 at 159-167 Darley Street West Mona Vale
Name: Carol Duval
Address: 21/38 Park Steet, Mona Vale NSW 2013
Phone: 0424676139
Email: [email protected]
I would like to lodge a submission opposed to the proposed development DA 2026/0033 at 159-167 Darley Street West, Mona Vale.
(I attempted to upload a Word document but the portal would not allow me to do that. Apologies for the basic text submission.)

Last year I downsized from the lower north shore to Mona Vale, not far from the proposed development. Although my postal address is Park Street, my unit is on Pittwater Road.

After witnessing the transformation of much of the lower north shore where cottages and modest units are being demolished to make way for soulless tower blocks, with the ensuing loss of community cohesiveness and local character, I was looking forward to living in Mona Vale where these qualities have been preserved. Instead, it seems that this pretty little suburb is under attack by developers whose plans for expensive apartments will impact the village in multiple, negative ways. Here are just a few that concern me the most.

1. Water management
With only two roads exiting the peninsula, clogging the roads and building more dwellings is irresponsible. Climate change is already impacting our area with water run-off from the surrounding plateau and hills flooding low-lying areas which were formerly environmentally useful mangroves.
In the last few years we have experienced multiple flooding events in these low-lying areas. We must face the reality that many areas on the northern beaches face eventual devastation from flooding, erosion and bushfires, bringing further problems as many homes become uninhabitable. If this sounds alarmist, it is. Why not mitigate these future problems now rather than allow further development that will only increase them?

Why put our vulnerable area in the position that Somerset, UK, now finds itself? That is, why be forced to act reactively in the future rather than act proactively now?

This, from The Guardian last week after another flooding event:
Mike Rigby, the lead member for economic development, planning and assets on Somerset council, said the topography of Somerset – much of it low-lying and surrounded by high ground including Exmoor and the Blackdown Hills – made it susceptible to flooding.
The water poured off the hills into places where people live and work. “Because of that geography, we have a massive risk,” Rigby said.
Places that had not flooded before – such as the Wades’ street – had been hit this time. “We’ll have to investigate that.”
Rigby said the council tackled drains “reactively”. He said: “When they block and we find that out from our own observations or from reports from the public, we’ll go out and unblock them, but what we’d like to do, frankly, is to have a proactive function.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/jan/28/somerset-flooded-residents-storm-chandra-water-managed

Regarding the development itself, the proposed three levels of underground parking would put it at risk of flooding during our now frequent downpours.

2. Increased Traffic Flow
The proposed development will worsen traffic within the local area putting potentially 164 cars on to quiet streets where traffic flow is already difficult, especially on garbage pick-up days. In addition, it seems that the plan does not allow for visitor parking, which exacerbates the problem even further.

The impact on the already busy intersection with Pittwater Rd, which children cross to reach Pittwater High School, will be significant. The same applies to the Park Street and Pittwater Rd intersection and the Bungan Street roundabout, which are already dangerous with cars turning to reach the shopping areas and heading towards the very busy Barrenjoey and Pittwater Roads.

With every development the increase in traffic becomes worse. Turning right into Park Street at the Pittwater/Barrenjoey Rd lights is already a bottle neck at busy times, with cars frequently stranded in oncoming traffic when Park Street is clogged with cars driving into and out of parking spots.

3. Pressure on public transport
If the NSW government wishes to increase housing along main transport hubs, building in the northern beaches will not fulfil this goal. With the typography of plateau, hills, bushland, valleys , flood zones and ocean, there is a limit as to what transport options are viable. The B-line bus service is very popular and already stretched and during peak hours, especially when school children are out, it is very difficult to find a seat. Further development will of course make this even worse. What might happen during bushfires if the two roads are blocked is another consideration that is rarely addressed.

4. Incompatibility with local area
The proposed development of six storeys is incompatible with its neighbours which are mainly single or two storey dwellings. Six storey buildings with all the attendant overshadowing, noise and light pollution problems, would be totally out of character and problematic for local residents.

5. Confused state government goals
If the state government’s intention is to increase the supply of affordable homes, this area will not accomplish this. Every new development here entails demolishing present dwellings to build luxury apartments and does nothing to achieve that goal. This area with its beaches mostly appeals to retirees and families. Mona Vale and surrounding suburbs are already well served for senior living and cashed-up downsizers. Developers are not interested in the kind of homes the area most needs, which are affordable homes for small households and families. Every new development now has required the demolition of exactly that sort of property i.e. family homes and affordable flats and townhouses.

Once approvals are granted and buildings are built, the damage is done. It is in the best interests of local residents and their wellbeing that our governments—local, state and federal—take a long term approach to environmental sustainability and population increase when planning and assessing what should happen in our built environment.

Yours sincerely
Carol Duval (owner)