Indigo By Moran - 156 Ocean Street Narrabeen

The NSW Government has released the detail on the planning reforms that will apply to people living within 800m of 171 town centres and train or light rail stations across metropolitan Sydney, the Central Coast, Illawarra-Shoalhaven and Hunter regions. Here’s what you need to know.
Objection to Proposed Development – Over 55s Housing (5 Storeys, 3 Basement Levels, Height 21.1m)

1. Inconsistent with Surrounding Character and Built Form

The proposed development is grossly inconsistent with the prevailing character of the surrounding area, which is defined by:
• Single and two-storey residential dwellings, and
• Low-rise residential flat buildings of two to three storeys
A five-storey building with three basement levels introduces an inappropriate level of intensity, bulk and scale that is out of context with the established built environment. The height, form, and massing are inconsistent with the pattern of development in the locality and detract from the visual harmony and human scale of the streetscape
This proposal will dominate its surroundings, disrupt the visual transition between buildings, and erode the established residential character contrary to the planning objectives for the zone

2. Non-Compliance with Height Controls

The proposed height of 21.1 metres exceeds the permissible height limit by 8.8 metres, even after accounting for the increase allowed under the State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004.
Such a substantial variation:
• Represents an unjustifiable breach of planning controls,
• Results in significant visual intrusion and view loss, and
• Undermines the integrity of the local planning framework
The excessive height produces unreasonable overshadowing, bulk, and scale, inconsistent with the height objectives of the Local Environmental Plan (LEP) and Development Control Plan (DCP), which seek to ensure new development is compatible with its context and protects neighbouring amenity

3. View Loss for Neighbours and Public Areas

The development will cause substantial view loss to neighbouring residents and members of the public.
Specifically:
• The height and bulk of the proposal will obstruct existing private views to key vistas and landscapes.
• The building will impede public view corridors available from streets and nearby open spaces
• The photomontages provided by the applicant are misleading, as they fail to accurately depict the relationship between the proposed height (RLs) and existing neighbouring dwellings, incorrectly suggesting that a 21m building is similar in height to a 6m two-storey dwelling
This misrepresentation of scale and visual impact significantly underplays the true extent of view obstruction the proposal will cause.

4. Inadequate Setbacks and Failure to Provide Height Transition

The proposal incorporates inadequate side and rear setbacks, which:
• Exacerbate the perception of bulk and massing,
• Fail to provide an appropriate transition in scale to neighbouring lower-density dwellings, and
• Lead to unreasonable amenity impacts (visual dominance, overshadowing, and privacy loss)
There has been no attempt to step the building or articulate façades to reduce perceived bulk and scale. This approach results in a monolithic structure that dominates its surroundings rather than integrating sensitively with them

5. Removal of Significant Vegetation

The proposal involves the removal of a large number of established and significant trees, some of which may hold heritage or ecological value.
This loss:
• Erodes the landscape character and natural setting of the area,
Removes valuable habitat and urban canopy, and
• Eliminates screening vegetation that currently softens the visual impact of built form
The unnecessary extent of tree removal demonstrates poor site planning and disregard for the environmental and aesthetic value of existing vegetation

6. Adverse Microclimatic Impacts (Wind and Heat)

The development’s excessive bulk and placement will alter local airflows, resulting in:
• Reduced natural ventilation for surrounding dwellings,
• The elimination of prevailing breezes that currently mitigate summer heat, and
• A stagnant microclimate likely to exacerbate urban heat island effects
These impacts will diminish residential amenity for neighbouring properties and reduce environmental sustainability outcomes for the locality
7. Insufficient Car Parking and Traffic Impacts

The proposal includes inadequate parking provision for both residents and staff, contrary to the requirements of the SEPP and Council’s DCP.
This shortfall will
• Force overflow parking onto surrounding residential streets,
• Exacerbate existing parking scarcity, and
• Increase traffic congestion and safety risks on local roads not designed to accommodate higher volumes
The proposed three basement levels may also result in construction disturbance, noise, and traffic management issues over an extended period
8. Overdevelopment and Over-Intensification of the Site

The proposal represents a clear overdevelopment of the site, with a density, height, and scale far exceeding what is suitable for the locality.
The development
• Fails to respond to the site constraints,
• Over-intensifies the use under the guise of “Over 55s housing”, and
• Does not deliver genuine benefits or design excellence that would justify such an excessive variation
Rather than enhancing housing diversity, the proposal compromises residential amenity, environmental quality, and visual character
9. Cumulative and Precedent Impacts

Approval of this proposal would create a highly undesirable precedent, encouraging other developers to seek similar non-compliances in height, bulk, and scale.
Over time, this would erode the established low-density character of the locality and diminish the visual and environmental quality of the broader area
10. LMR Stage 2-2025
On the Northern Beaches, the new State Government LMR controls apply to all residential zoned land within 800 metres walking distance of:
• 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
Following Northern Beaches Council submissions, four town centres that had originally been proposed to be included in the Stage 2 Reforms have been excluded: Warriewood, Narrabeen, Newport and Belrose.
The zones were excluded after significant community consultation and objections over the density and height changes in these four areas which was ultimately accepted by the State demonstrating acceptance of the submissions including that Narrabeen should not be part of the Stage 2 Reforms. The reforms introduced increased heights for developments up to 21 metres.
The application by Moran seeks to impose on Narrabeen a development at heights that are available under the Stage 2 Reforms where this area has been excluded from the Stage 2 Reforms. It is not appropriate to permit a 5 level development that will be almost double the permissible height for buildings in the area. It seeks an unfair advantage and a use that is significantly beyond that available to others in the community.
11. Lack of consultation
As a nearby resident I have received no notice of the development by correspondence or letter drop which brings into question the effectiveness of the public consultation.
The Development Application should not be considered until the State is satisfied there has been adequate and appropriate consultation and everyone that will be affected by the development has been consulted, has had an opportunity to make submissions after understanding the nature of the proposed development and have had the opportunity to object to the development.
12. Conclusion

In summary, the proposed Over 55s development is:
• Excessively tall and bulky,
• Inconsistent with the existing and desired character of the area,
• Non-compliant with height and setback controls,
• Environmentally destructive, and
• Likely to generate significant amenity and traffic impacts
The application represents an over-intensification of the site and should therefore be refused.

If the State is minded to consider approval, the proposal must be significantly redesigned to:
• Comply with the maximum height and setback controls,
• Retain significant vegetation,
• Reduce visual and environmental impacts, and
• Provide adequate parking and genuine height transitions to adjoining properties.

SUBJECT: STRONGLY OBJECT TO STATE SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT (SSD-76220734) – INDIGO BY MORAN SENIORS HOUSING AT 156 OCEAN STREET, NARRABEEN
Dear Secretary,
I am writing as a permanent resident and property owner to formally and strongly object to the proposed Seniors Housing development at 156 Ocean Street, Narrabeen (SSD-76220734).
I oppose this development on the grounds that its unprecedented size and FSR are unsuitable for this sensitive coastal site, and it will result in demonstrable, negative planning impacts, particularly concerning overshadowing, privacy, and infrastructure strain on the immediate locality.
My submission is based on my status as an immediate neighbour, residing at 143 Ocean Street, Narrabeen. My property is directly across Ocean Street, with clear, unobstructed views to the site, meaning I will be one of the most directly affected residents.
I reside at 143 Ocean Street, Narrabeen. The proposed development site at 156 Ocean Street is situated immediately across the road to the North/North-West of my residence. This makes my property acutely vulnerable to the impacts of a high-rise structure, particularly in relation to solar access and privacy.
The current built form in this immediate vicinity is dominated by low-rise residential houses (like my own) and two-to-three storey residential flat buildings that respect the local height limits. This proposal completely disregards this established streetscape.
GROUNDS FOR OBJECTION
1. Loss of Solar Access and Overshadowing
Given the North/North-West orientation of the development site to my property, the sheer bulk and proposed height of the structure will cause significant and unreasonable overshadowing of my home and outdoor recreational areas.
• Breach of Amenity: I request the Department's assessors rigorously scrutinise the shadow diagrams. I anticipate that the proposed height will directly violate the solar access provisions of the relevant planning controls, particularly the requirements for sunlight to primary private open spaces and living areas.
• Adverse Impact: The loss of significant morning and mid-day sunlight to my garden, deck, and primary living room will severely diminish the residential amenity and thermal comfort of my family home, which currently benefits from excellent northern solar access. This is a direct, negative environmental impact that cannot be reasonably mitigated.
2. Visual Bulk, Privacy, and Character Disruption
The development's scale is inconsistent with the local planning instruments and directly compromises the privacy of my home.
• Visual Intrusiveness: The proposed building is of an entirely inappropriate bulk and height for this location. It will loom over Ocean Street, presenting a monolithic, urban form that is completely foreign to this coastal residential strip and will detrimentally impact the currently open, lower-scale feel of the area.
• Privacy Breach: Given my property's direct, close proximity, I object to the significant number of balconies, windows, and communal areas (e.g., rooftop facilities) that will have direct, unimpeded sight lines into my private yard, living areas, and bedrooms. This constitutes an unacceptable loss of privacy that no amount of screening will fully resolve due to the height difference.
3. Traffic and Infrastructure Saturation
The existing infrastructure on Ocean Street is inadequate to support the intensive use proposed by this State Significant Development.
• Parking Overload: I am concerned that the visitor and staff parking provisions will be insufficient. This development is only providing 178 car parking spots for 149 two & three bedroom apartments plus staff and visitor parking. The increased demand for on-street parking will exacerbate existing congestion and severely impact resident and visitor access, particularly during beach season, directly outside my property.
• Pedestrian Safety: The vast increase in vehicle movements, combined with the number of elderly residents, will create a hazardous situation for pedestrians, particularly children accessing the beach or locals moving along this section of Ocean Street.

4. Inconsistent with Surrounding Character and Built Form

The proposed development is grossly inconsistent with the prevailing character of the surrounding area, which is defined by:
• Single and two-storey residential dwellings, and
• Low-rise residential flat buildings of two to three storeys

A five-storey building with three basement levels introduces an inappropriate level of intensity, bulk and scale that is out of context with the established built environment. The height, form, and massing are inconsistent with the pattern of development in the locality and detract from the visual harmony and human scale of the streetscape

This proposal will dominate its surroundings, disrupt the visual transition between buildings, and erode the established residential character contrary to the planning objectives for the zone
5. Non-Compliance with Height Controls

The proposed height of 21.1 metres exceeds the permissible height limit by 8.8 metres, even after accounting for the increase allowed under the State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004.

Such a substantial variation:
• Represents an unjustifiable breach of planning controls,
• Results in significant visual intrusion and view loss, and
• Undermines the integrity of the local planning framework
The excessive height produces unreasonable overshadowing, bulk, and scale, inconsistent with the height objectives of the Local Environmental Plan (LEP) and Development Control Plan (DCP), which seek to ensure new development is compatible with its context and protects neighbouring amenity

6. View Loss for Neighbours and Public Areas

The development will cause substantial view loss to neighbouring residents and members of the public.

Specifically:
• The height and bulk of the proposal will obstruct existing private views to key vistas and landscapes.
• The building will impede public view corridors available from streets and nearby open spaces
• The photomontages provided by the applicant are misleading, as they fail to accurately depict the relationship between the proposed height (RLs) and existing neighbouring dwellings, incorrectly suggesting that a 21m building is similar in height to a 6m two-storey dwelling.

This misrepresentation of scale and visual impact significantly underplays the true extent of view obstruction the proposal will cause.

7. Inadequate Setbacks and Failure to Provide Height Transition

The proposal incorporates inadequate side and rear setbacks, which:
• Exacerbate the perception of bulk and massing,
• Fail to provide an appropriate transition in scale to neighbouring lower-density dwellings, and
• Lead to unreasonable amenity impacts (visual dominance, overshadowing, and privacy loss)

There has been no attempt to step the building or articulate façades to reduce perceived bulk and scale. This approach results in a monolithic structure that dominates its surroundings rather than integrating sensitively with them


8. Removal of Significant Vegetation

The proposal involves the removal of 30 established and significant trees, some of which may hold heritage or ecological value.

This loss:
• Erodes the landscape character and natural setting of the area,
Removes valuable habitat and urban canopy, and
• Eliminates screening vegetation that currently softens the visual impact of built form

The unnecessary extent of tree removal demonstrates poor site planning and disregard for the environmental and aesthetic value of existing vegetation

6. Adverse Microclimatic Impacts (Wind and Heat)

The development’s excessive bulk and placement will alter local airflows, resulting in:
• Reduced natural ventilation for surrounding dwellings,
• The elimination of prevailing breezes that currently mitigate summer heat, and
• A stagnant microclimate likely to exacerbate urban heat island effects

These impacts will diminish residential amenity for neighbouring properties and reduce environmental sustainability outcomes for the locality

9. Insufficient Car Parking and Traffic Impacts

The proposal includes inadequate parking provision for both residents and staff, contrary to the requirements of the SEPP and Council’s DCP.

This shortfall will
• Force overflow parking onto surrounding residential streets,
• Exacerbate existing parking scarcity, and
• Increase traffic congestion and safety risks on local roads not designed to accommodate higher volumes

The proposed three basement levels may also result in construction disturbance, noise, and traffic management issues over an extended period

10. Overdevelopment and Over-Intensification of the Site

The proposal represents a clear overdevelopment of the site, with a density, height, and scale far exceeding what is suitable for the locality.

The development
• Fails to respond to the site constraints,
• Over-intensifies the use under the guise of “Over 55s housing”, and
• Does not deliver genuine benefits or design excellence that would justify such an excessive variation

Rather than enhancing housing diversity, the proposal compromises residential amenity, environmental quality, and visual character

9. Cumulative and Precedent Impacts

Approval of this proposal would create a highly undesirable precedent, encouraging other developers to seek similar non-compliances in height, bulk, and scale.

Over time, this would erode the established low-density character of the locality and diminish the visual and environmental quality of the broader area

see attachement for remaining

This is a supplementary submission.
The attached photographs are taken at a viewpoint in Loftus Street Narrabeen.
It looks towards the proposed development showing pine trees at the front of the development site. The proposed development will have a height greater than the pine trees and be immediately adjacent to the pine trees. The development will totally obscure the view from Loftus street and dominant the landscape and is unreasonable and the application should be refused.the attached photos depict the view loss that will result and the entire area in the photograph up to and above the tree line will be obscured.

I object to the proposed project as it will not - in any way shape or form - meet local communities expectations due to its excessive bulk likely ruining locals quality of life - moreso to residents living in vicinity of the proposed project. It is not reasonable nor just and one would think this should far outweigh any arguments to the contrary - keep this place as aged care in current form but upgrade as required - obviously developer seeking a better return on their investment and current nsw government wants private developers to do the heavy lifting for them pushing through various projects ignoring common sense /public int - a lot of short term fixes and problems resulting by wrong decisions are tomorrow’s problems…. talk can be cheap and certainly is - good luck

I am writing to strongly object to the Indigo by Moran Seniors Living proposal as it stands. The 5–6 storey height is far too tall for our low-rise neighbourhood and will negatively impact traffic, parking, and the local character. I urge the Department to reduce the building height to no more than 2–3 storeys and lower the overall density to better fit our community. Narrabeen was never approved for buildings higher than 3 stories. The sand spit that is Narrabeen is coastal and needs to be given respect and not overpopulated and exploited. Thanks for your consideration of my views, Sarah Downes

This proposal is not within keeping of the residential area. It is too large at 6 storeys high. The infrastructure around the area is not at capacity for a such a proposal. We need to be attracting more families to the area with affordable housing not over 60’s living. Planning for this area should remain at no more that 2-3 storeys maximum. This proposal has very limited capacity for visitor parking. This is going to cause increased congestion along Ocean Street for the current residents. Moran is being greedy! They should have renovated Taylor Village as a wonderful aged care facility instead of money grabbing.

Submission – Objection to Indigo by Moran Development
156 Ocean Street, Narrabeen – SSD-76220734
Prepared by: Concerned Local Resident
1. Introduction
I wish to formally object to the proposed Indigo by Moran seniors housing development at 156
Ocean Street, Narrabeen (SSD-76220734).
I am a local resident whose parents directly opposite the proposed site, on the eastern side
of Ocean Street. I also work from home at this property, with my office facing directly toward the
development site. The proposed six-storey structure would block sunlight to our property and my
workspace for most of the day, significantly reducing natural light and altering the character and
amenity of our home and streetscape.
This development is fundamentally out of scale, inconsistent with the surrounding environment,
and inappropriate for this sensitive coastal location. I respectfully request that the NSW
Department of Planning refuse the application or require a major redesign consistent with local
planning controls, community expectations, and coastal management principles.
2. Coastal and Flooding Risk
The site lies within a well-documented flood-prone and coastal erosion hazard area, as
confirmed in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Appendices E and F. The site is affected
by both lagoon flooding and coastal inundation risk, with the proposed footprint encroaching into
high-hazard zones mapped under the Northern Beaches Council Flood Study and Coastal Zone
Management Plan.
The EIS acknowledges these risks but proposes only standard floor height adjustments, which
are inadequate given Narrabeen’s increasing vulnerability to sea level rise, storm surge and
coastal erosion. Deep excavation for the basement carpark raises additional risks of
groundwater intrusion and structural instability, threatening neighbouring properties and the
surrounding ecosystem.
The proposal is inconsistent with the objectives of the Coastal Management SEPP (2018) and
Coastal Management Act 2016, both of which require developments to avoid intensifying use in
hazard-prone areas and to protect coastal environmental processes.
3. Traffic, Parking and Access
The Traffic and Parking Assessment (EIS Appendix J) underestimates the vehicle movements
and parking demand generated by residents, staff, visitors and service vehicles.
The development proposes 149 apartments but only 178 car spaces, which is clearly insufficient.
This will cause overflow parking onto Ocean Street, Lagoon Street, Octavia Street and Loftus
Street — narrow local roads already under significant pressure, particularly during weekends,
surf club events, and school peak periods.
As someone who uses Ocean Street daily, I already experience the congestion and lack of
available parking. The additional traffic generated by this development will impede emergency
access, worsen safety risks for pedestrians and cyclists, and further degrade local amenity.
4. Height, Scale and Visual Impact
The proposed six-storey (21-metre) height is grossly inconsistent with the surrounding built form,
which is predominantly two to three storeys. This excessive bulk will dominate the Ocean Street
streetscape and overwhelm the existing low-rise coastal character of Narrabeen.
The Visual Impact Analysis (EIS Appendix L) demonstrates how the development will dominate
the view corridor between the lagoon and the ocean. The structure’s massing, uniform façade,
and elevated position will block open sky and sunlight for nearby properties — including my
family home, directly opposite the site — creating a sense of enclosure and overshadowing
throughout the day.
This is inconsistent with the Northern Beaches LEP 2022 and the Northern Beaches DCP 2022,
which seek to preserve coastal character and protect solar access for adjoining properties.
5. Vegetation Loss and Biodiversity
The Arboricultural Impact Assessment (EIS Appendix H) identifies the removal of over 30 mature
trees and established vegetation from the site. These trees contribute significantly to local
amenity, coastal resilience, and biodiversity, as well as providing shading and habitat for birdlife.
The loss of these trees will permanently alter the visual character of the area and reduce canopy
cover critical for heat mitigation and stormwater management. The proposed replacement
planting cannot replicate the maturity, ecological value, or visual contribution of the existing
trees.
6. Overshadowing, Privacy and Amenity Impacts
According to the Architectural Plans and Shadow Diagrams (EIS Appendix – Figures 5.3–5.5),
shadowing extends well beyond the site boundaries at 9am and 3pm during winter, impacting
properties on the eastern side of Ocean Street.
My parents’ home and my workspace will be severely overshadowed for most of the day by the
proposed six-storey structure, resulting in significant loss of natural light and amenity. This
directly contravenes the solar access provisions under Clause 6.9 of the Pittwater LEP 2014,
which seek to ensure reasonable sunlight to neighbouring dwellings and private open spaces.
Additionally, upper-level balconies and terraces create overlooking and privacy concerns,
enabling direct views into the front yards and living spaces of existing homes across Ocean
Street — contrary to the Residential Flat Design Code (RFDC) visual privacy objectives.
7. Other Localised Negative Impacts
• Construction disruption: Extended excavation, piling and construction traffic will cause
prolonged noise, vibration, dust, and access impacts for residents directly opposite the site.
• Wind tunnelling: The building’s bulk and exposure to coastal winds may create strong
turbulence at street level, reducing pedestrian comfort and safety.
• Infrastructure strain: Existing stormwater and sewer infrastructure are already under pressure in
this flood-prone zone. Additional load from a high-density building increases the risk of localised
flooding and system failure.
• Emergency access: Narrow local streets and limited egress routes pose safety risks during
flood or storm events.
• Cumulative precedent: Approval of this project would set a precedent for further large-scale
developments along the Narrabeen coastal strip, undermining the established planning controls
that protect the area’s low-rise character and environmental values.
8. Lack of Genuine Seniors Housing Benefit
The proposal is promoted as “seniors housing” but primarily consists of high-end luxury
independent living apartments priced from approximately $3 million, with only 10 assisted-living
rooms included. This is inconsistent with the intent of the State Environmental Planning Policy
(Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004, which aims to provide affordable and
accessible accommodation that supports ageing in place for local residents.
The development fails to address genuine community need and delivers no meaningful social or
affordable housing outcome, serving instead as a high-profit, market-driven project inappropriate
for this sensitive coastal site.
9. Precedent and Planning Non-Compliance
The proposal fails to comply with multiple planning instruments and principles, including:
• Northern Beaches LEP 2022 – Exceeds height, floor space, and setback controls.
• Northern Beaches DCP 2022 – Inconsistent with desired character and design objectives for
coastal zones.
• Coastal Management SEPP 2018 – Fails to protect visual amenity, public access, and coastal
environmental quality.
• Seniors Housing SEPP 2004 – Fails to demonstrate compatibility with the local context or
appropriate access to transport and services.
Approval of this proposal would erode community confidence in the planning framework and
open the door to further inappropriate, over-scaled development along the Northern Beaches.
10. Conclusion
The proposed Indigo by Moran development is excessive, incompatible, and environmentally
unsound. It would dominate the Narrabeen coastline, overshadow neighbouring properties
(including my family’s home directly opposite), strain local infrastructure, and significantly
diminish the area’s coastal character and amenity.
As a long-term local resident who will be directly and personally affected by the overshadowing
and loss of sunlight caused by this building, I urge the Department of Planning, Housing and
Infrastructure to refuse SSD-76220734 – 156 Ocean Street, Narrabeen, or require a substantial
redesign that complies with local planning controls, reduces height and scale, and genuinely
respects the unique environment of Narrabeen.
Sincerely,
Concerned Local Resident
Ocean Street, Narrabeen
27/10/25

I object to the size of the development. 6 stories is far too large and would change the charming feel that narrabeen has. I would not be opposed to a 3 story development which is in line with all the other buildings in the area currently. Added to my concerns is the congestion it will cause in the area due to added traffic, adjoining streets loftus and Octavia are very narrow and will not handle added congestion very well. Additionally it will increase traffic and danger hazards for children at nearby st Joseph’s primary school. Narrabeen is not the correct location for a high density 6 story development.

We used to live very close by to this development for 6 years so know the area and street well, there is no way this small coastal penisula can cope with the size of this development. Traffic and parking is already horrendous, even with parking for residents if they have visitors there would be no where to park. Can’t even imagine the environmental factors of the height of this building on the surf and beach. We also drive our daughter to school a few blocks from here it is hard enough getting parking and doing kiss and ride with current parking. It is such a beautiful area because it has not been developed with high rises. The community does not want this at all!

I strongly object to this proposal for the following reasons:
There was no meaningful community consultation before the proposal was submitted. The developers in trying to argue that marketing events they held were "community consultation meetings" is deceitful and underhand as the meetings they held were about trying to sell the proposed apartments to senior citizens. The meetings discussed what facilities potential senior residents wanted in the building and did not canvass the impact the proposal would have on the community as a whole and the nearby residents. The only people they invited to the meetings were over 55 year olds interested in purchasing an apartment. The meetings excluded other residents.
The developers should be required to hold genuine community consultation meetings before further consideration is given to this proposal, ideally chaired by staff from the Northern Beaches Council
The project as submitted does not conform with the current zoning requirements namely a maximum of 2 stories plus roof top gardens/terraces.
There is no provision within the proposal for low income housing or low entry cost retirement living.
The project proposes 5 stories of apartments plus roof top gardens, terraces and entertainment areas which if agreed will overwhelm the surrounding built environment and the current features of the area.
The current 2 story retirement village is set in a park like environment which from each of the 3 street frontages presents as a low key structure and is in keeping with much of the surrounding buildings,
The proposal as is presents as a very high wall of apartments (3 times the current height) on 3 street frontages with minimal gardens and lawns to the street. The garden courtyard as proposed is entirely encompassed by the proposed buildings denying nearby residents and passerby's the current park like environment. It is in fact a very high walled and gated stand alone city isolating the proposed apartments and their residents from the nearby environment.
The proposal is it stands if approved will inevitably result in pressure to build further 6 story buildings in the area changing the very nature of the area and in contravention of both the Northern Beaches Council intentions and the desires of the vast majority of the residents in the area.
The proposal to excavate 3 underground levels for car parking will as evidenced by the plan itself extend below the existing groundwater table and disrupt the normal flow of water to the lagoon and noting the possible impact this will have on the nearby lagoon and its wildlife.
It is also noted that there will be a maximum of 7 visiting car spaces for 149, 2 and 3 bedroom units. Clearly inadequate and as such will result in further increasing the difficulty of parking on the street. Only 4 electric vehicle charging stations are provided which is clearly inadequate for 149 apartments and will result in increased crowding and delays at the local public charging stations.
The above is also provided as an attachment.

Narrabeen doesn’t not have the infrastructure, roads or parking space to support a building of this size. The size and design is also in total opposition to the rest of the area and community standards. Narrabeen is a quiet, spacious, relaxed suburb. This project will threaten that. As a nearby resident, myself and my neighbours will be directly impacted by the works and the influx of people this project will bring if completed. As it is, Narrabeen has tight streets, limited parking and crowded housing. Narrabeen cannot support this project, it’s simply not sustainable for our small community.

The General Manager
Northern Beaches Council
Attention: Development Assessment Team

Subject: Objection to Development Application – Over 55s Housing Development (5 Storeys, 3 Basement Levels, Height 21.1m), 156 Ocean St Narrabeen - SSD-76220734
Dear Sir / Madam,
I write to formally object to the proposed Over 55s residential development at 156 Ocean St Narrabeen on the following planning and amenity grounds. The proposal, as currently designed, represents a substantial departure from the planning controls, established character, and community expectations for this area.

1. Inconsistent with Surrounding Character and Built Form
The proposed five-storey building, incorporating three basement levels, is grossly inconsistent with the prevailing character of the surrounding locality, which is defined by:
Predominantly single and two-storey residential dwellings, and Low-rise residential flat buildings of two to three storeys.
The excessive height, bulk, and massing of the development introduce an inappropriate intensity that is out of context with the established built form. The proposal will dominate its surroundings, disrupt the visual transition between buildings, and erode the low-scale residential character that the Local Environmental Plan (LEP) seeks to preserve.
2. Non-Compliance with Height Controls
The proposed height of 21.1 metres exceeds the permissible height limit by 8.8 metres, even after accounting for the variation allowed under the State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004 (SEPP Seniors). Such a significant non-compliance: Represents an unjustifiable breach of statutory planning controls, Results in unacceptable visual intrusion, overshadowing, and view loss, and Undermines the integrity of the local planning framework. The proposal clearly fails to satisfy the height objectives of the LEP and Development Control Plan (DCP), which require new development to be compatible with its context and to protect neighbouring amenity.
3. View Loss for Neighbours and Public Areas
The excessive height and bulk will cause substantial view loss for adjoining residents and the public domain. In particular:
Private views to key landscape vistas will be obstructed,
Public view corridors from surrounding streets and open spaces will be diminished, and The applicant’s photomontages are misleading, as they understate the relationship between the proposed building (at RL 21.1m) and surrounding dwellings, implying a false equivalence with two-storey houses of approximately 6m height.
This misrepresentation conceals the true scale and visual impact of the proposal.
4. Inadequate Setbacks and Lack of Height Transition
The proposal provides insufficient side and rear setbacks, exacerbating perceptions of bulk and massing and failing to provide an appropriate transition in scale to adjacent low-density dwellings. The absence of building articulation or stepping results in a monolithic built form that dominates its surroundings rather than integrating sensitively with them. This outcome is contrary to the DCP’s urban design principles, which seek to minimise visual bulk and protect neighbouring privacy, solar access, and outlook.
5. Removal of Significant Vegetation
The development involves the removal of a substantial number of established and mature trees, some of which may possess heritage or ecological significance.
This loss: Erodes the landscape character and green canopy of the area, Removes important habitat and biodiversity value, and Eliminates screening vegetation that currently mitigates built form impacts. The unnecessary extent of vegetation removal demonstrates poor site planning and disregard for the environmental and aesthetic value of existing trees.
6. Adverse Microclimatic Impacts (Wind and Heat)
The proposal’s excessive bulk and siting will significantly alter local airflows and microclimatic conditions, leading to:
Reduced natural ventilation for surrounding dwellings,
The loss of cooling breezes, and The creation of heat traps contributing to the urban heat island effect.
These impacts will detrimentally affect neighbouring residential amenity and environmental sustainability.
7. Insufficient Car Parking and Traffic Impacts
The proposal provides inadequate parking for residents, staff, and visitors, contrary to the requirements of both the SEPP Seniors and Council’s DCP. This shortfall will:
Force overflow parking onto surrounding residential streets,
Exacerbate existing parking scarcity, and Increase traffic congestion and safety risks on local roads not designed for higher volumes. Furthermore, the excavation of three basement levels raises significant concerns regarding construction traffic management, noise, and vibration impacts over an extended construction period.
8. Overdevelopment and Over-Intensification of the Site
The development constitutes clear overdevelopment, with a density, height, and floor space ratio far exceeding that suitable for the site and locality. It fails to respond to site constraints and does not deliver genuine public benefit or design excellence to justify the magnitude of variation sought. Instead, it results in unacceptable environmental, visual, and amenity impacts.
9. Cumulative and Precedent Impacts
Approval of this application would establish an undesirable precedent, encouraging similar non-compliant developments across the locality. Over time, this would erode the low-density character and residential amenity that define the Narrabeen area.
10. Inconsistency with LMR Stage 2–2025 Reforms
The Northern Beaches LMR Stage 2–2025 planning reforms introduced increased height allowances (up to 21m) for specific town centres within 800m of major centres such as Dee Why, Mona Vale, and Manly. Following community consultation, several areas—including Narrabeen—were specifically excluded from these reforms in recognition of community objections to excessive density and height increases. This development, at 21.1m, effectively seeks to impose those same higher density outcomes on an area that was expressly excluded. To permit such a proposal would grant an unfair advantage and undermine the intent of the State’s planning reform outcomes.
11. Lack of Consultation
As a nearby resident, I did not receive any notice, correspondence, or letter drop regarding this development proposal. This raises serious concerns about the adequacy and fairness of the public notification process. The development should not be determined until the State and Council are satisfied that all affected residents have been properly notified and provided a reasonable opportunity to review the proposal and make submissions.
12. Conclusion
In summary, the proposed development is:
Excessively tall and bulky;
Inconsistent with the existing and desired character of the area;
Non-compliant with key planning controls;
Environmentally destructive through unnecessary tree removal; and
Likely to generate significant amenity, traffic, and environmental impacts.
The proposal represents an over-intensification of the site and should therefore be refused.
Should the State or Council be minded to consider approval, the proposal must be substantially redesigned to:
Comply with the maximum height and setback controls;
Retain significant vegetation and improve landscaping outcomes;
Reduce visual and environmental impacts; and
Provide adequate parking and a sensitive height transition to adjoining properties.
Yours faithfully,
Chris Girling

Objection to Proposed Development – Over 55s Housing (5 Storeys, 3 Basement Levels, Height 21.1m)

1. Inconsistent with Surrounding Character and Built Form

The proposed development is grossly inconsistent with the established character of Narrabeen and its surrounding coastal environment. The area is primarily defined by single and two-storey dwellings, complemented by a small number of low-rise residential flat buildings of two to three storeys. These buildings are designed with generous setbacks, landscaped frontages, and a visual connection to the natural landscape that reinforces the coastal village character of the suburb.

A five-storey building with three basement levels introduces an inappropriate level of intensity, bulk, and visual dominance. The height, form, and massing are entirely out of context with the existing built environment and will significantly detract from the visual harmony and human scale of the streetscape. The proposal would disrupt the existing transition between buildings, dominate its surroundings, and erode the established low-rise character that defines Narrabeen’s unique appeal.

This form of development directly contradicts the planning objectives for the area, which aim to preserve the local character, maintain visual cohesion, and ensure new developments respond sensitively to their context.

⸻

2. Non-Compliance with Height Controls

The proposed building height of 21.1 metres exceeds the permissible height limit by 8.8 metres, even after considering allowances under the State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004. Such an extensive breach of planning controls represents an unjustifiable variation that undermines the intent of the Local Environmental Plan (LEP) and Development Control Plan (DCP).

The height variation will result in excessive bulk, unreasonable overshadowing of nearby properties, and significant visual intrusion. This scale of development does not respect the established or desired future character of the area and sets a dangerous precedent for further non-compliant proposals. Allowing such a major deviation would undermine the integrity of local planning controls designed to protect community amenity and ensure balanced development.

⸻

3. View Loss for Neighbours and Public Areas

The proposed height and scale will cause considerable view loss to both neighbouring residents and the broader community. Private views toward Narrabeen Lagoon, the beach, and surrounding natural vistas will be obstructed. Public view corridors available from key streets and open spaces will also be compromised.

Furthermore, the photomontages and visual assessments supplied by the applicant are misleading. They fail to accurately depict the relationship between the proposed height (RLs) and existing dwellings, creating the false impression that a 21-metre building is comparable in height to a two-storey home. This misrepresentation significantly underplays the actual visual impact of the proposal. The development would permanently diminish the visual quality and open feel that make this part of Narrabeen so special to residents and visitors alike.

⸻

4. Inadequate Setbacks and Failure to Provide Height Transition

The proposed side and rear setbacks are inadequate and exacerbate the perception of bulk and massing. The building fails to provide an appropriate transition in height and scale to neighbouring lower-density homes, resulting in significant visual dominance, overshadowing, and privacy impacts.

There has been no attempt to step the building or articulate its façades to reduce perceived bulk. The result is a monolithic structure that looms over surrounding properties and fails to integrate sensitively with its context. This lack of design refinement directly contradicts the objectives of the DCP, which require new development to achieve an appropriate built form transition.

⸻

5. Removal of Significant Vegetation

The development will result in the unnecessary removal of mature trees and significant vegetation that contribute to the visual and ecological character of the area. Some of these trees may hold heritage or environmental value, and their removal will have long-term negative consequences.

This vegetation currently softens the built environment and provides valuable shade, privacy screening, and habitat for wildlife. Its removal will erode the natural landscape setting of Narrabeen and increase the urban heat load in the area. The lack of meaningful retention or replacement of vegetation demonstrates poor site planning and a disregard for environmental sustainability.

⸻

6. Adverse Microclimatic Impacts (Wind and Heat)

The bulk and orientation of the proposed building are likely to disrupt existing wind patterns and airflow, reducing natural ventilation for nearby properties. Prevailing sea breezes that currently moderate summer heat will be obstructed, creating stagnant air pockets and contributing to the urban heat island effect.

This will not only reduce comfort levels for nearby residents but also increase local temperatures and decrease environmental performance outcomes. Developments of this scale should incorporate thorough environmental and climatic assessments, which appear lacking in this case.

⸻

7. Insufficient Car Parking and Traffic Impacts

The development fails to provide adequate parking for residents, visitors, and staff, contrary to SEPP and DCP requirements. This shortfall will inevitably result in overflow parking onto nearby residential streets, intensifying existing parking pressures and creating safety concerns.

Additionally, the proposed three levels of basement parking will generate significant construction impacts, including heavy vehicle movements, noise, dust, and potential traffic disruption for an extended period. These impacts will be highly disruptive to the surrounding community and incompatible with a quiet residential setting.

⸻

8. Overdevelopment and Over-Intensification of the Site

The proposal represents a clear overdevelopment of the site. The density, height, and scale far exceed what is reasonable or appropriate for this location. The building footprint covers too much of the site, leaving limited open space or landscaping opportunities.

Under the guise of “Over 55s housing,” the proposal over-intensifies the use of the land without providing genuine community or design benefits that would justify its impact. True housing diversity should enhance local amenity, not diminish it. This development compromises both residential quality and environmental sustainability.

⸻

9. Cumulative and Precedent Impacts

If approved, this development would create a dangerous precedent for future applications seeking similar non-compliance. Allowing such excessive height and bulk in a low-rise coastal suburb would encourage further overdevelopment, gradually eroding Narrabeen’s distinctive character and environmental quality.

Once the precedent is established, it becomes increasingly difficult for the planning authority to resist similar proposals, leading to long-term and irreversible change inconsistent with community expectations and planning intent.

⸻

10. LMR Stage 2 – 2025 Reforms Context

Under the State Government’s recent Low and Medium Rise (LMR) Housing Reforms, only certain town centres within 800 metres of key hubs are eligible for increased height limits up to 21 metres. Following extensive consultation and community objection, four centres—Warriewood, Narrabeen, Newport, and Belrose—were specifically excluded from Stage 2 of the reforms due to their coastal sensitivity and existing low-rise character.

The current proposal by Moran seeks to introduce a 21-metre-high development into an area intentionally excluded from these reforms. Allowing such a proposal effectively overrides the State’s own policy decision and disregards community consultation outcomes. This represents an unfair and inappropriate advantage inconsistent with broader planning fairness and transparency.

⸻

11. Lack of Consultation

As a nearby resident, I have received no direct notification or letter drop regarding this proposal. This raises serious concerns about the adequacy of community consultation. A development of this magnitude should not proceed without clear and transparent engagement with all affected residents.

The application should not be determined until the State is satisfied that meaningful consultation has occurred, ensuring all impacted parties are informed and given a genuine opportunity to make submissions.

⸻

12. Conclusion

In summary, the proposed Over 55s development is excessively tall, bulky, and inconsistent with the established and desired character of Narrabeen. It breaches height and setback controls, removes valuable vegetation, and will generate significant traffic, environmental, and amenity impacts.

This proposal represents an over-intensification of the site and is contrary to the planning objectives that protect Narrabeen’s coastal village identity. The development should be refused.

If the State is minded to consider approval, it must require substantial redesign to ensure the proposal:
    •    Complies with height and setback controls,
    •    Retains significant trees and vegetation,
    •    Minimises environmental and visual impacts, and
    •    Provides adequate parking, setbacks, and a genuine transition to adjoining properties.

Narrabeen deserves development that enhances its beauty, liveability, and community character—not one that destroys it.

I object to the Indigo by Moran project as it would set a concerning precedent for future developments in Narrabeen, effectively opening the door for more six-storey buildings in the area. Such large-scale developments are inconsistent with the existing low-rise, beachside character that defines Narrabeen’s family-oriented community. Allowing this project to proceed would fundamentally alter the coastal village atmosphere, overshadowing the natural landscape and undermining the sense of place that residents and visitors value so highly.

I wish to express my strong opposition to the proposal. A building of this size (5–6 Floor building complex) is completely out of character with the area. I live in Ocean Street and it is a low-rise, beachside community made up of family homes and small apartment complexes. A project of this size would, in my opinion, overwhelm the landscape, raise congestion, and destroy the relaxed coastal ambience.
As many have said, Narrabeen is not Dee Why.

• The proposed development does not comply with Northern Beaches Council regulations and must be required to do so.
• The height and immense size of a six-storey building significantly exceeds council regulations and is completely out of scale and character with Narrabeen’s low rise coastal look, feel and charm. It is monstrous.
• It is an undeniable overdevelopment of the area with arrogant disregard for the community. A disdain for generations who came before us, recognised something special and worked together to protect it.
• The design completely ignores design principles for independent living medium density to provide two or three storey housing clusters where the scale and massing is articulated and separated to respect the character and pattern of the suburban surroundings.
• The design has no regard for surrounding dwellings and architecture and seems driven by the goal of maximising financial return for a private developer.
• It is in effect a high-end residential apartment complex hiding behind aged care facilities for a small number of residents. It is a private residential facility providing premium lifestyle for the wealthy and does not provide affordable housing for our aging population.
• The proposed removal of 24 high category trees and a further 45 low category trees is obscene. It destroys habitat for birdlife and wildlife and impacts visual screening. When we should be doing everything possible to reduce our carbon footprint the loss of so many mature trees is unconscionable. The typical solution offered by property developers to plant replacement trees is embarrassingly inadequate.
• It will be a visual intrusion for neighbouring properties and the wider local community. In short it will be an eyesore, obstruct views, impact sunlight and cast shadows.
• There are no proposed benefits to the local community. None.
• The increase in vehicles entering and exiting the facility daily will further strain already congested streets. It is dangerous.
• Excavation for a three level basement carpark risks disrupting the fragile nature of the Peninsula’s sandy soil and water table.
• Other than token landscaping, the design does not incorporate the Indigenous heritage of the area and the extensive excavation risks disturbing remains and artefacts of our First Nations peoples.
• The development falls well short of meeting community environmental and sustainability expectations. It should satisfy the requirements of a 5-star Australian Excellence Green Building Council Australia rating.
* Insufficient set back. The perimeter of the building is far too close to the boundary.

This project is significantly out of character for Narrabeen Peninsular and the Northern Beaches foreshore.
While I support residential care and seniors housing in the area, the scope and extent of this development is out of character, in particular the height of the building. The visual impact assessment indicates that the development will be visible from a large number of view points which will be detrimental to the area in general. It will be significantly higher than the surrounding buildings and change the character in ways we cannot yet predict.

I object to the development height and scope.

Objection to Proposed Development – Over 55s Housing (5 Storeys, 3 Basement Levels, Height 21.1m)

1. Inconsistent with Surrounding Character and Built Form

The proposed development is grossly inconsistent with the prevailing character of the surrounding area, which is defined by:
• Single and two-storey residential dwellings, and
• Low-rise residential flat buildings of two to three storeys

A five-storey building with three basement levels introduces an inappropriate level of intensity, bulk and scale that is out of context with the established built environment. The height, form, and massing are inconsistent with the pattern of development in the locality and detract from the visual harmony and human scale of the streetscape

This proposal will dominate its surroundings, disrupt the visual transition between buildings, and erode the established residential character contrary to the planning objectives for the zone

2. Non-Compliance with Height Controls

The proposed height of 21.1 metres exceeds the permissible height limit by 8.8 metres, even after accounting for the increase allowed under the State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004.

Such a substantial variation:
• Represents an unjustifiable breach of planning controls,
• Results in significant visual intrusion and view loss, and
• Undermines the integrity of the local planning framework
The excessive height produces unreasonable overshadowing, bulk, and scale, inconsistent with the height objectives of the Local Environmental Plan (LEP) and Development Control Plan (DCP), which seek to ensure new development is compatible with its context and protects neighbouring amenity

3. View Loss for Neighbours and Public Areas

The development will cause substantial view loss to neighbouring residents and members of the public.

Specifically:
• The height and bulk of the proposal will obstruct existing private views to key vistas and landscapes.
• The building will impede public view corridors available from streets and nearby open spaces
• The photomontages provided by the applicant are misleading, as they fail to accurately depict the relationship between the proposed height (RLs) and existing neighbouring dwellings, incorrectly suggesting that a 21m building is similar in height to a 6m two-storey dwelling.

This misrepresentation of scale and visual impact significantly underplays the true extent of view obstruction the proposal will cause.

4. Inadequate Setbacks and Failure to Provide Height Transition

The proposal incorporates inadequate side and rear setbacks, which:
• Exacerbate the perception of bulk and massing,
• Fail to provide an appropriate transition in scale to neighbouring lower-density dwellings, and
• Lead to unreasonable amenity impacts (visual dominance, overshadowing, and privacy loss)

There has been no attempt to step the building or articulate façades to reduce perceived bulk and scale. This approach results in a monolithic structure that dominates its surroundings rather than integrating sensitively with them

5. Removal of Significant Vegetation

The proposal involves the removal of a large number of established and significant trees, some of which may hold heritage or ecological value.

This loss:
• Erodes the landscape character and natural setting of the area,
Removes valuable habitat and urban canopy, and
• Eliminates screening vegetation that currently softens the visual impact of built form

The unnecessary extent of tree removal demonstrates poor site planning and disregard for the environmental and aesthetic value of existing vegetation

6. Adverse Microclimatic Impacts (Wind and Heat)

The development’s excessive bulk and placement will alter local airflows, resulting in:
• Reduced natural ventilation for surrounding dwellings,
• The elimination of prevailing breezes that currently mitigate summer heat, and
• A stagnant microclimate likely to exacerbate urban heat island effects

These impacts will diminish residential amenity for neighbouring properties and reduce environmental sustainability outcomes for the locality

7. Insufficient Car Parking and Traffic Impacts

The proposal includes inadequate parking provision for both residents and staff, contrary to the requirements of the SEPP and Council’s DCP.

This shortfall will
• Force overflow parking onto surrounding residential streets,
• Exacerbate existing parking scarcity, and
• Increase traffic congestion and safety risks on local roads not designed to accommodate higher volumes

The proposed three basement levels may also result in construction disturbance, noise, and traffic management issues over an extended period

8. Overdevelopment and Over-Intensification of the Site

The proposal represents a clear overdevelopment of the site, with a density, height, and scale far exceeding what is suitable for the locality.

The development
• Fails to respond to the site constraints,
• Over-intensifies the use under the guise of “Over 55s housing”, and
• Does not deliver genuine benefits or design excellence that would justify such an excessive variation

Rather than enhancing housing diversity, the proposal compromises residential amenity, environmental quality, and visual character

9. Cumulative and Precedent Impacts

Approval of this proposal would create a highly undesirable precedent, encouraging other developers to seek similar non-compliances in height, bulk, and scale.

Over time, this would erode the established low-density character of the locality and diminish the visual and environmental quality of the broader area

10. LMR Stage 2-2025

On the Northern Beaches, the new State Government LMR controls apply to all residential zoned land within 800 metres walking distance of:
• 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

Following Northern Beaches Council submissions, four town centres that had originally been proposed to be included in the Stage 2 Reforms have been excluded: Warriewood, Narrabeen, Newport and Belrose.

The zones were excluded after significant community consultation and objections over the density and height changes in these four areas which was ultimately accepted by the State demonstrating acceptance of the submissions including that Narrabeen should not be part of the Stage 2 Reforms. The reforms introduced increased heights for developments up to 21 metres.

The application by Moran seeks to impose on Narrabeen a development at heights that are available under the Stage 2 Reforms where this area has been excluded from the Stage 2 Reforms. It is not appropriate to permit a 5 level development that will be almost double the permissible height for buildings in the area. It seeks an unfair advantage and a use that is significantly beyond that available to others in the community.

11. Lack of consultation

Nearby residents have received no notice of the development by correspondence or letter drop which brings into question the effectiveness of the public consultation.

The Development Application should not be considered until the State is satisfied there has been adequate and appropriate consultation and everyone that will be affected by the development has been consulted, has had an opportunity to make submissions after understanding the nature of the proposed development and have had the opportunity to object to the development.

12. Conclusion

In summary, the proposed Over 55s development is:
• Excessively tall and bulky,
• Inconsistent with the existing and desired character of the area,
• Non-compliant with height and setback controls,
• Environmentally destructive, and
• Likely to generate significant amenity and traffic impacts

The application represents an over-intensification of the site and should therefore be refused.

If the State is minded to consider approval, the proposal must be significantly redesigned to:
• Comply with the maximum height and setback controls,
• Retain significant vegetation,
• Reduce visual and environmental impacts, and
• Provide adequate parking and genuine height transitions to adjoining properties.

I’m writing to object to this proposed development project because it’s simply the wrong scale for Narrabeen. A six-storey, 149-unit complex would overwhelm our low-rise coastal village character and bring more harm than good.

Putting up a six-storey block with 149 apartments in Narrabeen is completely out of step with the beachside, low-rise look and feel of the suburb. It would change the character of the area in a really negative way. The proposal completely undermines the Northern Beaches Council’s local planning controls aim to preserve the coastal character of suburbs like Narrabeen.

All the big pines and gum trees along Lagoon Street will be chopped down. That’s not just sad visually, it wipes out important bird habitat and the natural screen those trees provide. We’ve got sea eagles, tawny frogmouths, kookaburras, cockatoos and more that call this place home. Removing their habitat plus disturbing the fragile sandy ground and water table puts all of that at risk.

This site is close to where Narrabeen Man was found. Digging here could easily disturb Aboriginal heritage sites or remains that haven’t yet been recorded.

A building of this scale will block long-held ocean views from homes on the peninsula and the escarpment. The plan shows buildings pushed right up to Lagoon, Loftus and Octavia Street boundaries, so no breathing room at all. Narrabeen is already prone to flooding, especially around the lagoon and low-lying sandy areas. A development of this size will increase hard surfaces (concrete, roofs, carparks), which means more stormwater runoff and greater flood risk for nearby homes.

With over 150 extra cars spilling out onto Lagoon Street with barely any visitor parking (only seven spaces). That’s a recipe for traffic jams and safety hazards.

The “consultation” meetings for this development didn’t seriously address community concerns, they focused on things like kitchen appliances. Residents were told council wouldn’t even have a say and that we only had 14 days to object.

This is a private retirement complex, not affordable housing, and yet it’s being rushed through as a State Significant Development. There’s nothing being offered in terms of infrastructure, open space, or wider benefits, just profit for the developers.

To finalise,
this proposal is too big, too intrusive, and offers nothing back to the Narrabeen community. It wipes out trees, threatens local wildlife, risks damaging Aboriginal heritage, clogs our streets with traffic, and blocks long-standing views, all for a private development that doesn’t meet local needs.

The height of the building is way over the allowed height deemed by council. I understand that we are in a period of required housing and I don't think that anyone would object to units in the area but it has to reasonable. This will essentially plunge the southern properties into darkness for half of the year. And the preditory nature of low balling for the house on the corner of Octavia and Lagoon shows you the mentality of the development applicants. They are after extreme profit and do not care about the area at all. The residents in the area have invested large amounts of capital into their houses and this size of this development is ruining there livelihood. The attachment included should show you all you need to know.