This Proposal for 156-164 Ocean Street, 81-81A Lagoon Street and 8 Octavia Street Narrabeen states it will dig down 3 levels to provide parking. That is digging into a known flood zone and will not only create problems for all those living there and all those surrounding this, it will place in danger those who may live there.

The infrastructure does not support the increased number of people and traffic to Ocean street and the surrounding areas. Ocean street already struggles with the traffic at present and with the substantial increase in the number of cars and people parking in the surrounding areas this will create more congestion, accidents and displace current residents as the unit blocks surrounding usually only have enough parking for one car. The amount of rubbish has increased over the years and I collect a bag of rubbish each time I go for a walk around Ocean street, the north narrabeen area including the rock pool and the lake. The council services only include mowing and landscaping and do not include picking up rubbish. The amount of people during peak summer times is constantly increasing including parking which is not policed by parking rangers. So people coming to the area for the day are parking all day in the surrounding streets clogging up the parking areas which will only get worse if this development is approved. The public transport system is also not able to accommodate a significant increase in population as services are already being cancelled regularly or the buses are at capacity before they get to Narrabeen main. The proposed building is too large to accommodate the current infrastructure and also does not keep in with the existing surrounding housing. This will create a precedent for mega developments that do not belong in a coastal area with delicate eco systems and narrow streets, limited parking for residents and extremely lacklustre council maintenance and rubbish collection.

There are limited options for the aging generation on the Northern Beaches, especially close to the beach and public transport.
This project assists older residents to right-size locally, by :
- Supports ageing in place within familiar communities
- Frees up family homes for the next generation
- Strengthens local social connection and wellbeing
I understand the concern over how many levels the development is and the impact on street scape - If need be, negotiate on the height restriction.

1/ The height level of the project is excessive and severely impacts the amenity of the surrounding properties completely eliminating sunshine to them particularly in Loftus st.
2/ Increased traffic flow will increase the danger for the large number of children within our local community particularly those attending the local schools and child care facilities .
3/Council have already proposed installing speed humps and round a bouts in Ocean and Lagoon streets and lowering the speed limit to 40kph due to the already high volume of local traffic.
4/Side streets joining Ocean and Lagoon streets are very narrow and only allow one vehicle in either direction because of the high number of vehicles already parking on these streets. This project will only increase this parking problem.
5/ The scale of the project has to be reduced to a maximum of 3 floors and allow for sufficient onsite parking for residents (2 car spaces each) plus 20% visitors car spaces, so as to not increase the already congested streets in Narrabeen.

I object to the size of the proposed building. I do not want to see the overdevelopment of Narrabeen. Please preserve the character of the suburb. Do not sell it out for the financial benefit of developers.

I don't understand how this proposal fits into the Planning System. All these new laws being legislated claim to be simplifying the Planning System, yet is just adding more & more layers of complexity.

I somewhat understand the new policies regarding Transport Oriented Developments & the Low-Mid Rise Development pathways, however this proposal at 156 Ocean Street Narrabeen is neither. If this proposal was within 800m of the government's nominated areas, then I could understand it & get onboard, but it isn't. This proposal is about 3km from the nearest nominated LMR area (Mona Vale) so it beggars belief as to how/why it can be considered. If developers have free reign to propose these develoments wherever they like, what is the point of the TOD/LMR legislation? It's one thing to undemine the public's confidence in the system, but this is undemining the government's very own legislation!

It is one thing to open up NSW Planning legislation to enable the fast tracking of new developments, but the suppport of the public & local communities is severely eroded when developers can simply upsize their proposals until it hits the Major Projects value threshold & bypass Local Council regulations that have been subject to extensive community consultation. It reeks of subterfuge & perceptions of corruption & back office deals will pervade the public's view of these proposals. What we need is a clear & unambiguous planning system where both the developers & general public know where/when new developments can occur & their typical size & scope. These "Major Projects" proposals are largely being viewed as a back door sneaky way to overdevelop otherwise non-conforming developments.

I also object to the addittional density permissibilities given to developments that incorporate affordable housing provisions. In general I support affordable housing, which is admirable in its objectives of ensuring that essential workers can afford to live in communities, however the 10 year limit severerly erodes these ideals. Who would feel comfortable moving into an affordable housing situation when they know that after 10 years they will be forced to move on, when the developers can finally sell the dwelling? The affodrable housing provisions are essentially giving free money to the developers, albeit being deferred for 10 years. The affordable housing provisions need to be made permanent upon these dwelling with a legally binding covenent upon the title, so that the essential workers in our community have assurances & are not treated like itinerants every 10 years. This housing affordability crisis is not going to be solved in 10 years.

Also, if these type of proposals are being accepted in any location, how does this affect infrastructure planning? All schools, roads, hospitals, utilities & emergency service administrations plan & prepare their future requiremnts several years in advance. This is relatively a simple forecasting task using population projections knowing where future growth is likely to occur, but this willy-nilly approach where developers can propose anything anywhere will severly undermine the future livability of communities. Infrastructure shortcomings are highly likey to occur with this lack of proper planning.

As a result I totally object to this development proceeding. It is out of place with the legislation & corrupts the planning process established for the benefit & assurances of the community & developers.

no community benefit. over development. traffic and safety hazards. this little street cannot support such a big development, this will bring over 300 vehicles, there is risk of flooding and environmental destruction. the community does NOT support this development.

Parking is already hard enough to find on this street and the road is congested all the time. There doesn’t seem to be ample solution to parking or catering for guests and we don’t want narrabeen to be turned into the gold coast. This isn’t the right construction for this area and I feel minimal thought has gone into traffic flow and parking and is just a money grab

As a resident living directly on Lagoon St, I have a critical and immediate view on the proposed development. The scale, bulk, and design of this project will directly and permanently impact the character, amenity, and environment of our street and local area.

The proposal includes significant, deep excavation for a 3-level basement car park. This area is known to be situated over or near a high natural water table, given its proximity to the coast and lagoon.

Digging so deeply into the water table presents a severe and unacceptable risk of settlement, structural instability, and cracking to adjoining residential properties. The interruption of natural groundwater flow is a major geotechnical hazard that must be fully asessed.

Deep excavation can disturb acid sulfate soils or push contaminants into the surrounding groundwater system. This poses a direct environmental risk to the local ecosystem and the broader aquatic health of the lagoon.

Any dewatering required during construction to manage groundwater infiltration will introduce noise, truck movements, and potentially alter the water table level in a manner that affects mature street trees and existing foundations.

The proposed five-storey structure with 149 Independent Living Units is grossly excessive in scale and bulk compared to the surrounding residential fabric of Lagoon and Ocean St.
The height and sheer mass of the structure will create an over-dominance that fundamentally changes the streetscape and diminishes the existing low-density character of the area.

The bulk will inevitably result in significant loss of sunlight to neighbouring properties and public areas, and an unnecessary loss of privacy and views for local residents.

The three-level basement with 192 car spaces highlights the residential intensity. Despite the ILU status, this volume of traffic generation will place undue strain on our narrow local streets, particularly on Lagoon and Ocean St during peak visitation and construction periods.

I concur with community concerns that the proposal is strategically structured to exploit Seniors Housing planning legislation (SEPP). The core of this issue is:
- The ratio of 149 Independent Living Units (luxury residential apartments) to a mere 10 Residential Aged Care beds demonstrates that the primary function of the development is profit-driven high-density housing, not the provision of essential community aged care.
- The Applicant is seeking significant Floor Space Ratio (FSR) bonuses designed to encourage the delivery of care infrastructure, yet they are providing a minimal fraction of the necessary care beds. This abuse of the incentive renders the resultant scale and bulk inappropriate for the site.

I strongly to this DA. The risks associated with the deep basement excavation into the water table, coupled with the inappropriate bulk and scale of a project that fundamentally misuses planning mechanisms, make this proposal untenable. The Council and NSW government must uphold its duty to protect the local amenity and environment by refusing the application.

Not in community interest