Submission of Objection - SSD-76220734
156 Ocean Street, Narrabeen (“Indigo by Moran”)
From: Hannah Dennis, 5 Loftus Street, Narrabeen
________________________________________
To Whom It May Concern,
I am writing to formally object to the proposed “Indigo by Moran” seniors housing development at 156 Ocean Street, Narrabeen (SSD-76220734). I live at 5 Loftus Street, which adjoins the subject site on the Southern boundary and will be directly and materially impacted by the proposal.
Prior to lodgement, my husband was contacted by Mr Nick Winberg of Centurian Group, who represented the applicant. During this discussion on 18 September 2025, Mr Winberg provided assurances that the development would consist of only four levels, include a 15-metre setback to the southern boundary (adjoining Loftus Street properties), and would retain the majority of existing trees on site. He further stated that the proponent sought to maintain an “open and transparent” consultation process with surrounding residents.
Having reviewed the lodged documentation, these assurances have proven inaccurate. The application now proposes a six-storey building reaching approximately 21 metres in height, with balconies as close as 7 metres to the boundary of 5 Loftus Street and the main building positioned approximately 10 metres away. The plans also indicate the removal of approximately 61 out of 85 trees, including mature native species that currently provide essential privacy and environmental buffering. No further consultation has occurred since the initial discussion, and the information presented at that time was materially misleading.
The visual and amenity impacts to our property would be severe. The development would cause significant overshadowing, particularly during the winter months, resulting in loss of sunlight to our entire backyard and interior living spaces. The proposed balconies and large glazed openings will directly overlook our property, including private outdoor and internal areas such as the living room and kitchen, bedrooms and bathrooms, causing a substantial and unacceptable loss of privacy for myself and our young children aged 5 and 7 years old.
It is also noted with concern that the architectural documentation inaccurately depicts our dwelling at 5 Loftus Street as a three-storey structure, when it is in fact two storeys as confirmed by the registered survey. This misrepresentation diminishes the apparent impact of the proposed building and raises broader questions regarding the accuracy and reliability of the submitted material. I have attached a PDF that shows the correct height of the dwelling on our property.
Additionally, I believe the shadow diagrams of the existing building to be incorrect, or deliberately misrepresented, to minimise the apparent impact of the shadowing caused by the proposed new building. I have attached a PDF with screenshots showing date and time of photos taken in our open private area that refute the existing shadow diagrams presented in the application. Please take time to carefully review the existing shadow diagrams presented in the application as these inaccuracies form the basis of their argument that the proposed building has “less than or similar impact” to the current built form.
The proponent’s claimed “meaningful community consultation” was not genuine. Information sessions were limited to individuals aged 60 years and over, thereby excluding a significant portion of directly affected residents. These events functioned primarily as marketing sessions rather than meaningful consultation. This approach is inconsistent with the intent of the NSW Government’s guidelines for community participation in planning processes. Sales flyer attached in PDF for reference as well as my attempt to engage representatives of the application to engage in meaningful community consultation, which was refused by said representative.
The proposed height, bulk, and scale are wholly inconsistent with the established character of this locality, which is defined by one- and two-storey residential dwellings. The proposed 21-metre structure represents a substantial departure from the prevailing 8.5-metre height control applicable in the surrounding area and would have an overbearing and visually intrusive presence when viewed from Loftus Street and adjoining properties. The justification provided for this non-compliance is neither reasonable nor necessary.
The application also raises serious concerns regarding construction access and traffic management. Loftus Street is a narrow local road with limited on-street parking and high pedestrian activity. It is unsuitable for heavy vehicle movements associated with demolition and construction works. Any proposal to utilise Loftus Street for construction access would pose unacceptable safety risks to residents and the local community. The northern side of Loftus Street does not currently have a footpath; my children and I must cross the road to use the footpath on the other side of the road. An increase in traffic during the construction period and once the building is complete will make our street extremely unsafe for pedestrian use.
The proposed removal of almost all existing vegetation is another major concern. These trees contribute significantly to neighbourhood amenity, privacy, biodiversity, and local character. Their removal would exacerbate visual impacts, increase heat and glare, and further diminish the residential amenity of adjacent properties. Furthermore, they provide essential habitat for local wildlife such as ospreys, seas eagles and tawny frogmouth owls. They provide essential tree canopy to a locality that is already very lacking in trees canopy. They also provide natural shade and cooling from hot Western afternoon sun which would increase the sustainability of the proposed new building. Their removal is completely unjustified as they would be able to be retained if the application was within SEPP controls.
To be clear, I am not opposed to appropriate and well-designed seniors housing and recognise the urgent need for it. However, the current proposal represents a significant overdevelopment of the site. It breaches key planning controls by a staggering 71%, disregards neighbourhood character, and fails to adequately protect the amenity and privacy of adjoining residents.
For these reasons, I respectfully request that the Department refuse SSD-76220734 in its current form. Should the applicant wish to pursue development on this site, a complete redesign is required—one that achieves compliance with applicable height and setback controls, retains significant trees and deep soil for additional landscaping and one that meaningfully engages with affected residents. The southern façade must also be substantially revised to reduce glazing and remove balconies that overlook private adjoining properties.
I extend an invitation to the Department’s assessment officers and the proponent’s representatives to inspect 5 Loftus Street in person to understand the extent of overshadowing, overlooking, and visual impact the proposed development would cause.
In addition, I have included a supporting letter from my psychologist, Mrs Belinda Williams, and General Practioner Dr Jacqueline Tedder outlining the anticipated mental health impacts associated with the proposal in its current form. These impacts—including loss of sunlight, privacy, and amenity—are relevant planning considerations and should be assessed accordingly.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide this submission. I request to be kept informed of any amendments, assessment outcomes, or further opportunities for community input.
Yours sincerely,
Hannah Dennis
5 Loftus Street Narrabeen NSW 2101

Please see attached submission.

I am an architect living on Lagoon Street. While I am generally supportive of the Indigo by Moran proposal I would like to make the following comments:
-supportive of development for aged care / retirement living with onsite amenities and generally increasing density.

-concerned about the general visual bulk of 5-6 storeys in an otherwise typically 2-3 storey development area. There are some instances in the neighbourhood of 4 storey apartment buildings which I believe should be the precedent for this proposal. I would suggest that 5 storeys maximum would be an appropriate proposal and the development should be reduced by a storey.
-concerned about increased traffic to Lagoon Street, a quiet narrow two way street with parking on both sides. Can there be provision for carpark access off both Ocean Street and Octavia Street to reduce the impact on Lagoon Street? The existing aged care facility has an off-street entry which I believe should be reinstated in this proposal to allow for more relaxed set-downs and pickups. Alternatively the main entry should be aligned with the street bus stop & pickup/drop off.
-To decrease local traffic by the residents, will there be a shuttle bus or similar service to mobilise residents in a 5km radius?
-Also concerned about the increase of traffic for visitors / guests and street parking which is already difficult in summer. Is 5 visitor carparks (incl. 1 DDA) sufficient to accomodate guests?
-concerned about the amenity / private open space / overshadowing to the residential dwellings on Loftus Street - with the visual bulk of 5 storeys to their immediate north. I am not convinced that overlooking / overshadowing has been adequately addressed by the proposal.

-Will the apartments / units include affordable retirement living housing ?
-Why is the Aboriginal Heritage report partly redacted?

Indigo by Moran appears to be a well-considered and expertly designed building for retirement living. As someone over 55 years I am interested in quality developments tailored to enhanced retirement living. I would be keen to live in such a development and support the project.