Indigo By Moran - 156 Ocean Street Narrabeen

I support this project. If it is to assist our own elderly, providing a better place for them to spend their twilight years, then there must be some good in it. This project will also create local job opportunities for the younger generation to get into the job market.

I believe the Northern Beaches is crying out for over 50’s living apartments and Moran have a great reputation for building quality projects.
The site at Narrabeen is appropriately sized and the size of the buildings will not detract from the surrounding area.
It will enable our older locals to live in an appropriately sized dwelling with some great amenities hopefully making for a comfortable retirement surrounded by likeminded individuals.

I would like to oppose the proposed development SSD-76220734: INDIGO BY MORAN – 156 OCEAN STREET NARRABEEN.

I am a resident of Narrabeen and have lived on the northern beaches my whole life. I have lived in Narrabeen since 1987. I do not own my property but rent. I use Ocean Street on a daily basis.

Increased Traffic
This proposal will substantially increase the traffic flow on this street and from the surrounding feeder streets, Ocean Street, Waterloo Street, Narrabeen Park Parade. Recently the local Council considered a motion to reduce the speed limit in this street to 50km /hour because of the existing traffic issues. Adding more cars to this location will only exacerbate the issue.

Car parking
Ocean Street is already full of units with limited parking available. It is already extremely difficult to find parking in and around this proposed development. This proposal consists of 149 (2&3 bed) apartments and only 178 car spaces so that means potentially 120 additional cars will be parking on ocean st, lagoon st, octivia and loftus st. Add to this the summer influx of non-residents trying to access the beach and parking their cars in and around this very same street and the parking issues will become a nightmare.

Height
Whilst there are many unit building along Ocean St, they are generally across one block and are generally limited to 3-4 stories, so that there is space around each unit block and in some instances you can see the ocean between the blocks. This proposal of one complete building across several blocks of land with a substantial height increase is inconsistent with the character and neighbourhood of Narrabeen. This size building will stand out across the neighborhood and will look imposing and feel completely out of character.

Accessibility
This building is not close to grocery stores or shopping centers and would require residents to either drive or bus to do shopping. The local Mona Vale hospital would have been close, if the state hadn’t closed it so now the closest hospital for this proposed aged care facility is Frenchs Forest - a 30 minute drive/ambulance ride away. The street/building is built on a sandy ismus, the construction work will impact the local streets and buildings surrounding the development and the streets themselves will move due to the fact that they are built on sand.

Aged Care facility classification
This proposal is marketed as a seniors living facility, yet only has one proposed assisted living room, whilst the others are all 2-3bed room units. If this was truly built for purpose, there would be more assisted living rooms and 1-2bedroom units proposed, elderly people generally live as a couple or single and don’t require the amount of 2-3bedroom units proposed. At an estimated cost of over 3M per unit this development seems to be more focused on getting as much money as possible given the location rather than providing true aged care facilities.

Demand
There is already a huge demand for units on the northern beaches - with a studio apartment (no actual bedroom) recently selling for 1.3M - you can see there is demand. However there is also need for REAL seniors living, our elderly can not afford $3M per unit. If this proposal is truly about providing housing and support for our elderly, cap the price on each unit in accordance with your own state government housing guides, ensure that any age 60+ rules are enforceable - ie no one under 60 can live on the property - how can this be enforced? Ensure that owners must meet the requirements for medical housing assistance - eg they have a chronic medical condition that requires nursing care - either in independent units or partial and fully assisted living.

In summary please consider the huge impact this proposal will have on the residents and neighbors of this development and the greater Narrabeen area. Please consider the increased, traffic, parking issues, height incompatibility, purpose and design and reject this proposal.

Thank you

Nichole

I strongly object to the project.
The proposal is a gross overdevelopment in accordance with the current zoning of the site, under Warring LEP 2011.
The height of buildings under this zone is limited to 3 storeys, whereas the proposal is for 6 storeys.
The proposal would result in overshadowing and visual intrusion.
The number of proposed parking spaces would lead to increased traffic congestion, and reduced pedestrian safety.
There is no genuine affordable housing for the elderly under this proposal. The proposed apartments are primarily of a premium nature, comprising 2/3 bedrooms, with asking prices said to be in the order of $2 million to $3 million.
The proposal appears to be using SSD NSW to enhance their development profit, and to circumvent the more appropriate development guidelines of the Northern Beaches Council, as set down in the Warringah LEP.
The scale of the proposal is considered totally unreasonable. It will detrimentally affect the local amenity and the dynamics of the Narrabeen community, whilst it will likely impact on the nesting of both the endangered Ospreys and Sea Eagles.

This project is totally out of sync with the area it is being proposed to be built.
We have been unable to view all specifications because we are not considering purchasing so therefore feel it is being pushed under the “guise” os State significant.
A 6 level structure will dominate the area and dwarf other ‘blended’ developments which have always been in unison with the suburb, it’s amenities, it’s traffic and pedestrian flows and no prior constructions have been intended to dominate the landscape as this development will.
It will become a dominating intrusion into the suburb and its surrounds.
Traffic will become a real issue in what is already a dangerous “through” traffic area for the beaches and put at risk the ability of the community to move around safely and live in an area free from the risks associated with over development in suburbs such as Dee Why.
This sort of development should remain in the area where they have been planned previously and NOT thrust upon quiet suburban beachside areas with NO community consultation.
I cannot object strongly enough to the absolute absurdity of this ridiculous intrusion into an area totally unsuited and planned to cope with the size and scope of this development

Build it

I am writing to formally object the proposal on the basis that the proposed five-storey building is out of scale with the existing and historical built form of the area, and raises serious concerns about precedent, amenity, neighbourhood character and cumulative impacts.

1. Out of scale with existing built form and neighbourhood character
The Proposal seeks to replace a current two‐storey building with a five‐storey seniors living development. In contrast, the prevailing building heights in the locality of Narrabeen – especially along Ocean Street and surrounding mid-rise zones – are predominantly two to three storeys. A five‐storey building would markedly exceed the scale, creating a visually dominant form inconsistent with the character of the area.

Such a jump from two to five storeys would cause the building to dominate the streetscape and interrupt the relatively low-rise rhythm of Ocean Street, cast overshadowing to neighbouring properties and to the public domain (footpath, street, open space) and would increase visual bulk and massing, reducing vistas and openness that currently exist.

2. Precedent risk for other developments
Allowing a five‐storey development in this zone will inevitably establish a precedent that encourages other developments to seek similar heights. Once a five‐storey building is approved, it becomes very difficult to resist future applications seeking the same height or higher. This could lead to a gradual erosion of the low/medium-rise scale of Narrabeen, with attendant loss of character, amenity and sense of place.
3. Amenity impacts on neighbours and public domain
With increased height come increased impacts on:
- Overlooking: A five-storey building may allow line-of-sight to neighbouring private open spaces and living rooms that are not currently exposed under two or three storey development.
- Shadowing: Increased height and bulk may cast longer shadows onto adjacent dwellings, gardens, and perhaps nearby public open spaces, reducing sunlight and passive solar access.
- Bulk and scale: The visual intrusion of a large mass of five storeys may reduce the sense of openness of the street, increase wind impacts, reduce sky views and impact the human scale of the footpath/street interface.
4. Cumulative effect and future intensification
Approving this one large building may trigger a step change in density and scale in Narrabeen, encouraging further mid-rise and high‐rise developments. Over time, the cumulative effect will be a much denser, taller built environment than envisaged in the local context. This may place additional pressure on local infrastructure (traffic, parking, public domain, services) and change the character of the suburb irreversibly.

For the reasons above I urge the Department to refuse this Proposal or require significant scale reduction (both in storeys and building mass) and appropriate design refinement to ensure compatibility with the existing neighbourhood context of Narrabeen.

Please see attached submission.
The crux of which is that the proposal cannot reasonably be considered State Significant Development. The application does not meet the capital investment threshold, fails to deliver diverse or affordable housing outcomes, and is inconsistent with the objects of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and the Housing SEPP 2021.
The development represents an overdevelopment of the site, with unacceptable environmental and social impacts. It should be refused and redirected for assessment at the local level where appropriate scrutiny and community engagement can occur.

I strongly object to the Indigo by Moran project in Narrabeen. Due to the following factors:
1. The proposed 5-6 storey building height far exceeds that of neighbouring properties. This combined with the sheer size of the development is not in keeping with the local character of the suburb.
2. The low percentage of high care beds proposed will not adequately serve the local communities needs.

It’s too high

I object the proposal for 156 Ocean St Narrabeen for the following reasons:
As it reduces the number of Aged Care Beds available by comparison the previous use of the site it is not a project of state signifcance but rather case of degrading the state's Aged Care capabilities.
The Proposal is completely out or scale and character with the neighbourhood, and the entire area north of Collaroy, and offers the community no positive benefit at all.
it fails to provide anywhere near enough parking for the number of units proposed. In an area where parking on the street is always a[ problem and almost impossible on summer beach-weather days this proposal will cause massive parking headaches for the residents of the entire Narrabeen penisula and the residents of the proposal.
Regarding the trees their proposal claims to care so much about: the proposal is to remove at least two mature Norfolk Island Pines and the proposed building is so close to, and overbearing of, the existing 5 Norfolk Island Pine on Ocean st, depriving the trees of all western sunshine, it seems doubtful they will survive which again will be a loss to the community.

Formal Objection to Development Application: Proposed Seniors Housing Redevelopment
To: Department of Planning, Housing, and Infrastructure
Attention: Development Assessment Team
Subject: Objection to Proposed Seniors Housing Redevelopment — [Indigo by Moran Seniors Living, 156 Ocean Street, Narrabeen (SSD-76220734)
Dear Sir/Madam,
I am writing to formally object to the proposed development described as the “Demolition of existing seniors housing and adjacent residential dwellings and construction of a new 5–6-storey seniors housing development” comprising 149 independent living units, 10 residential care beds, and associated amenities and basement parking.
While I appreciate the need for appropriate aged care housing in our community, the scale and form of this proposal raise serious concerns regarding amenity, character, and local environmental impact.
1. Scale, Density, and Built Form
The proposed 5 to 6 storey structure significantly exceeds the predominant building height and scale of the surrounding area, which is characterised mainly by 1–2 storey residential dwellings. The bulk and massing of the building:
• Will create an overbearing presence inconsistent with the established suburban context.
• Detracts from local visual character and streetscape continuity.
• Risks setting a precedent for future overdevelopment in a low rise residential precinct.
A more modest, tiered design would better integrate with existing streetscapes and maintain neighbourhood identity.
2. Traffic, Parking, and Safety Concerns
Although 192 basement spaces are proposed, the introduction of nearly 160 accommodation units and extensive amenity spaces will materially increase local traffic volumes, particularly at peak times.
Concerns include:
• Congestion at nearby intersections and access points.
• Visitor parking under provision (7 spaces for 149 units is inadequate).
• Potential hazards for pedestrians, including residents with mobility challenges.
• Cumulative impacts on local streets already constrained by on street parking demand.
A traffic management plan and independent review of the TIA (Traffic Impact Assessment) should be required and is inadequately reported in the EIS.
3. Amenity Impacts on Neighbours
The proposed height and proximity to property boundaries will generate adverse overshadowing, loss of privacy, and view obstruction for adjoining dwellings.
Morning and afternoon sunlight to private open spaces and gardens will be reduced.
Balconies and common areas located close to boundaries raise legitimate privacy concerns.
I have major concerns the proposed development actually encroaches closer to all houses left of the block, and especially those on the Loftus St (Southern end). Amenity to grounds has been maximised for the development, with utter disregard to local neighbours, many of which have been there for considerable years.
The ramp to the garage has been moved closed to a neighbour on Lagoon St. At 192 carparks this ramp will be like living on a main road with cars coming and going and especially at peak times.
4. Environmental and Acoustic Implications
• Demolition and excavation for a three level basement will create prolonged noise, dust, and vibration impacting surrounding homes for an extended period.
• Increased hard surfaces and building footprint may exacerbate local stormwater and drainage pressures.
• Vehicle ramps and plant equipment within the basement may cause ongoing acoustic disturbance to nearby residences.
• I have estimated that there could be as many as 160 bins in use for the development’s garbage and recyclables. Where will they be stored? Where will they be placed every Friday? This form of rubbish collection is an absolute failure in Dee Why. We must learn from prior mistakes in correctly designated high-rise suburbs.
• Probable penetration of a natural water table that exist between the sae and the lake, and only 15 metres below the surface. We know this as we have a bore at property that operates at 15 metres. This penetration will also likely result in a contaminated and potentially unusable water table into the future.
5. Inconsistency with the Local Planning Controls
The proposal does not satisfy planning objectives relating to neighbourhood character, transition of built form, or protection of residential amenity.

The “seniors housing” justification does not automatically override fundamental planning incompatibilities. Neither does adding the words a “strategic significant” development. If this is a way to step around community rights and involvement, I strongly recommend the government reconsiders the approach.
In this case, by failing once to have the development passed, and trying to have it restated with out correct public consultation, shows a serious misunderstanding of the local community feeling around this project.
6. Quality of Life and Suitability for Residents
While the inclusion of lifestyle facilities (pool, sauna, cinema, wine room, rooftop pavilion, etc.) may enhance marketability, the overall density and vertical design are atypical for seniors living. It compromises ease of access, exposure to green space, and social interaction opportunities compared with smaller-scale, community integrated models.
Initial indications from Moran are the base model unit will be valued at $3million. This is hardly a senior’s living compatible investment. At this value and presumably more for larger investments this is a significant profit-making exercise by the developers. We can all do the math, and good profit can still be made at 2-3 stories. I also note that to make this submission I have had to make a political donation declaration. Have the developers also declared their position on this?
7. Cumulative and Precedent Effects
Approval of a project of this scale would set a precedent for large scale redevelopment that is inconsistent with the local planning vision and community expectations.
This risks fundamentally altering the residential character of the area and eroding the zoning’s intended purpose.
Environmental Impact Statement - Analysis
Also, I have taken the time to read and analyse the “Environmental Impact Statement” (EIS). I was surprised to find very little that states a negative impact, so I have decided to point out some key environmental weaknesses. Same information, interpreted through perhaps a more negative lens:
Environmental weaknesses summary
Based on the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) dated 2 Oct 2025 and its appendices (Planning Studio; various technical reports), the following risks and residual weaknesses are identified with emphasis on biophysical environment, construction impacts, urban ecology, coastal context, and neighbourhood amenity. It is unfortunate that the character count will not allow me to fully elucidate the scale of the EIS issues.
Bottom line
The EIS is comprehensive and proposes standard to better-practice mitigations. However, environmental weaknesses remain around the scale of vegetation clearance and ecological function loss, excavation-related groundwater/ASS risks, coastal catchment sensitivities, and construction-phase amenity and pollution controls —particularly in a sensitive coastal suburb—are non-trivial.
Conclusion
For the reasons outlined—namely the proposal’s excessive height and density, adverse traffic and amenity impacts, poor contextual fit, and questionable alignment with local planning controls, EIS weaknesses, particularly probable penetration of the water table —I respectfully request that Council refuse or require substantial modification of the application.
A redesigned, lower scale development could still meet aged care objectives while maintaining the character, safety, and amenity of the existing neighbourhood.
Thank you for considering this submission.
Yours faithfully,
Michael Van Lathum
Unit 1, 12 Loftus Street
Narrabeen, NSW, 2101
5 November 2025

Email: [email protected]
Mob: 0414 795 029

I am strongly opposed to the proposed development for the following reasons.

Firstly, 14 days to raise concerns is completely biased towards the developer & unfair to residents! The NSW government is very short sighted if you don’t think we won’t remember this next election. But I suppose you don’t really care about losing your jobs? Just keep ticking those boxes!

As an Elanora resident I know how much traffic strain there presently is in this area of the Northern Beaches.

The current road infrastructure is already totally inadequate, particularly Pittwater & Powderworks Road, Mona Vale Road and Wakehurst Parkway. A further population increase as set out in this the proposal will only negatively impact even further the strained capacity of the ‘main’ roads aforementioned. Much has been promised over the years about upgrades of these roads only for those projects to be abandoned and still traffic flow continues to deteriorate year on year.

This already challenging situation would only be exacerbated during the development and construction phases of the proposed project and then continue when residents move in. It is not just those residents but also compounded by further additional traffic from those visiting the residents. Public transport is currently completely inadequate. The B1 bus service is already unable to cope with the number of commuters trying to use this service. To add more population to an area where the services provided cannot meet the current demand makes absolutely no sense.

It is obvious that Moran are aimed at providing higher end units (hence making more money). Where are the benefits to our aging community given the minimal aged care provisions. Looks like only the wealthy will be be to buy in Indigo?

The height of the development is not in keeping with the area. It basically represents overdevelopment with no set backs.

The extremely small number of visitor parking spaces is completely inadequate. This will lead to more parking issues for the local area which is already stretched.

The Northern Beaches Hospital capacity and capability has been the subject of much media coverage. To increase the residential population in the area can only place further strain on an already stretched medical facility that struggles to cope with its current load.

The current stormwater and sewage infrastructure already struggles to cope as has been evidenced during multiple heavy rain events. To add more residential developments to infrastructure that is unable to cope is counterintuitive and potentially puts property and infrastructure at risk.

We understand there is a need for more housing but this development is not the way forward.

These are just some my concerns and part of the basis for my strong objection to the proposed development.

This project will further develop narrabeen, where there is already a lack of parking and very little trees. By adding a 6 story development further strain on the people and environment would incur. It will be an eye sore and negative for the whole narrabeen community.

I lived in near the proposed development site for 20 years and still live close by. I strongly object to the project. The proposed six-storey development represents a significant and unacceptable departure from the established planning, environmental, and social character of Narrabeen. While I support well-considered and appropriate development, this project fails to demonstrate compatibility with the local context, does not include adequate infrastructure capacity, and is not aligned with broader strategic planning objectives. I have outlined below nine key reasons why the proposal should be rejected.

1. Inconsistency with Established Character
The proposed building’s height, bulk, and architectural form are entirely out of scale with the surrounding low-rise environment. Narrabeen’s built character is defined by modest residential structures that integrate with the coastal and lagoon setting. Introducing a six-storey luxury complex into this context would fundamentally alter the area’s visual identity, overwhelm existing streetscapes, and place strain on infrastructure designed for smaller-scale residential use.

2. Inadequate Parking Provision and Traffic Implications
The inclusion of only 178 parking spaces for a development of this magnitude is grossly insufficient. Given the prevalence of multi-vehicle households in two- and three-bedroom apartments, along with the need to accommodate visitors, staff, and service vehicles, parking shortfalls are inevitable. Traffic congestion along Lagoon and Ocean Streets is already acute (and made worse on a seasonal basis with influxes of visitors to the local caravan park as well as regular council activity maintaining the lagoon) and this project would exacerbate existing safety and amenity issues.
 There are high numbers of pedestrians and recent focus has been on reducing traffic speed and volumes. This proposal is antithetical to those efforts. It is imperative that an independent traffic and parking assessment be commissioned by the NSW Government, rather than relying solely on the developer’s consultants, to ensure an objective and transparent evaluation of the traffic impacts. This assessment must be done at appropriate times to illustrate actual traffic volumes, not at “cherry picked” low traffic times that provide artificial results.

3. Loss of Aged Care and Assisted Living Capacity
The current facility provides 55 aged care beds and 35 assisted living units. The proposed redevelopment reduces this to a 10-bed facility, representing a dramatic loss of essential aged care capacity on the Northern Beaches. Such a reduction cannot reasonably be regarded as a like-for-like replacement or a continuation of existing services. It undermines the long-term availability of aged care accommodation at a time when community demand for these services continues to grow. It is apparent that this facility is about making money rather than caring for our local elderly and ageing population.

4. Misuse of Planning Provisions
There appears to be a deliberate exploitation of the Seniors Housing SEPP to facilitate approval of a project that does not meet the policy’s intent. The State Government has recently clearly identified appropriate precincts for high-density development—Brookvale, Dee Why, Mona Vale, Manly Vale, and Forestville—where the necessary infrastructure and urban context already exist. 
A six-storey luxury development on Lagoon Street does not belong in a low-rise coastal neighbourhood such as Narrabeen and is inconsistent with the SEPP’s strategic objectives.

5. Unacceptable Planning Precedent
Approving this application would set a highly undesirable precedent, effectively opening the door for other developers to circumvent planning controls through selective use of the Seniors Housing provisions. This would risk a gradual erosion of Narrabeen’s character and encourage inappropriate intensification in areas not designed to support it. High-density development should be confined to designated centres, not imposed within established residential neighbourhoods. Developers seek to capitalise on the area’s natural beauty and existing character to maximise their returns while destroying that very beauty and character in the process.

6. Deficient Community Consultation
The consultation process has been inadequate and cannot in any way be considered genuine community engagement. Public information sessions were poorly advertised, scheduled during business hours, and structured in ways that limited meaningful participation. For a proposal of this scale and potential impact, such token consultation falls far short of acceptable standards for transparency and inclusion. In addition, the developer has been using its mailing list to lobby for support for this proposal. This mismatch between the budget and advertising muscle of the developer against the individual residents seeking to ensure local development is appropriate must be acknowledged and managed.

7. Absence of Affordable Housing
Despite growing local need, the proposal offers no affordable or accessible housing component. A development of this size presents a clear opportunity to deliver social benefit through inclusionary housing measures, yet this has been disregarded. The project fails to respond to community priorities or broader housing policy objectives.

8. Environmental and Water Table Risks
The excavation required for a three-level basement car park poses serious risks to the local water table and the structural stability of nearby properties. The area’s hydrology is sensitive, and inadequate assessment of these impacts could result in long-term environmental and engineering problems.

9. Removal of Vegetation and Habitat Loss
The proposal involves the removal of mature trees and vegetation that contribute to local biodiversity and amenity. This is inconsistent with current environmental protection principles and will diminish habitat for native species, further degrading the ecological character of the area.

Conclusion: Community Position and Conclusion
Local residents are not opposed to responsible development. The community supports projects that are moderate in scale, environmentally responsible, and respectful of Narrabeen’s established character and infrastructure limits. This proposal does not meet those criteria.

Approving it would compromise the integrity of the planning framework and erode public confidence in the decision-making process. The project warrants serious reconsideration and refusal on planning, environmental, and social grounds.

I trust that the Panel’s assessment will be guided by principles of integrity, transparency, and alignment with community values—and that this proposal will be rejected accordingly.

The proposed development currently sits in zoning of R3 with a max permissible height of 8.5m, with an addition 3.8m over the max permissible height (bonus clause 87 of housing SEPP) bringing this to a total of 12.3m.
The variation clause 4.6 at add an additional height to a combined total of 19.3m is excessive.

Appendix 37 - Visual Impact Assessment is subjective.
- Location 02 / 04 / 06 / 07 all indicate that the magnitude as moderate and the visual impact as low. Further weight and consideration as to how the merits of the visual impact assessment are determined.

Appendix 38 - Demolition & Construction Waste Management Plan. This has not been prepared by a suitably qualified consultant. UFD are food preparation and services consultants, not experienced to provide commentary on construction waste management. Also the calculations of their assessment need to be reviewed.

In the context of the significance of the project - is a 14 day notification period sufficient? Generally aren't SSDAs subject to a 30day notification period?

Appendix 36 - View Loss Study. I question why this is taken at a RL19.894 (ie above the power lines running down Ocean street. Shouldn't the view loss be taken from ground level? Also why was there no view loss studies carried out on Octavia, Lagoon and Loftus St?

Appendix 12 - Clause 4.6 Variation Request. The very last bullet point in the conclusion notes 'Therefore compliance with the development standard is unreasonable and unneccessary in the circumstance of this proposal'. In the context of the proposed development compliance with development standard is reasonable and neccessary. If developments are allowed to proceed with little regard to development standards then poor planning decisions will be made. Incorporating language of this tone is offensive to planning controls.

In reference to traffic - Ocean st is currently zoned 50km. The addition of the nominated 192 cars for the units will add further congestion to the area.

If this proposal is endorsed by the state government, it will set a precedent for future development. As a resident driving down Ocean st, and seeing 6 storey developments on the western / northern side of Ocean street will be a real shame and a blight on the neighbourhood.

To: NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure
Re: Submission on SSD-76220734 – Indigo by Moran, 156 Ocean Street, Narrabeen.

Dear Sir/Madam,

I write on behalf of the residents (including my family and friends who live on Ocean Street) and stakeholders of the Pittwater electorate and the Northern Beaches, to object to the proposed development of Indigo by Moran.

While I recognise the demand for appropriate seniors housing within our community, the current design and scale of this proposal are not acceptable and should be significantly amended. The objection is structured below with reference to relevant issues and asks for corrective actions.

Issue

1. The Northern Beaches community is experiencing demographic ageing and there is indeed a requirement for more seniors housing. This proposal is therefore not objectionable in principle.
2. However, the current scheme is out of character with the surrounding area: the proposed five storeys to be constructed, significant bulk and height fail to respect local scale and context. The documentation notes that the proposed height (approximately 21.1 m) seeks to exceed a local height limit of 12.3 m by about 70%.
3. The local road network, already under pressure, cannot sustain the additional traffic load the development will bring. The site will generate substantial vehicle movements, including independent living units, resident vehicles, staff and service vehicles.
4. The proposed height and massing will dominate the streetscape, impact views, and set an undesirable precedent for further large-scale development in the Pittwater and Northern Beaches region.
5. The amenity of existing residents surrounding the development will be adversely impacted through overshadowing, loss of privacy and overpowering scale.

⸻

Relevant Standards / Context

- The Planning Portal records this as a “State Significant Development” application.
- The local height limit for the site is 12.3 m, yet the application seeks to reach roughly 21.1 m.
- The community consultation period was limited, and there are concerns residents were unable to scrutinise the full 2,100-page documentation comfortably.
- The site is in Narrabeen, one street back from the beach, in a context of low to mid density development.

⸻

Application of Issues to Facts

While the demand for seniors housing is acknowledged, the development must still integrate sensitively into the local environment. The proposed number of storeys is well above the local height and scale norms, compromising streetscape and view corridors.

The existing local infrastructure, especially roads servicing Narrabeen and the wider Northern Beaches, is already under strain from growth. A large development of this nature will exacerbate traffic congestion, parking pressures and servicing demands unless significant upgrades accompany it, which are not clearly provided for.

By permitting such a large and tall development here, a precedent is set for similar high-density schemes, eroding the character of the area and undermining community expectations of scale.

The combination of high-end independent living units, extensive amenities (cinema, rooftop terrace, heated pool etc) in a multi storey form suggests a luxury scale rather than a modest seniors housing model aligned with community-need and context.

⸻

Requested Outcomes / Conditions

1. The building height must be reduced substantially so that it aligns with the local height control of 12.3 m or at most only modestly above it, for example a three to four storey outcome rather than five.
2. The bulk and massing should be stepped back, especially on the Ocean Street frontage and towards neighbouring lower scale dwellings, to lessen visual impact and better integrate with the local built form.
3. Adequate traffic, parking and servicing studies must be submitted, with identified works to upgrade the road network and mitigate the impact of increased vehicle movements.
4. A revised amenity and landscaping plan should preserve key view corridors, minimise overshadowing and respect the Norfolk Pine trees referenced in the development documents.
5. The developer should provide evidence of genuine community consultation, and the decision-making process should allow adequate time and access to documentation for residents to make informed submissions.
6. Any approval should attach binding conditions that tie allowable height and storey count, visual bulk, traffic load, parking and infrastructure upgrades to consent, so that future changes do not likewise escalate.

⸻

Conclusion
In summary, the principle of providing increased seniors housing in the Northern Beaches is supported. However, the current design for Indigo by Moran fails to respect local height controls, neighbourhood character, and infrastructure capacity. Accordingly, the application should either be refused or redesigned substantially to reduce height and bulk, ensure infrastructure can cope, and align with the community’s expectations for scale and amenity.

Thank you for your attention to this submission.

This area of Narrabeen is situated in a low rise are between the beach and the lake. It is iconic in this regard. Al recent developments have been kept within the local Development Control Plan height of 8.5metres. During the 1970's, a time with little control on development, some higher unit blocks were built. My concerns within this development are as follows:
1. It is very out of character for the area.
2. This proposed project fronts three streets, therefore, it would be very dominant.
3. The height greatly exceeds the current DCP.
4. The street set backs especially on Lagoon Street are far too small even for a two storey development.

There is nothing wrong with development as long it is the right development for the area or suburb in which it will be built. This project is certainly not suitable to this area and will have a negative effect on the amenity for those living and visiting the area. All areas or suburbs are not the same and according there should not be a blanket development plan for all areas

We all like options or choices in life and one is being able to live in or visit this iconic area. Allowing this project will change the area and there will be no turning back.

I support the project as submitted. Thank you.

The Northern Beaches is full of elderly people, my brother in law calls it "the retirement home' when he comes to visit from the inner west. However, it seems there are no options for retirees to downsize into low maintenance, seniors living homes that allow them to remain close to family, friends, and essential services.

Without available seniors housing, many, including a good portion of my friends parents, remain in their long occupied family homes, therefore reducing availability of suitable homes for younger families to grow and move into. I've personally tried to find suitable accommodation for my parents near my home and there is almost nothing in the Northern Beaches. Almost all the places we look at to try to buy to upgrade into, are tired old buildings, out of maintenance, that very very elderly people are moving out of directly into nursing homes as they are too old to live at home any more. If they were able to move into seniors developments like this one - more families would have more options, as elderly locals would be able to move somewhere more suitable to them before they become too incapacitated to manage.

The project looks large but they have kept the big pine trees on Ocean St, and the design looks nice. I think the area needs more development like this. It looks a lot nicer than most of the ugly developments I see around Sydney.

No doubt the angry locals will complain because they all want to keep everything low rise because they are worried about their unearned baby boomer property prices. That's their right but no doubt they will all want to stay in the area when they get old.... If no more young people can afford to move into the area - they will be asking carers and families to travel from a long way away to look after them!!

I support this project.