Indigo By Moran - 156 Ocean Street Narrabeen

Narrabeen is not Dee Why. Approving this application sets a concerning precedent that similar changes can continue across our area. The extremely short window provided for community feedback appears questionable and undermines fair consultation. I do not support this application.

This is the fifth attempt to make comment. Your systems have failed multiple times. Indeed, neighbours have experienced the same failings. Many have given up trying to make comments, hence the community feedback you receive is understated due to system failures. Writing on my phone as can't login via PC.

I object to the project.

One. Far too high. Should be limited to three levels.
Two. Not enough open space and built to the boundary, conjures Soviet, brutalist architecture at its worst!
Three. Completely out of character of surrounds. Narrabeen is not a built up area. This is a very built up project that will tower over the beachside Ocean street. I don't see built up developments planned for the Botanical Gardens, therefore, why should Narrabeen suffer. If approved, the precedent will result in many similar projects. Narrabeen will be a beach ghetto.
Four. Traffic. Ocean Street is busy. Crossing can take many minutes. Frequent traffic jams occur. A development of this size will excasberate traffic congestion

I own the residence of 161 Ocean Street. I am also concerned by the loss of privacy as this overly high development will enable viewing into my front, mid and rear yard. If the development were two to three levels high, privacy would not be lost.

This development will directly impact our family. The infrastructure around narrabeen especially Ocean St and Lagoon St and surrounding streets struggles at present with the infrastructure. This will put a huge burden on our neighbourhood. Parking is already difficult. The traffic is increasing each year and some days it’s difficult to drive off the peninsula with heavy traffic. This will only make it worse.
This being said we live Narrabeen and love it. To think of such a huge development in our neighbourhood is really disappointing. It really will ruin the community feel we have. We don’t want to start having high rise on our beach front. That’s what makes narrabeen so special.

This area is over populated and it is hard enough already to navigate and park your vehicle without an extra 100+ units of people here.

Submission to NSW Department of Planning & Environment
Re: SSD‑7622 — “Indigo by Moran”, 156 Ocean Street, Narrabeen
Date: 2/11/25
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 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 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.
Best regards
Mark Matthews

Submission attached objecting to the design of the development

Refer to attached objection document

Refer details in attachment

Submission Objecting to SSD-76220734 (Indigo by Moran)

Site: 156–164 Ocean Street, Narrabeen
From: Rod Everitt, 8 Lisle St, Narrabeen NSW 2101
Date: 2 November 2025

⸻

Introduction

As a long-term local resident, I strongly object to the proposed Indigo by Moran development. The scale, density, and associated traffic of this 149-unit complex are entirely incompatible with the small, low-rise coastal village character of Narrabeen.

The project represents a material intensification of population and vehicle activity on a narrow peninsula already under significant traffic and parking stress. On summer weekends, Lagoon Street and Ocean Street are routinely gridlocked, and every kerbside space is occupied by beachgoers, residents, and visitors. Introducing a high-density seniors complex of this magnitude will make local conditions unworkable and unsafe.

Outcome sought:
Refusal of the application in its current form. If approval is considered, conditions must guarantee zero worsening of local traffic, parking or pedestrian safety, and the overall scale must be substantially reduced.

⸻

1) Scale and density incompatible with peninsula capacity

Narrabeen is a narrow strip of land between the beach and the lagoon, with constrained road geometry and finite parking supply. Adding 149 dwellings and three basement levels of parking introduces a population equivalent to several existing street blocks, without any capacity uplift in the road network.

The surrounding roads — Lagoon Street, Ocean Street, and Pittwater Road — already operate at saturation during school, beach, and holiday peaks. These are not expandable corridors; every additional vehicle competes directly with local residents and beach traffic.

Reducing the building height by at least two storeys across the scheme would proportionally reduce dwellings, cars, and traffic volumes and bring the bulk closer to a scale suitable for this beachside setting.

⸻

2) Traffic generation: serious congestion and safety risks

Even under conservative assumptions, the proposal would generate 35–65 vehicle trips per hour during typical peaks, with the worst impacts coinciding with Narrabeen’s busiest weekend and holiday periods.

All vehicle movements would funnel onto Lagoon Street — a narrow residential road that has recently been re-engineered by Council to slow speeds, widen crossings, and prioritise pedestrians and cyclists. These changes make the street safer but also reduce its traffic capacity.

The TTIA fails to:
• Model summer weekend “beach peaks” when the network already fails;
• Consider reduced approach speeds, raised crossings, and kerb build-outs in its flow assumptions;
• Assess safety conflicts with pedestrians, cyclists, and parked vehicles.

The likely result is queuing across raised crossings, blocked driveways, and dangerous frustration-driven behaviour on roads not designed for this scale of development.

Requests/conditions:
• Require a revised TTIA covering both weekday peaks and summer weekend peaks.
• Require detailed modelling of Ocean/Lagoon and Ocean/Pittwater intersections with realistic geometry and saturation conditions.
• Prohibit any design that relies on public kerb space for pick-up/drop-off, delivery or service vehicles.
• Mandate an on-site turning area and loading bays sized for concurrent use.
• Condition a robust Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) with defined haul routes, curfews, off-street worker parking, and penalties for non-compliance.
• Conduct post-occupation traffic counts with triggers for corrective action if deterioration occurs.

⸻

3) Parking: critical under-provision and inevitable overflow

The most alarming deficiency is parking. The development proposes only 7–8 visitor spaces for 149 independent-living units — roughly one space per 20 dwellings.

In reality, this is a fraction of what’s needed:
• For multi-unit housing in comparable settings, one visitor space per five dwellings (~30 spaces) is the accepted minimum.
• The 178 resident spaces will be entirely consumed by residents themselves, given the premium pricing of these units and high car ownership among senior couples.
• There will be regular visitors — family, friends, carers, clinicians, tradespeople — all requiring short-term parking.
• Once the on-site visitor bays are full, overflow will inevitably spill onto nearby residential streets already saturated by beach and Lagoon Trail users.

This is not a minor inconvenience. In summer, every available space from Ocean Street to Lagoon Trail is taken. Residents already struggle to park near their homes; adding 149 households’ worth of demand with almost no visitor parking will compound this into constant congestion, frustration, and unsafe conditions.

Requests/conditions:
• Increase on-site visitor parking to a minimum of 30 dedicated bays, or require a parking and traffic management plan that demonstrably prevents kerbside overflow.
• Clarify and fix the resident/visitor/staff/EV/accessible allocation in the consent, resolving the 7 vs 8 visitor-space discrepancy.
• Implement a Visitor Parking Management Plan (booking system, time limits, signage, and peak-season marshalling).
• Prohibit reliance on on-street parking or driveways for deliveries or visitor spill.
• Require post-occupation monitoring with a clear trigger for remedial action if overflow occurs.

⸻

4) Pedestrian and cyclist safety

Council’s Safer Neighbourhoods works — 40 km/h zones, raised crossings, kerb build-outs and an angled-parking trial — were specifically designed to calm traffic and protect pedestrians.
Injecting high-frequency driveway movements from a 149-unit complex directly onto Lagoon Street reverses that safety progress. Large service vehicles and increased turning movements will endanger pedestrians using the beach and Lagoon Trail.

Request: Ensure driveway sightlines, queue lengths, and turn paths meet strict safety standards. If they cannot, redesign or refuse.

⸻

5) Inadequate engagement and lack of transparency

The proponent’s so-called “community engagement” amounted to one information session and marketing collateral. There was no ongoing dialogue, no evidence of design change in response to concerns, and no traceable response to key issues (height, traffic, parking, tree loss).

The community’s consistent feedback — to keep the scale low and protect safety and amenity — has been ignored. This is not genuine consultation and should not be treated as community endorsement.

⸻

6) BASIX and sustainability

Despite the project’s marketing as “premium seniors living,” the BASIX certificate only just meets the bare minimum targets, omitting rainwater harvesting and relying on single glazing and modest air-conditioning efficiency.

This is not acceptable for a major project in a coastal flood-prone zone. Approval should be contingent on a full BASIX re-work, including rainwater reuse, double glazing, all-electric plant, rooftop solar, and 100% EV-ready parking infrastructure.

⸻

7) Social impact

The proposal also fails to address the displacement of the Northern Beaches Women’s Shelter, which has operated from this site. There is no transition plan for affected services or users — a serious social omission that must be resolved before determination.

⸻

Conclusion

Narrabeen’s peninsula road network and parking supply are already at breaking point. Injecting a 149-unit, three-basement seniors complex here would cause daily congestion, parking chaos, and safety risks for residents, beachgoers, and pedestrians.

This proposal is far beyond the scale the area can absorb and provides nowhere near enough on-site parking to contain its impacts. The project fails to reflect community feedback, council planning intent, or sustainable coastal design principles.

I therefore urge the consent authority to refuse the application outright.
If not refused, strict conditions must be imposed to:
• Substantially reduce the building height and yield;
• Increase visitor parking to a realistic level;
• Require comprehensive traffic, parking, and construction management plans;
• Upgrade sustainability measures to best-practice standards.

If the state government is going to force this type and scale of development on Narrabeen and the Northern Beaches then it needs to materially improve all infrastructure which has been neglected. eg reduced B-Line services, failure to complete Mona Vale road upgrade, flood prevention on Wakehurst Parkway to list a few.


Signed,

Rod Everitt

I am writing to formally object to the proposed State Significant Development (SSD) application for the 'Indigo by Moran' seniors housing development at 156 Ocean Street, Narrabeen (and adjacent properties, including 81-81A Lagoon Street & 8 Octavia Street).
My grounds for this objection are based on the following key issues:

Scale and Character of the Development
The proposed 5 to 6 storey building, comprising 149 independent living units and associated amenities, represents a massive overdevelopment of the site that is completely out of character with the local Narrabeen area. The existing surrounding area primarily consists of lower-density residential dwellings. This proposal would "dominate" the suburb, substantially impacting our sensitive coastal area and would create a sense of enclosure detrimental to the neighbourhood's amenity.

Environmental Impacts and Site Suitability
The proposed site is identified as being flood- and erosion-prone. The development's scale and extent of excavation (three levels of basement parking for 192 cars) may exacerbate existing stormwater and drainage issues, impacting adjoining properties and the local environment. The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Flood Study and Coastal Risk Management Reports should be rigorously scrutinised.

Traffic and Parking Impacts
The development proposes 192 car parking spaces across three basement levels. The adequacy of the parking spaces for 149 units, plus amenities staff and visitors, is questionable and likely to result in significant on-street parking issues and traffic congestion in the immediate locality. The development proposes a significant increase in residential units, which will inevitably increase traffic movements on local roads, particularly Ocean Street. This increase in density will inevitably lead to increased traffic, specifically Ocean Street, Lagoon Street, and Octavia Street. Narrabeen's local infrastructure is already under pressure, and the proposed development will exacerbate congestion and road safety concerns for both vehicles and pedestrians.

Loss of Amenity (Overshadowing, Privacy, Views)
The height and massing of the building will likely result in a substantial impact on the solar access (overshadowing) and privacy of neighbouring properties. There are also concern raised by local residents to the excessive height and design of the proposed structure diminishing the liveability and enjoyment for existing residents. The extensive tree removal identified in the Arboricultural Impact Assessment will also negatively affect the local streetscape and environment, with replacement planting unlikely to replicate the visual value or mature shading of existing vegetation.

Bypassing Local Planning Controls
The developer has lodged this as a State Significant Development Proposal, effectively bypassing the Northern Beaches Council's local planning processes and community participation standards. This approach limits local input and suggests the development does not meet local planning requirements for the area.

Community Need vs. Luxury Development
The development is described as a luxury complex aimed at seniors with "extremely high disposable income," rather than addressing the broader community's need for diverse and affordable housing options. The development represents a significant reduction in the number of aged care beds and assisted living units previously provided by the former facility on the site, thus not meeting the specific aged-care needs of the local community.

Insufficient Consultation Period
The initial 14-day public consultation period is inadequate for residents to properly review the extensive documentation for a project of this scale and complexity and to provide a considered response. I support calls for an extension to a minimum of 28 days to allow for meaningful community engagement.
I urge the Department of Planning and Environment to reject the application as it stands. The development is not in the public interest and fails to respect the existing character and infrastructure capacity of the Narrabeen community.

I request that the application be refused or substantially modified to address these significant concerns, particularly regarding scale, environmental risks, and local amenity impacts. The development should be revised to be more sympathetic to the existing and desired future character of Narrabeen.
I also request a 14-day extension to the submission period to allow for a more thorough community response to such a complex and impactful proposal.

Sincerely,
Mark Dawkins
180 Ocean Street
Narrabeen

As a resident of Ocean Street, Narrabeen in very close proximity to the development proposal “Indigo by Moran” at 156 Ocean Street, Narrabeen, NSW, I strongly object for the following reasons.

SCALE/ HEIGHT
The height of the proposed development, at over 21metres, is grossly inconsistent with current community residential building height of 8.8metres, as is permitted in under R3 zoning rules, and overall, does not respect the character or buliding pattern of the peninsula area of our suburb. At the proposed height, this buiding will be an ‘eyesore’ from the beach, dominating the otherwise uniform height of the exsiting houses on the peninsula.

OVERSHADOWING/ SIGNIFICANT LOSS OF SUNLIGHT
The proposed height of over 21metres, will cast significant and indispuitable shadow to its neighbouring properties to the east, south and western aspects of the proposed build. This will impact the amount of sunlight to these homes, especially in the winter months, as evidenced in the Architectural Design Report drawings (page 35). The existing properties on the eastern side of Ocean Street will be overshadowed from early afternoon, significantly reducing the residual thermal mass capabilities by blocking natural winter sunlight. This could lead to increased demand for heating resources during the winter months and potentially decrease the well-being and mental health of these residents. I expect this to also be the case with the homes located on Lagoon St, opposite to the proposed towering development, as they will no doubt lose the warmth and light of the morning sun to their homes.

LOSS OF PRIVACY
The proposed setback of the build, particularly to Loftus St and Octavia St houses, will encroach on the privacy of the surrounding residents and how they enjoy their homes.
For the neighbouring homes on the Ocean Street side, the propsal of a “rooftop communal pavilion” will also invade the privacy and enjoyment of their exsiting balconies and view to the street.
The proposal also appears to have inadequate soil space and depth in the setback areas for the planting of screening trees to sustain some sense of privacy for the existing residents adjacent to the proposed build.

LACK OF COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT/ CONSULTATION
As a long term resident of Ocean St for over 50 years and in the immediate vicinity of this development proposal, there has been no contact or information provided by Moran, such as the said EIS "letterbox drop", regarding any community consultation or feedback session at any stage to this date. This lack of neighbourhood consultation and transparency regarding the scale and proportions of this proposal have not allowed for meaningful community engagement

I agree that there needs to be development of much needed affordable and diverse senior specific residential living options on the Northern Beaches, however if this development is approved with the proposed height scale of over 21 metres, this will have a negative impact on the local people, the streetscape and the character of our suburb. A height limit that is more inline with the current R3 medium density regulations would be far better suited to our area.
Bronwyn Slater
180 Ocean St, NARRABEEN

As long-term residents of this neighborhood, we have had the former seniors living accommodation as direct neighbours and agree that this site is a good location for a future senior accommodation redevelopment, however, we object to the proposed development size.
The bulk, scale, density, and height of the proposed development is excessive and does not align with the established or desired future streetscape character of the area.
There is no reason, unique or otherwise, why a fully compliant solution to Development Standards and Controls cannot be designed for this site. The proposed development represents an overdevelopment of the site and an unbalanced range of amenity loss impacts that result in adverse impacts on our neighbouring property. There is considerable amenity loss to our home due to the inadequate setbacks and over height proposal. The proposed building height of 21.1m represents an 8.8m or 71.5% departure from the Development Standard with Bonus Provisions [8.5m + 3.8m]. This is totally unreasonable in an 8.5m LEP HOB zone. The proposal is approximately 8,586sqm GFA in excess of HOB control, representing 39% of the proposed GFA, and representing 58 apartments of the proposed 149 apartments. The proposal is contrary to Section 4.15(1)(a)(iii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as it will have unacceptable impacts upon the amenity of our property, specifically with regard to solar access and excessive overshadowing by the non-compliant built form. The application shadow diagram does not include the large north facing window in our living room which currently receives full sun all day in winter but it is proposed to be completely without sunlight all day in winter. This is a completely unacceptable loss of amenity and against the application standard of 2 hours of sunlight per day. The loss of privacy from this over height proposal is severe, the increased noise pollution from this high and close proposal is severe, the visual impact of this proposal from our home is severe, and the increased light spill pollution from this high and close proposed development is severe.
In the applicant’s Site Isolation Advice document point 3, it states ‘Indigo is committed to continue to work collaboratively with adjoining property owners including discussing and implementing design measures to minimise adverse impacts on the neighbouring site’s amenity and future development potential’. There was no consultation with us prior to exhibition. There has been no negotiation with us prior to exhibition.The proposed development results in an encroachment beyond the prescribed building envelope. This non-compliance is indicative of an unacceptable built form and contributes to the severe amenity loss.
The design fails to comply with the building envelope measured at the side boundary. A significant proportion of the upper levels of the proposed development falls outside this building envelope. Together with the breach of the height limit, the building
envelope breach will result in view loss, excessive bulk and scale, and significant visual impact.
For these reasons, we object to the proposed development's bulk, scale, height, density and the fact that it is not in character with our neighbourhood. Changes need to be made to ensure it meets SEPP.
We request amended plans to be submitted to better address impacts upon our property. We ask The Department to seek modifications to this SSDA as the proposed development does not comply with the planning regime, by non-compliance to
standards and controls, and this non-compliance leads directly to amenity loss to our property. A compliant building design would reduce the amenity impacts identified.

This development is too big for our suburban area of Narrabeen. There are no other buildings of this height and size anywhere in Narrabeen. The traffic on Ocean St ( which is already busy) will be escalated with a development of this size. Another factor is the shade from this building affecting premises around and near to it.

Secretary, DPHI, Objection to SSD-76220734
Dear Sir,
I live in Octavia Street, one block away from the proposed development at Ocean Street.
Firstly, I am not totally objecting to the proposal to rebuild what was WGTaylor Retirement Village. It was a valuable part of the community and frequently we spoke to residents who were on their walkers/in chairs or walking around the area. I have no objection to Seniors Living accomodation - in fact I have reached the age now to be eligible!
My serious objection is the enormous size of the 5/6 story proposal. I am also aware that there needs to be more housing everywhere and would be happy if the proposal was to update and/or rebuild 2 or even 3 stories - in keeping with the local area properties. As it is for over 60s, it will not solve the problem of unaffordability for locals anyway. With prices starting at 3 million, it will not even help by people selling their local flats to move there as it will be overpriced for most people.
Whilst we all have to be open to more development, it must reasonable to the local area. If this was an area with several 5/6+ story buildings, it would be appropriate. I wouldn't be particularly happy, but could accept it. We are not the Gold Coast in Narrabeen! This proposal will tower over everything nearby. I went to Mona Vale yesterday and saw how a 4 story building dominates the other buildings that are 2/3 stories high.
Direct and indirect sunlight will be affected to all properties within the shade area - those on Lagoon Street will miss the morning sun and those on Ocean Street will lose the evening sun. 5/6 stories will stick out from a distance and whatever the architects may try to do, it will most likely be unattractive to the peninsular, and indeed, to people a long way away from the development, from Collaroy to Mona Vale on the flat and Elanora/Collaroy Plateau on the hills.
The proposal has a totally inadequate number of car spaces in an area which is already struggling to cope with parked cars. In fact, if/when they start building whatever is approved, I cannot see where 100s of workers will be able to park during construction. They will probably need to be bussed in - causing a park and ride situation somewhere.
Recently, the Northern Beaches Council has announced that they will be reducing the speed limit to 40km/hr due to traffic concerns in this area. Having 100+ more cars parked/driving off is going to add to the problem. There are a lot of people who visit Narrabeen beach in this section - Christmas/New Year/weekend the beach is full.
As this is a fairly narrow band of land between Ocean and Narrabeen lake, I have concerns about excavating 3 stories down for a car park. Whilst I am not an engineer or architect, it seems that going down that far (probably beneath the water line in predominantly sand is not a good idea. Some of the larger blocks on the beach at Narrabeen/Collaroy have had problems with sinking structures I seem to recall a few years ago.
There is also the environmental aspect, particularly for birds - there are several different types who live nearby. I believe that many trees will be removed, causing birds and wildlife to lose their habitat.
Narrabeen Man - the oldest Aboriginal skeleton was found at Octavia Street/Ocean Street, just over the road. There may well be other Aboriginal artifacts that should be left alone. Deep excavation may impact these.
My wife attended a meeting at the site. There was little feeling for local residents and its impact - more on sales of flats!
The 14 days to object is woefully insufficient. Some people may be on holidays and unaware. Once I submit this, there may well be other factors that I hadn't considered and it is all seems very rushed. I went out this morning with a camera to see what the parking situation was and the photographs are on an attachment. You can see a 3 story block of flats but nothing higher. This was a random time to check - and it is uaually like this. Where are the extra 100 cars going to go? Also, I took a photo of the present W.G.Taylor village and put it next to the plan or the new building more or less to scale and you can see how much it is dwarfed by the new plan.
I hope that you will consider these issues and any others which I have not thought about as there is huge community concern about this.
Jim Abraham

To: The Secretary, NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure

Re: Objection to SSD-76220734 – Indigo by Moran, 156 Ocean Street Narrabeen
I am writing to formally object to the proposed State Significant Development (SSD-76220734) at 156 Ocean Street, Narrabeen – “Indigo by Moran.”
I reside in Emerald Street, Narrabeen, which is two streets north of the proposed development site. I have a direct and ongoing connection to the local area and use Ocean Street and Lagoon Street daily. The scale and nature of the proposed project will have significant and unacceptable impacts on the surrounding residential area, traffic network, and coastal environment.

My specific objections are outlined below under relevant planning considerations:
1. Incompatibility with Local Character and Planning Controls
The proposed six-storey (approximately 21m high) building is grossly inconsistent with the existing built form and low-scale coastal character of Narrabeen.
    •    The surrounding neighbourhood consists primarily of one- to three-storey residential buildings, small shops, and low-density dwellings that reflect the established coastal village setting.
    •    The proposal’s bulk, height and density are inconsistent with the Northern Beaches Local Environmental Plan (LEP) and Development Control Plan (DCP) objectives for this area, which seek to maintain a low-rise coastal environment.
    •    The design does not appropriately transition in scale to surrounding properties, causing visual dominance and an intrusive built form
    •    The development would fundamentally alter the character of the Narrabeen peninsula and set a precedent for future high-rise developments along the coastline, undermining long-term strategic planning objectives.
2. Unsuitability of Site and Environmental Impacts
The site is unsuitable for a development of this scale given its coastal location, flood risk, and proximity to both the lagoon and the beach.
    •    The proposed footprint and excavation are likely to impact natural drainage and groundwater conditions, increasing flood and erosion risks.
    •    The scale of the structure will lead to significant overshadowing of nearby properties and public spaces.
    •    Reflectivity and bulk of the façade may impact the visual amenity of the coastline and public domain, contrary to the objectives of the Coastal Management Act 2016.
3. Traffic, Parking and Accessibility Impacts
Traffic and parking impacts have been underestimated and will directly affect residents of Lagoon Street, Ocean Street, Octavia Street and Loftus Street.
    •    Only 178 on-site parking spaces are proposed for 149 units and staff, which is inadequate for residents, visitors, and service vehicles.
    •    Overflow parking will inevitably occur on surrounding streets, further congesting already limited residential parking in Lagoon Street and neighbouring areas.
    •    Additional vehicle movements generated by residents, deliveries, and support services will increase traffic volume and congestion on the narrow and constrained local road network.
    •    This will exacerbate existing pedestrian safety risks, particularly for children and beachgoers who frequently use Ocean and Lagoon Streets.
The proposal does not adequately address clause 101 of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Transport and Infrastructure) 2021, which requires developments to demonstrate acceptable traffic and transport impacts.
4. Failure to Meet Seniors Housing Planning Principles
While the proposal is lodged as “seniors housing,” it functions more as a high-end luxury apartment complex than a genuinely accessible or inclusive seniors living development.
    •    Only 10 assisted-living beds are provided, which fails to meet the intent of Clause 33(2)(b) of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004.
    •    The pricing and configuration of apartments are inconsistent with providing genuine housing diversity or affordability for older residents in the community.
This indicates the proposal does not align with the strategic intent of seniors housing policy and instead represents a commercial overdevelopment.
Conclusion
For the reasons outlined above, the proposed development is inappropriate in height, scale, and intensity for its location and fails to satisfy key planning objectives relating to character, environmental protection, traffic safety, and genuine seniors housing provision.

I respectfully request that the Department refuse SSD-76220734 – Indigo by Moran, 156 Ocean Street Narrabeen, or require significant reduction in height, density, and site coverage to ensure compatibility with the surrounding community and environment.

To Whom It May Concern,
I am writing to formally object to the proposed development application (DA) for the Moran project at 156 Ocean Street, Narrabeen, due to its significant impacts on my residence and business operations.

Scale and Compliance Issues
The proposed development is excessive in height, scale, and setbacks from street does not comply with SEPP, LEP and SEAR 6 requirements. It is twice the size of any existing development on the Narrabeen Peninsula, resulting in significant visual intrusion and overshadowing of the surrounding neighbourhood. The proposed setbacks to Lagoon, Loftus, and Octavia Streets do not comply with SEPP, DCP, and LEP regulations governing building height and setbacks for Seniors Living and for this residential area. The visual representation provided by Moran are deceptive and do not show the visual impact correctly to the community as shown on page 50 of the visual impact . The photo is taken on an angle to shorten the width shown of the proposal and many other photos use these shortening techniques designed to make it look smaller than it is.

The proposal is set to reach levels of 26m high and as our yard is on the same level as the basement carpark, we object to having a visual impact to our property. We will be looking up at a wall 34m high when standing in our yard. The balconies will therefore be looking directly in to our yard resulting in a great loss of privacy for our family.
.
Traffic and Parking Concerns
SEARS 23 requires minimisation of vehicle conflict. However, directing all traffic to the rear of the site via narrow, one-lane streets to the north and south poses a serious logistical challenge and increases the risk of accidents, especially when transporting large or heavy materials.
Street parking is already at capacity and becomes worse during summer months when beach visitation peaks. The proposed off-street parking allocation is insufficient for residents, visitors, and staff, which will exacerbate congestion and reduce accessibility for locals and tradespeople.
As a tradesperson, I find the proposed mitigation for worker parking, requiring trades to leave tools on-site and commute, completely unreasonable. This will force additional vehicles onto already congested streets, causing further stress and disruption for residents.

Environmental and Structural Risks
I strongly object to the removal of mature and culturally significant Norfolk Island pines (20–30m) and other native trees located on lagoon street. If the removal of the trees were allowed to go ahead, it would destabilise the ground and alter drainage patterns. Our home sits at the same level as the proposed basement car park and below flood levels. Changes to subsurface water flow may lead to structural damage or moisture-related issues for our property and neighbouring homes. Our property and the proposed basement carpark are in the Narrabeen flood zone

Community Consultation
SEAR 4 requires meaningful community consultation, which has been entirely inadequate. The sessions held were promotional, focused on selling apartments rather than addressing community concerns. Questions about height, scale, setbacks, traffic, parking, and environmental impacts were not permitted, preventing residents from understanding or responding to the proposal.

Request for Extension
Given the scale of documentation, approximately 2,000 pages, I request an extension to the public review period. With no prior consultation from Moran, we only became aware of the development’s full impact when plans were only released on 22 October 2025.

Conclusion
I urge the planning authority to consider these concerns and require the developer to revise the scope and design to comply with LEP and SEPP controls for residential areas, prioritising the safety and wellbeing of existing residents and businesses.

Sincerely, Rohan Cudmore, 80 Lagoon Street, Narrabeen. 2101. 0407495536

Narrabeen is not an area in which a six-story building should be put up.

I feel developments like this are beneficial to the community as they free up housing that families can then purchase. They encourage the over 60's to be involved with like minded people which keeps them active and feeling valued. They provide a secure home which in turn gives families peace of mind.

I wish to object to the proposal on the grounds of height - six storeys is out of scale and character with Narrabeen. It will set a precedent to build more highrise along the coast and elsewhere in Narrabeen, and increase traffic congestion. Narrabeen is already in a flood-risk zone and not a good area to encourage increased density.
I urge NSW Planning to reject this proposed development.

Please find attached my formal objection along with a brief summary below.

I strongly object to the proposed SSD for Indigo by Moran on the following grounds:

- Excessive height: The proposed 6-storey building is ~72% above the SEPP height limit and inconsistent with the area’s 2-storey character, obstructing views and harming visual amenity.
- Non-compliant setbacks: The proposal fails to meet SEPP setback requirements, increasing bulk, overshadowing, and privacy impacts.
- Traffic and access issues: The driveway location on Lagoon Street will cause congestion in residential streets; access should be via Ocean Street instead.
- Tree loss and inadequate deep soil: 69 of 82 trees are to be removed (including 13 Category A1 protected trees), severely reducing canopy cover and neighbourhood character - they also recognise significant importance to First Nations people.
- No community consultation: Moran provided no opportunity for public input before submitting this SSD, showing disregard for community engagement.

The development is inconsistent with SEPP controls, out of scale for the location, and detrimental to the amenity of Narrabeen residents. I request the Department refuse the proposal or require a significant amendment.