Indigo By Moran - 156 Ocean Street Narrabeen

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

This is not in keeping with the neighbourhood and will cause additional load on the infrastructure, which is already strained.
There is also not enough provision for parking and ocean street has no space for more cars.
The last point is that there is only one road off the peninsular and it is already busy. With increasing weather events, the ability to evacuate is already strained. This additional elderly population will further strain emergency resources.

I live on Garden Street. My son will shortly be attending St Joseph’s primary school on Ocean Street. I am appalled at the scale of this development. It will add significant traffic and parking to an already congested road, as there is insufficient parking within the development application. Given the height it will have a detrimental impact to the surrounding dwellings. Most alarming to me is this development does nothing to address the acute demand for affordable housing in the area. My sons childcare teachers and many of the local primary teachers all have to commute long distances into the area due to the lack of affordable housing. This major development provides opulent housing for a set of extremely wealthy pensioners at the expense of local ratepayers. This development needs to be scrapped or significantly scaled back. I see no community benefit to this development.

I object to the following proposal. This is not the area to be building a 6 storey retirement village.

I am not opposed to a senior housing building as long as it stays under 3 stores as other buildings in the area. I oppose to a 6 stores building at Ocean St.

This is just another example of the breakdown of the rules-based order of good governance. The local Development Control Plans are formed for good reason and best intentions of everyone in mind. When Large corporations and government collude to bypass these controls it becomes a violation of the civil rights and liberties we all subscribe to but obviously not all.
There are so many aspects to this proposal that I see as questionable
All of the assessments are desktop studies using questionable methodologies. Any consultation with immediate neighbours has been avoided to obscure the magnitude of the building for as long as possible. Now that the details have emerged the extent of that subterfuge becomes apparent. The visual impact study is laughable, to stand at the corner of Octavia and Ocean St and declare the impact as low suggests something seriously wrong with the assessment criteria. The floors have been numbered in the plan to try and obscure the fact there are in fact 6 levels. The solar shadow this building casts on the surrounding neighbours especially during the winter months is extensive affecting all adjacent properties to the east and south, of which my property is one.
If I had to summarise I would say there is an underlying level of deception in all of the planning assessments and plans specifically focused to ensure the planned development fits within the developers objective rather than the planning constraints designed for social and environmental inclusivity.
The design when taken out of the context of its surroundings is fine and admirable but in its present location it is completely out of character in every regard. It will be over twice the height of some rather ugly 4 story unit blocks opposite, a reminder of past dubious planning assessments. To see this development go ahead in its present form at over twice the height of these would propagate that blight on the character of the area for the next generation. I can make no apologies for speaking out to say a development of this magnitude is not in keeping with the character of the area and sets a poor precedent for the future of the area.
In order to retain any respect for local government I would expect this development to be stopped forthwith and major changes applied to resize this development to fit within an acceptable form in keeping with the immediate local area.

You have written to me as a neighbour affected herein. I object to the development and submit the following:
Generally,this is an unnecessary interference with the comfort and health and,indeeed the very life of hundreds of people surrounding, who will now be subjected to the noise ,dust, debris ,traffic confusion and all the other ramifications of major construction for the life of the project for say up to 5 or more years.
Massive such projects re only suitable for virgin sources ,not already developed areas.
Present day 156 etc Ocean Street is the wrong place and time for projects such as this; in spades!
The removal of the vast volume of sand overlay ,partly below water level to create the empty space to accomodate the underground car park(about 200 spaces)will have an unknown effect on future stability and erosion of the whole peninsular.Certainly the applicants concede some for there is an admission of some very low risk to person and property
(whether as to actual occurrence or only the strength of any such not being clear).
Stability and erosion problems have been experienced for some years now in the Col-Narra area and continue without any resolution in sight.
Traffic and parking congestion is pretty much at its limit now and any more,as is certain, will create a n impossible situation for current residents.
The loss of sunlight to so many by this massive and high structure is deemed ,and rightly so, to be a major objection for so many.and once its gone its gone.
Whilst low risk may well be an apt test for virgin work places ,the only apt test for a long settled and working situation is “no risk”.
However one looks today it remains”wrong time- wrong place”.

The peninsula cannot support a development of this size. Parking is already very difficult and the development doesn't have nearly enough visitor parking. I live adjacent to the block and already often park 2or 3 blocks away from my unit. It will be chaos

6 storey is not suitable to the area which only has 3 storey. This will set a precedent for future builds in an area that is already congested with traffic. NOT OK.

The concerns are the traffic, its a section of Ocean St that has joggers, cyclists, walking people with prams, approaching Narrabeen from Pittwater water Rd and Ocean St at this point slows traffic on Pittwater Rd with a bottle neck type traffic jam that on certain days back back to Manly, week days are in peak hour a the same, the amount of traffic the is bumber to bumber all from Narrabeen.
The bottle neck traffic jam that is existing at the bottom of Wakhusrt Parkway and Pittwater Rd is truly a badly planned part of the Northern Beaches, and to entertain the idea of making it worse and making the Pittwater Rd and Ocean St turn off more congested is absolutely eye watering.
The fire Station has trucks that will be slowed , the ambulance station will be slowed and making it difficult for them.

The traffic through Narrabeen is some of the worst traffic jams in Sydney, Narrabeen has visitors the are wanting to visit the beach because its beautiful, if this building was built Narrabeen would not be as beautiful as it is right now.

Of course there is more people coming to Australia, but also coming to Narrabeen, im sure a smaller building will be a better idea, to help with the housing crisis, to build a giant building that dwarfs every other building is a insult on Narrabeen in my opinion.

The proposed development is way to big for the area it will look ridiculous , the whole community and local council are totally against it , there is no parking as it is in ocean st and lagoon st , the public transport is already overflowing in the area , the only people to benefit would be the company and investors, they don’t care about the impact to the local area

This proposal is far too large for the site. Six stories is way over the top. Parking is already a huge issue for local residents and there are not nearly enough visitor parking for the proposed number of residents. I am strenuously opposed to the size of this development.

I was previously an owner of 8 Octavia Street Narrabeen which is to be acquired as part of this development and would like to bring to your attention that there are two significant black bean trees side-by-side on the property which are of considerable value to the ecology and history of this site. It would be of great benefit to the area if they could be retained. Thank you for this opportunity to comment.

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

The project is way too high and way too bulky.
I believe it fails the councils landscape area requirement for permeable landscaping. Any landscaping is enclosed between buildings and fails to add to open look of the site .
The addition of close to 200 cars in a very small space seriously affects traffic.
The 150 residents with only 7 visitors spots is ridiculous in an already extremely crowded street where street parking is already at a premium let along boats that park almost permanently on the street and then add visitors to the beach which is adjacent.
The local Council has criteria to maintain the area including open space , nature, trees and views.
I am aware due to the vigorous assessment myself and my neighbour was put they for 2 storey residential.
The 6 stories will dominate not only the local area but also vies and the coastline appearance from the surrounding areas.
This level of density and mammoth size , its traffic and parking impact and its failure to address any of this is completely inappropriate.
The fact the Council is being bypassed entirely so that a developer can get maximum numbers of very high price appartments with insufficient parking should be seen for the scam it is.
This is not about affordable housing. The developer has chosen premium land which will never be priced in the affordable category even if it had a mandate to be capped at 80% of valuation. It is clearly just a profit grab entirely for the developer with zero consideration of the local area as demonstrated by bypassing Council

I strongly object to the Indigo by Moran Seniors Living proposal as it stands. The 5–6 storey height is far too tall for our low-rise neighbourhood and will negatively impact traffic, parking, and the local character. I urge the Department to reduce the building height to no more than 2–3 storeys and lower the overall density to better fit our community.

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

The massive proposed increase of residents and the vehicular traffic that will accompany the development on a short and long term basis is not appropriate for the surrounding street sizes. The current traffic density is at a maximum level and this project will only further congest the peninsula.
As this development at this address is in a residental street , not in a designated shopping centre precinct or main road, then why must we have a monolithic 5 or 6 level ( and why hasn't this been determined yet?) building towering over the predominately 2 storey local building heights?
The proposed 7 visitor parking spaces is also laughably inadequate for the ratio of occupants at the development.
My objection is to the overreach of the planned height of the project and the inadequate on site visitor parking.
This is in no way an "affordable building" project and a straight out rates grab by council.
I believe this project should be limited to building heights in keeping with the existing neighbourhood.

The height and scale of this development are completely inappropriate for this area and exceed current height restrictions. This development will overshadow neighbouring properties and be visually overwhelming on Ocean Steet. This area is in a coastal erosion flood zone. The number of units proposed will mean increased traffic on narrow roads which are already excessively busy and lacking parking, with a primary school also located nearby this development. This development will encroach on the amenities of the area and needs to be scaled back.

See attachment detailing my objection to the proposed indigo by moran Development on Ocean street, my submission details the gross misuse of power and devastating impacts this will have on our local ecosystem and community.