It’s too high

I object the proposal for 156 Ocean St Narrabeen for the following reasons:
As it reduces the number of Aged Care Beds available by comparison the previous use of the site it is not a project of state signifcance but rather case of degrading the state's Aged Care capabilities.
The Proposal is completely out or scale and character with the neighbourhood, and the entire area north of Collaroy, and offers the community no positive benefit at all.
it fails to provide anywhere near enough parking for the number of units proposed. In an area where parking on the street is always a[ problem and almost impossible on summer beach-weather days this proposal will cause massive parking headaches for the residents of the entire Narrabeen penisula and the residents of the proposal.
Regarding the trees their proposal claims to care so much about: the proposal is to remove at least two mature Norfolk Island Pines and the proposed building is so close to, and overbearing of, the existing 5 Norfolk Island Pine on Ocean st, depriving the trees of all western sunshine, it seems doubtful they will survive which again will be a loss to the community.

Formal Objection to Development Application: Proposed Seniors Housing Redevelopment
To: Department of Planning, Housing, and Infrastructure
Attention: Development Assessment Team
Subject: Objection to Proposed Seniors Housing Redevelopment — [Indigo by Moran Seniors Living, 156 Ocean Street, Narrabeen (SSD-76220734)
Dear Sir/Madam,
I am writing to formally object to the proposed development described as the “Demolition of existing seniors housing and adjacent residential dwellings and construction of a new 5–6-storey seniors housing development” comprising 149 independent living units, 10 residential care beds, and associated amenities and basement parking.
While I appreciate the need for appropriate aged care housing in our community, the scale and form of this proposal raise serious concerns regarding amenity, character, and local environmental impact.
1. Scale, Density, and Built Form
The proposed 5 to 6 storey structure significantly exceeds the predominant building height and scale of the surrounding area, which is characterised mainly by 1–2 storey residential dwellings. The bulk and massing of the building:
• Will create an overbearing presence inconsistent with the established suburban context.
• Detracts from local visual character and streetscape continuity.
• Risks setting a precedent for future overdevelopment in a low rise residential precinct.
A more modest, tiered design would better integrate with existing streetscapes and maintain neighbourhood identity.
2. Traffic, Parking, and Safety Concerns
Although 192 basement spaces are proposed, the introduction of nearly 160 accommodation units and extensive amenity spaces will materially increase local traffic volumes, particularly at peak times.
Concerns include:
• Congestion at nearby intersections and access points.
• Visitor parking under provision (7 spaces for 149 units is inadequate).
• Potential hazards for pedestrians, including residents with mobility challenges.
• Cumulative impacts on local streets already constrained by on street parking demand.
A traffic management plan and independent review of the TIA (Traffic Impact Assessment) should be required and is inadequately reported in the EIS.
3. Amenity Impacts on Neighbours
The proposed height and proximity to property boundaries will generate adverse overshadowing, loss of privacy, and view obstruction for adjoining dwellings.
Morning and afternoon sunlight to private open spaces and gardens will be reduced.
Balconies and common areas located close to boundaries raise legitimate privacy concerns.
I have major concerns the proposed development actually encroaches closer to all houses left of the block, and especially those on the Loftus St (Southern end). Amenity to grounds has been maximised for the development, with utter disregard to local neighbours, many of which have been there for considerable years.
The ramp to the garage has been moved closed to a neighbour on Lagoon St. At 192 carparks this ramp will be like living on a main road with cars coming and going and especially at peak times.
4. Environmental and Acoustic Implications
• Demolition and excavation for a three level basement will create prolonged noise, dust, and vibration impacting surrounding homes for an extended period.
• Increased hard surfaces and building footprint may exacerbate local stormwater and drainage pressures.
• Vehicle ramps and plant equipment within the basement may cause ongoing acoustic disturbance to nearby residences.
• I have estimated that there could be as many as 160 bins in use for the development’s garbage and recyclables. Where will they be stored? Where will they be placed every Friday? This form of rubbish collection is an absolute failure in Dee Why. We must learn from prior mistakes in correctly designated high-rise suburbs.
• Probable penetration of a natural water table that exist between the sae and the lake, and only 15 metres below the surface. We know this as we have a bore at property that operates at 15 metres. This penetration will also likely result in a contaminated and potentially unusable water table into the future.
5. Inconsistency with the Local Planning Controls
The proposal does not satisfy planning objectives relating to neighbourhood character, transition of built form, or protection of residential amenity.

The “seniors housing” justification does not automatically override fundamental planning incompatibilities. Neither does adding the words a “strategic significant” development. If this is a way to step around community rights and involvement, I strongly recommend the government reconsiders the approach.
In this case, by failing once to have the development passed, and trying to have it restated with out correct public consultation, shows a serious misunderstanding of the local community feeling around this project.
6. Quality of Life and Suitability for Residents
While the inclusion of lifestyle facilities (pool, sauna, cinema, wine room, rooftop pavilion, etc.) may enhance marketability, the overall density and vertical design are atypical for seniors living. It compromises ease of access, exposure to green space, and social interaction opportunities compared with smaller-scale, community integrated models.
Initial indications from Moran are the base model unit will be valued at $3million. This is hardly a senior’s living compatible investment. At this value and presumably more for larger investments this is a significant profit-making exercise by the developers. We can all do the math, and good profit can still be made at 2-3 stories. I also note that to make this submission I have had to make a political donation declaration. Have the developers also declared their position on this?
7. Cumulative and Precedent Effects
Approval of a project of this scale would set a precedent for large scale redevelopment that is inconsistent with the local planning vision and community expectations.
This risks fundamentally altering the residential character of the area and eroding the zoning’s intended purpose.
Environmental Impact Statement - Analysis
Also, I have taken the time to read and analyse the “Environmental Impact Statement” (EIS). I was surprised to find very little that states a negative impact, so I have decided to point out some key environmental weaknesses. Same information, interpreted through perhaps a more negative lens:
Environmental weaknesses summary
Based on the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) dated 2 Oct 2025 and its appendices (Planning Studio; various technical reports), the following risks and residual weaknesses are identified with emphasis on biophysical environment, construction impacts, urban ecology, coastal context, and neighbourhood amenity. It is unfortunate that the character count will not allow me to fully elucidate the scale of the EIS issues.
Bottom line
The EIS is comprehensive and proposes standard to better-practice mitigations. However, environmental weaknesses remain around the scale of vegetation clearance and ecological function loss, excavation-related groundwater/ASS risks, coastal catchment sensitivities, and construction-phase amenity and pollution controls —particularly in a sensitive coastal suburb—are non-trivial.
Conclusion
For the reasons outlined—namely the proposal’s excessive height and density, adverse traffic and amenity impacts, poor contextual fit, and questionable alignment with local planning controls, EIS weaknesses, particularly probable penetration of the water table —I respectfully request that Council refuse or require substantial modification of the application.
A redesigned, lower scale development could still meet aged care objectives while maintaining the character, safety, and amenity of the existing neighbourhood.
Thank you for considering this submission.
Yours faithfully,
Michael Van Lathum
Unit 1, 12 Loftus Street
Narrabeen, NSW, 2101
5 November 2025

Email: [email protected]
Mob: 0414 795 029

This project will further develop narrabeen, where there is already a lack of parking and very little trees. By adding a 6 story development further strain on the people and environment would incur. It will be an eye sore and negative for the whole narrabeen community.

The proposed development currently sits in zoning of R3 with a max permissible height of 8.5m, with an addition 3.8m over the max permissible height (bonus clause 87 of housing SEPP) bringing this to a total of 12.3m.
The variation clause 4.6 at add an additional height to a combined total of 19.3m is excessive.

Appendix 37 - Visual Impact Assessment is subjective.
- Location 02 / 04 / 06 / 07 all indicate that the magnitude as moderate and the visual impact as low. Further weight and consideration as to how the merits of the visual impact assessment are determined.

Appendix 38 - Demolition & Construction Waste Management Plan. This has not been prepared by a suitably qualified consultant. UFD are food preparation and services consultants, not experienced to provide commentary on construction waste management. Also the calculations of their assessment need to be reviewed.

In the context of the significance of the project - is a 14 day notification period sufficient? Generally aren't SSDAs subject to a 30day notification period?

Appendix 36 - View Loss Study. I question why this is taken at a RL19.894 (ie above the power lines running down Ocean street. Shouldn't the view loss be taken from ground level? Also why was there no view loss studies carried out on Octavia, Lagoon and Loftus St?

Appendix 12 - Clause 4.6 Variation Request. The very last bullet point in the conclusion notes 'Therefore compliance with the development standard is unreasonable and unneccessary in the circumstance of this proposal'. In the context of the proposed development compliance with development standard is reasonable and neccessary. If developments are allowed to proceed with little regard to development standards then poor planning decisions will be made. Incorporating language of this tone is offensive to planning controls.

In reference to traffic - Ocean st is currently zoned 50km. The addition of the nominated 192 cars for the units will add further congestion to the area.

If this proposal is endorsed by the state government, it will set a precedent for future development. As a resident driving down Ocean st, and seeing 6 storey developments on the western / northern side of Ocean street will be a real shame and a blight on the neighbourhood.

This area of Narrabeen is situated in a low rise are between the beach and the lake. It is iconic in this regard. Al recent developments have been kept within the local Development Control Plan height of 8.5metres. During the 1970's, a time with little control on development, some higher unit blocks were built. My concerns within this development are as follows:
1. It is very out of character for the area.
2. This proposed project fronts three streets, therefore, it would be very dominant.
3. The height greatly exceeds the current DCP.
4. The street set backs especially on Lagoon Street are far too small even for a two storey development.

There is nothing wrong with development as long it is the right development for the area or suburb in which it will be built. This project is certainly not suitable to this area and will have a negative effect on the amenity for those living and visiting the area. All areas or suburbs are not the same and according there should not be a blanket development plan for all areas

We all like options or choices in life and one is being able to live in or visit this iconic area. Allowing this project will change the area and there will be no turning back.

I support the project as submitted. Thank you.

The Northern Beaches is full of elderly people, my brother in law calls it "the retirement home' when he comes to visit from the inner west. However, it seems there are no options for retirees to downsize into low maintenance, seniors living homes that allow them to remain close to family, friends, and essential services.

Without available seniors housing, many, including a good portion of my friends parents, remain in their long occupied family homes, therefore reducing availability of suitable homes for younger families to grow and move into. I've personally tried to find suitable accommodation for my parents near my home and there is almost nothing in the Northern Beaches. Almost all the places we look at to try to buy to upgrade into, are tired old buildings, out of maintenance, that very very elderly people are moving out of directly into nursing homes as they are too old to live at home any more. If they were able to move into seniors developments like this one - more families would have more options, as elderly locals would be able to move somewhere more suitable to them before they become too incapacitated to manage.

The project looks large but they have kept the big pine trees on Ocean St, and the design looks nice. I think the area needs more development like this. It looks a lot nicer than most of the ugly developments I see around Sydney.

No doubt the angry locals will complain because they all want to keep everything low rise because they are worried about their unearned baby boomer property prices. That's their right but no doubt they will all want to stay in the area when they get old.... If no more young people can afford to move into the area - they will be asking carers and families to travel from a long way away to look after them!!

I support this project.

Please see attached. I oppose to the current proposal but am supportive of a development that meets planning controls.