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.
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
Warriewood
,
New South Wales
Message
We used to live very close by to this development for 6 years so know the area and street well, there is no way this small coastal penisula can cope with the size of this development. Traffic and parking is already horrendous, even with parking for residents if they have visitors there would be no where to park. Can’t even imagine the environmental factors of the height of this building on the surf and beach. We also drive our daughter to school a few blocks from here it is hard enough getting parking and doing kiss and ride with current parking. It is such a beautiful area because it has not been developed with high rises. The community does not want this at all!
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
COLLAROY
,
New South Wales
Message
I object to the size of the development. 6 stories is far too large and would change the charming feel that narrabeen has. I would not be opposed to a 3 story development which is in line with all the other buildings in the area currently. Added to my concerns is the congestion it will cause in the area due to added traffic, adjoining streets loftus and Octavia are very narrow and will not handle added congestion very well. Additionally it will increase traffic and danger hazards for children at nearby st Joseph’s primary school. Narrabeen is not the correct location for a high density 6 story development.
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
MONA VALE
,
New South Wales
Message
Submission – Objection to Indigo by Moran Development
156 Ocean Street, Narrabeen – SSD-76220734
Prepared by: Concerned Local Resident
1. Introduction
I wish to formally object to the proposed Indigo by Moran seniors housing development at 156
Ocean Street, Narrabeen (SSD-76220734).
I am a local resident whose parents directly opposite the proposed site, on the eastern side
of Ocean Street. I also work from home at this property, with my office facing directly toward the
development site. The proposed six-storey structure would block sunlight to our property and my
workspace for most of the day, significantly reducing natural light and altering the character and
amenity of our home and streetscape.
This development is fundamentally out of scale, inconsistent with the surrounding environment,
and inappropriate for this sensitive coastal location. I respectfully request that the NSW
Department of Planning refuse the application or require a major redesign consistent with local
planning controls, community expectations, and coastal management principles.
2. Coastal and Flooding Risk
The site lies within a well-documented flood-prone and coastal erosion hazard area, as
confirmed in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Appendices E and F. The site is affected
by both lagoon flooding and coastal inundation risk, with the proposed footprint encroaching into
high-hazard zones mapped under the Northern Beaches Council Flood Study and Coastal Zone
Management Plan.
The EIS acknowledges these risks but proposes only standard floor height adjustments, which
are inadequate given Narrabeen’s increasing vulnerability to sea level rise, storm surge and
coastal erosion. Deep excavation for the basement carpark raises additional risks of
groundwater intrusion and structural instability, threatening neighbouring properties and the
surrounding ecosystem.
The proposal is inconsistent with the objectives of the Coastal Management SEPP (2018) and
Coastal Management Act 2016, both of which require developments to avoid intensifying use in
hazard-prone areas and to protect coastal environmental processes.
3. Traffic, Parking and Access
The Traffic and Parking Assessment (EIS Appendix J) underestimates the vehicle movements
and parking demand generated by residents, staff, visitors and service vehicles.
The development proposes 149 apartments but only 178 car spaces, which is clearly insufficient.
This will cause overflow parking onto Ocean Street, Lagoon Street, Octavia Street and Loftus
Street — narrow local roads already under significant pressure, particularly during weekends,
surf club events, and school peak periods.
As someone who uses Ocean Street daily, I already experience the congestion and lack of
available parking. The additional traffic generated by this development will impede emergency
access, worsen safety risks for pedestrians and cyclists, and further degrade local amenity.
4. Height, Scale and Visual Impact
The proposed six-storey (21-metre) height is grossly inconsistent with the surrounding built form,
which is predominantly two to three storeys. This excessive bulk will dominate the Ocean Street
streetscape and overwhelm the existing low-rise coastal character of Narrabeen.
The Visual Impact Analysis (EIS Appendix L) demonstrates how the development will dominate
the view corridor between the lagoon and the ocean. The structure’s massing, uniform façade,
and elevated position will block open sky and sunlight for nearby properties — including my
family home, directly opposite the site — creating a sense of enclosure and overshadowing
throughout the day.
This is inconsistent with the Northern Beaches LEP 2022 and the Northern Beaches DCP 2022,
which seek to preserve coastal character and protect solar access for adjoining properties.
5. Vegetation Loss and Biodiversity
The Arboricultural Impact Assessment (EIS Appendix H) identifies the removal of over 30 mature
trees and established vegetation from the site. These trees contribute significantly to local
amenity, coastal resilience, and biodiversity, as well as providing shading and habitat for birdlife.
The loss of these trees will permanently alter the visual character of the area and reduce canopy
cover critical for heat mitigation and stormwater management. The proposed replacement
planting cannot replicate the maturity, ecological value, or visual contribution of the existing
trees.
6. Overshadowing, Privacy and Amenity Impacts
According to the Architectural Plans and Shadow Diagrams (EIS Appendix – Figures 5.3–5.5),
shadowing extends well beyond the site boundaries at 9am and 3pm during winter, impacting
properties on the eastern side of Ocean Street.
My parents’ home and my workspace will be severely overshadowed for most of the day by the
proposed six-storey structure, resulting in significant loss of natural light and amenity. This
directly contravenes the solar access provisions under Clause 6.9 of the Pittwater LEP 2014,
which seek to ensure reasonable sunlight to neighbouring dwellings and private open spaces.
Additionally, upper-level balconies and terraces create overlooking and privacy concerns,
enabling direct views into the front yards and living spaces of existing homes across Ocean
Street — contrary to the Residential Flat Design Code (RFDC) visual privacy objectives.
7. Other Localised Negative Impacts
• Construction disruption: Extended excavation, piling and construction traffic will cause
prolonged noise, vibration, dust, and access impacts for residents directly opposite the site.
• Wind tunnelling: The building’s bulk and exposure to coastal winds may create strong
turbulence at street level, reducing pedestrian comfort and safety.
• Infrastructure strain: Existing stormwater and sewer infrastructure are already under pressure in
this flood-prone zone. Additional load from a high-density building increases the risk of localised
flooding and system failure.
• Emergency access: Narrow local streets and limited egress routes pose safety risks during
flood or storm events.
• Cumulative precedent: Approval of this project would set a precedent for further large-scale
developments along the Narrabeen coastal strip, undermining the established planning controls
that protect the area’s low-rise character and environmental values.
8. Lack of Genuine Seniors Housing Benefit
The proposal is promoted as “seniors housing” but primarily consists of high-end luxury
independent living apartments priced from approximately $3 million, with only 10 assisted-living
rooms included. This is inconsistent with the intent of the State Environmental Planning Policy
(Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004, which aims to provide affordable and
accessible accommodation that supports ageing in place for local residents.
The development fails to address genuine community need and delivers no meaningful social or
affordable housing outcome, serving instead as a high-profit, market-driven project inappropriate
for this sensitive coastal site.
9. Precedent and Planning Non-Compliance
The proposal fails to comply with multiple planning instruments and principles, including:
• Northern Beaches LEP 2022 – Exceeds height, floor space, and setback controls.
• Northern Beaches DCP 2022 – Inconsistent with desired character and design objectives for
coastal zones.
• Coastal Management SEPP 2018 – Fails to protect visual amenity, public access, and coastal
environmental quality.
• Seniors Housing SEPP 2004 – Fails to demonstrate compatibility with the local context or
appropriate access to transport and services.
Approval of this proposal would erode community confidence in the planning framework and
open the door to further inappropriate, over-scaled development along the Northern Beaches.
10. Conclusion
The proposed Indigo by Moran development is excessive, incompatible, and environmentally
unsound. It would dominate the Narrabeen coastline, overshadow neighbouring properties
(including my family’s home directly opposite), strain local infrastructure, and significantly
diminish the area’s coastal character and amenity.
As a long-term local resident who will be directly and personally affected by the overshadowing
and loss of sunlight caused by this building, I urge the Department of Planning, Housing and
Infrastructure to refuse SSD-76220734 – 156 Ocean Street, Narrabeen, or require a substantial
redesign that complies with local planning controls, reduces height and scale, and genuinely
respects the unique environment of Narrabeen.
Sincerely,
Concerned Local Resident
Ocean Street, Narrabeen
27/10/25
156 Ocean Street, Narrabeen – SSD-76220734
Prepared by: Concerned Local Resident
1. Introduction
I wish to formally object to the proposed Indigo by Moran seniors housing development at 156
Ocean Street, Narrabeen (SSD-76220734).
I am a local resident whose parents directly opposite the proposed site, on the eastern side
of Ocean Street. I also work from home at this property, with my office facing directly toward the
development site. The proposed six-storey structure would block sunlight to our property and my
workspace for most of the day, significantly reducing natural light and altering the character and
amenity of our home and streetscape.
This development is fundamentally out of scale, inconsistent with the surrounding environment,
and inappropriate for this sensitive coastal location. I respectfully request that the NSW
Department of Planning refuse the application or require a major redesign consistent with local
planning controls, community expectations, and coastal management principles.
2. Coastal and Flooding Risk
The site lies within a well-documented flood-prone and coastal erosion hazard area, as
confirmed in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Appendices E and F. The site is affected
by both lagoon flooding and coastal inundation risk, with the proposed footprint encroaching into
high-hazard zones mapped under the Northern Beaches Council Flood Study and Coastal Zone
Management Plan.
The EIS acknowledges these risks but proposes only standard floor height adjustments, which
are inadequate given Narrabeen’s increasing vulnerability to sea level rise, storm surge and
coastal erosion. Deep excavation for the basement carpark raises additional risks of
groundwater intrusion and structural instability, threatening neighbouring properties and the
surrounding ecosystem.
The proposal is inconsistent with the objectives of the Coastal Management SEPP (2018) and
Coastal Management Act 2016, both of which require developments to avoid intensifying use in
hazard-prone areas and to protect coastal environmental processes.
3. Traffic, Parking and Access
The Traffic and Parking Assessment (EIS Appendix J) underestimates the vehicle movements
and parking demand generated by residents, staff, visitors and service vehicles.
The development proposes 149 apartments but only 178 car spaces, which is clearly insufficient.
This will cause overflow parking onto Ocean Street, Lagoon Street, Octavia Street and Loftus
Street — narrow local roads already under significant pressure, particularly during weekends,
surf club events, and school peak periods.
As someone who uses Ocean Street daily, I already experience the congestion and lack of
available parking. The additional traffic generated by this development will impede emergency
access, worsen safety risks for pedestrians and cyclists, and further degrade local amenity.
4. Height, Scale and Visual Impact
The proposed six-storey (21-metre) height is grossly inconsistent with the surrounding built form,
which is predominantly two to three storeys. This excessive bulk will dominate the Ocean Street
streetscape and overwhelm the existing low-rise coastal character of Narrabeen.
The Visual Impact Analysis (EIS Appendix L) demonstrates how the development will dominate
the view corridor between the lagoon and the ocean. The structure’s massing, uniform façade,
and elevated position will block open sky and sunlight for nearby properties — including my
family home, directly opposite the site — creating a sense of enclosure and overshadowing
throughout the day.
This is inconsistent with the Northern Beaches LEP 2022 and the Northern Beaches DCP 2022,
which seek to preserve coastal character and protect solar access for adjoining properties.
5. Vegetation Loss and Biodiversity
The Arboricultural Impact Assessment (EIS Appendix H) identifies the removal of over 30 mature
trees and established vegetation from the site. These trees contribute significantly to local
amenity, coastal resilience, and biodiversity, as well as providing shading and habitat for birdlife.
The loss of these trees will permanently alter the visual character of the area and reduce canopy
cover critical for heat mitigation and stormwater management. The proposed replacement
planting cannot replicate the maturity, ecological value, or visual contribution of the existing
trees.
6. Overshadowing, Privacy and Amenity Impacts
According to the Architectural Plans and Shadow Diagrams (EIS Appendix – Figures 5.3–5.5),
shadowing extends well beyond the site boundaries at 9am and 3pm during winter, impacting
properties on the eastern side of Ocean Street.
My parents’ home and my workspace will be severely overshadowed for most of the day by the
proposed six-storey structure, resulting in significant loss of natural light and amenity. This
directly contravenes the solar access provisions under Clause 6.9 of the Pittwater LEP 2014,
which seek to ensure reasonable sunlight to neighbouring dwellings and private open spaces.
Additionally, upper-level balconies and terraces create overlooking and privacy concerns,
enabling direct views into the front yards and living spaces of existing homes across Ocean
Street — contrary to the Residential Flat Design Code (RFDC) visual privacy objectives.
7. Other Localised Negative Impacts
• Construction disruption: Extended excavation, piling and construction traffic will cause
prolonged noise, vibration, dust, and access impacts for residents directly opposite the site.
• Wind tunnelling: The building’s bulk and exposure to coastal winds may create strong
turbulence at street level, reducing pedestrian comfort and safety.
• Infrastructure strain: Existing stormwater and sewer infrastructure are already under pressure in
this flood-prone zone. Additional load from a high-density building increases the risk of localised
flooding and system failure.
• Emergency access: Narrow local streets and limited egress routes pose safety risks during
flood or storm events.
• Cumulative precedent: Approval of this project would set a precedent for further large-scale
developments along the Narrabeen coastal strip, undermining the established planning controls
that protect the area’s low-rise character and environmental values.
8. Lack of Genuine Seniors Housing Benefit
The proposal is promoted as “seniors housing” but primarily consists of high-end luxury
independent living apartments priced from approximately $3 million, with only 10 assisted-living
rooms included. This is inconsistent with the intent of the State Environmental Planning Policy
(Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004, which aims to provide affordable and
accessible accommodation that supports ageing in place for local residents.
The development fails to address genuine community need and delivers no meaningful social or
affordable housing outcome, serving instead as a high-profit, market-driven project inappropriate
for this sensitive coastal site.
9. Precedent and Planning Non-Compliance
The proposal fails to comply with multiple planning instruments and principles, including:
• Northern Beaches LEP 2022 – Exceeds height, floor space, and setback controls.
• Northern Beaches DCP 2022 – Inconsistent with desired character and design objectives for
coastal zones.
• Coastal Management SEPP 2018 – Fails to protect visual amenity, public access, and coastal
environmental quality.
• Seniors Housing SEPP 2004 – Fails to demonstrate compatibility with the local context or
appropriate access to transport and services.
Approval of this proposal would erode community confidence in the planning framework and
open the door to further inappropriate, over-scaled development along the Northern Beaches.
10. Conclusion
The proposed Indigo by Moran development is excessive, incompatible, and environmentally
unsound. It would dominate the Narrabeen coastline, overshadow neighbouring properties
(including my family’s home directly opposite), strain local infrastructure, and significantly
diminish the area’s coastal character and amenity.
As a long-term local resident who will be directly and personally affected by the overshadowing
and loss of sunlight caused by this building, I urge the Department of Planning, Housing and
Infrastructure to refuse SSD-76220734 – 156 Ocean Street, Narrabeen, or require a substantial
redesign that complies with local planning controls, reduces height and scale, and genuinely
respects the unique environment of Narrabeen.
Sincerely,
Concerned Local Resident
Ocean Street, Narrabeen
27/10/25
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
Mona Vale
,
New South Wales
Message
This proposal is not within keeping of the residential area. It is too large at 6 storeys high. The infrastructure around the area is not at capacity for a such a proposal. We need to be attracting more families to the area with affordable housing not over 60’s living. Planning for this area should remain at no more that 2-3 storeys maximum. This proposal has very limited capacity for visitor parking. This is going to cause increased congestion along Ocean Street for the current residents. Moran is being greedy! They should have renovated Taylor Village as a wonderful aged care facility instead of money grabbing.
Sarah Downes
Object
Sarah Downes
Object
WARRIEWOOD
,
New South Wales
Message
I am writing to strongly object to the Indigo by Moran Seniors Living proposal as it stands. The 5–6 storey height is far too tall for our low-rise neighbourhood and will negatively impact traffic, parking, and the local character. I urge the Department to reduce the building height to no more than 2–3 storeys and lower the overall density to better fit our community. Narrabeen was never approved for buildings higher than 3 stories. The sand spit that is Narrabeen is coastal and needs to be given respect and not overpopulated and exploited. Thanks for your consideration of my views, Sarah Downes
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
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
NARRABEEN
,
New South Wales
Message
This is a supplementary submission.
The attached photographs are taken at a viewpoint in Loftus Street Narrabeen.
It looks towards the proposed development showing pine trees at the front of the development site. The proposed development will have a height greater than the pine trees and be immediately adjacent to the pine trees. The development will totally obscure the view from Loftus street and dominant the landscape and is unreasonable and the application should be refused.the attached photos depict the view loss that will result and the entire area in the photograph up to and above the tree line will be obscured.
The attached photographs are taken at a viewpoint in Loftus Street Narrabeen.
It looks towards the proposed development showing pine trees at the front of the development site. The proposed development will have a height greater than the pine trees and be immediately adjacent to the pine trees. The development will totally obscure the view from Loftus street and dominant the landscape and is unreasonable and the application should be refused.the attached photos depict the view loss that will result and the entire area in the photograph up to and above the tree line will be obscured.
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