The is a need for new retirement accommodation in the area and the development will be sympathetic to the environment.

Please see my attachment for objection to Moran Development in Narrabeen

1) The Palnning Minister for NSW did not include Narrabeen in the new High Rise sector of the Northern Beaches where the State Government overrules the Northern Beaches Council. As this is a 5 - 6 Storey building it is not a fit for Narrabeen and is way out of character with the Suburb and its current 2 storey developments.
2) The Premier Mr Minns and the Planning Minister Mr Scully have NOT visited the site or in fact arranged to have any Dialogue with Residents of Narrabeen regarding this so called Aged Care faciity. Please communicate this message to the Premier and Sate Planning Minister.
3) The proposal states 10 Care Beds and 149 Units, this is not Affordable Housing as the Government States as the Units are in the $5 - $6 Million Dollar range. Not Affordable.
4) Parking currently Narrabeen and especially Ocean Street, Octavia Street, Loftus Street are all fully parked out either by Land Owners or Tennants of other properties in the vicinity of these Streets. The Developers have allowed for 7 Car Spaces for Visitors how rediculous.
5) There has been No Community consultation on this Project of Major State significance so called. Please arrange for more time for people to be shown the true reason for this development and that is a cash grab by Moran Health or should I say Moran Real Estate.

Objection Summary
I am a resident of Ocean St Narrabeen and wish to formally object to the proposed Indigo by Moran seniors housing development at 156–164 Ocean Street, Narrabeen. The scale and intensity of this proposal are entirely inappropriate for this sensitive coastal site and inconsistent with local planning controls. The lack of parking already on Ocean St is a major concern and having a complex of this size and construction for a long period will drastically impact residents, safety and availability.

Key Concerns
1. Overdevelopment and Non-Compliance – The proposal exceeds the intended scale of the R2 Low Density Residential Zone under the Northern Beaches LEP 2011. Its 21.5m height and bulk disregard Clause 4.3 Height of Buildings and the Housing SEPP 2021 design principles.

2. Environmental and Coastal Risk – The site sits within mapped Coastal Environment and Coastal Vulnerability Areas under the Coastal SEPP 2018. Excavation over 11m deep poses flooding, groundwater, and structural risks.

3. Poor Design and Minimal Sustainability – The BASIX assessment barely meets minimum standards with little passive design or energy efficiency, contrary to Clause 3.6 of the Housing SEPP and Section B5 of the DCP.

4. Lack of Transparency and Consultation – No meaningful consultation was undertaken before lodgement, and the public exhibition period of only two weeks was unreasonably short.

5. Governance and Precedent – The absence of an Independent Design Review Panel undermines confidence in the process. Approving this would set a dangerous precedent for large-scale overdevelopment along Narrabeen’s coastline.

Public Interest
Under section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, developments must demonstrate consistency with planning instruments and serve the public interest. This proposal offers no genuine community or environmental benefit and undermines the principles of sustainable coastal planning.

Request
I respectfully request that the Department refuse SSD-76220734, or alternatively require a full redesign that:
• Reduces height, bulk, and excavation depth;
• Improves sustainability and BASIX performance;
• Retains mature trees and expands deep-soil areas;
• Undergoes independent design review; and
• Is re-exhibited with proper community consultation and an extended timeframe.

Dear Secretary, DPHI: Objection to SSD-76220734 – 156 Ocean Street Narrabeen.
I am concerned resident that doesn’t want the area destroyed, I oppose the development for these reasons
Environment: The planned removal of mature native pine trees along Lagoon Street. These trees are a critical part of our natural ecosystem, and their removal would be a considerable loss to our community's natural landscape.
The size of the development: poses visual obstruction and is undeniably an overdevelopment of the area. A 5–6 storey complex with 149 units is completely out of character with the area. Ocean Street is a low-rise, beachside community made up of family homes and small complexes. A large-scale project like this would overwhelm the landscape, increase congestion, and erode the relaxed coastal feel that defines Narrabeen.
Traffic/Accessibility: I frequent the area and I am worried that the traffic from increased population will exacerbate an already struggling local traffic system.
Lack of community consultation: there was not enough information and time for the community to fully understand the impact this development will have on the area .

I have lived in Narrabeen for over 20 years. In that time there has been limited improvements to roads, shopping and in particular parking. Whilst i am totally supportive of development, the community needs to be considered. A six storey development with limited parking is out of character with the area. We simply do not have the infrastructure for huge developments. There are already 3 major developments set down for my neighboring area in Warriewood, and ingleside, there is no provision for the extra parking in the area, already it is one lane either way, the traffic on the weekend is already at capacity, the beachfront is not far away and then is anyone going to be able to go to the beach at all? with NO Parking or infrastructure at all? . The Northern beaches is neglected by most governments who simply do not seem to care or consider the impact of the rubber stamped developments. Also the height and many units proposed in the development will overlook many other neighboring properties and therefore obstruct all privacy. It is certainly not adding any value at all to the area. A smaller not too high development would be more viable and only if works were thought about traffic, privacy and parking.

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