Indigo By Moran - 156 Ocean Street Narrabeen

1. Inconsistent building character
2. Inadequate parking and traffic impact
3. Exploitation of planning permissions

My wife and I strongly support this project.
There is simply not enough home care or age appropriate housing on the Northern Beaches for the population.
It is impossible to get reliable home care because there are not enough staff given their wages compared to the cost of living in our part of the world. This makes living at home until true old age extremely unsafe and makes for an almost certain faster death with many extra trips to hospital that are already clogged. This is only going to get a lot worse.
This fast tracking of us into an aged care home is costly for the community when we are prepared to pay for our own accommodation and care with a project like this one.
And we do not have to leave the area we know and where we have friends, family and support like GPs and dentists.
We have a big house that we want to downsize from but we need somewhere that is safe and supportive of us. This development is perfect.
We support it 100%.

Submission in Support of Proposed Seniors Housing Development

This proposal addresses a critical and growing need within our community: the shortage of appropriate, accessible housing for older residents. Many seniors remain in long-term family homes that no longer meet their physical, social, or lifestyle needs. As these homes become increasingly difficult to maintain, residents may experience reduced quality of life, isolation, and barriers to independence. At the same time, the lack of suitable downsizing options limits housing availability for younger families seeking to establish themselves locally.

The proposed development enables older residents to “right-size” within their own community—remaining close to familiar services, friends, and support networks. By providing thoughtfully designed, age-friendly dwellings that incorporate accessibility, safety, and comfort, this project supports ageing in place and enhances long-term wellbeing.
Importantly, facilitating local downsizing has wider community benefits. Each senior household that transitions into appropriate accommodation typically releases a family-sized home back into the market, helping to ease housing pressures and promote generational renewal. This contributes to a more balanced, sustainable housing mix that reflects the needs of residents at all life stages.

Beyond its housing outcomes, the project is designed to foster social connection and inclusion. Communal spaces, landscaped areas, and proximity to local amenities encourage active participation in community life, reducing loneliness and supporting mental and physical health.

In summary, this proposal delivers a well-considered, socially responsible response to demographic change. It supports older residents to live independently and comfortably, strengthens neighbourhood cohesion, and contributes positively to housing supply and diversity across the area.

To the Secretary DPHI,
Objection to SSD-76220734 - 156 Ocean Street Narrabeen
My wife and I have been residents of Narrabeen since June 2010 when we purchased our home in 7 Octavia Street, Narrabeen which is located immediately across the road from the proposed development. The immediate area around this development is made up of single and double storey houses, two storey unit blocks and on the eastern side of Ocean Street a few three storey unit blocks. The existing aged care facility has fitted seamlessly into this environment and has not impacted the liveability of the area, impacted visually or created issues with traffic numbers or on street parking. It has blended into the existing environment. The availability of on street parking is one of the critical issues facing this area (as well as most of the Northern Beaches and other areas of Sydney) many families have kids living longer at home because of the cost of housing and rents, it is not unusual for some households to have up to 4 cars. In addition because of the amount of cars the small streets surrounding the site (Albermarle, Loftus, Octavia, Tourmaline, Emerald and Malcom) are effectively one way streets that allow passage both ways. these streets are very sensitive to any increase in traffic flow.
The residents of the area recognise the need for additional housing and are not opposed to a development that fits the character of the surrounding area.
The development proposed by Moran would completely change the character of the area, impact liveability and safety for existing residents and create significant issues for on street parking and increased traffic flows on our narrow local streets.
In 2024 the NSW State Government undertook an assessment of sites across the northern peninsula to assess their suitability for mid and high rise development. Narrabeen was not named in March 2025 as one of the 10 selected sites because it was deemed to lack the required infrastructure and social amenities. Nothing has changed in the intervening months.
My key areas of objection are:
1. The height of the proposed structure at 21.1m when the WLEP 2011 allowed for a maximum height of 8.5m. Moran have applied for a Clause 4.6 Variation Request which can if successful provide an additional 3.8m. This current proposal is a further 8.8m above that, so it clearly does not comply and the gross difference between 8.5m and 21.1m clerarly illustrates how out of character this development is. This development if allowed will forever alter the local environment. The reason given for this large variation is that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances and that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify the contravention of the development standard. In seeking to justify the fact that the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary Moran have elected to use Test 3, that the underlying objective or purpose would be defeated or thwarted if compliance was required and therefore compliance is unreasonable. Moran states that the elements that sit above the height control are essential for the successful delivery of the project and that without these elements the development would not be delivered. So we get everything we want or you get nothing. What would be wrong with a scaled down version of the existing project that fitted within the height control. Many developers have over the last 15 years delivered successful projects that fitted within the height control and in so doing delivered additional housing for the region and state. The baseline development scenario provided as justification for why the proposed development should go ahead is a completely different style which more closely resembles a prison. So if we cant get what we want this is the only alternative, that proposition is simply not true and does not pass the reasonableness test and should be discarded. They have also suggested in Environmental Planning grounds to justify contravening the development standards that it is the retention of the Norfolk Pines along Ocean Street that have largely driven the building's height breach. Are they really suggesting that on a site that is 2.28 acres they would not be able to design a complying development and retain the Norfolk Pines. This does not provide the required justification.
Above all this the justification for the 149 unit development is that it will help meet our state and national housing targets. I would argue they don't need to be met in just one development and that the State and Federal governments did not develop these targets so as to give developers a free hand to do whatever they want. These targets can still be met with reasonable developments that don't destroy the local character and environment.
2) The visual impact on local residents will be significant. The design as it stands sees buildings built along the boundary along Loftus, Lagoon and Octavia streets with only 3.5m set backs to the balconies and these buildings will mainly focus internally to a garden courtyard. The design does not blend into the existing environment but instead creates a 21.1m barrier to their internal courtyard. I will be looking at a 21.1m structure that more closely resembles a cruise ship. In Octavia street I will have 4 levels of units looking straight over our house. This will be repeated for residents of Lagoon and Loftus streets.
The Visual Impact Analysis that supports this proposal is disingenuous. The firm that provided the analysis state that they could not find any angle which demonstrated a visual impact above low. The positions used to take the supporting images were carefully crafted and do not tell the true story. Any reasonable person could see that a development of this size and scale would have a very high visual impact as there are no other developments anywhere near this size in the local area.
I believe the design needs reworking to make it more sympathetic to the local environment and to lower its visual impact.
3. Impact on the liveability of existing residents, as stated in my opening summation this area already has a critical shortage of on street parking and a high sensitivity to increased traffic flows given the surrounding streets are virtually one way. The documents state that there will be 149 units and that there will be 178 resident car spaces as well as 7 visitor car spaces (which includes 3 disabled spaces). The traffic impact documents states there will be minimal impact on the surrounding area. They propose a Green Traffic Plan and a Green Traffic coordinator who will educate and encourage residents to walk, cycle, use public transport, car pool or ride share when travelling. This is completely ridiculous and is not supported by any real time data that shows how this works effectively in any other existing development of this type. In 2025 people aged in their 60's, 70's and 80's are still actively engaged in sporting, community, social and family groups. Some of these activities would be undertaken as couples but there are others where the individuals have their own interests. Most couples who choose to buy a unit will have two cars as the alternatives mentioned above are just not practical. This would mean more like 250 - 270 car spaces would be required. As there is only 178 provided in this design that means up to 100 cars would need onstreet parking in the surrounding local streets where there is no excess capacity now. We have 4 children who live in regional areas and it has become increasingly difficult to locate parking close to home. If this development was approved then finding temporary parking would be impossible.
In addition the provision of 7 visitor parking spaces (4 able bodied and 3 disabled) is woefully inadequate and would once again dramatically impact local on street parking.
The impact of up to 270 cars on our local roads will have a negative impact on liveability, we have kids and grandkids as well as walking our dog twice a day, pedestrian safety will become an issue as well as just the ability to successfully navigate through our narrow local streets.
4. Complete lack of community consultation. State Significant Developments are required to have extensive community consultation. The only communication I have had from the developers is a letter dated 20 October 2025 giving us 14 days to make a submission. The community consultation report is once again disingenuous. Initial sales meetings asking attendees what they would like in a seniors living development does not constitute community engagement nor do early sales presentations which have been held in October. The groundswell of local opposition to this development indicates just how much we have been kept in the dark by Moran. They have utterly failed to meaningfully engage with the local community. This development application should be refused and Moran should be forced to work with the community to find a suitable design that doesn't destroy the character or liveability of the local area and also provides Moran with an opportunity for a successful and profitable development.
In conclusion i would urge that this development application be refused, Moran have not adequately demonstrated why compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary. This application may well have been suitable had Narrabeen been identified as a site suitable for medium to high density development but it wasn't. Narrabeen does not have the required infrastructure or social amenities to support this type of development. The proposed development is completely out of character with the local environment and would forever change the liveability of the area for current and future generations. As I said at the start the local residents are not opposed to the development of the site and recognise the need for additional seniors living accommodation but believe this is not the right way.

To the Secretary, DPHI,
Objection to SSD-76220734 – 156 Ocean Street Narrabeen INDIGO

I live at 1 Albemarle St Narrabeen, a block from the proposed development. I am a lifelong resident of Narrabeen and believe a 6 storey building is not in keeping with the look and feel of our beloved beachside suburb. A multi-storey quadrangle apartment building is incompatible with the planning design of the area. It is a dangerous precedent to set, which I strongly object to.
I have a young family and believe the traffic along Ocean St will become more dangerous - not only due to the construction and service vehicles but ongoing with the hundreds of new residents and their visitors.
There will also be insufficient parking, especially as the proposal does not include enough car spaces for the intended apartments. Albemarle St, Ocean St and the neighbouring cross streets are already full to the brim with beach-goers parking their cars all day in our residential streets, it will impossible to accommodate another 120+ residents and their cars and visitors.
I want to protect Narrabeen's community, residents and character and I believe this proposed development is unsafe, unsuitable, and incompatible.
Thank you

Submission for Indigo By Moran - 156 Ocean Street Narrabeen

I am writing to formally object to the proposed Indigo By Moran development at 156 Ocean Street, Narrabeen. While I support responsible and sustainable development in our community, this proposal raises serious concerns relating to traffic congestion, construction impacts, building height, and community wellbeing and safety. I also have serious concerns regarding the accuracy of the Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) and hence the traffic congestion and safety risks during construction.
In more detail, my concerns are as follows:
1. Inaccuracies and Omissions in the Traffic Impact Statement (TIS)
The Traffic Impact Statement submitted as part of the development application contains several critical inaccuracies and omissions which render its conclusions unreliable:
1.1 Section 4.2 – Incorrect Description of Wakehurst Parkway
The TIS incorrectly states that Wakehurst Parkway has two lanes in each direction. This is incorrect—Wakehurst Parkway is one lane in each direction for most of its length. The addition of vehicles generated by the proposed development will further exacerbate congestion on this already constrained road, particularly during peak hours and weekends when Narrabeen experiences heavy through-traffic.
1.2 Section 4.5.1 – Incorrect Speed Limit Data
The TIS states that the speed limit on Ocean Street and other local streets is 40 km/h, which is incorrect. The posted speed limit is 50 km/h, and this error undermines the validity of the TIS’s traffic flow and safety assessments.
1.3 Section 4.7 – Failure to Consider Ocean Street Traffic Volumes
The TIS fails to include traffic volume data for Ocean Street, despite Ocean Street being the primary access route for both construction vehicles and future residents. This is a major omission, particularly as Ocean Street already functions as a bypass route (“rat run”) for Pittwater Road, carrying significant existing traffic volumes.
Furthermore, the data used for other roads is more than three years old and does not reflect current conditions, meaning the TIS underestimates existing congestion and the cumulative impact of the proposed development.
1.4 Section 8.2.3 – Unsafe Construction Vehicle Route on Ocean Street
The TIS proposes that construction vehicle access will be via Ocean Street, which is highly inappropriate and unsafe. Ocean Street is a narrow single-lane road with an adjacent bike lane that is frequently occupied by parked vehicles. Heavy trucks will need to give way to oncoming traffic when entering or exiting the site, leading to traffic build-up, unsafe overtaking, and potential conflicts with cyclists and pedestrians.

Ocean Street should not be used for construction access, and the TIS should be amended to identify a safer and less disruptive alternative route.
2. Traffic Congestion and Safety during Construction
Ocean Street and the surrounding Narrabeen area already experience significant traffic congestion, particularly during peak hours and weekends when visitors access the beach and lagoon. The proposed development will exacerbate these issues during the lengthy construction period due to:
• Increased movement of heavy vehicles, delivery trucks, and construction machinery.
• Reduced street parking and narrowed traffic lanes.
• Safety risks for pedestrians and cyclists, including school children and elderly residents.
The traffic management plan must be scrutinised carefully to ensure public safety. There appears to be no sufficient mitigation strategy presented to minimise these impacts on local residents.
3. Excessive Building Height and Inconsistent Scale
The proposed building height of six (6) levels is three levels higher than most surrounding residential buildings, which are predominantly low-rise structures of two to three storeys. This excessive height:
• Disrupts the established coastal village character of Narrabeen.
• Creates overshadowing of nearby properties and public spaces.
• Reduces privacy for adjacent residents.
• Sets a concerning precedent for overdevelopment in this sensitive coastal zone.
The project is clearly inconsistent with the existing local planning controls and desired future character of the area.
4. Impacts on Social Welfare and Community Wellbeing
The cumulative effects of construction disturbance, increased traffic, and a dominating six-storey structure will have long-term social consequences, including:
• Increased noise, dust, and disruption for residents, particularly vulnerable populations such as seniors and families with young children.
• Diminished public amenity and open space due to overshadowing and increased congestion.
• Potential strain on local infrastructure and emergency access routes.
The wellbeing and safety of existing residents should take precedence over private commercial gain.
 
Conclusion
For the reasons outlined above, I strongly object to the Indigo By Moran development at 156 Ocean Street in its current form, particularly that Ocean Street should not be used for construction access, and the TIS should be amended to identify a safer and less disruptive alternative route.
I urge the Council and relevant planning authorities to reject the proposal or require significant amendments to reduce building height, limit construction impacts, and ensure that the project aligns with the community character and safety standards of Narrabeen.
Thank you for considering my objection. I would appreciate acknowledgment of this submission and notification of any future hearings or revisions to the proposal.
Yours sincerely,

We strongly object to high density living in Narrabeen. If this proposal goes through, that could become the new standard for this suburb and we don’t want more high rise buildings in our peaceful coastal town (which is already full of apartments as it is!). Please say no to this.
Kind regards,
Jazmin

As a resident of Narrabeen for 50 years and with many generations and family members calling Narrabeen home, I strongly oppose this development as a threat to the safety, infrastructure and character of this suburb, and particularly the Peninsular which has very unique and delicate environmental concerns. Adding to this 100s of residents in an over 60s development, thinly disguised as supporting aged care, 6 storeys high is morally wrong and goes against the Planning and Development Act.
Key Issues
1. Non-Compliance – The proposal is way above the R2 Low Density Residential Zone under the Northern Beaches LEP 2011. It goes against Clause 4.3 Height of Buildings and the Housing SEPP 2021 design principles.

2. Environmental Risk – How can it be supported to excavate over 11m deep when the site sits within mapped Coastal Environment and Coastal Vulnerability Areas under the Coastal SEPP 2018.

3. Sustainability – minimum standards of the BASIX assessment have not beet met, contrary to Clause 3.6 of the Housing SEPP and Section B5 of the DCP.

Any consultation was severely lacking before lodgement, with only 2 weeks of exhibition!? This is grossly negligent given the significant impact on the area, residents, community, transport and infrastructure.

5. Governance – Has any Independent Design Review Panel been undertaken?

Public Interest
Under section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, I don't see any PUBLIC interest in this development proposal. There are no benefits to the environment, community or future of the area.

Request
I request that the Department refuse SSD-76220734, or that there is a full change in scope, scale and design to meet all of the following:
• height, bulk, and excavation depth;
• sustainability,
• Does not destroy mature trees;
• is subject to an independent design review;
• Appropriate time, review and consultation is granted to the community for any future development.

Signed,
Kristen Edwards
9/3-5 Wetherill Street
Narrabeen NSW 2101

My objection to this development has come with much thought, as you can see I am local. This will affect the already much affected leisurely lifestyle of Narrabeen it’s very difficult to navigate Ocean st already at times. The hight is totally out of character for the local area talk about a Godzilla on ocean st. It would be nice to have a decent design that would enhance the visual of the area not over shadow it. It’s obvious it’s going to create much more traffic and add to the frustrating parking issues that we already have. Also the extra vehicles,of residents visitors and staff as well as all the extra boats trailers Motor homes ect, extra garbage vercles .In the plan it’s quite clear that the amount of allocated parking really doesn’t come close to keep people connected with Godzilla from parking in Lagoon and Oceans st.

INTRODUCTION
My name is Deborah Inkster
Address: 4/150 Ocean St Narrabeen 2101 NSW
I would like to object to the current proposed project because I am a neighbour of Indigo and live next door towards the front of the proposed building on Ocean Street. I am retired, live with my husband and spend most of my time at home and in the surround area on the peninsula. We downsized and moved to the northern beach for our retirement.
In future years I may likely be looking to enter a Retirement Living Village.
I would be looking for one that provides high -quality design, considerate operations and long -term stewardship. That supports aging in place and supportive community activities. One that works well with the local area and neighbourhood and is sensitive to the environmental sustainability.
I would therefore assume that other prospective residents would want to feel the same about the community and the building they were buying into. If they fully understood the impact of Indigo by Moran project I'm concerned, they would not want to be a part of something so large, overpowering and disruptive to the neighbourhood.
So, I have my concerns.
The current design would impact my everyday life, my interaction with the neighbourhood and the general environment I live in.

My Everyday life Impact
1.Sunshine Loss/Overshadowing due to the Height and proximity of the Building
Our unit is on the southern side of the complex on the ground floor with 6 large windows facing north, adjacent to the proposed complex.
Due to the proximity and height of the building 21.1m (which is 71.5 % above the SEPP recommendation) we will have significant over shadowing through the day, which we don't have currently with the current 3 story building.
During the winter months, predominately we will have shade over our living area and kitchen as we have 6 north facing windows. We will most likely need to increase the use of our air conditioning due to these reasons.
Our outdoor communal clothes lines will be in full shade in the winter, for longer periods, that will need the use close dryers, increasing our energy consumption. We also have a garden area included in our ownership along this side, which will be impacted by overshadowing.
2. The building height blocks My Sky view (please see attachment no1)
The proposal Non -compliance with the Height asking 71.5% above SEPP regulations.
We will no longer see the blue sky from the 6 north facing windows, so limiting our view of sky to the front veranda exit.
The height and bulk of the building results in significant visual intrusion and view loss for my unit.
3. The inadequate Setbacks from our boundary invading My Privacy.
My privacy is affected by the height, as mentioned and by the closeness of the corner units on level 1-3 and their extended curved balconies. The current balcony planned set back is only 2.605m away from our fence line. This exacerbates the perception of bulk and mass impacting my privacy. There is a direct line of vision from these balconies on Level 1-3 into our 6 window areas.
My privacy day and night inside is affected which means shutters may have to be closed , further reducing the light in the room.
This privacy loss also impacts my use of the clothesline, our backyard and front courtyard for personal and social activities. Tree screening may be provided , however this may also impact the amount of light on our outside area.
4. My Interaction with the Neighbourhood
There will be overloading and an increase in difficulty for me to park my car in the street /streets that surround my house. This is due to the large number of Indigo residents ,staff, visitors, trade and maintenance vehicles, that will need to park on the same streets , because of the insufficient car parking provision, in the proposal, eg 4 abled bodied and 3 accessible spaces. 3 staff spaces. It is already difficult to find a park most evening, better in the day which will now change. Like ourselves we have two cars with only one car park, so I can assume a high percentage of the owners will have two cars. The proposal states two carparks per unit, however the plans only show enough room for 1 car space.
The increase traffic flow and acoustic noise increases will impact our low-density neighbourhood and safety of the many locals that walk on Ocean Street.
5. My Interaction with the Environment.
I’m concerned that the excessive bulk and size of the building so close to my residence will significantly result in reducing natural ventilation, sea breezes and general ventilation of surrounding buildings. The summer heat and cooling sea breezes is a pleasant part of life by the sea. This impact is likely to exacerbate urban heat around my area. And again, increasing my energy cooling expenses.
6. The Management of the Norfolk Pine trees.
They are planning to remove some of these trees, which all hold heritage and ecological value . According to the EIS (document 251002_EIS-156-164 Ocean St Narrabeen, page 1 ) The First Nation group who were consulted on the site advised they were increasingly important to Indigenous peoples as Local identifiers for the community.
The ones to be keep are having ground excavation work completed to close to their root system and will most likely slowly die and need to be removed. The Arborist on his report expressed concern the remaining trees would have a moderate to high rate of dying. This will impact me living so close to them and I have safety concerns of them falling over when dying off in times of huge windstorms.
These trees create impact in my view and visual privacy. If removed erodes the landscape character and natural setting of the area for the sake of the proposed building and garden design.
MY SOLUTION SUGGESTIONS: -
OVERSHADOWING /SUNLIGHT
New plans reducing the height of the building to SEPP requirements with adequate setbacks greater than 7.1m and tiered higher levels.
BULK AND SIZE
New plans reducing the height and bulky width of the building. This would come in with the accordance of the street scape of the Narrabeen Peninsula. This would increase the user-friendly look of the project that would appeal more to prospective clients to buy into Indigo.
INCREASE PRIVACY TO OUR UNIT
New plans to reduce the oversized south facing balconies on the Ocean Street frontage units and make setbacks compliant under SEPP.
New plans to reduce the height of the development to SEPP compliant building height. Downsize the courtyard space to provide a more sympathic design to SEPP setbacks.
TRAFFIC AND PARKING
New plans for the construction phase to increase parking for Tradies and large trucks. This could include use of the land along Octavia Street as a car parking area until the basement is completed.
New Plans redesigning the basement car parking levels to include full two car spaces and storage.
To provide new plans for an increase in Visitors and staff basement parking.
To retain the current bus stop location, to minimize loss of street parking and maintain convenience for residents.
LANDSCAPE AND NORFOLK PINES
We need new plans from the developers that are in alignment with the Arborist report, to look at saving these Norfolk pines and soil volume.
CONCLUSION
Overall, I am in favour of a Retirement Village development on this site next to my home. I do not support this DA for Indigo by Moran Seniors Living Development SSD-76220734. I request that the application be reviewed considering all the submissions recommendations. That it's reviewed in the light of compliance with EXISTING SEPP conditions and other government bodies to achieve a harmonious outcome for the Narrabeen Peninsula.

Thank you for reading this report.
Deborah Inkster

To whom it may concern,
This development is totally out of scale and character with the local government area, it is plain and simply GROSS OVER DEVELOPMENT. There is currently limited parking in the surrounding area, any additional vehicles cannot be accommodated in the surrounding street. Surrounding streets cannot cope with the additional traffic created by this proposal. There is no local benefit to anybody in the surrounding area, it is an exclusionary design with limited public space or community benefit.
In addition to the above the environmental impact will be significant, many mature pine and gum trees will need to be removed which will result in loss of habitat for many native animals and birds.
All consultation has been misleading and underhanded.
Please do not approve this development in ANY FORM.

From: Kobe Edwards

Date: 3/11/2025

I am a resident of Narrabeen and wish to formally object to the proposed Indigo by Moran seniors housing development at 156–164 Ocean Street, Narrabeen. The scale and intensity of this proposal are entirely inappropriate for this sensitive coastal site and inconsistent with local planning controls. I personally pass the area of this development almost every day and have many close family members who live in very close proximity to this development and would affect me and my family personally. On top of this, as a lifelong resident of Narrabeen I worry what might happen in the future to the Northern Beaches if this development is allowed to proceed, as this proposal does not provide any relief for housing and in fact subtracts from the amount of assisted living for the elderly in the area.

I have included some of the concerns I have with this development below.
1. The proposal exceeds the intended scale of the R2 Low Density Residential Zone under the Northern Beaches LEP 2011. Its 21.5m height and bulk disregard Clause 4.3 Height of Buildings and the Housing SEPP 2021 design principles.

2. The site sits within mapped Coastal Environment and Coastal Vulnerability Areas under the Coastal SEPP 2018. Excavation over 11m deep poses flooding, groundwater, and structural risks.

3. The BASIX assessment barely meets minimum standards with little passive design or energy efficiency, contrary to Clause 3.6 of the Housing SEPP and Section B5 of the DCP.

4. No meaningful consultation was undertaken before lodgement, and the public exhibition period of only two weeks was unreasonably short.

5. The absence of an Independent Design Review Panel undermines confidence in the process. Approving this would set a dangerous precedent for large-scale overdevelopment along Narrabeen’s coastline.

6. Under section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, developments must demonstrate consistency with planning instruments and serve the public interest. This proposal offers no genuine community or environmental benefit and undermines the principles of sustainable coastal planning.

Request
I request that the Department refuse SSD-76220734, or alternatively require a full redesign that:
• Reduces height, bulk, and excavation depth;
• Improves sustainability and BASIX performance;
• Retains mature trees and expands deep-soil areas;
• Undergoes independent design review; and
• Is re-exhibited with proper community consultation and an extended timeframe.

I hope that you take these issues into consideration and will refuse this development, at least in its current state. This proposal is dangerous for Narrabeen, and will cause significant disruptions for local families, and even those who frequent the area in general.

Sincerely,
Kobe Edwards

I object to the proposed development on the grounds of excessive height and bulk, significant privacy impacts, removal of mature native vegetation, and non-compliance with SEPP, SEARs, and Seniors Housing Design Guide requirements.
A detailed objection outlining these issues, including visual impact out of character for the area, loss of amenity and planning compliance failures, is attached for consideration. Regards Michell Cudmore 0466939929

My Name is Ben Short, I am the chairman of the North Narrabeen National Surfing reserve, I have lived on Ocean St for 42 years of my life and have watched it change and adapt during that time. The area has become extremely gentrified, and now there are barely any children living on the Narrabeen Peninsula due to the lack of affordable housing. This was quite apparent at this years halloween, with the normally vibrant Lisle street having barely any children trick or treating compared to previous years. Schools in the area are also seeing dwindling numbers in enrolments as young families are priced out of the area.

When the development was originally announced, I had thought this could be great, the developer could build some aged care and some affordable housing, but it seems they didn't get the memo and are building something that no one is asking for or wants for that matter.

Narrabeen used to be a young vibrant community, it is now an old wealthy community and this is not a good thing. If there are no children or young people, who will work in the shops, who will look after the elderly?

This development could be taken as an opportunity to provide some affordable housing mixed in with some over 60's housing, as well aged care beds.

The main issues with the proposed development -


* There has been no community consultation for this development.
* The current proposed height is 70% above what is allowed.
* The development overshadows neighbouring properties.
* The development being set on the boundaries dwarfs neighbouring properties, particularly on the South & West sides which will lose their winter sun, adding to heating costs and increasing chance of mould etc.
* Traffic issues - it is already extremely difficult to park on ocean st and surrounds, this will add at least 150 extra cars to the area making the parking situation much worse.
* Increased traffic, during busy times it is impossible to cross ocean street due to the traffic, this will get worse with the addition of up to 150 extra cars.
* Sewerage, has analysis been done to see the impacts of the additional sewerage from these new developements.
* Builders accessing site, and materials being delivered, for a site of this magnitude how will the workers and materials be delivered to the site on what are quite small, busy streets. This will greatly disrupt traffic on Ocean St for the duration of the build.
* The development contains no affordable housing options and is purely focussed on "Luxury dwellings".

I am a resident of Narrabeen and wish to formally object to the proposed Indigo by Moran seniors housing development at 156–164 Ocean Street, Narrabeen. The scale and intensity of this proposal are entirely inappropriate for this sensitive coastal site and inconsistent with local planning controls.

Key Concerns
1. Overdevelopment and Non-Compliance – The proposal exceeds the intended scale of the R2 Low Density Residential Zone under the Northern Beaches LEP 2011. Its 21.5m height and bulk disregard Clause 4.3 Height of Buildings and the Housing SEPP 2021 design principles.

2. Environmental and Coastal Risk – The site sits within mapped Coastal Environment and Coastal Vulnerability Areas under the Coastal SEPP 2018. Excavation over 11m deep poses flooding, groundwater, and structural risks.

3. Poor Design and Minimal Sustainability – The BASIX assessment barely meets minimum standards with little passive design or energy efficiency, contrary to Clause 3.6 of the Housing SEPP and Section B5 of the DCP.

4. Lack of Transparency and Consultation – No meaningful consultation was undertaken before lodgement, and the public exhibition period of only two weeks was unreasonably short.

5. Governance and Precedent – The absence of an Independent Design Review Panel undermines confidence in the process. Approving this would set a dangerous precedent for large-scale overdevelopment along Narrabeen’s coastline.

Public Interest
Under section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, developments must demonstrate consistency with planning instruments and serve the public interest. This proposal offers no genuine community or environmental benefit and undermines the principles of sustainable coastal planning.

Request
I respectfully request that the Department refuse SSD-76220734, or alternatively require a full redesign that:
• Reduces height, bulk, and excavation depth;
• Improves sustainability and BASIX performance;
• Retains mature trees and expands deep-soil areas;
• Undergoes independent design review; and
• Is re-exhibited with proper community consultation and an extended timeframe.

Signature
Signed,
India Edwards
3-5 Wetherill Street
Narrabeen NSW 2101

I wish to formally lodge an objection to the proposed development at 156–164 Ocean Street, Narrabeen. My concerns relate to the Visual Impact, Building Height, Traffic and Parking, Tree Removal, Flood Risk, and, in particular, the pricing of the proposed senior units, which is inconsistent with the financial capacity of the majority of the local community. To better align with the surrounding built environment and maintain the character of the area, the proposed development should be reduced by two to three levels, allowing it to sit more comfortably within the streetscape and avoid becoming visually and socially polarising to the local community.

I am a resident of Narrabeen and wish to formally object to the proposed Indigo by Moran seniors housing development at 156–164 Ocean Street, Narrabeen. The scale and intensity of this proposal are entirely inappropriate for this sensitive coastal site and inconsistent with local planning controls.

This goes above the height restrictions for Multi-dwelling housing in the area. It will change the nature of the area and devalues the suburb. You only need to look at the disaster that is Dee Why with all its multiple high rise apartments and the impact it has on living in the area. We don't want high rises above the 3 storey limit in Narrabeen

I hereby make a submission in relation to the above proposal and respectfully request that the permitted building height be reduced to 2 or 3 storeys, rather than the currently proposed 5 or 6 storeys, on the following grounds of neighbourhood amenity, traffic/parking/road network capacity and local context.
Local traffic, parking & infrastructure context:
According to a study of the local area around the Narrabeen Lagoon, the 'average annual daily trips' (AADT) on Ocean Street were estimated at approximately 8,004 vehicles per day. Northern Beaches Council is implementing traffic‑calming measures under its “Safer measures under its “Safer Neighbourhoods” program, including a 40 km/h zone, raised crossings and kerb build‑outs. On‑street parking is limited and time‑restricted (1‑4 hour limits), with Council carparks near capacity. These constraints already create significant congestion and parking stress.
Implications for the proposed development:
A 5‑6 storey development is likely to bring a significantly higher number of residents, visitors vehicles ( a 3 bedroom unit could potentially need parking for 4-6 vehicles) and service vehicles. This would exacerbate existing congestion and parking pressure in the area. Given the Council’s traffic‑calming and pedestrian‑safety initiatives, additional vehicle load may undermine local safety and amenity. Overflow parking could displace residents and create illegal parking or circulation issues, especially on weekends and peak periods.
Proposed scaling and design modifications:
To mitigate these issues, I propose that the maximum building height be limited to 2 or 3 storeys, reducing unit count, parking demand and vehicle trips. The applicant should be required to provide an updated Traffic & Parking Impact Assessment for a reduced‑scale design. The assessment should demonstrate traffic generation, turning movements, and parking adequacy, supported by on‑site visitor and service vehicle spaces to prevent street spill‑over. The design should also enhance ground‑level amenity for seniors—promoting accessibility, less reliance on lifts, and integration with public transport, walking paths and local services.
Conclusion:
While I support seniors housing in Narrabeen, the current 5‑6 storey proposal is incompatible with the character, amenity and infrastructure capacity of Ocean Street. A more moderate 2‑3 storey development would better align with the local environment, improve safety, reduce traffic congestion, and maintain community character. I therefore request that the Department limit the development to a height of 2‑3 storeys unless compelling justification is provided that taller buildings will not cause unacceptable impacts.
Thank you for considering this submission

OBJECTION TO SSD-76220734 156 OCEAN STREET NARRABEEN

UNSUITABILITY
The bulk and scale of the proposed 6 storey development at 156 Ocean Street Narrabeen is excessive and not in keeping with the established character and low rise streetscape of the surrounding area. It exceeds the current planning controls by over 70%. I have friends that live directly opposite the proposed development and the resultant overshadowing of adjacent properties will deny them their solar access and affect the quality of life and mental health of them and other affected residents.

TRAFFIC/PARKING
The proposed development does not provide adequate parking allowing for only 178 residential parking spaces for 149 apartments. Considering most residences have at least 2 vehicles per household the remaining approximately 120 vehicles, plus visitors, staff and maintenance vehicles will be added to the already significant traffic and parking congestion in Lagoon, Octavia, Loftus and Ocean Streets. I live nearby in Mona Vale and use Ocean Street regularly. I am concerned the increased vehicle traffic and parking will create unsafe conditions for residents and visitors using those streets, particularly for children accessing the beach along Ocean Street and the nearby St Josephs Primary School.

INCOMPATIBLE
The proposal appears to be exploiting the Seniors Housing SEPP to facilitate approval but this proposal is incompatible with that policy as it is not increasing the supply of residential aged care and cannot be considered a genuine continuation of aged care services. In this proposal there will be a loss of Aged Care Capacity from the current 55 aged care beds and 35 assisting living units to just a 10 bed facility, substantially diminishing the availability of much-needed aged care places on the Northern Beaches. My mother currently resides in a residential Aged Care facility and I know first-hand how difficult it is to obtain a place on the Northern Beaches.