Indigo By Moran - 156 Ocean Street Narrabeen

My mother owns the house at the corner at Octavia street and 3 Lisle St , at this moment mum lives in an age care center and suffers from Alzheimer, my brother Michael Smith and myself, Geoffrey Smith, have Power of Attorney & Guardianship of mum's assets and disagree with this project at the address at 156- 164 Ocean street , 81-81A Lagoon Street & 8 Octavia Street Narrabeen.
- Streets are very narrow
- No parking on the streets
- 5 to 6 Floor would look out of place
- Traffic is congested as it is with council busses having to negotiate on coming and parked cars
- There is a primary school - St Joseph next door to this project and at present its very busy when parents drop off and pick up their children
- This is a residential area and bringing a project this size with 10 beds residential care facility & 149 independent living units which would have visitors / relatives and this project is ONLY providing 7 visitors spaces. Therefore more congestion on the streets.
- There is simply no more space in which to accommodate any more on street parked cars which this project will generate.
- The demolition & construction of this size project would be a mammoth work lengthy and traumatic for the every day living and the community around there.

This building is way too big for the Narrabeen peninsular, the area cannot cope with the extra traffic and people.
It will be an eyesore towering above all other units and houses in the street.
I ask the developers go back to the design and make it fit in with the area.
I strongly object to this project

This proposal is not in keeping with the area it is way too large. It’s proposed on a stretch of coastline that is erosion prone on a small peninsular
It’s clearly providing apartments for the wealthy over 60 s market I’ve lived in the area my entire life and are over 60 I could sell everything I own (house included )and not be able to afford an apartment there
It’ is presenting itself as aged care to get around planning rules.
What about increased traffic in such a already busy road and not to mention more strain on the sewerage system that overflows every time we get decent rain
Polluting the ocean that this property is profiting off
I am also concerned about increased dog ownership in the apartments that stretch of beach is overrun by dog owners exercising their dogs.
Where else are pets supposed to exercise
In a nutshell too big for the site
Not enough infrastructure to support such a huge development
It will cast a huge shadow forever changing that site and its surrounds
Not vey far from erosion prone beach front
Gai

*Over development with the bulk of the building being too high and does not comply with the local LEPs height of 8.5m
*Zoning for the area is R3
*No benefit to the community with the cheapest price being around $3million dollars with no affordable housing included in the development. This is a private luxury retirement development and is not in the spirit of the NSW governments requirements.
*The overshadowing of surrounding properties and also visual intrusion of nearby properties in all surrounding streets.
*Traffic hazard, safety and congestion with the addition of 300 more vehicles to Lagoon st which is already under review by council for traffic problems.
*There has been no local consolation or consideration by the developers.

A multi story complex is not suitable in a residential area where the maximum height of units currently is 3-4 levels. There needs to be restrictions in place to limit the number of multi story complex’s being built on the Narrabeen beachfront. The local residents do not want Narrabeen to turn into Dee Why. We also don’t have the infrastructure to support more people, more vehicles etc…

Submission of Objection – SSD-76220734 (Indigo by Moran, 156 Ocean Street Narrabeen)
To: The Secretary, NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure (DPHI)
From: Darren Geros – Resident & Property Owner, 1 Loftus Street and 143 Ocean Street, Narrabeen NSW 2101
Date: 2 October 2025
Project: State Significant Development – Indigo by Moran (Seniors Living)
Site: 156–164 Ocean St / 81–81A Lagoon St / 8 Octavia St, Narrabeen
1. Personal Context and Community Concern
My family have lived in Narrabeen for multiple generations and I own two nearby properties—my family home at 1 Loftus Street and another residence at 143 Ocean Street—both within direct proximity to the proposed Indigo by Moran site. As a long-standing local resident, I am deeply concerned by the excessive scale, lack of transparency, and minimal consultation associated with this application. This proposal represents an overdevelopment that would permanently alter the character, livability, and environmental integrity of our peninsula community.
2. Statutory Framework and Assessment Responsibilities
The development is declared State Significant Development (SSD) under section 4.36 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW). Despite its SSD status, the Department must still apply the section 4.15 evaluation criteria, which require consideration of:
• consistency with environmental planning instruments;
• likely environmental, social, and economic impacts;
• the site’s suitability for the proposed use; and
• the broader public interest.
In its current form, the application demonstrably fails to satisfy these obligations.
3. Non-Compliance with Applicable Planning Instruments
a) State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing) 2021 – The proposal fails to meet the design and amenity principles outlined for seniors housing, particularly those relating to contextual integration and resident comfort. The excessive bulk and height do not align with the surrounding low-density residential fabric.

b) State Environmental Planning Policy (Coastal Management) 2018 – The site sits within both the Coastal Environment and Coastal Vulnerability Areas. The 11.5-metre-deep excavation penetrates the water table, breaching Clauses 11 and 12 which mandate a precautionary approach to managing coastal hazards.

c) Northern Beaches Local Environmental Plan 2011 – The proposed 21.5m height conflicts with Clause 4.3 (Height of Buildings) and the objectives of the R2 Low Density zone, which aim to preserve the low-scale coastal character.

d) Northern Beaches Development Control Plan 2019 – The development breaches provisions concerning solar access, visual privacy, and landscape character. Loss of mature canopy vegetation contradicts Council’s Urban Tree Canopy Strategy and the environmental objectives of Part D6 of the DCP.
4. Deficiencies in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
A. Incomplete and Misleading Information – The EIS omits or misrepresents key data relating to traffic generation, overshadowing, and flooding. Several reports rely on broad assumptions that understate the true extent of the project’s impacts on neighbouring properties and the environment.

B. Minimal BASIX Compliance – Sustainability documentation shows that BASIX targets are only marginally achieved. There is no evidence of passive solar design, natural ventilation strategies, or meaningful water reuse measures, contrary to Clause 3.6 of the Housing SEPP and DCP Section B5.

C. Traffic and Safety – The local road network is already constrained. The submitted Traffic Impact Assessment does not accurately model the cumulative effects of resident, staff, and service-vehicle trips during peak times.

D. Groundwater and Flooding – Deep excavation within a flood-prone coastal site is inconsistent with the Coastal SEPP’s requirement for a precautionary approach to development in hazard-prone areas.
5. Procedural and Governance Concerns
A. Lack of Community Consultation – There has been no meaningful consultation with the local community. Residents were not informed or engaged prior to lodgement, undermining public confidence in the planning process.

B. Inadequate Public Exhibition Period – The public submission window was unreasonably short given the scale and complexity of the project. A two-week period is insufficient for residents to review more than 40 EIS attachments and technical studies.

C. Absence of an Independent Design Review Panel – The lack of an independent design review process is concerning. An IDRP should have been convened for a development of this magnitude to ensure objective design scrutiny and accountability.

D. Precedent and Cumulative Impact – Approving a structure of this scale would set a dangerous precedent for future developments along Ocean Street and the Narrabeen Lagoon corridor, threatening the established character of the Northern Beaches.
6. Public Interest and Planning Principles
Under section 4.15(1)(e) of the EP&A Act 1979, planning authorities must act in the public interest. This proposal does not deliver affordable or environmentally responsible housing and serves primarily private commercial interests. It fails to align with the objectives of the Housing SEPP 2021, the Coastal SEPP 2018, and the Northern Beaches Community Strategic Plan 2040.
7. Requested Determination
I respectfully request that the Department:
1. Refuse SSD-76220734 due to its non-compliance with the EP&A Act 1979, Housing SEPP 2021, Coastal SEPP 2018, Northern Beaches LEP 2011, and DCP 2019; or
2. Require a comprehensive redesign that:
• Reduces height, scale, and excavation depth;
• Improves BASIX and sustainability outcomes;
• Demonstrates no-worsening overshadowing or privacy impacts;
• Retains and protects existing trees and deep-soil landscaping;
• Is subject to review by an Independent Design Review Panel; and
• Undergoes renewed community consultation with an extended exhibition timeframe.
8. Conclusion
As both a resident and property owner directly affected at 1 Loftus Street and 143 Ocean Street, I strongly oppose this proposal. It represents an over-scaled and environmentally risky development that is inconsistent with the established planning framework and contrary to the public interest. I urge the Department to refuse the application in its current form to preserve the integrity, character, and safety of the Narrabeen community.

Signed,
Darren Geros
Resident & Property Owner
1 Loftus Street and 143 Ocean Street, Narrabeen NSW 2101

I object to te project in its present form for the following reasons:
1/ the over-development as a six-storey complex with so many units is certainly not consistent with the local beachside area, and I am unsure why this type of development is entitled to not obey the local rules as other developments have to.
2/ the visual impact is overwhelming for the surrounding streets by the overall height, maybe 4 storeys would surfice and a reduction in the number of units to suit. (I agree we do need extra retirement sites in the area, so can agree to a smaller scale going ahead)
3/ The traffic implications of an addittional 300 people to the site, is also a cause for concern. I have lived on Ocean Street for 47years and seen great changes occur, but this is just so out of character for the street.
We already have traffic issues with it being used as a alternate run , so as to miss 7 sets of traffic lights on Pittwater road,
last Thursday I waited 10minutes with my dog to just cross the road outside my house, there was just so much through traffic, and we cannot cope with any extra.
I would love to see a much smaller scale project go ahead, consistant with heights already in place, not 6 stoteys, it will look so out of place no matter how well designed it will be.
I feel they are being a little greedy!!!

1. Inconsistent building character.
The principal form of development in Ocean St is a mix of single and two storey houses,two storey town houses and flats. The proposed development is 6 storey and is not in keeping with the existing character.
2. Inadequate Parking and traffic impact.
Only 178 parking spaces are proposed this is inadequate for the size of the development. An independent traffic assessment should be prepared to confirm if this number is sufficient.
3. Loss of aged care capacity.
the current proposal is to replace 55 aged care beds and 35 assisted living units with a 10 bed facility. This number of replacement beds is completely inadequate.
4. Explotation of Planning provisions
The State Government has recently introduced zoning changes that will allow 6 storey development in Brookvale, Manly Vale, Dee Why, Mona Vale and Forestville. This legislation does not include Narrabeen and was never intended to
5. Setting a precedent.
6. lack of genuine community consultation
7absence of affordable housing
8environonmental aaand water table concerns

6 levels above ground level is too high

This development will be a great asset to the many over 50's looking for comfortable accommodation in a more difficult time with less availability in these areas. It's a very polished impressive build that will offer extensive housing and improve what is currently at that location. I support this to go ahead and know that Moran have built excellent projects in the past.

Submission of Objection – SSD-76220734 (Indigo by Moran, 156 Ocean Street Narrabeen)
To: The Secretary, NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure (DPHI)
From: Tianah Geros – Resident & Architect, 1 Loftus Street, Narrabeen NSW 2101
Date: 2 October 2025
Project: State Significant Development – Indigo by Moran (Seniors Living)
Site: 156–164 Ocean St / 81–81A Lagoon St / 8 Octavia St, Narrabeen
1. Context and Purpose
As both a long-term Narrabeen resident and a practising architect specialising in residential design, I write to express strong objection to the proposed Indigo by Moran development. The proposal, as exhibited, demonstrates significant non-compliance with NSW planning policy and fails to achieve the standard of design quality expected under the State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing) 2021. Its excessive height, monolithic form, and disregard for coastal constraints result in unacceptable impacts on local amenity, neighbourhood character, and environmental sustainability.
2. Legislative and Assessment Framework
This project is classified as State Significant Development (SSD) under section 4.36 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW). Under section 4.15 of the same Act, the consent authority must consider the relevant planning instruments, the likely impacts of the development, the suitability of the site, and the public interest. When assessed against these statutory tests, the development clearly fails to meet the necessary thresholds for approval.
3. Conflict with Statutory Planning Instruments
a) State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing) 2021 – The proposal does not satisfy design quality principles for seniors housing relating to context, scale, amenity and architectural merit. Its height and bulk are incompatible with adjoining low-density dwellings, contrary to the objectives of contextual design.

b) State Environmental Planning Policy (Coastal Management) 2018 – The site lies within the Coastal Environment and Coastal Vulnerability Areas. Excavating 11.5 metres below natural ground level directly into the water table contravenes Clauses 11 and 12 of the Coastal SEPP, which require development to minimise coastal hazard risk and maintain the natural function of the coastal zone.

c) Northern Beaches Local Environmental Plan 2011 – The proposal exceeds the intended scale and intensity of development permissible in the R2 Low Density Residential zone. The 21.5m building height is inconsistent with the LEP Height of Buildings Map and the objectives of Clause 4.3, which seek to maintain a low-rise coastal character.

d) Northern Beaches Development Control Plan 2019 – The DCP requires new development to protect adjoining properties’ access to sunlight, privacy, and outlook, and to contribute positively to streetscape character. The application breaches these standards and provides insufficient landscape setbacks and deep-soil zones.
4. Design and Technical Deficiencies Identified in the EIS
A. Solar Access and Overshadowing – The Shadow Diagrams show that the proposal casts significant shadows across adjacent dwellings between 9am and 3pm in winter. The EIS fails to provide a solar access compliance table or to demonstrate compliance with DCP Part D6 sunlight provisions.

B. Privacy and Building Separation – As an architect reviewing the plans, I note that habitable rooms and balconies directly overlook neighbouring private spaces. Setbacks of less than 10m fall well short of the Apartment Design Guide’s Objective 3F requirements of 12–18m for 5–6 storey buildings.

C. Bulk and Urban Character – The building lacks articulation, modulation, and roof variation, creating a visually dominant form inconsistent with the Housing SEPP’s Design Principles 1 (Context) and 2 (Built Form and Scale).

D. Traffic and Servicing – The Transport Assessment underestimates the operational impacts of service, visitor, and staff vehicles on the constrained local street network, exacerbating safety risks for pedestrians and residents.

E. Groundwater and Flood Risk – The proposed basement extends into the lagoon-influenced water table, introducing risks of groundwater draw-down, saline intrusion and structural buoyancy, contrary to the Coastal SEPP and Council’s Floodplain Management Study.

F. Landscape and Biodiversity – The Arborist Report identifies substantial loss of mature canopy trees that provide important habitat and shade. Replacement with planter-box vegetation fails to meet the intent of Council’s Urban Tree Canopy Strategy.

G. BASIX and Environmental Performance – The proposal only marginally meets minimum BASIX targets and lacks meaningful passive design measures. It relies heavily on mechanical systems, with poor cross-ventilation, suboptimal orientation and limited renewable energy integration, conflicting with the sustainability objectives of the Housing SEPP and DCP Section B5.

H. Construction Amenity – Extended excavation and construction will result in prolonged noise, vibration and truck movements on narrow residential streets, which is unacceptable for this locality.
5. Public Interest and Design Quality Principles
Section 4.15(1)(e) of the EP&A Act requires consideration of the public interest. This proposal fails that test. It offers limited community benefit while imposing significant social, environmental, and visual impacts. The project also fails to meet the NSW Government Architect’s ‘Better Placemaking’ and ‘Design for Aged Care’ guidelines, which emphasise human-scaled, sustainable, and contextually responsive design.
6. Requested Determination
It is therefore respectfully requested that the Department of Planning and Housing refuse consent for SSD-76220734. Alternatively, any resubmission should include:
• A reduced height and built form to align with LEP and DCP controls;
• Full compliance with ADG privacy and separation benchmarks;
• Verified no-worsening solar outcomes for adjacent properties;
• Retention and protection of mature canopy trees and expanded deep-soil landscaping;
• A robust coastal hazard and groundwater management plan;
• Genuine sustainability and BASIX improvements beyond minimum thresholds.
7. Conclusion
From both a professional and resident perspective, this proposal represents an overdevelopment of a highly sensitive coastal site. It fails to demonstrate design excellence, sustainability, or contextual fit, and does not align with the statutory requirements of the EP&A Act 1979 or associated SEPPs and LEPs. I strongly urge the Department to refuse the proposal in its current form and to uphold planning principles that protect the unique character of Narrabeen’s coastal community.

Signed,
Tianah Geros
Architect & Resident
1 Loftus Street, Narrabeen NSW 2101

I am writing to formally object to the proposed development on Ocean Street, Narrabeen.

This development is not in keeping with the existing character and scale of the area, which is primarily made up of low-rise residential properties that reflect Narrabeen’s coastal village atmosphere. The proposed height, bulk, and density of the project would significantly alter the visual appeal and community feel of the neighbourhood.

In addition, traffic congestion is already a serious issue in the surrounding streets, particularly along Ocean Street and Pittwater Road. The existing road infrastructure is struggling to cope with current volumes, especially during school drop-off times, weekends, and peak commuter hours. The additional vehicle movements generated by this development—both during construction and once operational—will only worsen these conditions, compromising road safety and accessibility for residents and pedestrians alike.

I am writing as a resident of Narrabeen to express my strong objection to the proposed six-storey development "Indigo by Moran". While I understand the need for thoughtful development to accommodate population growth, this proposal is wholly inappropriate for our community, for the character of Narrabeen, and for the environmental and cultural integrity of the Northern Beaches.

1. Exceeds established height limits
Narrabeen has a clearly defined 11-metre height restriction for good reason, to preserve the low-rise coastal character of the suburb and maintain harmony with the natural landscape. A six-storey building dramatically exceeds this limit and would undermine years of careful planning and community consultation.

2. It's out of character with Narrabeen
This proposal is not in keeping with the area’s relaxed coastal identity. Narrabeen’s charm lies in its human scale — a village feel framed by the lake and ocean. A large, high-density development would stand out as an eyesore and erode the character that defines our community.

3. Dangerous precedent
Allowing a single developer to bypass local controls through the State Significant pathway would set a damaging precedent, inviting further high-rise projects and permanently altering the skyline and livability of Narrabeen, casting shade over homes, beaches and public spaces. We already have to live with the repercussions of decisions made in the 70s where high-rise buildings were approved along the beach front. Approval of this project is a pathway towards more visual eye-sores.

4. Community impact
The development would place additional pressure on already limited infrastructure — roads, parking, and public amenities, and most of all, public transport which is in dire need of improvement — without contributing meaningfully to local needs or the environment.

5. Conclusion
This proposal is inconsistent with local planning controls, out of step with the community’s vision, and detrimental to the identity of Narrabeen. I urge the Department to reject this application and uphold the 11-metre height limit that protects the area’s unique character.

Sincerely,
Tim French
Resident of Narrabeen, NSW

Submission: Objection to SSD-76220734 – Indigo by Moran, 156 Ocean Street Narrabeen
To: The Secretary, NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure (DPHI)
From: Jade Geros – Resident, 1 Loftus Street, Narrabeen NSW 2101
Date: 2 October 2025
Project: SSD-76220734 – Seniors Housing (Indigo by Moran)
Site: 156–164 Ocean St / 81–81A Lagoon St / 8 Octavia St, Narrabeen

1. Introduction & Local Context
I am a lifelong resident of Narrabeen and currently reside at 1 Loftus Street, immediately adjacent to the proposed site. Having lived in the area my entire life, I have an intimate understanding of its coastal character, flood vulnerabilities, and the lifestyle balance our community values. I strongly oppose the proposed 'Indigo by Moran' development due to its incompatibility with the established planning framework, excessive scale, and potential to cause lasting environmental, amenity, and infrastructure impacts.
2. Statutory Framework
The proposal is declared State Significant Development (SSD) under Section 4.36 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act). Accordingly, assessment must be undertaken in accordance with Section 4.15 of the EP&A Act, having regard to: (a) relevant environmental planning instruments, (b) the likely environmental and social impacts of the development, (c) the suitability of the site, and (d) the public interest. Despite its SSD classification, the proposal must still demonstrate compliance with these statutory principles.
3. Inconsistencies with Key Planning Instruments
a) State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing) 2021 – Seniors housing must be designed for context and amenity. This development fails to achieve those standards, with excessive building height and inadequate transition to surrounding low-density residential dwellings.

b) State Environmental Planning Policy (Coastal Management) 2018 – The site lies within the mapped Coastal Environment and Coastal Vulnerability Areas. The proposed 11.5 m basement excavation into the water table conflicts with the SEPP’s precautionary approach to managing coastal hazards and flooding risk.

c) Northern Beaches Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2011 – The proposal breaches the height and FSR objectives under Clauses 4.3 and 4.4 and is inconsistent with the R2 Low Density Residential zone intent to preserve low-rise character along the Narrabeen peninsula.

d) Northern Beaches Development Control Plan (DCP) – The design fails to comply with DCP objectives requiring protection of neighbouring amenity, solar access, privacy, and landscape character.
4. Deficiencies in the Exhibited Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
A. Overshadowing & Solar Access – The exhibited shadow diagrams show significant off-site overshadowing between 9 am and 3 pm during mid-winter. This results in a measurable loss of sunlight to adjoining private open spaces, inconsistent with the DCP’s solar access objectives.

B. Visual Privacy & Building Separation – Upper-level apartments and terraces overlook nearby backyards and dwellings. Separation distances fail to achieve the Apartment Design Guide (ADG) benchmarks for 5–6 storey buildings (12–18 m minimum between habitable rooms and balconies).

C. Bulk, Scale & Character – At 21.5 m, the proposal exceeds the scale envisaged by the LEP. It introduces a monolithic, continuous façade that overpowers surrounding single and two-storey coastal dwellings, altering the visual identity of the area.

D. Traffic, Access & Servicing – The EIS underestimates daily vehicle movements from residents, staff, and service deliveries. Ocean, Lagoon, and Loftus Streets are narrow and ill-equipped to handle additional congestion, compromising pedestrian and cyclist safety.

E. Groundwater, Flooding & Coastal Hazard – The Flood and Coastal Hazard Reports confirm high groundwater vulnerability. However, the EIS lacks a comprehensive mitigation strategy to address dewatering, saline intrusion, and potential subsidence risks during excavation.

F. Tree Canopy & Biodiversity – The Arboricultural Impact Assessment identifies the removal of over 30 mature trees. Replacement planting on rooftops or within planters will not provide equivalent shading, habitat, or stormwater management benefits. The DCP’s Urban Tree Canopy targets are therefore not met.

G. Construction Amenity – Prolonged excavation and construction works will generate unacceptable noise, vibration, dust, and truck movements in a quiet residential area, significantly impacting neighbouring residents for an extended duration.
5. Public Interest (EP&A Act s 4.15(1)(e))
The proposal offers no tangible public benefit or affordable housing contribution. Instead, it delivers a private, high-end development that imposes long-term environmental and amenity costs on the Narrabeen community. The development does not align with State planning objectives for sustainable, resilient, and context-appropriate growth.
6. Requested Determination
I respectfully request that the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure:

1. Refuse SSD-76220734 on the basis of non-compliance with the EP&A Act 1979, Housing SEPP 2021, Coastal SEPP 2018, and the Northern Beaches LEP/DCP; or
2. Require a major redesign that includes:
• Reduction in height, bulk, and FSR;
• Setbacks meeting ADG visual privacy and solar access requirements;
• Deep-soil zones and retention of mature trees;
• Verified groundwater and coastal hazard mitigation strategies; and
• Comprehensive traffic, parking, and construction management plans.
7. Conclusion
As a lifelong Narrabeen resident, I urge the Department to uphold the intent of NSW planning policy and protect the character, safety, and amenity of the Narrabeen peninsula. This proposal is inconsistent with both the letter and spirit of the planning framework that governs coastal protection, urban character, and community well-being.

Signed,
Jade Geros
Resident – 1 Loftus Street, Narrabeen NSW 2101

To the NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure,

I write as a long-term resident living directly opposite the proposed “Indigo by Moran Seniors Living” development site at 156-164 Ocean Street, 81-81A Lagoon Street and 8 Octavia Street, Narrabeen. I strongly object to this proposal in its current form.

This overdevelopment will have significant, irreversible, and unacceptable impacts on the character, environment, and livability of the Narrabeen Peninsula.

1. Overdevelopment and Scale:
The proposed 5 to 6 storey structure is entirely inconsistent with the established low-rise coastal character of Narrabeen. It will dominate the landscape, overshadow neighbouring homes, and visually intrude on one of the Northern Beaches’ most beautiful and fragile coastal peninsulas.
The sheer bulk, density and height are inappropriate for a narrow sandy strip of land bordered by the lagoon and the ocean. A project of this scale belongs in a high-density urban centre, not within a small coastal community already under pressure from population growth and limited infrastructure.

2. Environmental and Ecological Damage:
The proposed tree removal, including mature pines and gum trees, represents an unacceptable loss of established canopy and wildlife habitat. These trees are home to numerous native bird species, providing essential nesting and feeding areas that cannot be replaced once destroyed.
Further, the Narrabeen Peninsula sits upon a fragile sandy soil system and a delicate water table. Large-scale excavation for three levels of basement parking risks destabilising this system, causing erosion, altered drainage, and long-term environmental damage to both Narrabeen Lagoon and the nearby beach ecosystem.
This proposal directly conflicts with the principles of sustainable coastal management and environmental protection contained in the Northern Beaches Council’s Local Environment Plan and Development Control Plan.

3. Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Risk:
Narrabeen is an area of profound Aboriginal cultural significance. The site sits within a landscape that holds deep connection to the traditional custodians of this land. Any excavation or large-scale development poses a real risk to undiscovered artefacts or sites of cultural importance.
A comprehensive, independent Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment must be undertaken before any consideration of approval. To proceed without this would be a failure of due diligence and a disregard for our shared cultural heritage.

4. Traffic, Parking and Accessibility:
Traffic congestion in this part of Narrabeen is already severe. Ocean Street and Lagoon Street are narrow and heavily used by residents, pedestrians, and families accessing the lagoon and beach.

The addition of 149 independent living units and a 10-bed care facility will significantly increase local traffic, creating safety concerns and making an already limited parking situation untenable. The proposal’s provision of 192 car spaces is grossly insufficient given the number of residents, staff, visitors, and service vehicles expected.

As a young mother of two young children, the current limited street parking already affects my family’s day-to-day accessibility. This development will make it nearly impossible for residents like myself to safely park near our homes, an unacceptable social impact and one that has not been adequately assessed in the EIS.

5. Visual and Social Impact:
The proposed structure will visually overwhelm the existing streetscape and block natural light and sea breezes to surrounding homes. It will transform a calm, community-oriented neighbourhood into a congested, urban-style precinct.
The cumulative effect is the erosion of local character, resulting in the loss of the very qualities that make Narrabeen special: its sense of space, greenery, and coastal serenity.

6. Precedent and Planning Integrity:
Approval of a development of this magnitude will set a dangerous precedent for future high-density proposals on the peninsula. Once this character is lost, it cannot be regained.
The State should be protecting communities like Narrabeen from overdevelopment, not facilitating it through planning pathways that override local voices and council controls.


For the reasons I have outlined, including overdevelopment, environmental harm, traffic and parking strain, Aboriginal heritage risk, and severe visual and social intrusion, I urge the Department to reject this application in its current form.

I call for the Minister for Planning and Public Spaces to require a full reconsideration of this proposal, including a downsized and environmentally responsible design that aligns with the character, infrastructure and values of the Narrabeen Peninsula.

Our community deserves thoughtful, sustainable planning, not the irreversible loss of our coastal environment, heritage, and liveability. Community before profit - always.

Alex McTavish
10/74 Lagoon Street
Narrabeen, NSW 2101

Refer Written Submission

The scale of this project is totally out of sync with the neighbourhood and will strongly impact negatively on both local residents and the northern beaches in general. 5-6 storeys is totally out of keeping with the neighbourhood - how is it even being submitted as a possibility? Narrabeen is not high-rise Dee Why and should never be allowed to become so to satisfy the greed of developers. The impact of increased traffic and lack of visitors parking (7 visitors parking spots proposed) is a further issue that will be highly detrimental to neighbourhood traffic. This project needs to be downscaled to a reasonable level - it is untenable as currently proposed.

Secretary, DPHI,
: Objection to SSD-76220734 – 156 Ocean Street Narrabeen.
I live approx. 1Km form the proposed development, the corner of Sydney & Arnott cres. Sydney Rd is a cintinuation of Ocean st. & they are joined togther by North Narrabeen bridge. I have lived here for over 40 years & have seen many mistakes of hurried development prosposals that are now costing this community dearly. I am a concerned resident that does not wish to see this unique & beautiful area destroyed any further.
Incompatibility & Unsuitability - The proposed development is 6 floors, 3 times the height of many of the family homes surrounding it. The development is less than 100 metres from the ocean & the 3 floor underground carpark will be below sea level! Please look at the mistakes of the past i.e. the Marquesas development of the 1970's just a little further south on Ocean st. with the communty having to fund seawalls & every year having to truck sand from Narrabeen Lagoon to replenish the beach

Traffic/Accessibility - Currently there is very little parking along Ocean st. & with the devlopment's 149 apartments & the very meagre visitor parking it offers the overflow could not be tolerated. Further to this Ocean St. is used by many familys & children.

I strongly object to this development proposal,
Mark Onorati

I wish to object to the proposed “Indigo by Moran” development at 156-164 Ocean Street Narrabeen for the following reasons:
INSUFFICIENT COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:
- Very limited time frame (14 days) for the community to comment on the plans of the project. I attended all the Indigo “Community Consultation” meetings and we were never shown any plans or drawings of the complex until the meeting on 22Oct25.
EXCESSIVE HEIGHT:
- The Indigo proposal (a Residential Flat Building of 5 storeys plus rooftop pavilion) does not comply with the NSW State Government planning reforms as the site is more than 400m from Narrabeen Town Centre and hence should be contained at 4 storeys at most. Further Narrabeen is NOT one of the 9 Northern Beaches Town Centres identified for development under these latest reforms and hence should not be considered for this large development.
LOSS OF COMMUNITY CHARACTER:
- The proposed height of the development (22m) greatly exceeds the current height limit for the LEP zone (R3 medium-density residential, max HOB 8.5m). Hence the proposed height and size of the Indigo development is not in keeping with the current character of the area.
- The loss of sunlight hours and loss of view created by the size of this proposal is enormous for all surrounding residents and especially those in Loftus Street.
INCREASE TO TRAFFIC AND PARKING ISSUES:
- The local Northern Beaches Council has recently completed investigations under its “Safer Neighbourhoods” program and identified Ocean Street as an area of high traffic and in need of traffic calming initiatives. A large 5-6 storey development containing over 150 units in the one block will worsen existing congestion and increase demand for already limited street parking, especially at peak times. The same applies for the surrounding streets (Lagoon, Octavia and Loftus). According to Council there is no current plan for additional infrastructure, transport, services or funding from the State Government to manage this increase of residents and traffic.
- The proposal seeks to re-locate the Bus Stop on Ocean Street and create a No Parking Pickup/Dropoff zone for its residents. This would result in a loss of 4 street parking spots making it even more difficult for existing residents and visitors to park especially at peak times.

I am not against a Seniors housing development on the site but the current size of the Indigo proposal is incompatible with the character and infrastructure of the area due to its height and size. A more moderate proposal of 3 storeys plus rooftop pavilion would be more compatible with the current LEP/State Government reforms, the current community character and the current traffic/parking issues.
Thank you.

Eevi is a leading provider of aged care technology services. We support many of they most progressive providers of seniors housing and aged care facilities in Australia. For example, in Sydney, we support LDK at The Landings community, and Watermark at the Chatswood Golf Course community. Eevi has supported Moran with the aged care monitoring technologies at The Sage at Cronulla. Our observation is that Moran is an exceptional provider of senior housing and has built a community that is extremely attractive to seniors as a place to live and age well. The northern beaches are lucky to have such a provider in the housing and care facilities so desperately needed in ageing population. Our experience is that the demand for senior housing solutions which support in home aged care servcies, like Moran, is overwhelming. We are not experts in the northern beaches demographics. We do know, however, that our elders wish to age in the communities in which they live, where they have connections. And we know this to be their best defence against loneliness. Support at Home packages are increasing the attractiveness of retirement villages as the locus for low to medium care, instead of in a residential aged care facility. And we know our seniors what to live in a home, not a place that feels like a hospital. The opportunity for elders in the northern beaches to have access to a Moran designed and built community is a good thing.