June 1 - 30, 2026: Issue 655

 

SSDs for Mona Vale: 40.7 metres Height, to 12 storeys + 8 Storeys on East Darley Street: not open for submissions yet + Ingleside Wilga Wilson Proposal: to proceed to Gateway Determination Submission by Sydney North Planning Panel

Avalon Beach village April 2026 - filling the whole block with two-storeys of concrete 'townhouses' one street main from main shopping area.


Application Number: SSD-129265241 - lodged June 16 2026 - SEARS approved - Tuesday June 23 2026
Location 6-14 Mona Vale Road and 8-10 Vineyard Street, Mona Vale
Assessment Type: State Significant Development

SSD for Residential Flat Building with in-fill affordable housing - Mona Vale Road and Vineyard Street, Mona Vale - approved to proceed to exhibition - no details of submissions period as yet.

Applicants agents state:
The proposal delivers approximately 185 apartments, of which 40 would be delivered as affordable housing for a minimum period of 15 years, with a Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of 2.86:1 and a building height of 37.55m - 40.70m, stepped between eight (8) and eleven (11) or twelve (12) storeys to reflect the site constraints.

NSW Planning webpage HERE

Residential development with in-fill affordable housing - 35-39 Darley Street East, Mona Vale

The proposal includes the demolition of all existing structures and the construction of an eight (8) storey residential flat building containing 53 apartments (mix of 2, 3 and 4 bedroom units) over three (3) levels of basement parking containing 131 parking spaces (including 19 visitor spaces). 

Building Height; approximately 28.6m

All units on Level 1 are to be dedicated for the purpose of infill affordable housing, equating to nine (9) units and 1,191.2m2 (15.5%) of the total GFA proposed on the site. 

Background - Parameters set by NSW Government:

''In the Northern Beaches local government area, the second stage of the Low and Mid-Rise Policy will apply to all residential zones within 800 metres walking distance to the following town centres: 

  • Balgowlah Stockland shopping centre 
  • Dee Why town centre 
  • Forestville town centre
  • Forestway shopping centre 
  • Frenchs Forest Precinct (Warringah Road) 
  • Manly town centre
  • Manly Vale town centre 
  • Mona Vale town centre 
  • Warringah Mall shopping centre

Low-rise housing is generally 1–2 storeys and includes dual occupancies (2 dwellings on the same lot), terraces, townhouses and low-rise apartment buildings. It does not include freestanding houses. Height of building: max 9.5 m

Mid-rise housing is generally 3–6 storey apartment buildings.

The low and mid-rise changes will also introduce new development standards for these housing types, including allowable heights, floor-space ratios and lot sizes.

+3 apartments in +2 storey building
Permissibility changes
Permit in R2 and R3 zones

Already permitted in R1 and R4 zones per Standard Instrument

New non-discretionary development standards

In R1 and R2 zones:

  • Lot size: min 500 m2
  • Lot width: min 12 m
  • Floor space ratio: max 0.8:1
  • Height of building: max 9.5 m
  • Car parking: 0.5 space per dwelling

In R3 and R4 zones:

0–400 m from station/centre

  • Floor space ratio: max 2.2:1
  • Height of building: max 22 m
  • Storeys: max 6
  • No minimum lot size or width (LEP provisions switched off)

400–800 m from station/centre

  • Floor space ratio: max 1.5:1
  • Height of building: max 17.5 m
  • Storeys: max 4
  • No minimum lot size or width (LEP provisions switched off)

1 or more apartments above ground floor shops

Permissibility changes

No change to the permissibility of shop top housing.

Refer to the council’s Local Environmental Plan for which zones they are permitted.

New non-discretionary development standards

The following new standards for shop top housing apply in Low and Mid-Rise Housing areas in R1 and R2 zones (where permitted):

  • Lot size: min 500 m2
  • Lot width: min 12 m
  • Floor space ratio: max 0.8:1
  • Height of building: max 9.5 m
  • Car parking: 0.5 space per dwelling

The following new standards for shop top housing apply in Low and Mid-Rise Housing areas in R3 and R4 zones (where permitted):

Low and Mid-Rise Housing inner areas (0–400 m from a nominated station/centre)

  • Floor space ratio: max 2.2:1
  • Height of building: max 24 m
  • Storeys: max 6
  • No minimum lot size or width (LEP provisions switched off)

Low and Mid-Rise Housing outer areas (400–800 m from a nominated station/centre)

  • Floor space ratio: max 1.5:1
  • Height of building: max 17.5 m
  • Storeys: max 4
  • No minimum lot size or width (LEP provisions switched off)

A non-discretionary development standard, also known as a non-refusal standard, provides consistent development assessment guidelines for matters like building heights, floor space ratio or lot size. A non-discretionary standard can overrule a local environmental plan (LEP) or development control plan (DCP) standard. If the proposed development complies with the non-discretionary standard, a consent authority cannot refuse the application because it does not meet the LEP or DCP standard.''

From; https://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/policy-and-legislation/housing/low-and-mid-rise-housing-policy/summary-of-key-provisions 

''+1 apartments above ground floor shops
New non-discretionary development standards

In R1 and R2 zones:

  • Lot size: min 500 m2
  • Lot width: min 12 m
  • Floor space ratio: max 0.8:1
  • Height of building: max 9.5 m
  • Car parking: 0.5 space per dwelling

In R3 and R4 zones:

0–400 m from station/centre

  • Floor space ratio: max 2.2:1
  • Height of building: max 24 m
  • Storeys: max 6
  • No minimum lot size or width (LEP provisions switched off)

400–800 m from station/centre

  • Floor space ratio: max 1.5:1
  • Height of building: max 17.5 m
  • Storeys: max 4
  • No minimum lot size or width (LEP provisions switched off)

A non-discretionary development standard, also known as a non-refusal standard, provides consistent development assessment guidelines for matters like building heights, floor space ratio or lot size. A non-discretionary standard can overrule a local environmental plan (LEP) or development control plan (DCP) standard. If the proposed development complies with the non-discretionary standard, a consent authority cannot refuse the application because it does not meet the LEP or DCP standard.''

From; https://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/policy-and-legislation/housing/low-and-mid-rise-housing-policy/summary-of-key-provisions 

The NSW Department of Planning states the ''Non-discretionary standards are to encourage the delivery of new housing.

The policy aims to facilitate and encourage the low and mid-rise housing types by introducing non-discretionary standards, such as building heights, floor space ratios and minimum lot sizes. This will apply by zone and land use type in low and mid-rise housing areas.''

More in: Mona Vale Set to Become Dee Why of Pittwater Under NSW Government's Low and Mid-Rise policy

There has been no clarification as to why these SSDs have been allowed to be lodged despite the height breaches and amount of storeys being outside of the government's own parameters.

The proponents are now required to lodge their supporting documents and then a 14 day period for submissions will be opened by the NSW Planning Department.

Residents can click on 'Notify me' at top right of screen on these webpages to receive notification of updates. You will need to set up an account with the Department of planning to do so - which is pretty easy. Visit this webpage to find out how here:  www.planningportal.nsw.gov.au/major-projects/services/subscribe-notifications

You can also become a member or ask for updates from your local residents association.


Ingleside Wilga Wilson Proposal: to proceed to Gateway Determination by Sydney North Planning Panel

Planning Proposal - Seeking to amend Pittwater Local Environmental Plan for land at 1-9 Wilson Avenue, 7-14 Wilga Street and 212-222 Powderworks Road, Ingleside. The proposal was not supported by the council at its meeting on 17 February 2026. 

The applicant then submitted a rezoning review application on April 17 2026. Refer to the documents and Determination of Monday June 22 2026 at:

The NSW Government's Sydney North Planning Panel has recommended that the Wilga-Wilson rezoning DA "should be submitted for a Gateway determination because the proposal has demonstrated strategic and subject to changes site specific merit."

DATE OF DETERMINATION 22 June 2026
DATE OF DECISION 15 June 2026

Construction company, Mirvac, along with Chinese-based Truslan, lodged this planning proposal in 2025. The council officially opposed the rezoning of 18 semi-rural properties to accommodate 537+ homes including terrace houses and six-storey apartment buildings.

There were 567 residents who opposed the proposal due to:
  1. extreme bushfire risk - and no capacity to evacuate residents, 
  2. Warriewood Sewerage Treatment Plant at capacity a few years back already
  3. impact of traffic on local roads, which are already at a standstill
  4. impact on local wildlife corridors
  5. impact on local environment
  6. flooding risks
  7. no connection to public transport

The development concept supporting the planning proposal includes:
  • approximately 537 new dwellings, being:
    • 133 detached dwellings up to 2 storeys in height with lot sizes ranging from 300 m2 -1,000m2;
    • 210 terrace housing dwellings up to 3 storeys in height with lot sizes ranging from 200m2 -500m2
    • 193 apartments up to 6 storeys in height;
  • Existing Zone: RU2 Rural Landscape (RU2)
  • Proposed Zoning: R3 Medium Density Residential (R3)
Maximum height of the buildings proposed: Part 8.5m, part 9m, part 11m, part 22m and part 24m on R3 zoned land.

The Panel majority recommended that prior to submitting the Planning Proposal for a Gateway determination, the Planning Proposal is to be updated to:
  • include St Sava Church at 5 Wilson Avenue, Ingleside (Lot 32 DP854925) and 3 Wilson Avenue, Ingleside (Lot 31 DP854925) without increasing the proposed yield of 536 dwellings by redistributing building height from the centrally located residential flat buildings and revision of the density provisions. It is anticipated these changes will result in lower maximum building height and density provisions;
  • provide additional analysis supporting the proposed housing typologies which address Council’s neighbouring Brookvale Structure Plan. The proposal is to be updated to reflect these findings accordingly. This is to ensure that the proposal facilitates housing types that provide for the community’s needs;
  • include a draft development control plan (DCP) document which addresses the updated proposal;
  • investigate the provision of affordable housing informed by feasibility analysis which adequately addresses the Council’s affordable housing contribution scheme. Any provision of affordable housing should be included in the LEP as appropriate; and
  • address how proposed local infrastructure items will be delivered, including discussion of the proposed mechanism(s) such as an amendment to Council’s development contributions plan. This should be supported by anticipated works and delivery timeframes.
The Panel considered the documentation, was briefed by the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure, and heard extensively from Northern Beaches Council and the proponent. 

The Panel majority agreed that the planning proposal should be able to achieve Site Specific Merit noting the responses received from early consultation with various government agencies and subject to revisions addressing site constraints noting that:
  • the proposal can provide for an acceptable built form outcomes subject to amendments;
  • the proposal  can adequately address or manage natural hazards, including bushfire and flooding;
  • provides an opportunity to rehabilitate Mullet Creek and associated riparian areas;
  • provides for new public open space areas;
  • relevant infrastructure to support the proposal either exists or can be provided; and
  • it is anticipated that the local road network can support the expected uplift.
The decision was 3:1 in favour, with panel member Michael Leavey considering the proposal does not have sufficient strategic merit or site specific merit at this time. 

Dissenting Decision: Reasons
The rezoning, as proposed, does not demonstrate sufficient strategic and site-specific merit at this time to proceed for Gateway determination.

On Strategic Merit, it is acknowledged the site is identified as a potential growth area, however the scale and density of development proposed does not reflect intended development patterns or densities in the North District Plan, the Northern Beaches Local Strategic Planning Statement or the Local Housing Strategy. There also remain unresolved issues surrounding natural hazards (and bushfire safety/evacuation in particular), the ability to provide infrastructure, and the management of biodiversity, which are not sufficiently certain at a strategic-level to demonstrate consistency with relevant Planning Priorities under the North District Plan or local strategic planning objectives.

There should be greater certainty for each of these considerations in order to demonstrate strategic merit, prior to any decision to proceed to Gateway determination.

On Site-Specific Merit, the site is in a fringe location, removed from recognised centres and high frequency transport services. The development types and densities proposed are not in keeping with the location and setting of the site, its distance from centres and high frequency transport services, and existing or likely future development in surrounding areas.

Issues of bushfire safety and capacity for evacuation for the site remain in contention, including assumptions made. I agree with the site specific issues identified for further revision in the majority decision, including natural hazards, capacity to provide infrastructure and delivering biodiversity outcomes, however there should be greater certainty for each of these in order to demonstrate site specific merit, prior to any decision to proceed to Gateway determination.

Next Steps
The Panel requires confirmation from the proponent that they agree to:

a) revise the planning proposal to be consistent with the Panel’s recommendations; and
b) subsequently provide a revised planning proposal to address the Panel’s concerns.

''The proponent has up to two weeks from the date of this determination to confirm whether they agree to revise their planning proposal to be consistent with the Panel’s recommendations. Should the proponent not agree to revise their proposal, then the Panel will reconvene to determine that the planning proposal does not have site specific merit and will not be submitted for a Gateway determination.

Should the proponent fail to pay the PPA fee by the designated date, then the Panel will no longer proceed with the planning proposal and the making of a local environmental plan amendment.

Should the proponent agree to revise their planning proposal to address the Panel’s concerns, then the proponent has up to a further three months to provide the revised planning proposal, including supporting reports and studies to the Panel.

The Panel will reconvene following the receipt of the revised Planning Proposal to assess and determine whether the Proposal has met the Panel’s recommendations and has demonstrated site specific merit and is suitable for submitting to a Gateway determination.'' the Determination report states

Should this then be approved for an SSD, like those above, residents will have just 14 days to read all the documents and make a submission, once those documents are tabled on the above webpages.


A few others:
Pittwater set to become wall-to-wall walls under the NSW Government's SSD - which doesn't follow its own parameters