narrabeen isn’t dee why

I think a 6-storey building is too high. This area typically has 3-storey as highest building. I’d support 3-storey.

To the Secretary DPHI,
Objection to SSD-76220734 - 156 Ocean Street Narrabeen
My wife and I have been residents of Narrabeen since June 2010 when we purchased our home in 7 Octavia Street, Narrabeen which is located immediately across the road from the proposed development. The immediate area around this development is made up of single and double storey houses, two storey unit blocks and on the eastern side of Ocean Street a few three storey unit blocks. The existing aged care facility has fitted seamlessly into this environment and has not impacted the liveability of the area, impacted visually or created issues with traffic numbers or on street parking. It has blended into the existing environment. The availability of on street parking is one of the critical issues facing this area (as well as most of the Northern Beaches and other areas of Sydney) many families have kids living longer at home because of the cost of housing and rents, it is not unusual for some households to have up to 4 cars. In addition because of the amount of cars the small streets surrounding the site (Albermarle, Loftus, Octavia, Tourmaline, Emerald and Malcom) are effectively one way streets that allow passage both ways. these streets are very sensitive to any increase in traffic flow.
The residents of the area recognise the need for additional housing and are not opposed to a development that fits the character of the surrounding area.
The development proposed by Moran would completely change the character of the area, impact liveability and safety for existing residents and create significant issues for on street parking and increased traffic flows on our narrow local streets.
In 2024 the NSW State Government undertook an assessment of sites across the northern peninsula to assess their suitability for mid and high rise development. Narrabeen was not named in March 2025 as one of the 10 selected sites because it was deemed to lack the required infrastructure and social amenities. Nothing has changed in the intervening months.
My key areas of objection are:
1. The height of the proposed structure at 21.1m when the WLEP 2011 allowed for a maximum height of 8.5m. Moran have applied for a Clause 4.6 Variation Request which can if successful provide an additional 3.8m. This current proposal is a further 8.8m above that, so it clearly does not comply and the gross difference between 8.5m and 21.1m clerarly illustrates how out of character this development is. This development if allowed will forever alter the local environment. The reason given for this large variation is that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances and that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify the contravention of the development standard. In seeking to justify the fact that the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary Moran have elected to use Test 3, that the underlying objective or purpose would be defeated or thwarted if compliance was required and therefore compliance is unreasonable. Moran states that the elements that sit above the height control are essential for the successful delivery of the project and that without these elements the development would not be delivered. So we get everything we want or you get nothing. What would be wrong with a scaled down version of the existing project that fitted within the height control. Many developers have over the last 15 years delivered successful projects that fitted within the height control and in so doing delivered additional housing for the region and state. The baseline development scenario provided as justification for why the proposed development should go ahead is a completely different style which more closely resembles a prison. So if we cant get what we want this is the only alternative, that proposition is simply not true and does not pass the reasonableness test and should be discarded. They have also suggested in Environmental Planning grounds to justify contravening the development standards that it is the retention of the Norfolk Pines along Ocean Street that have largely driven the building's height breach. Are they really suggesting that on a site that is 2.28 acres they would not be able to design a complying development and retain the Norfolk Pines. This does not provide the required justification.
Above all this the justification for the 149 unit development is that it will help meet our state and national housing targets. I would argue they don't need to be met in just one development and that the State and Federal governments did not develop these targets so as to give developers a free hand to do whatever they want. These targets can still be met with reasonable developments that don't destroy the local character and environment.
2) The visual impact on local residents will be significant. The design as it stands sees buildings built along the boundary along Loftus, Lagoon and Octavia streets with only 3.5m set backs to the balconies and these buildings will mainly focus internally to a garden courtyard. The design does not blend into the existing environment but instead creates a 21.1m barrier to their internal courtyard. I will be looking at a 21.1m structure that more closely resembles a cruise ship. In Octavia street I will have 4 levels of units looking straight over our house. This will be repeated for residents of Lagoon and Loftus streets.
The Visual Impact Analysis that supports this proposal is disingenuous. The firm that provided the analysis state that they could not find any angle which demonstrated a visual impact above low. The positions used to take the supporting images were carefully crafted and do not tell the true story. Any reasonable person could see that a development of this size and scale would have a very high visual impact as there are no other developments anywhere near this size in the local area.
I believe the design needs reworking to make it more sympathetic to the local environment and to lower its visual impact.
3. Impact on the liveability of existing residents, as stated in my opening summation this area already has a critical shortage of on street parking and a high sensitivity to increased traffic flows given the surrounding streets are virtually one way. The documents state that there will be 149 units and that there will be 178 resident car spaces as well as 7 visitor car spaces (which includes 3 disabled spaces). The traffic impact documents states there will be minimal impact on the surrounding area. They propose a Green Traffic Plan and a Green Traffic coordinator who will educate and encourage residents to walk, cycle, use public transport, car pool or ride share when travelling. This is completely ridiculous and is not supported by any real time data that shows how this works effectively in any other existing development of this type. In 2025 people aged in their 60's, 70's and 80's are still actively engaged in sporting, community, social and family groups. Some of these activities would be undertaken as couples but there are others where the individuals have their own interests. Most couples who choose to buy a unit will have two cars as the alternatives mentioned above are just not practical. This would mean more like 250 - 270 car spaces would be required. As there is only 178 provided in this design that means up to 100 cars would need onstreet parking in the surrounding local streets where there is no excess capacity now. We have 4 children who live in regional areas and it has become increasingly difficult to locate parking close to home. If this development was approved then finding temporary parking would be impossible.
In addition the provision of 7 visitor parking spaces (4 able bodied and 3 disabled) is woefully inadequate and would once again dramatically impact local on street parking.
The impact of up to 270 cars on our local roads will have a negative impact on liveability, we have kids and grandkids as well as walking our dog twice a day, pedestrian safety will become an issue as well as just the ability to successfully navigate through our narrow local streets.
4. Complete lack of community consultation. State Significant Developments are required to have extensive community consultation. The only communication I have had from the developers is a letter dated 20 October 2025 giving us 14 days to make a submission. The community consultation report is once again disingenuous. Initial sales meetings asking attendees what they would like in a seniors living development does not constitute community engagement nor do early sales presentations which have been held in October. The groundswell of local opposition to this development indicates just how much we have been kept in the dark by Moran. They have utterly failed to meaningfully engage with the local community. This development application should be refused and Moran should be forced to work with the community to find a suitable design that doesn't destroy the character or liveability of the local area and also provides Moran with an opportunity for a successful and profitable development.
In conclusion i would urge that this development application be refused, Moran have not adequately demonstrated why compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary. This application may well have been suitable had Narrabeen been identified as a site suitable for medium to high density development but it wasn't. Narrabeen does not have the required infrastructure or social amenities to support this type of development. The proposed development is completely out of character with the local environment and would forever change the liveability of the area for current and future generations. As I said at the start the local residents are not opposed to the development of the site and recognise the need for additional seniors living accommodation but believe this is not the right way.

1. Inconsistent building character.
The principal form of development in Ocean St is a mix of single and two storey houses,two storey town houses and flats. The proposed development is 6 storey and is not in keeping with the existing character.
2. Inadequate Parking and traffic impact.
Only 178 parking spaces are proposed this is inadequate for the size of the development. An independent traffic assessment should be prepared to confirm if this number is sufficient.
3. Loss of aged care capacity.
the current proposal is to replace 55 aged care beds and 35 assisted living units with a 10 bed facility. This number of replacement beds is completely inadequate.
4. Explotation of Planning provisions
The State Government has recently introduced zoning changes that will allow 6 storey development in Brookvale, Manly Vale, Dee Why, Mona Vale and Forestville. This legislation does not include Narrabeen and was never intended to
5. Setting a precedent.
6. lack of genuine community consultation
7absence of affordable housing
8environonmental aaand water table concerns

6 levels above ground level is too high

Dear Sir/Madam,
Please find attached my objections to this development.
Kind Regards,
Donna Hall

Narrabeen is not Dee Why. Approving this application sets a concerning precedent that similar changes can continue across our area. The extremely short window provided for community feedback appears questionable and undermines fair consultation. I do not support this application.

I don’t want this built because I want to keep my suburb normal and not developed like Dee why

Submission for Indigo By Moran - 156 Ocean Street Narrabeen

I am writing to formally object to the proposed Indigo By Moran development at 156 Ocean Street, Narrabeen. While I support responsible and sustainable development in our community, this proposal raises serious concerns relating to traffic congestion, construction impacts, building height, and community wellbeing and safety. I also have serious concerns regarding the accuracy of the Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) and hence the traffic congestion and safety risks during construction.
In more detail, my concerns are as follows:
1. Inaccuracies and Omissions in the Traffic Impact Statement (TIS)
The Traffic Impact Statement submitted as part of the development application contains several critical inaccuracies and omissions which render its conclusions unreliable:
1.1 Section 4.2 – Incorrect Description of Wakehurst Parkway
The TIS incorrectly states that Wakehurst Parkway has two lanes in each direction. This is incorrect—Wakehurst Parkway is one lane in each direction for most of its length. The addition of vehicles generated by the proposed development will further exacerbate congestion on this already constrained road, particularly during peak hours and weekends when Narrabeen experiences heavy through-traffic.
1.2 Section 4.5.1 – Incorrect Speed Limit Data
The TIS states that the speed limit on Ocean Street and other local streets is 40 km/h, which is incorrect. The posted speed limit is 50 km/h, and this error undermines the validity of the TIS’s traffic flow and safety assessments.
1.3 Section 4.7 – Failure to Consider Ocean Street Traffic Volumes
The TIS fails to include traffic volume data for Ocean Street, despite Ocean Street being the primary access route for both construction vehicles and future residents. This is a major omission, particularly as Ocean Street already functions as a bypass route (“rat run”) for Pittwater Road, carrying significant existing traffic volumes.
Furthermore, the data used for other roads is more than three years old and does not reflect current conditions, meaning the TIS underestimates existing congestion and the cumulative impact of the proposed development.
1.4 Section 8.2.3 – Unsafe Construction Vehicle Route on Ocean Street
The TIS proposes that construction vehicle access will be via Ocean Street, which is highly inappropriate and unsafe. Ocean Street is a narrow single-lane road with an adjacent bike lane that is frequently occupied by parked vehicles. Heavy trucks will need to give way to oncoming traffic when entering or exiting the site, leading to traffic build-up, unsafe overtaking, and potential conflicts with cyclists and pedestrians.

Ocean Street should not be used for construction access, and the TIS should be amended to identify a safer and less disruptive alternative route.
2. Traffic Congestion and Safety during Construction
Ocean Street and the surrounding Narrabeen area already experience significant traffic congestion, particularly during peak hours and weekends when visitors access the beach and lagoon. The proposed development will exacerbate these issues during the lengthy construction period due to:
• Increased movement of heavy vehicles, delivery trucks, and construction machinery.
• Reduced street parking and narrowed traffic lanes.
• Safety risks for pedestrians and cyclists, including school children and elderly residents.
The traffic management plan must be scrutinised carefully to ensure public safety. There appears to be no sufficient mitigation strategy presented to minimise these impacts on local residents.
3. Excessive Building Height and Inconsistent Scale
The proposed building height of six (6) levels is three levels higher than most surrounding residential buildings, which are predominantly low-rise structures of two to three storeys. This excessive height:
• Disrupts the established coastal village character of Narrabeen.
• Creates overshadowing of nearby properties and public spaces.
• Reduces privacy for adjacent residents.
• Sets a concerning precedent for overdevelopment in this sensitive coastal zone.
The project is clearly inconsistent with the existing local planning controls and desired future character of the area.
4. Impacts on Social Welfare and Community Wellbeing
The cumulative effects of construction disturbance, increased traffic, and a dominating six-storey structure will have long-term social consequences, including:
• Increased noise, dust, and disruption for residents, particularly vulnerable populations such as seniors and families with young children.
• Diminished public amenity and open space due to overshadowing and increased congestion.
• Potential strain on local infrastructure and emergency access routes.
The wellbeing and safety of existing residents should take precedence over private commercial gain.
 
Conclusion
For the reasons outlined above, I strongly object to the Indigo By Moran development at 156 Ocean Street in its current form, particularly that Ocean Street should not be used for construction access, and the TIS should be amended to identify a safer and less disruptive alternative route.
I urge the Council and relevant planning authorities to reject the proposal or require significant amendments to reduce building height, limit construction impacts, and ensure that the project aligns with the community character and safety standards of Narrabeen.
Thank you for considering my objection. I would appreciate acknowledgment of this submission and notification of any future hearings or revisions to the proposal.
Yours sincerely,