State Significant Development
Response to Submissions
Indigo By Moran - 156 Ocean Street Narrabeen
Northern Beaches
Current Status: Response to Submissions
Interact with the stages for their names
- SEARs
- Prepare EIS
- Exhibition
- Collate Submissions
- Response to Submissions
- Assessment
- Recommendation
- Determination
Want to stay updated on this project?
Exhibition period extended by 1 day to 6 November 2025 due to technical issues with the NSW Planning Portal - Seniors living development
Attachments & Resources
Notice of Exhibition (1)
SEARs (1)
EIS (42)
Response to Submissions (1)
Submissions
Showing 661 - 680 of 746 submissions
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
MONA VALE
,
New South Wales
Message
Objection to SSD-76220734 – 156 Ocean Street, Narrabeen
Submitted to: Secretary, Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure
Re: Indigo by Moran – 156 Ocean Street, Narrabeen
Introduction and Personal Connection
I am a long-term resident of Narrabeen and have lived in this area for more than 20 years on and off. My family and I chose Narrabeen because of its unique coastal village character, community spirit, and environmental beauty. I am writing to strongly object to the proposed State Significant Development (SSD-76220734) known as Indigo by Moran, located at 156 Ocean Street, Narrabeen.
This proposal, which seeks approval for a six-storey (21-metre-high) luxury seniors’ living complex comprising 149 apartments, is completely out of character with Narrabeen’s existing low-rise coastal environment. The development’s scale, density, and associated traffic and environmental impacts will have long-term negative consequences for both the immediate neighbourhood and the broader Northern Beaches Peninsula.
1. Incompatibility with the Existing Character and Planning Controls
Narrabeen is defined by its relaxed, coastal village identity, where the built form has historically respected the area’s natural environment — the ocean, the lagoon, and the dunes. The surrounding buildings in this pocket of Ocean Street are predominantly two to three storeys high, with a small-scale residential character.
A six-storey, 21-metre structure will dominate the streetscape and permanently alter the visual balance between built form and landscape. It will tower over neighbouring homes, casting long shadows over adjoining properties and significantly increasing the sense of enclosure on a street that was never designed for high-density living.
The proposal is inconsistent with both the Northern Beaches Local Environmental Plan (LEP) and the Narrabeen Lagoon Catchment Study, both of which aim to preserve the area’s low-rise character and protect visual corridors between the lagoon and the coast. By far exceeding the intended height and bulk controls, the development will create an unacceptable visual precedent that could open the door for similar high-density projects along the coast, effectively transforming Narrabeen into something it was never meant to be — a built-up, urbanised extension of the city.
The design’s materials and form are more aligned with inner-city or suburban retirement developments, not a fragile coastal environment. Its architectural massing and facade treatments fail to respond sensitively to the beach and lagoon context.
2. Unsuitability of the Site for Seniors Housing under the SEPP (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability)
While the proposal has been lodged as a Seniors Housing development, it does not satisfy the key intent of the SEPP (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability), which is to deliver accessible and affordable accommodation for older people close to essential services.
In this case, the starting price of over $3 million per unit clearly targets the luxury market, not seniors in need of accessible housing. The development provides only 10 beds (in one assisted-living wing) out of 149 apartments, which highlights that this is a commercial development masquerading as seniors housing to exploit the SEPP’s relaxed planning controls.
The site itself is unsuitable for senior residents due to its steep topography, limited pedestrian infrastructure, and distance from critical health and transport services. Ocean Street lacks continuous, safe pedestrian pathways and is already heavily trafficked. For seniors with mobility challenges, this would pose serious accessibility and safety concerns. The area is not within a walkable distance of major medical facilities or essential services, which contradicts the SEPP’s intent.
The proximity to the main coastal road also exposes future residents to high traffic noise, salt corrosion, and air pollution — hardly conducive to the calm, healthy environment that seniors housing should provide.
3. Traffic, Parking, and Accessibility Impacts
The proposed 149 apartments will generate significant additional vehicle movements on Ocean Street, Lagoon Street, and Octavia Street — narrow residential roads that are already under heavy strain.
The development provides 178 car spaces, meaning at least 120 or more vehicles will likely be forced to park on nearby streets once visitors, staff, and service vehicles are considered. These streets are already congested due to existing residents, beachgoers, and tourists. Overflow parking will exacerbate traffic conflicts, block driveways, and reduce pedestrian safety — particularly for children and families walking or cycling to the beach and lagoon.
The delivery and service access points proposed for the site are also inappropriate. Increased movement of garbage trucks, service vehicles, and taxis will create additional hazards on an already busy and narrow street network. Emergency vehicle access could also be compromised due to limited turning circles and congestion.
Narrabeen has long struggled with traffic bottlenecks along Ocean Street and Pittwater Road. Adding the traffic from a 149-unit complex will worsen these conditions and increase the risks at key intersections, particularly around Lagoon Street and Octavia Street. The cumulative impact has clearly not been adequately considered.
4. Environmental and Coastal Impacts
This site sits between two environmentally sensitive zones: Narrabeen Beach and Narrabeen Lagoon. Any intensive development on this site will place further pressure on both ecosystems through increased runoff, erosion, and pollution.
The proposed excavation and basement car park works could disrupt groundwater flow and increase flood risk in a catchment already prone to inundation. The loss of existing vegetation and mature trees will reduce the natural buffer between the lagoon and the residential zone, impacting biodiversity and stormwater quality.
Furthermore, the height and bulk of the structure will obstruct coastal breezes and ocean views from the public domain, degrading the natural coastal experience that both residents and visitors enjoy.
Given the intensifying effects of climate change, with increased storm events and sea-level rise, building a large-scale, high-density development so close to the water’s edge is short-sighted and environmentally irresponsible.
5. Social and Community Impacts
Narrabeen’s charm lies in its sense of community — neighbours knowing neighbours, families gathering by the lake, and the relaxed, unpretentious lifestyle that defines the Northern Beaches. The introduction of a gated, high-end luxury development will fragment this social fabric.
It creates exclusivity, not inclusivity. Rather than addressing genuine housing needs, it prioritises profit and prestige. Local small businesses rely on a stable, diverse community, not transient or restricted high-end complexes.
Moreover, this proposal will set a dangerous precedent. If approved, similar developers will seek to exploit the same planning loopholes, leading to the gradual overdevelopment of the peninsula. What begins as one 21-metre structure could become a cascade of high-rises along our coast, fundamentally changing Narrabeen forever.
6. Precedent and Cumulative Impact
This development is not an isolated project. The Department must consider the cumulative impact of approving a State Significant Development of this nature in a small coastal suburb like Narrabeen.
Once a precedent is established, other developers will argue for similar concessions, effectively dismantling the local planning framework that was designed to preserve the character of the Northern Beaches.
The community has seen this pattern before in other coastal areas — once large-scale developments are approved, local councils lose their ability to maintain control over appropriate scale and character. The result is irreversible urbanisation of once-natural landscapes.
Conclusion
In conclusion, this proposal is inconsistent with the planning intent for Narrabeen and the Northern Beaches. It fails the tests of compatibility, suitability, and sustainability. It poses serious environmental, traffic, and social risks and offers no meaningful benefit to the broader community.
I urge the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure to refuse SSD-76220734 – Indigo by Moran, 156 Ocean Street, Narrabeen, on the grounds that it is fundamentally incompatible with the site, the local character, and the long-term vision for our coastline.
Narrabeen’s identity is rooted in its balance between nature and community. This development threatens to tip that balance permanently. Once our coastline is built up, there is no turning back.
Let us protect the place we call home — for our children, our environment, and the generations to come.
Submitted to: Secretary, Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure
Re: Indigo by Moran – 156 Ocean Street, Narrabeen
Introduction and Personal Connection
I am a long-term resident of Narrabeen and have lived in this area for more than 20 years on and off. My family and I chose Narrabeen because of its unique coastal village character, community spirit, and environmental beauty. I am writing to strongly object to the proposed State Significant Development (SSD-76220734) known as Indigo by Moran, located at 156 Ocean Street, Narrabeen.
This proposal, which seeks approval for a six-storey (21-metre-high) luxury seniors’ living complex comprising 149 apartments, is completely out of character with Narrabeen’s existing low-rise coastal environment. The development’s scale, density, and associated traffic and environmental impacts will have long-term negative consequences for both the immediate neighbourhood and the broader Northern Beaches Peninsula.
1. Incompatibility with the Existing Character and Planning Controls
Narrabeen is defined by its relaxed, coastal village identity, where the built form has historically respected the area’s natural environment — the ocean, the lagoon, and the dunes. The surrounding buildings in this pocket of Ocean Street are predominantly two to three storeys high, with a small-scale residential character.
A six-storey, 21-metre structure will dominate the streetscape and permanently alter the visual balance between built form and landscape. It will tower over neighbouring homes, casting long shadows over adjoining properties and significantly increasing the sense of enclosure on a street that was never designed for high-density living.
The proposal is inconsistent with both the Northern Beaches Local Environmental Plan (LEP) and the Narrabeen Lagoon Catchment Study, both of which aim to preserve the area’s low-rise character and protect visual corridors between the lagoon and the coast. By far exceeding the intended height and bulk controls, the development will create an unacceptable visual precedent that could open the door for similar high-density projects along the coast, effectively transforming Narrabeen into something it was never meant to be — a built-up, urbanised extension of the city.
The design’s materials and form are more aligned with inner-city or suburban retirement developments, not a fragile coastal environment. Its architectural massing and facade treatments fail to respond sensitively to the beach and lagoon context.
2. Unsuitability of the Site for Seniors Housing under the SEPP (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability)
While the proposal has been lodged as a Seniors Housing development, it does not satisfy the key intent of the SEPP (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability), which is to deliver accessible and affordable accommodation for older people close to essential services.
In this case, the starting price of over $3 million per unit clearly targets the luxury market, not seniors in need of accessible housing. The development provides only 10 beds (in one assisted-living wing) out of 149 apartments, which highlights that this is a commercial development masquerading as seniors housing to exploit the SEPP’s relaxed planning controls.
The site itself is unsuitable for senior residents due to its steep topography, limited pedestrian infrastructure, and distance from critical health and transport services. Ocean Street lacks continuous, safe pedestrian pathways and is already heavily trafficked. For seniors with mobility challenges, this would pose serious accessibility and safety concerns. The area is not within a walkable distance of major medical facilities or essential services, which contradicts the SEPP’s intent.
The proximity to the main coastal road also exposes future residents to high traffic noise, salt corrosion, and air pollution — hardly conducive to the calm, healthy environment that seniors housing should provide.
3. Traffic, Parking, and Accessibility Impacts
The proposed 149 apartments will generate significant additional vehicle movements on Ocean Street, Lagoon Street, and Octavia Street — narrow residential roads that are already under heavy strain.
The development provides 178 car spaces, meaning at least 120 or more vehicles will likely be forced to park on nearby streets once visitors, staff, and service vehicles are considered. These streets are already congested due to existing residents, beachgoers, and tourists. Overflow parking will exacerbate traffic conflicts, block driveways, and reduce pedestrian safety — particularly for children and families walking or cycling to the beach and lagoon.
The delivery and service access points proposed for the site are also inappropriate. Increased movement of garbage trucks, service vehicles, and taxis will create additional hazards on an already busy and narrow street network. Emergency vehicle access could also be compromised due to limited turning circles and congestion.
Narrabeen has long struggled with traffic bottlenecks along Ocean Street and Pittwater Road. Adding the traffic from a 149-unit complex will worsen these conditions and increase the risks at key intersections, particularly around Lagoon Street and Octavia Street. The cumulative impact has clearly not been adequately considered.
4. Environmental and Coastal Impacts
This site sits between two environmentally sensitive zones: Narrabeen Beach and Narrabeen Lagoon. Any intensive development on this site will place further pressure on both ecosystems through increased runoff, erosion, and pollution.
The proposed excavation and basement car park works could disrupt groundwater flow and increase flood risk in a catchment already prone to inundation. The loss of existing vegetation and mature trees will reduce the natural buffer between the lagoon and the residential zone, impacting biodiversity and stormwater quality.
Furthermore, the height and bulk of the structure will obstruct coastal breezes and ocean views from the public domain, degrading the natural coastal experience that both residents and visitors enjoy.
Given the intensifying effects of climate change, with increased storm events and sea-level rise, building a large-scale, high-density development so close to the water’s edge is short-sighted and environmentally irresponsible.
5. Social and Community Impacts
Narrabeen’s charm lies in its sense of community — neighbours knowing neighbours, families gathering by the lake, and the relaxed, unpretentious lifestyle that defines the Northern Beaches. The introduction of a gated, high-end luxury development will fragment this social fabric.
It creates exclusivity, not inclusivity. Rather than addressing genuine housing needs, it prioritises profit and prestige. Local small businesses rely on a stable, diverse community, not transient or restricted high-end complexes.
Moreover, this proposal will set a dangerous precedent. If approved, similar developers will seek to exploit the same planning loopholes, leading to the gradual overdevelopment of the peninsula. What begins as one 21-metre structure could become a cascade of high-rises along our coast, fundamentally changing Narrabeen forever.
6. Precedent and Cumulative Impact
This development is not an isolated project. The Department must consider the cumulative impact of approving a State Significant Development of this nature in a small coastal suburb like Narrabeen.
Once a precedent is established, other developers will argue for similar concessions, effectively dismantling the local planning framework that was designed to preserve the character of the Northern Beaches.
The community has seen this pattern before in other coastal areas — once large-scale developments are approved, local councils lose their ability to maintain control over appropriate scale and character. The result is irreversible urbanisation of once-natural landscapes.
Conclusion
In conclusion, this proposal is inconsistent with the planning intent for Narrabeen and the Northern Beaches. It fails the tests of compatibility, suitability, and sustainability. It poses serious environmental, traffic, and social risks and offers no meaningful benefit to the broader community.
I urge the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure to refuse SSD-76220734 – Indigo by Moran, 156 Ocean Street, Narrabeen, on the grounds that it is fundamentally incompatible with the site, the local character, and the long-term vision for our coastline.
Narrabeen’s identity is rooted in its balance between nature and community. This development threatens to tip that balance permanently. Once our coastline is built up, there is no turning back.
Let us protect the place we call home — for our children, our environment, and the generations to come.
Mark King
Object
Mark King
Object
NARRABEEN
,
New South Wales
Message
I strongly object to this proposal for the following reasons:
There was no meaningful community consultation before the proposal was submitted. The developers in trying to argue that marketing events they held were "community consultation meetings" is deceitful and underhand as the meetings they held were about trying to sell the proposed apartments to senior citizens. The meetings discussed what facilities potential senior residents wanted in the building and did not canvass the impact the proposal would have on the community as a whole and the nearby residents. The only people they invited to the meetings were over 55 year olds interested in purchasing an apartment. The meetings excluded other residents.
The developers should be required to hold genuine community consultation meetings before further consideration is given to this proposal, ideally chaired by staff from the Northern Beaches Council
The project as submitted does not conform with the current zoning requirements namely a maximum of 2 stories plus roof top gardens/terraces.
There is no provision within the proposal for low income housing or low entry cost retirement living.
The project proposes 5 stories of apartments plus roof top gardens, terraces and entertainment areas which if agreed will overwhelm the surrounding built environment and the current features of the area.
The current 2 story retirement village is set in a park like environment which from each of the 3 street frontages presents as a low key structure and is in keeping with much of the surrounding buildings,
The proposal as is presents as a very high wall of apartments (3 times the current height) on 3 street frontages with minimal gardens and lawns to the street. The garden courtyard as proposed is entirely encompassed by the proposed buildings denying nearby residents and passerby's the current park like environment. It is in fact a very high walled and gated stand alone city isolating the proposed apartments and their residents from the nearby environment.
The proposal is it stands if approved will inevitably result in pressure to build further 6 story buildings in the area changing the very nature of the area and in contravention of both the Northern Beaches Council intentions and the desires of the vast majority of the residents in the area.
The proposal to excavate 3 underground levels for car parking will as evidenced by the plan itself extend below the existing groundwater table and disrupt the normal flow of water to the lagoon and noting the possible impact this will have on the nearby lagoon and its wildlife.
It is also noted that there will be a maximum of 7 visiting car spaces for 149, 2 and 3 bedroom units. Clearly inadequate and as such will result in further increasing the difficulty of parking on the street. Only 4 electric vehicle charging stations are provided which is clearly inadequate for 149 apartments and will result in increased crowding and delays at the local public charging stations.
The above is also provided as an attachment.
There was no meaningful community consultation before the proposal was submitted. The developers in trying to argue that marketing events they held were "community consultation meetings" is deceitful and underhand as the meetings they held were about trying to sell the proposed apartments to senior citizens. The meetings discussed what facilities potential senior residents wanted in the building and did not canvass the impact the proposal would have on the community as a whole and the nearby residents. The only people they invited to the meetings were over 55 year olds interested in purchasing an apartment. The meetings excluded other residents.
The developers should be required to hold genuine community consultation meetings before further consideration is given to this proposal, ideally chaired by staff from the Northern Beaches Council
The project as submitted does not conform with the current zoning requirements namely a maximum of 2 stories plus roof top gardens/terraces.
There is no provision within the proposal for low income housing or low entry cost retirement living.
The project proposes 5 stories of apartments plus roof top gardens, terraces and entertainment areas which if agreed will overwhelm the surrounding built environment and the current features of the area.
The current 2 story retirement village is set in a park like environment which from each of the 3 street frontages presents as a low key structure and is in keeping with much of the surrounding buildings,
The proposal as is presents as a very high wall of apartments (3 times the current height) on 3 street frontages with minimal gardens and lawns to the street. The garden courtyard as proposed is entirely encompassed by the proposed buildings denying nearby residents and passerby's the current park like environment. It is in fact a very high walled and gated stand alone city isolating the proposed apartments and their residents from the nearby environment.
The proposal is it stands if approved will inevitably result in pressure to build further 6 story buildings in the area changing the very nature of the area and in contravention of both the Northern Beaches Council intentions and the desires of the vast majority of the residents in the area.
The proposal to excavate 3 underground levels for car parking will as evidenced by the plan itself extend below the existing groundwater table and disrupt the normal flow of water to the lagoon and noting the possible impact this will have on the nearby lagoon and its wildlife.
It is also noted that there will be a maximum of 7 visiting car spaces for 149, 2 and 3 bedroom units. Clearly inadequate and as such will result in further increasing the difficulty of parking on the street. Only 4 electric vehicle charging stations are provided which is clearly inadequate for 149 apartments and will result in increased crowding and delays at the local public charging stations.
The above is also provided as an attachment.
Stephanie Catteau
Object
Stephanie Catteau
Object
NARRABEEN
,
New South Wales
Message
To Whom It May Concern,
Re: Objection to Proposed Development – Indigo Moran, 156 Ocean Street, Narrabeen.
Submission (SUB-97542213)
My name is Stephanie Catteau, and I am a resident of 23 Lisle Street, Narrabeen 2101. I am writing as a concerned member of the local community to formally object to the proposed Indigo Moran development at 156 Ocean Street, Narrabeen.
I am deeply concerned and outraged by the scale and physical impact of this proposed development on our neighbourhood. The density and height of the buildings are completely out of character with the surrounding area and will have severe consequences for the local community, including:
Traffic and congestion: The existing road network and parking capacity in Narrabeen cannot support the significant increase in vehicles that this development will bring. The area is already congested, particularly during peak times and weekends, and additional apartments and cars will worsen safety and accessibility for residents, pedestrians, and cyclists.
Excessive building height and bulk: The proposed heights far exceed the existing character of the suburb. Such large-scale structures will dominate the skyline, block views, and create an oppressive visual impact that does not fit within the established low-rise coastal village atmosphere of Narrabeen.
Loss of trees and green space: The removal of mature trees and vegetation is unacceptable. These trees are essential for maintaining local biodiversity, providing shade, and contributing to the natural beauty and environmental health of the area.
Overshadowing and loss of amenity: The proposed buildings will cause significant overshadowing of neighbouring streets and properties, reducing sunlight, privacy, and general liveability for existing residents.
Lack of genuine community consultation: Many local residents, including myself, were not informed or consulted during the planning process. This lack of engagement is deeply disappointing and suggests that community voices have not been adequately considered.
In summary, the scale, density, and design of this project are inappropriate for this location and would cause lasting negative impacts on the character, environment, and liveability of Narrabeen. I strongly urge the Planning Department to reject this proposal and to prioritise developments that align with sustainable growth, community values, and the preservation of our local environment.
Thank you for considering my submission.
Kind regards,
Stephanie Catteau
23 Lisle Street
Narrabeen NSW 2101
Re: Objection to Proposed Development – Indigo Moran, 156 Ocean Street, Narrabeen.
Submission (SUB-97542213)
My name is Stephanie Catteau, and I am a resident of 23 Lisle Street, Narrabeen 2101. I am writing as a concerned member of the local community to formally object to the proposed Indigo Moran development at 156 Ocean Street, Narrabeen.
I am deeply concerned and outraged by the scale and physical impact of this proposed development on our neighbourhood. The density and height of the buildings are completely out of character with the surrounding area and will have severe consequences for the local community, including:
Traffic and congestion: The existing road network and parking capacity in Narrabeen cannot support the significant increase in vehicles that this development will bring. The area is already congested, particularly during peak times and weekends, and additional apartments and cars will worsen safety and accessibility for residents, pedestrians, and cyclists.
Excessive building height and bulk: The proposed heights far exceed the existing character of the suburb. Such large-scale structures will dominate the skyline, block views, and create an oppressive visual impact that does not fit within the established low-rise coastal village atmosphere of Narrabeen.
Loss of trees and green space: The removal of mature trees and vegetation is unacceptable. These trees are essential for maintaining local biodiversity, providing shade, and contributing to the natural beauty and environmental health of the area.
Overshadowing and loss of amenity: The proposed buildings will cause significant overshadowing of neighbouring streets and properties, reducing sunlight, privacy, and general liveability for existing residents.
Lack of genuine community consultation: Many local residents, including myself, were not informed or consulted during the planning process. This lack of engagement is deeply disappointing and suggests that community voices have not been adequately considered.
In summary, the scale, density, and design of this project are inappropriate for this location and would cause lasting negative impacts on the character, environment, and liveability of Narrabeen. I strongly urge the Planning Department to reject this proposal and to prioritise developments that align with sustainable growth, community values, and the preservation of our local environment.
Thank you for considering my submission.
Kind regards,
Stephanie Catteau
23 Lisle Street
Narrabeen NSW 2101
Matthew D?Amore
Object
Matthew D?Amore
Object
NARRABEEN
,
New South Wales
Message
HOW IS THIS ALLOWED TO BE PASSED IN A RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY
Narrabeen was NOT apart of the new state rezoning, why is this company exempt to the rules ?
What about the environment? Or does that not matter anymore as long as you pay off local and state politicians?
The government has handy capped local family’s from selling and relocating due to above mentioned lack of rezoning . Clearly this company has paid money through a back door to allow them to be exempt! Now they can never be built out and command million dollar views over life long locals !
6 story’s ! shadowing every other dwelling around them
Our streets aren’t designed to house a dwelling at such scale! This is a small residential community not the CBD
7-9 visitor car spots ? For hundreds and hundreds of new RESIDENTS ? Where are they going to park ? Maybe I’m unaware does the new property have a helicopter pad for them to come and go ?
They are Selling off the plan 4-5 million each ? Moran has brought multiple property’s on lagoon street and has isolated the corner block ? Why ? Because they are bullying local residents offering the owner only 3 m ?
In so confused 😕 Does Moran own a Time Machine ? Must be located next to there be helicopter pad .
Are we in 2006 ?
On what planet is a luxury free standing home with 5 beds that price 100m from the beach in Sydney?
This home is worth a 5-6 million dollars .
They are strong arming residents , Implying that if you don’t sell we will just build around you as plans suggest boxing in a single home with 6 levels ?
X3 levels dug carpark on adjacent property’s within loftus street . Offset from the boundary is not adequate how can you dig that deep on sand without rocking the neighbours footings and slabs ? It’s impossible! Not to mention 6 stories shadowing all sun from the north facing back yards
This entire proposal goes against our entire local zoning and community planning ! No one wants this . None of us agree to this how can the government allow this to happen ? What about the environment? What about locals ? What about neighbouring property’s ?
Narrabeen was NOT apart of the new state rezoning, why is this company exempt to the rules ?
What about the environment? Or does that not matter anymore as long as you pay off local and state politicians?
The government has handy capped local family’s from selling and relocating due to above mentioned lack of rezoning . Clearly this company has paid money through a back door to allow them to be exempt! Now they can never be built out and command million dollar views over life long locals !
6 story’s ! shadowing every other dwelling around them
Our streets aren’t designed to house a dwelling at such scale! This is a small residential community not the CBD
7-9 visitor car spots ? For hundreds and hundreds of new RESIDENTS ? Where are they going to park ? Maybe I’m unaware does the new property have a helicopter pad for them to come and go ?
They are Selling off the plan 4-5 million each ? Moran has brought multiple property’s on lagoon street and has isolated the corner block ? Why ? Because they are bullying local residents offering the owner only 3 m ?
In so confused 😕 Does Moran own a Time Machine ? Must be located next to there be helicopter pad .
Are we in 2006 ?
On what planet is a luxury free standing home with 5 beds that price 100m from the beach in Sydney?
This home is worth a 5-6 million dollars .
They are strong arming residents , Implying that if you don’t sell we will just build around you as plans suggest boxing in a single home with 6 levels ?
X3 levels dug carpark on adjacent property’s within loftus street . Offset from the boundary is not adequate how can you dig that deep on sand without rocking the neighbours footings and slabs ? It’s impossible! Not to mention 6 stories shadowing all sun from the north facing back yards
This entire proposal goes against our entire local zoning and community planning ! No one wants this . None of us agree to this how can the government allow this to happen ? What about the environment? What about locals ? What about neighbouring property’s ?
Pa Ang
Object
Pa Ang
Object
NARRABEEN
,
New South Wales
Message
I am writing to formally object to the proposed development, not on the basis of opposing development itself, but due to the disproportionate scale and its impact on the surrounding environment and infrastructure.
The proposed building height—reportedly two to three times taller than any existing structure in the area—is inconsistent with the established character of the neighbourhood. While growth is expected and welcomed, the magnitude of this proposal exceeds what can reasonably be accommodated in a constrained peninsula bordered by both ocean and lagoon.
Transport infrastructure in the area is already under significant pressure. The two roads servicing the peninsula are frequently congested, and on-street parking is at full capacity already (any cursory assessment will be able to determine this is the case). The lagoon and ocean provide insurmountable options to increase the volume of on street parking.
Introducing 150 new apartments with only 1.2 car spaces per unit and a mere seven visitor spots is unrealistic. It assumes a level of car ownership that is not realistic—particularly given the limited public transport options and the likelihood that many occupants will be elderly and reliant on private vehicles.
This proposal risks overwhelming local infrastructure, exacerbating traffic congestion, and significantly reducing accessibility for existing residents. The environmental and logistical constraints of the site demand a more measured approach to development—one that respects the scale and capacity of the area.
I urge the planning authority to reconsider the height and density of this proposal and to ensure that any future development aligns with the sustainable capacity of the local environment and infrastructure.
The proposed building height—reportedly two to three times taller than any existing structure in the area—is inconsistent with the established character of the neighbourhood. While growth is expected and welcomed, the magnitude of this proposal exceeds what can reasonably be accommodated in a constrained peninsula bordered by both ocean and lagoon.
Transport infrastructure in the area is already under significant pressure. The two roads servicing the peninsula are frequently congested, and on-street parking is at full capacity already (any cursory assessment will be able to determine this is the case). The lagoon and ocean provide insurmountable options to increase the volume of on street parking.
Introducing 150 new apartments with only 1.2 car spaces per unit and a mere seven visitor spots is unrealistic. It assumes a level of car ownership that is not realistic—particularly given the limited public transport options and the likelihood that many occupants will be elderly and reliant on private vehicles.
This proposal risks overwhelming local infrastructure, exacerbating traffic congestion, and significantly reducing accessibility for existing residents. The environmental and logistical constraints of the site demand a more measured approach to development—one that respects the scale and capacity of the area.
I urge the planning authority to reconsider the height and density of this proposal and to ensure that any future development aligns with the sustainable capacity of the local environment and infrastructure.
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
NORTH NARRABEEN
,
New South Wales
Message
Project is out of character for the area, has significant impact upon existing building heights and will create shadowing. Existing streets cannot cope with parking and traffic under current conditions and will be further impacted by this development which does not have enough parking for what will be required.
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
NORTH NARRABEEN
,
New South Wales
Message
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.
Narrabeen was assessed in 2024 and did not meet the Department of Planning’s own criteria for mid and high rise development. Therefore Narrabeen was not one of the 10 areas identified for mid and high rise development on the Northern Peninsula. What has changed in the last 10 months?
Narrabeen was assessed in 2024 and did not meet the Department of Planning’s own criteria for mid and high rise development. Therefore Narrabeen was not one of the 10 areas identified for mid and high rise development on the Northern Peninsula. What has changed in the last 10 months?
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
Narrabeen
,
New South Wales
Message
The bulk & scale of the development is not in keeping with the local area. The height will be an eyesore.
On ste parking is insufficient & will result in significant overflow on nearby streets. There are already traffic issues on Ocean Street that have been identified by local Council and these will be compounded by increased traffic flow. This proposal does not provide needed housing options for seniors as did the previous facility on this site. There are significant wait lists in Retirement Villages - this is merely a means for the developer to capitalise through State Govt legislation rather than addressing the needs of the local community.
On ste parking is insufficient & will result in significant overflow on nearby streets. There are already traffic issues on Ocean Street that have been identified by local Council and these will be compounded by increased traffic flow. This proposal does not provide needed housing options for seniors as did the previous facility on this site. There are significant wait lists in Retirement Villages - this is merely a means for the developer to capitalise through State Govt legislation rather than addressing the needs of the local community.
Michael Young
Object
Michael Young
Object
NORTH NARRABEEN
,
New South Wales
Message
I am a resident of North Narrabeen and a frequent user of Ocean Street, Lagoon Street and the surrounding local area. I am deeply concerned about the proposed “Indigo by Moran” State Significant Development at 156 Ocean Street.
This submission outlines my objection to the proposal on planning, environmental and social grounds. My concerns relate primarily to incompatibility with local character, excessive height and scale, inadequate traffic and parking provision, and environmental unsuitability given the site’s sensitive coastal location.
1. Incompatibility with Local Character and Planning Controls
The proposal is fundamentally inconsistent with the Northern Beaches Local Environmental Plan (LEP) and Narrabeen’s established coastal village character.
• Excessive height and bulk: The proposed six-storey (approx. 21m) structure dramatically exceeds the prevailing building height in the surrounding residential area, which is predominantly two to three storeys. This will result in visual dominance and overshadowing of neighbouring properties, beaches, and public reserves.
• Precedent risk: Approving a development of this magnitude will set a dangerous precedent for similar large-scale “seniors housing” projects along the Northern Beaches, undermining the area’s low-rise coastal identity.
• Inconsistent urban form: The building’s bulk and modern form do not integrate with the existing urban fabric or the character of Ocean Street and Lagoon Street, which are defined by smaller-scale residential dwellings and coastal open space.
2. Unsuitability of the Site for State Significant Seniors Housing
While providing housing for seniors is important, this site is not suitable for the proposed scale or typology.
• Limited walkability and accessibility: The steep terrain, distance from shops and medical facilities, and lack of public transport connectivity make the location impractical for over-60s independent living.
• Environmental vulnerability: The site lies within the coastal hazard zone and is exposed to potential flooding, coastal erosion, and sea-level rise risks. Developing at this intensity is inconsistent with the Coastal Management Act 2016 and State Environmental Planning Policy (Resilience and Hazards).
• Tokenistic assisted-living component: Only 10 assisted-living beds are proposed out of 149 units, which fails to meet genuine seniors-housing needs and suggests the development is primarily a luxury apartment complex.
3. Traffic, Parking and Access Impacts
The proposal will exacerbate existing traffic congestion and parking stress along Ocean Street and connecting roads.
• Inadequate parking provision: With only 178 car spaces for 149 units and staff, the shortfall will force overflow parking onto surrounding residential streets such as Lagoon, Octavia, and Loftus Streets. This will worsen congestion, reduce resident amenity, and compromise pedestrian safety.
• Increased service and construction traffic: Heavy vehicle movements during and after construction will add significant safety risks, especially near pedestrian crossings and narrow coastal roads frequently used by children, cyclists, and beachgoers.
• Cumulative impact: Ocean Street already experiences congestion due to beach traffic, surf club activity, and weekend visitors. Adding this volume of permanent vehicle movements is unsustainable.
4. Environmental and Amenity Impacts
• Shadowing and loss of privacy: The proposed building height will result in significant overshadowing of nearby homes and public open space, reducing solar access and residential amenity.
• Stormwater and drainage concerns: Increased impervious surfaces will intensify runoff into Narrabeen Lagoon and surrounding drainage systems, increasing flood risks.
• Visual impact on the coastal landscape: The development will be highly visible from the beach, lagoon, and surrounding headlands, conflicting with the scenic coastal landscape values protected under the Coastal Design Guidelines 2023
5. Conclusion
For the reasons outlined above, I strongly object to SSD-76220734 – Indigo by Moran, 156 Ocean Street, Narrabeen.
The proposal:
• Conflicts with the existing character of Narrabeen;
• Fails to respect local height, density, and environmental controls;
• Introduces unacceptable traffic, parking, and safety impacts; and
• Is unsuitable for seniors housing in its current form.
I urge the Department of Planning to refuse the application or, at minimum, require substantial redesign to align with the surrounding low-rise context, local planning framework, and environmental constraints.
Regards,
Michael Young
This submission outlines my objection to the proposal on planning, environmental and social grounds. My concerns relate primarily to incompatibility with local character, excessive height and scale, inadequate traffic and parking provision, and environmental unsuitability given the site’s sensitive coastal location.
1. Incompatibility with Local Character and Planning Controls
The proposal is fundamentally inconsistent with the Northern Beaches Local Environmental Plan (LEP) and Narrabeen’s established coastal village character.
• Excessive height and bulk: The proposed six-storey (approx. 21m) structure dramatically exceeds the prevailing building height in the surrounding residential area, which is predominantly two to three storeys. This will result in visual dominance and overshadowing of neighbouring properties, beaches, and public reserves.
• Precedent risk: Approving a development of this magnitude will set a dangerous precedent for similar large-scale “seniors housing” projects along the Northern Beaches, undermining the area’s low-rise coastal identity.
• Inconsistent urban form: The building’s bulk and modern form do not integrate with the existing urban fabric or the character of Ocean Street and Lagoon Street, which are defined by smaller-scale residential dwellings and coastal open space.
2. Unsuitability of the Site for State Significant Seniors Housing
While providing housing for seniors is important, this site is not suitable for the proposed scale or typology.
• Limited walkability and accessibility: The steep terrain, distance from shops and medical facilities, and lack of public transport connectivity make the location impractical for over-60s independent living.
• Environmental vulnerability: The site lies within the coastal hazard zone and is exposed to potential flooding, coastal erosion, and sea-level rise risks. Developing at this intensity is inconsistent with the Coastal Management Act 2016 and State Environmental Planning Policy (Resilience and Hazards).
• Tokenistic assisted-living component: Only 10 assisted-living beds are proposed out of 149 units, which fails to meet genuine seniors-housing needs and suggests the development is primarily a luxury apartment complex.
3. Traffic, Parking and Access Impacts
The proposal will exacerbate existing traffic congestion and parking stress along Ocean Street and connecting roads.
• Inadequate parking provision: With only 178 car spaces for 149 units and staff, the shortfall will force overflow parking onto surrounding residential streets such as Lagoon, Octavia, and Loftus Streets. This will worsen congestion, reduce resident amenity, and compromise pedestrian safety.
• Increased service and construction traffic: Heavy vehicle movements during and after construction will add significant safety risks, especially near pedestrian crossings and narrow coastal roads frequently used by children, cyclists, and beachgoers.
• Cumulative impact: Ocean Street already experiences congestion due to beach traffic, surf club activity, and weekend visitors. Adding this volume of permanent vehicle movements is unsustainable.
4. Environmental and Amenity Impacts
• Shadowing and loss of privacy: The proposed building height will result in significant overshadowing of nearby homes and public open space, reducing solar access and residential amenity.
• Stormwater and drainage concerns: Increased impervious surfaces will intensify runoff into Narrabeen Lagoon and surrounding drainage systems, increasing flood risks.
• Visual impact on the coastal landscape: The development will be highly visible from the beach, lagoon, and surrounding headlands, conflicting with the scenic coastal landscape values protected under the Coastal Design Guidelines 2023
5. Conclusion
For the reasons outlined above, I strongly object to SSD-76220734 – Indigo by Moran, 156 Ocean Street, Narrabeen.
The proposal:
• Conflicts with the existing character of Narrabeen;
• Fails to respect local height, density, and environmental controls;
• Introduces unacceptable traffic, parking, and safety impacts; and
• Is unsuitable for seniors housing in its current form.
I urge the Department of Planning to refuse the application or, at minimum, require substantial redesign to align with the surrounding low-rise context, local planning framework, and environmental constraints.
Regards,
Michael Young
Jenny Dobrincic
Object
Jenny Dobrincic
Object
NARRABEEN
,
New South Wales
Message
I strongly object to the proposed development on the grounds that it is excessive in scale and inconsistent with the existing character of the neighbourhood. The proposed five-storey buildings are significantly larger and taller than surrounding properties, which are low-rise and residential in nature. ALL other buildings in this residential part of Narrabeen are limited to three stories so it is ludicrous to consider building a FIVE storey monster structure which would dominate the streetscape, obstruct existing views, and alter the visual harmony and charm of the area. The bulk and height of the development are not in keeping with the established scale and aesthetic of our community, and approving it would set an undesirable precedent for future developments that could further erode the neighbourhood’s character and appeal. Please please please resconsider the height and scale of this project and consider the neighbourhood you're looking to build in. This is not an area of full of tall unit blocks, it is a peaceful coastal community.
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
NARRABEEN
,
New South Wales
Message
Living in Narrabeen, NSW, is an experience rich with natural beauty, community spirit, and a shared respect for our environment. Yet, these intrinsic values are under threat with the proposed SSD-76220734 development, aiming to construct a 149-apartment, six-storey building at 156-164 Ocean Street through to Lagoon and Octavia Streets. This proposal not only jeopardises our local environment but also our community.
We oppose this development as there are serious practical concerns, especially regarding traffic and safety. The increased population density stemming from this development will exacerbate an already struggling local traffic system. It adds risk to all who travel in the area, including pedestrians and cyclists, who frequent our streets. It will increase the scarcity of on street parking.
Furthermore, the sheer size of the development—reaching up to 20 meters—poses visual obstruction and is undeniably an overdevelopment of the area. Hundreds of residents living on the escarpment will face the direct consequences, as their once unobstructed views and community ambiance will be overwhelmed by this towering structure.
We urge that our voices are heard and that this huge development is stopped.
We oppose this development as there are serious practical concerns, especially regarding traffic and safety. The increased population density stemming from this development will exacerbate an already struggling local traffic system. It adds risk to all who travel in the area, including pedestrians and cyclists, who frequent our streets. It will increase the scarcity of on street parking.
Furthermore, the sheer size of the development—reaching up to 20 meters—poses visual obstruction and is undeniably an overdevelopment of the area. Hundreds of residents living on the escarpment will face the direct consequences, as their once unobstructed views and community ambiance will be overwhelmed by this towering structure.
We urge that our voices are heard and that this huge development is stopped.
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
Narrabeen
,
New South Wales
Message
Objection to SSD 156–164 Ocean Street, Narrabeen
Dear Mr Kobeissi,
I write as a local resident of Narrabeen to strongly object to the State Significant Development (SSD) proposed at 156–164 Ocean Street, Narrabeen. My key concerns are outlined below.
1. Contravention of Clause 4.3 – Height of Buildings and Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
The proposal seeks to exceed the 8.5 m height limit under Clause 4.3 of the Warringah Local Environmental Plan 2011 by proposing a building height of 21.1 m, representing a 12.6 m breach of the LEP standard. This is a completely unjustified departure from planning requirements. The 3.8 m bonus under Clause 87 of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing) 2021 (Housing SEPP) is intended for minor rooftop elements, not an additional full storey. At most, the building should be limited to 2-3 storeys (which would still be a breach)- this proposal seeks well more than double that at 6 storeys. This represents a clear breach of a fundamental object of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, which seeks to promote the orderly use and development of land.
2. False and misleading information on Architectural plans - Re-exhibition required
The plans prepared by MDP Architecture incorrectly depict a 13.3 m height plane as the applicable maximum height. This is factually incorrect and misleading for both the consent authority and more importantly the public (who are likely not aware of this error). Accordingly, re-exhibition of amended plans is necessary.
3. Failure to address View Loss according to Planning Principles
The View Loss Study by Visual Ideas (dated 7 July 2025) fails to apply the four-step assessment established in Tenacity Consulting v Warringah Council [2004]. No view-loss assessment has been undertaken from any of the affected residential properties along Ocean Street or Lagoon Street, which will experience a loss of water views to Narrabeen Lagoon, Narrabeen Beach, Long Reef and Narrabeen Headland. This omission fails to demonstrate that the proposal achieves a “reasonable sharing of views”, as required by case law.
4. Inconsistency with the Local Character of the Narrabeen Peninsula
The proposal is clearly out of character with the surrounding built form, which is predominantly 1-2 storey dwellings and townhouses, with a small number of 3 storey buildings. The proposed 6 storey building would be visually dominant, incongruous, and detrimental to the established and desired future character of Narrabeen. In Project Venture Developments v Pittwater Council [2005], the Court held that even where a development complies numerically with planning controls, it may still be refused if it is inconsistent with the prevailing character of the area. In this case, the development fails both numerically and contextually and should be refused on that basis alone.
5. Narrabeen is not an LMR Housing Area
The site is not identified as a Low and Mid-Rise (LMR) Housing Area under Chapter 6 of the Housing SEPP, despite 9 other suitable town centres within the Northern Beaches LGA being identified for such growth the NSW Government. This demonstrates a deliberate planning decision by the NSW Government not to apply increased density and height in Narrabeen, as it is not a strategic centre and has several hazard constraints which make evacuation an issue for residents.
6. Major Traffic Congestion detailed in the Traffic Impact Assessment
The Traffic Impact Assessment by Genesis Traffic (dated 14 July 2025) contains several deficiencies. SIDRA modelling shows major traffic congestion and delay at the Pittwater Road / Waterloo Street intersection. The report also fails to address cumulative impacts from other developments in the area. Furthermore, the Green Travel Plan relies heavily on aspirational mode-shift targets without any binding commitments or enforceable mechanisms.
For these reasons, I strongly urge the Department to refuse the SSD application in its current form.
Yours sincerely,
Local resident, Narrabeen
Dear Mr Kobeissi,
I write as a local resident of Narrabeen to strongly object to the State Significant Development (SSD) proposed at 156–164 Ocean Street, Narrabeen. My key concerns are outlined below.
1. Contravention of Clause 4.3 – Height of Buildings and Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
The proposal seeks to exceed the 8.5 m height limit under Clause 4.3 of the Warringah Local Environmental Plan 2011 by proposing a building height of 21.1 m, representing a 12.6 m breach of the LEP standard. This is a completely unjustified departure from planning requirements. The 3.8 m bonus under Clause 87 of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing) 2021 (Housing SEPP) is intended for minor rooftop elements, not an additional full storey. At most, the building should be limited to 2-3 storeys (which would still be a breach)- this proposal seeks well more than double that at 6 storeys. This represents a clear breach of a fundamental object of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, which seeks to promote the orderly use and development of land.
2. False and misleading information on Architectural plans - Re-exhibition required
The plans prepared by MDP Architecture incorrectly depict a 13.3 m height plane as the applicable maximum height. This is factually incorrect and misleading for both the consent authority and more importantly the public (who are likely not aware of this error). Accordingly, re-exhibition of amended plans is necessary.
3. Failure to address View Loss according to Planning Principles
The View Loss Study by Visual Ideas (dated 7 July 2025) fails to apply the four-step assessment established in Tenacity Consulting v Warringah Council [2004]. No view-loss assessment has been undertaken from any of the affected residential properties along Ocean Street or Lagoon Street, which will experience a loss of water views to Narrabeen Lagoon, Narrabeen Beach, Long Reef and Narrabeen Headland. This omission fails to demonstrate that the proposal achieves a “reasonable sharing of views”, as required by case law.
4. Inconsistency with the Local Character of the Narrabeen Peninsula
The proposal is clearly out of character with the surrounding built form, which is predominantly 1-2 storey dwellings and townhouses, with a small number of 3 storey buildings. The proposed 6 storey building would be visually dominant, incongruous, and detrimental to the established and desired future character of Narrabeen. In Project Venture Developments v Pittwater Council [2005], the Court held that even where a development complies numerically with planning controls, it may still be refused if it is inconsistent with the prevailing character of the area. In this case, the development fails both numerically and contextually and should be refused on that basis alone.
5. Narrabeen is not an LMR Housing Area
The site is not identified as a Low and Mid-Rise (LMR) Housing Area under Chapter 6 of the Housing SEPP, despite 9 other suitable town centres within the Northern Beaches LGA being identified for such growth the NSW Government. This demonstrates a deliberate planning decision by the NSW Government not to apply increased density and height in Narrabeen, as it is not a strategic centre and has several hazard constraints which make evacuation an issue for residents.
6. Major Traffic Congestion detailed in the Traffic Impact Assessment
The Traffic Impact Assessment by Genesis Traffic (dated 14 July 2025) contains several deficiencies. SIDRA modelling shows major traffic congestion and delay at the Pittwater Road / Waterloo Street intersection. The report also fails to address cumulative impacts from other developments in the area. Furthermore, the Green Travel Plan relies heavily on aspirational mode-shift targets without any binding commitments or enforceable mechanisms.
For these reasons, I strongly urge the Department to refuse the SSD application in its current form.
Yours sincerely,
Local resident, Narrabeen
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
NORTH NARRABEEN
,
New South Wales
Message
The project is too high and big to blend in with the current buildings nearby
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
NARRABEEN
,
New South Wales
Message
SUBJECT: STRONGLY OBJECT TO STATE SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT (SSD-76220734) – INDIGO BY MORAN SENIORS HOUSING AT 156 OCEAN STREET, NARRABEEN
Dear Secretary,
I am writing as a permanent resident and property owner to formally and strongly object to the proposed Seniors Housing development at 156 Ocean Street, Narrabeen (SSD-76220734).
I oppose this development on the grounds that its unprecedented size and FSR are unsuitable for this sensitive coastal site, and it will result in demonstrable, negative planning impacts, particularly concerning overshadowing, privacy, and infrastructure strain on the immediate locality.
My submission is based on my status as an immediate neighbour, residing at 143 Ocean Street, Narrabeen. My property is directly across Ocean Street, with clear, unobstructed views to the site, meaning I will be one of the most directly affected residents.
I reside at 143 Ocean Street, Narrabeen. The proposed development site at 156 Ocean Street is situated immediately across the road to the North/North-West of my residence. This makes my property acutely vulnerable to the impacts of a high-rise structure, particularly in relation to solar access and privacy.
The current built form in this immediate vicinity is dominated by low-rise residential houses (like my own) and two-to-three storey residential flat buildings that respect the local height limits. This proposal completely disregards this established streetscape.
GROUNDS FOR OBJECTION
1. Loss of Solar Access and Overshadowing
Given the North/North-West orientation of the development site to my property, the sheer bulk and proposed height of the structure will cause significant and unreasonable overshadowing of my home and outdoor recreational areas.
• Breach of Amenity: I request the Department's assessors rigorously scrutinise the shadow diagrams. I anticipate that the proposed height will directly violate the solar access provisions of the relevant planning controls, particularly the requirements for sunlight to primary private open spaces and living areas.
• Adverse Impact: The loss of significant morning and mid-day sunlight to my garden, deck, and primary living room will severely diminish the residential amenity and thermal comfort of my family home, which currently benefits from excellent northern solar access. This is a direct, negative environmental impact that cannot be reasonably mitigated.
2. Visual Bulk, Privacy, and Character Disruption
The development's scale is inconsistent with the local planning instruments and directly compromises the privacy of my home.
• Visual Intrusiveness: The proposed building is of an entirely inappropriate bulk and height for this location. It will loom over Ocean Street, presenting a monolithic, urban form that is completely foreign to this coastal residential strip and will detrimentally impact the currently open, lower-scale feel of the area.
• Privacy Breach: Given my property's direct, close proximity, I object to the significant number of balconies, windows, and communal areas (e.g., rooftop facilities) that will have direct, unimpeded sight lines into my private yard, living areas, and bedrooms. This constitutes an unacceptable loss of privacy that no amount of screening will fully resolve due to the height difference.
3. Traffic and Infrastructure Saturation
The existing infrastructure on Ocean Street is inadequate to support the intensive use proposed by this State Significant Development.
• Parking Overload: I am concerned that the visitor and staff parking provisions will be insufficient. This development is only providing 178 car parking spots for 149 two & three bedroom apartments plus staff and visitor parking. The increased demand for on-street parking will exacerbate existing congestion and severely impact resident and visitor access, particularly during beach season, directly outside my property.
• Pedestrian Safety: The vast increase in vehicle movements, combined with the number of elderly residents, will create a hazardous situation for pedestrians, particularly children accessing the beach or locals moving along this section of Ocean Street.
4. Inconsistent with Surrounding Character and Built Form
The proposed development is grossly inconsistent with the prevailing character of the surrounding area, which is defined by:
• Single and two-storey residential dwellings, and
• Low-rise residential flat buildings of two to three storeys
A five-storey building with three basement levels introduces an inappropriate level of intensity, bulk and scale that is out of context with the established built environment. The height, form, and massing are inconsistent with the pattern of development in the locality and detract from the visual harmony and human scale of the streetscape
This proposal will dominate its surroundings, disrupt the visual transition between buildings, and erode the established residential character contrary to the planning objectives for the zone
5. Non-Compliance with Height Controls
The proposed height of 21.1 metres exceeds the permissible height limit by 8.8 metres, even after accounting for the increase allowed under the State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004.
Such a substantial variation:
• Represents an unjustifiable breach of planning controls,
• Results in significant visual intrusion and view loss, and
• Undermines the integrity of the local planning framework
The excessive height produces unreasonable overshadowing, bulk, and scale, inconsistent with the height objectives of the Local Environmental Plan (LEP) and Development Control Plan (DCP), which seek to ensure new development is compatible with its context and protects neighbouring amenity
6. View Loss for Neighbours and Public Areas
The development will cause substantial view loss to neighbouring residents and members of the public.
Specifically:
• The height and bulk of the proposal will obstruct existing private views to key vistas and landscapes.
• The building will impede public view corridors available from streets and nearby open spaces
• The photomontages provided by the applicant are misleading, as they fail to accurately depict the relationship between the proposed height (RLs) and existing neighbouring dwellings, incorrectly suggesting that a 21m building is similar in height to a 6m two-storey dwelling.
This misrepresentation of scale and visual impact significantly underplays the true extent of view obstruction the proposal will cause.
7. Inadequate Setbacks and Failure to Provide Height Transition
The proposal incorporates inadequate side and rear setbacks, which:
• Exacerbate the perception of bulk and massing,
• Fail to provide an appropriate transition in scale to neighbouring lower-density dwellings, and
• Lead to unreasonable amenity impacts (visual dominance, overshadowing, and privacy loss)
There has been no attempt to step the building or articulate façades to reduce perceived bulk and scale. This approach results in a monolithic structure that dominates its surroundings rather than integrating sensitively with them
8. Removal of Significant Vegetation
The proposal involves the removal of 30 established and significant trees, some of which may hold heritage or ecological value.
This loss:
• Erodes the landscape character and natural setting of the area,
Removes valuable habitat and urban canopy, and
• Eliminates screening vegetation that currently softens the visual impact of built form
The unnecessary extent of tree removal demonstrates poor site planning and disregard for the environmental and aesthetic value of existing vegetation
6. Adverse Microclimatic Impacts (Wind and Heat)
The development’s excessive bulk and placement will alter local airflows, resulting in:
• Reduced natural ventilation for surrounding dwellings,
• The elimination of prevailing breezes that currently mitigate summer heat, and
• A stagnant microclimate likely to exacerbate urban heat island effects
These impacts will diminish residential amenity for neighbouring properties and reduce environmental sustainability outcomes for the locality
9. Insufficient Car Parking and Traffic Impacts
The proposal includes inadequate parking provision for both residents and staff, contrary to the requirements of the SEPP and Council’s DCP.
This shortfall will
• Force overflow parking onto surrounding residential streets,
• Exacerbate existing parking scarcity, and
• Increase traffic congestion and safety risks on local roads not designed to accommodate higher volumes
The proposed three basement levels may also result in construction disturbance, noise, and traffic management issues over an extended period
10. Overdevelopment and Over-Intensification of the Site
The proposal represents a clear overdevelopment of the site, with a density, height, and scale far exceeding what is suitable for the locality.
The development
• Fails to respond to the site constraints,
• Over-intensifies the use under the guise of “Over 55s housing”, and
• Does not deliver genuine benefits or design excellence that would justify such an excessive variation
Rather than enhancing housing diversity, the proposal compromises residential amenity, environmental quality, and visual character
9. Cumulative and Precedent Impacts
Approval of this proposal would create a highly undesirable precedent, encouraging other developers to seek similar non-compliances in height, bulk, and scale.
Over time, this would erode the established low-density character of the locality and diminish the visual and environmental quality of the broader area
see attachement for remaining
Dear Secretary,
I am writing as a permanent resident and property owner to formally and strongly object to the proposed Seniors Housing development at 156 Ocean Street, Narrabeen (SSD-76220734).
I oppose this development on the grounds that its unprecedented size and FSR are unsuitable for this sensitive coastal site, and it will result in demonstrable, negative planning impacts, particularly concerning overshadowing, privacy, and infrastructure strain on the immediate locality.
My submission is based on my status as an immediate neighbour, residing at 143 Ocean Street, Narrabeen. My property is directly across Ocean Street, with clear, unobstructed views to the site, meaning I will be one of the most directly affected residents.
I reside at 143 Ocean Street, Narrabeen. The proposed development site at 156 Ocean Street is situated immediately across the road to the North/North-West of my residence. This makes my property acutely vulnerable to the impacts of a high-rise structure, particularly in relation to solar access and privacy.
The current built form in this immediate vicinity is dominated by low-rise residential houses (like my own) and two-to-three storey residential flat buildings that respect the local height limits. This proposal completely disregards this established streetscape.
GROUNDS FOR OBJECTION
1. Loss of Solar Access and Overshadowing
Given the North/North-West orientation of the development site to my property, the sheer bulk and proposed height of the structure will cause significant and unreasonable overshadowing of my home and outdoor recreational areas.
• Breach of Amenity: I request the Department's assessors rigorously scrutinise the shadow diagrams. I anticipate that the proposed height will directly violate the solar access provisions of the relevant planning controls, particularly the requirements for sunlight to primary private open spaces and living areas.
• Adverse Impact: The loss of significant morning and mid-day sunlight to my garden, deck, and primary living room will severely diminish the residential amenity and thermal comfort of my family home, which currently benefits from excellent northern solar access. This is a direct, negative environmental impact that cannot be reasonably mitigated.
2. Visual Bulk, Privacy, and Character Disruption
The development's scale is inconsistent with the local planning instruments and directly compromises the privacy of my home.
• Visual Intrusiveness: The proposed building is of an entirely inappropriate bulk and height for this location. It will loom over Ocean Street, presenting a monolithic, urban form that is completely foreign to this coastal residential strip and will detrimentally impact the currently open, lower-scale feel of the area.
• Privacy Breach: Given my property's direct, close proximity, I object to the significant number of balconies, windows, and communal areas (e.g., rooftop facilities) that will have direct, unimpeded sight lines into my private yard, living areas, and bedrooms. This constitutes an unacceptable loss of privacy that no amount of screening will fully resolve due to the height difference.
3. Traffic and Infrastructure Saturation
The existing infrastructure on Ocean Street is inadequate to support the intensive use proposed by this State Significant Development.
• Parking Overload: I am concerned that the visitor and staff parking provisions will be insufficient. This development is only providing 178 car parking spots for 149 two & three bedroom apartments plus staff and visitor parking. The increased demand for on-street parking will exacerbate existing congestion and severely impact resident and visitor access, particularly during beach season, directly outside my property.
• Pedestrian Safety: The vast increase in vehicle movements, combined with the number of elderly residents, will create a hazardous situation for pedestrians, particularly children accessing the beach or locals moving along this section of Ocean Street.
4. Inconsistent with Surrounding Character and Built Form
The proposed development is grossly inconsistent with the prevailing character of the surrounding area, which is defined by:
• Single and two-storey residential dwellings, and
• Low-rise residential flat buildings of two to three storeys
A five-storey building with three basement levels introduces an inappropriate level of intensity, bulk and scale that is out of context with the established built environment. The height, form, and massing are inconsistent with the pattern of development in the locality and detract from the visual harmony and human scale of the streetscape
This proposal will dominate its surroundings, disrupt the visual transition between buildings, and erode the established residential character contrary to the planning objectives for the zone
5. Non-Compliance with Height Controls
The proposed height of 21.1 metres exceeds the permissible height limit by 8.8 metres, even after accounting for the increase allowed under the State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004.
Such a substantial variation:
• Represents an unjustifiable breach of planning controls,
• Results in significant visual intrusion and view loss, and
• Undermines the integrity of the local planning framework
The excessive height produces unreasonable overshadowing, bulk, and scale, inconsistent with the height objectives of the Local Environmental Plan (LEP) and Development Control Plan (DCP), which seek to ensure new development is compatible with its context and protects neighbouring amenity
6. View Loss for Neighbours and Public Areas
The development will cause substantial view loss to neighbouring residents and members of the public.
Specifically:
• The height and bulk of the proposal will obstruct existing private views to key vistas and landscapes.
• The building will impede public view corridors available from streets and nearby open spaces
• The photomontages provided by the applicant are misleading, as they fail to accurately depict the relationship between the proposed height (RLs) and existing neighbouring dwellings, incorrectly suggesting that a 21m building is similar in height to a 6m two-storey dwelling.
This misrepresentation of scale and visual impact significantly underplays the true extent of view obstruction the proposal will cause.
7. Inadequate Setbacks and Failure to Provide Height Transition
The proposal incorporates inadequate side and rear setbacks, which:
• Exacerbate the perception of bulk and massing,
• Fail to provide an appropriate transition in scale to neighbouring lower-density dwellings, and
• Lead to unreasonable amenity impacts (visual dominance, overshadowing, and privacy loss)
There has been no attempt to step the building or articulate façades to reduce perceived bulk and scale. This approach results in a monolithic structure that dominates its surroundings rather than integrating sensitively with them
8. Removal of Significant Vegetation
The proposal involves the removal of 30 established and significant trees, some of which may hold heritage or ecological value.
This loss:
• Erodes the landscape character and natural setting of the area,
Removes valuable habitat and urban canopy, and
• Eliminates screening vegetation that currently softens the visual impact of built form
The unnecessary extent of tree removal demonstrates poor site planning and disregard for the environmental and aesthetic value of existing vegetation
6. Adverse Microclimatic Impacts (Wind and Heat)
The development’s excessive bulk and placement will alter local airflows, resulting in:
• Reduced natural ventilation for surrounding dwellings,
• The elimination of prevailing breezes that currently mitigate summer heat, and
• A stagnant microclimate likely to exacerbate urban heat island effects
These impacts will diminish residential amenity for neighbouring properties and reduce environmental sustainability outcomes for the locality
9. Insufficient Car Parking and Traffic Impacts
The proposal includes inadequate parking provision for both residents and staff, contrary to the requirements of the SEPP and Council’s DCP.
This shortfall will
• Force overflow parking onto surrounding residential streets,
• Exacerbate existing parking scarcity, and
• Increase traffic congestion and safety risks on local roads not designed to accommodate higher volumes
The proposed three basement levels may also result in construction disturbance, noise, and traffic management issues over an extended period
10. Overdevelopment and Over-Intensification of the Site
The proposal represents a clear overdevelopment of the site, with a density, height, and scale far exceeding what is suitable for the locality.
The development
• Fails to respond to the site constraints,
• Over-intensifies the use under the guise of “Over 55s housing”, and
• Does not deliver genuine benefits or design excellence that would justify such an excessive variation
Rather than enhancing housing diversity, the proposal compromises residential amenity, environmental quality, and visual character
9. Cumulative and Precedent Impacts
Approval of this proposal would create a highly undesirable precedent, encouraging other developers to seek similar non-compliances in height, bulk, and scale.
Over time, this would erode the established low-density character of the locality and diminish the visual and environmental quality of the broader area
see attachement for remaining
Attachments
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
NARRABEEN
,
New South Wales
Message
6 storey is not suitable for the area that only has a maximum of 3 storey. The roads won’t cope either.
Robert Rigg
Comment
Robert Rigg
Comment
NARRABEEN
,
New South Wales
Message
I believe the 192 resident parking spots and 7 visitors parking spots is totally insufficient for a complex of 149 units (plus staff). Street parking is extremely tight in local streets at any time, let alone during summer when beachgoers swell the traffic and require parking.
Indigo by Moran should have dedicated off street parking sufficient to accomodate their residents and provide additional visitor parking.
Indigo by Moran should have dedicated off street parking sufficient to accomodate their residents and provide additional visitor parking.
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
Narrabeen
,
New South Wales
Message
I am writing as a resident of Ocean Street to formally object to the proposed 6-storey over 50 development.
Grounds for Objection
Inconsistent with Local Character
There are currently no 6-storey buildings within this suburb. The existing streetscape is characterised by low- to medium-rise residential dwellings, typically between one and three storeys. Introducing a 6-storey building would be visually intrusive and inconsistent with the established character of Ocean Street and the surrounding neighbourhood.
Conflict with Planning Intent and Density Expectations
To my knowledge, there has been no indication from the State Government or Council in recent strategic planning proposals that this area is intended for high-density or 6-storey development. The scale and intensity of this proposal appear to exceed what is envisaged under current planning frameworks and would set an undesirable precedent for future overdevelopment.
Unacceptable Visual and Amenity Impacts
The proposed height will overshadow neighbouring properties, reduce privacy, and create an overbearing bulk when viewed from the street and adjoining residences. This will have a significant negative impact on the amenity and enjoyment of existing residents.
Traffic and Parking Concerns
Ocean Street is already experiencing traffic congestion and limited on-street parking. A high-density building of this scale will further strain local infrastructure and reduce safety and accessibility for residents and visitors.
Environmental and Infrastructure Capacity
It is unclear whether local infrastructure—including stormwater, waste collection, and public transport—has the capacity to accommodate a development of this size without negatively impacting existing residents.
Conclusion
For these reasons, I respectfully request that Council refuse this Development Application in its current form. I urge Council to ensure that any future development on this site aligns with the existing character, height limits, and strategic vision for Ocean Street and the wider suburb.
Thank you for considering my submission. I would appreciate being kept informed of any further progress or amendments to this application.
Grounds for Objection
Inconsistent with Local Character
There are currently no 6-storey buildings within this suburb. The existing streetscape is characterised by low- to medium-rise residential dwellings, typically between one and three storeys. Introducing a 6-storey building would be visually intrusive and inconsistent with the established character of Ocean Street and the surrounding neighbourhood.
Conflict with Planning Intent and Density Expectations
To my knowledge, there has been no indication from the State Government or Council in recent strategic planning proposals that this area is intended for high-density or 6-storey development. The scale and intensity of this proposal appear to exceed what is envisaged under current planning frameworks and would set an undesirable precedent for future overdevelopment.
Unacceptable Visual and Amenity Impacts
The proposed height will overshadow neighbouring properties, reduce privacy, and create an overbearing bulk when viewed from the street and adjoining residences. This will have a significant negative impact on the amenity and enjoyment of existing residents.
Traffic and Parking Concerns
Ocean Street is already experiencing traffic congestion and limited on-street parking. A high-density building of this scale will further strain local infrastructure and reduce safety and accessibility for residents and visitors.
Environmental and Infrastructure Capacity
It is unclear whether local infrastructure—including stormwater, waste collection, and public transport—has the capacity to accommodate a development of this size without negatively impacting existing residents.
Conclusion
For these reasons, I respectfully request that Council refuse this Development Application in its current form. I urge Council to ensure that any future development on this site aligns with the existing character, height limits, and strategic vision for Ocean Street and the wider suburb.
Thank you for considering my submission. I would appreciate being kept informed of any further progress or amendments to this application.
sandro D'amore
Comment
sandro D'amore
Comment
NARRABEEN
,
New South Wales
Message
My property borders , on the proposed multiple level apartment / retirement home, I am not a builder , my home is in great conditions , they are going to dig a carpark {3 levels} below ground level { 3 / 4 level above } apartments , I wish to request a licensed : eg - local council / gov't engineer, surveyor , or builder OR all of them do a report on the condition of my house before and after the construction of this dwelling - I am very concerned.
Rhonda Mawer
Object
Rhonda Mawer
Object
NORTH NARRABEEN
,
New South Wales
Message
I strongly object to the size of this development. 5-6 storeys is way too high for this street including the extra traffic it will cause on a road that is already busy . It does not fit in with the beachside residences . Three storeys in line with other buildings in the area would be a much better outcome .
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
NARRABEEN
,
New South Wales
Message
I object to the proposed project as it will not - in any way shape or form - meet local communities expectations due to its excessive bulk likely ruining locals quality of life - moreso to residents living in vicinity of the proposed project. It is not reasonable nor just and one would think this should far outweigh any arguments to the contrary - keep this place as aged care in current form but upgrade as required - obviously developer seeking a better return on their investment and current nsw government wants private developers to do the heavy lifting for them pushing through various projects ignoring common sense /public int - a lot of short term fixes and problems resulting by wrong decisions are tomorrow’s problems…. talk can be cheap and certainly is - good luck
Pagination
Project Details
Application Number
SSD-76220734
Assessment Type
State Significant Development
Development Type
Seniors Housing
Local Government Areas
Northern Beaches