Breaking area highest restrictions

North narrabeen is a small what feels like country town. We have horses at our local cafes and everyone is a big family at Narrabeen. Putting something like this in our home suburb is completely against the grain of our community. We will not stand for this at all. This has 0 regard for our people who have grown up at Narrabeen. I totally object to this and our community will not stand down on this one.
Thanks
Jordy lawler

This proposed development is significantly out of character for the area, will cause excessive traffic problems and has major water table and foundation issues which would not support multi level basements or large (heavy) developments.

Any new development in Narrabeen should be along Pittwater Rd where there are existing amenities and public transport, as well as less shading issues and more underdeveloped properties.

Narrabeen and North Narrabeen should not have any large developments approved until:
1) Wakehurst Parkway is improved and made safer;
2) Remove the Pittwater Rd bridge from Narrabeen to Nth Narrabeen bottleneck, perhaps by widening it to 3 lanes north bound, and widen the Pittwater Rd to Wakehurst Pkwy turning lane south bound to 2 lanes in peak hour to remove the bottleneck and draw cars away from Ocean St which is used as a rat run;
3) improve public transport links to both the city and direct buses to Chatswood to link up with the train lines so residents are less reliant on cars to travel to work.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Im a local resident and i reject to the proposed development it will be out of character for the suburb and will be a disaster with traffic and parking this building will look so out of place and this development should not continue

Please refer to the attached document that outlines my objections to the overdevelopment of this site.

Keep the street level as is - a 3 Storey retirement village is more than fair enough. 6 storey is far far to much

I wish to formally object to the proposed development of a Six Storey High Rise in Narrabeen at 156 Ocean Street. While I understand the need for sustainable housing growth, this proposal raises serious concerns regarding its impact on the local community and environment.
Our Narrabeen doesn’t need this development and I believe it will completely destroy the atmosphere in which we have created over the years.