Name Withheld
Support
Name Withheld
Support
MOSMAN
,
New South Wales
Message
This development will be a great asset to the many over 50's looking for comfortable accommodation in a more difficult time with less availability in these areas. It's a very polished impressive build that will offer extensive housing and improve what is currently at that location. I support this to go ahead and know that Moran have built excellent projects in the past.
Mark Matthews
Object
Mark Matthews
Object
Narrabeen
,
New South Wales
Message
Submission to NSW Department of Planning & Environment
Re: SSD‑7622 — “Indigo by Moran”, 156 Ocean Street, Narrabeen
Date: 2/11/25
I hereby make a submission in relation to the above proposal and respectfully request that the permitted building height be reduced to 2 or 3 storeys, rather than the currently proposed 5 or 6 storeys, on the following grounds of neighbourhood amenity, traffic/parking/road network capacity and local context.
Local traffic, parking & infrastructure context:
According to a study of the local area around the Narrabeen Lagoon, the 'average annual daily trips' (AADT) on Ocean Street were estimated at approximately 8,004 vehicles per day. Northern Beaches Council is implementing traffic‑calming measures under its “Safer Neighbourhoods” program, including a 40 km/h zone, raised crossings and kerb build‑outs. On‑street parking is limited and time‑restricted (1‑4 hour limits), with Council carparks near capacity. These constraints already create significant congestion and parking stress.
Implications for the proposed development:
A 5‑6 storey development is likely to bring a significantly higher number of residents, visitors and service vehicles. This would exacerbate existing congestion and parking pressure in the area. Given the Council’s traffic‑calming and pedestrian‑safety initiatives, additional vehicle load may undermine local safety and amenity. Overflow parking could displace residents and create illegal parking or circulation issues, especially on weekends and peak periods.
Proposed scaling and design modifications:
To mitigate these issues, I propose that the maximum building height be limited to 2 or 3 storeys, reducing unit count, parking demand and vehicle trips. The applicant should be required to provide an updated Traffic & Parking Impact Assessment for a reduced‑scale design. The assessment should demonstrate traffic generation, turning movements, and parking adequacy, supported by on‑site visitor and service vehicle spaces to prevent street spill‑over. The design should also enhance ground‑level amenity for seniors—promoting accessibility, less reliance on lifts, and integration with public transport, walking paths and local services.
Conclusion:
While I support seniors housing in Narrabeen, the current 5‑6 storey proposal is incompatible with the character, amenity and infrastructure capacity of Ocean Street. A more moderate 2‑3 storey development would better align with the local environment, improve safety, reduce traffic congestion, and maintain community character. I therefore request that the Department limit the development to a height of 2‑3 storeys unless compelling justification is provided that taller buildings will not cause unacceptable impacts.
Thank you for considering this.
Best regards
Mark Matthews
Re: SSD‑7622 — “Indigo by Moran”, 156 Ocean Street, Narrabeen
Date: 2/11/25
I hereby make a submission in relation to the above proposal and respectfully request that the permitted building height be reduced to 2 or 3 storeys, rather than the currently proposed 5 or 6 storeys, on the following grounds of neighbourhood amenity, traffic/parking/road network capacity and local context.
Local traffic, parking & infrastructure context:
According to a study of the local area around the Narrabeen Lagoon, the 'average annual daily trips' (AADT) on Ocean Street were estimated at approximately 8,004 vehicles per day. Northern Beaches Council is implementing traffic‑calming measures under its “Safer Neighbourhoods” program, including a 40 km/h zone, raised crossings and kerb build‑outs. On‑street parking is limited and time‑restricted (1‑4 hour limits), with Council carparks near capacity. These constraints already create significant congestion and parking stress.
Implications for the proposed development:
A 5‑6 storey development is likely to bring a significantly higher number of residents, visitors and service vehicles. This would exacerbate existing congestion and parking pressure in the area. Given the Council’s traffic‑calming and pedestrian‑safety initiatives, additional vehicle load may undermine local safety and amenity. Overflow parking could displace residents and create illegal parking or circulation issues, especially on weekends and peak periods.
Proposed scaling and design modifications:
To mitigate these issues, I propose that the maximum building height be limited to 2 or 3 storeys, reducing unit count, parking demand and vehicle trips. The applicant should be required to provide an updated Traffic & Parking Impact Assessment for a reduced‑scale design. The assessment should demonstrate traffic generation, turning movements, and parking adequacy, supported by on‑site visitor and service vehicle spaces to prevent street spill‑over. The design should also enhance ground‑level amenity for seniors—promoting accessibility, less reliance on lifts, and integration with public transport, walking paths and local services.
Conclusion:
While I support seniors housing in Narrabeen, the current 5‑6 storey proposal is incompatible with the character, amenity and infrastructure capacity of Ocean Street. A more moderate 2‑3 storey development would better align with the local environment, improve safety, reduce traffic congestion, and maintain community character. I therefore request that the Department limit the development to a height of 2‑3 storeys unless compelling justification is provided that taller buildings will not cause unacceptable impacts.
Thank you for considering this.
Best regards
Mark Matthews
Rod Everitt
Object
Rod Everitt
Object
NARRABEEN
,
New South Wales
Message
Submission Objecting to SSD-76220734 (Indigo by Moran)
Site: 156–164 Ocean Street, Narrabeen
From: Rod Everitt, 8 Lisle St, Narrabeen NSW 2101
Date: 2 November 2025
⸻
Introduction
As a long-term local resident, I strongly object to the proposed Indigo by Moran development. The scale, density, and associated traffic of this 149-unit complex are entirely incompatible with the small, low-rise coastal village character of Narrabeen.
The project represents a material intensification of population and vehicle activity on a narrow peninsula already under significant traffic and parking stress. On summer weekends, Lagoon Street and Ocean Street are routinely gridlocked, and every kerbside space is occupied by beachgoers, residents, and visitors. Introducing a high-density seniors complex of this magnitude will make local conditions unworkable and unsafe.
Outcome sought:
Refusal of the application in its current form. If approval is considered, conditions must guarantee zero worsening of local traffic, parking or pedestrian safety, and the overall scale must be substantially reduced.
⸻
1) Scale and density incompatible with peninsula capacity
Narrabeen is a narrow strip of land between the beach and the lagoon, with constrained road geometry and finite parking supply. Adding 149 dwellings and three basement levels of parking introduces a population equivalent to several existing street blocks, without any capacity uplift in the road network.
The surrounding roads — Lagoon Street, Ocean Street, and Pittwater Road — already operate at saturation during school, beach, and holiday peaks. These are not expandable corridors; every additional vehicle competes directly with local residents and beach traffic.
Reducing the building height by at least two storeys across the scheme would proportionally reduce dwellings, cars, and traffic volumes and bring the bulk closer to a scale suitable for this beachside setting.
⸻
2) Traffic generation: serious congestion and safety risks
Even under conservative assumptions, the proposal would generate 35–65 vehicle trips per hour during typical peaks, with the worst impacts coinciding with Narrabeen’s busiest weekend and holiday periods.
All vehicle movements would funnel onto Lagoon Street — a narrow residential road that has recently been re-engineered by Council to slow speeds, widen crossings, and prioritise pedestrians and cyclists. These changes make the street safer but also reduce its traffic capacity.
The TTIA fails to:
• Model summer weekend “beach peaks” when the network already fails;
• Consider reduced approach speeds, raised crossings, and kerb build-outs in its flow assumptions;
• Assess safety conflicts with pedestrians, cyclists, and parked vehicles.
The likely result is queuing across raised crossings, blocked driveways, and dangerous frustration-driven behaviour on roads not designed for this scale of development.
Requests/conditions:
• Require a revised TTIA covering both weekday peaks and summer weekend peaks.
• Require detailed modelling of Ocean/Lagoon and Ocean/Pittwater intersections with realistic geometry and saturation conditions.
• Prohibit any design that relies on public kerb space for pick-up/drop-off, delivery or service vehicles.
• Mandate an on-site turning area and loading bays sized for concurrent use.
• Condition a robust Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) with defined haul routes, curfews, off-street worker parking, and penalties for non-compliance.
• Conduct post-occupation traffic counts with triggers for corrective action if deterioration occurs.
⸻
3) Parking: critical under-provision and inevitable overflow
The most alarming deficiency is parking. The development proposes only 7–8 visitor spaces for 149 independent-living units — roughly one space per 20 dwellings.
In reality, this is a fraction of what’s needed:
• For multi-unit housing in comparable settings, one visitor space per five dwellings (~30 spaces) is the accepted minimum.
• The 178 resident spaces will be entirely consumed by residents themselves, given the premium pricing of these units and high car ownership among senior couples.
• There will be regular visitors — family, friends, carers, clinicians, tradespeople — all requiring short-term parking.
• Once the on-site visitor bays are full, overflow will inevitably spill onto nearby residential streets already saturated by beach and Lagoon Trail users.
This is not a minor inconvenience. In summer, every available space from Ocean Street to Lagoon Trail is taken. Residents already struggle to park near their homes; adding 149 households’ worth of demand with almost no visitor parking will compound this into constant congestion, frustration, and unsafe conditions.
Requests/conditions:
• Increase on-site visitor parking to a minimum of 30 dedicated bays, or require a parking and traffic management plan that demonstrably prevents kerbside overflow.
• Clarify and fix the resident/visitor/staff/EV/accessible allocation in the consent, resolving the 7 vs 8 visitor-space discrepancy.
• Implement a Visitor Parking Management Plan (booking system, time limits, signage, and peak-season marshalling).
• Prohibit reliance on on-street parking or driveways for deliveries or visitor spill.
• Require post-occupation monitoring with a clear trigger for remedial action if overflow occurs.
⸻
4) Pedestrian and cyclist safety
Council’s Safer Neighbourhoods works — 40 km/h zones, raised crossings, kerb build-outs and an angled-parking trial — were specifically designed to calm traffic and protect pedestrians.
Injecting high-frequency driveway movements from a 149-unit complex directly onto Lagoon Street reverses that safety progress. Large service vehicles and increased turning movements will endanger pedestrians using the beach and Lagoon Trail.
Request: Ensure driveway sightlines, queue lengths, and turn paths meet strict safety standards. If they cannot, redesign or refuse.
⸻
5) Inadequate engagement and lack of transparency
The proponent’s so-called “community engagement” amounted to one information session and marketing collateral. There was no ongoing dialogue, no evidence of design change in response to concerns, and no traceable response to key issues (height, traffic, parking, tree loss).
The community’s consistent feedback — to keep the scale low and protect safety and amenity — has been ignored. This is not genuine consultation and should not be treated as community endorsement.
⸻
6) BASIX and sustainability
Despite the project’s marketing as “premium seniors living,” the BASIX certificate only just meets the bare minimum targets, omitting rainwater harvesting and relying on single glazing and modest air-conditioning efficiency.
This is not acceptable for a major project in a coastal flood-prone zone. Approval should be contingent on a full BASIX re-work, including rainwater reuse, double glazing, all-electric plant, rooftop solar, and 100% EV-ready parking infrastructure.
⸻
7) Social impact
The proposal also fails to address the displacement of the Northern Beaches Women’s Shelter, which has operated from this site. There is no transition plan for affected services or users — a serious social omission that must be resolved before determination.
⸻
Conclusion
Narrabeen’s peninsula road network and parking supply are already at breaking point. Injecting a 149-unit, three-basement seniors complex here would cause daily congestion, parking chaos, and safety risks for residents, beachgoers, and pedestrians.
This proposal is far beyond the scale the area can absorb and provides nowhere near enough on-site parking to contain its impacts. The project fails to reflect community feedback, council planning intent, or sustainable coastal design principles.
I therefore urge the consent authority to refuse the application outright.
If not refused, strict conditions must be imposed to:
• Substantially reduce the building height and yield;
• Increase visitor parking to a realistic level;
• Require comprehensive traffic, parking, and construction management plans;
• Upgrade sustainability measures to best-practice standards.
If the state government is going to force this type and scale of development on Narrabeen and the Northern Beaches then it needs to materially improve all infrastructure which has been neglected. eg reduced B-Line services, failure to complete Mona Vale road upgrade, flood prevention on Wakehurst Parkway to list a few.
Signed,
Rod Everitt
Site: 156–164 Ocean Street, Narrabeen
From: Rod Everitt, 8 Lisle St, Narrabeen NSW 2101
Date: 2 November 2025
⸻
Introduction
As a long-term local resident, I strongly object to the proposed Indigo by Moran development. The scale, density, and associated traffic of this 149-unit complex are entirely incompatible with the small, low-rise coastal village character of Narrabeen.
The project represents a material intensification of population and vehicle activity on a narrow peninsula already under significant traffic and parking stress. On summer weekends, Lagoon Street and Ocean Street are routinely gridlocked, and every kerbside space is occupied by beachgoers, residents, and visitors. Introducing a high-density seniors complex of this magnitude will make local conditions unworkable and unsafe.
Outcome sought:
Refusal of the application in its current form. If approval is considered, conditions must guarantee zero worsening of local traffic, parking or pedestrian safety, and the overall scale must be substantially reduced.
⸻
1) Scale and density incompatible with peninsula capacity
Narrabeen is a narrow strip of land between the beach and the lagoon, with constrained road geometry and finite parking supply. Adding 149 dwellings and three basement levels of parking introduces a population equivalent to several existing street blocks, without any capacity uplift in the road network.
The surrounding roads — Lagoon Street, Ocean Street, and Pittwater Road — already operate at saturation during school, beach, and holiday peaks. These are not expandable corridors; every additional vehicle competes directly with local residents and beach traffic.
Reducing the building height by at least two storeys across the scheme would proportionally reduce dwellings, cars, and traffic volumes and bring the bulk closer to a scale suitable for this beachside setting.
⸻
2) Traffic generation: serious congestion and safety risks
Even under conservative assumptions, the proposal would generate 35–65 vehicle trips per hour during typical peaks, with the worst impacts coinciding with Narrabeen’s busiest weekend and holiday periods.
All vehicle movements would funnel onto Lagoon Street — a narrow residential road that has recently been re-engineered by Council to slow speeds, widen crossings, and prioritise pedestrians and cyclists. These changes make the street safer but also reduce its traffic capacity.
The TTIA fails to:
• Model summer weekend “beach peaks” when the network already fails;
• Consider reduced approach speeds, raised crossings, and kerb build-outs in its flow assumptions;
• Assess safety conflicts with pedestrians, cyclists, and parked vehicles.
The likely result is queuing across raised crossings, blocked driveways, and dangerous frustration-driven behaviour on roads not designed for this scale of development.
Requests/conditions:
• Require a revised TTIA covering both weekday peaks and summer weekend peaks.
• Require detailed modelling of Ocean/Lagoon and Ocean/Pittwater intersections with realistic geometry and saturation conditions.
• Prohibit any design that relies on public kerb space for pick-up/drop-off, delivery or service vehicles.
• Mandate an on-site turning area and loading bays sized for concurrent use.
• Condition a robust Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) with defined haul routes, curfews, off-street worker parking, and penalties for non-compliance.
• Conduct post-occupation traffic counts with triggers for corrective action if deterioration occurs.
⸻
3) Parking: critical under-provision and inevitable overflow
The most alarming deficiency is parking. The development proposes only 7–8 visitor spaces for 149 independent-living units — roughly one space per 20 dwellings.
In reality, this is a fraction of what’s needed:
• For multi-unit housing in comparable settings, one visitor space per five dwellings (~30 spaces) is the accepted minimum.
• The 178 resident spaces will be entirely consumed by residents themselves, given the premium pricing of these units and high car ownership among senior couples.
• There will be regular visitors — family, friends, carers, clinicians, tradespeople — all requiring short-term parking.
• Once the on-site visitor bays are full, overflow will inevitably spill onto nearby residential streets already saturated by beach and Lagoon Trail users.
This is not a minor inconvenience. In summer, every available space from Ocean Street to Lagoon Trail is taken. Residents already struggle to park near their homes; adding 149 households’ worth of demand with almost no visitor parking will compound this into constant congestion, frustration, and unsafe conditions.
Requests/conditions:
• Increase on-site visitor parking to a minimum of 30 dedicated bays, or require a parking and traffic management plan that demonstrably prevents kerbside overflow.
• Clarify and fix the resident/visitor/staff/EV/accessible allocation in the consent, resolving the 7 vs 8 visitor-space discrepancy.
• Implement a Visitor Parking Management Plan (booking system, time limits, signage, and peak-season marshalling).
• Prohibit reliance on on-street parking or driveways for deliveries or visitor spill.
• Require post-occupation monitoring with a clear trigger for remedial action if overflow occurs.
⸻
4) Pedestrian and cyclist safety
Council’s Safer Neighbourhoods works — 40 km/h zones, raised crossings, kerb build-outs and an angled-parking trial — were specifically designed to calm traffic and protect pedestrians.
Injecting high-frequency driveway movements from a 149-unit complex directly onto Lagoon Street reverses that safety progress. Large service vehicles and increased turning movements will endanger pedestrians using the beach and Lagoon Trail.
Request: Ensure driveway sightlines, queue lengths, and turn paths meet strict safety standards. If they cannot, redesign or refuse.
⸻
5) Inadequate engagement and lack of transparency
The proponent’s so-called “community engagement” amounted to one information session and marketing collateral. There was no ongoing dialogue, no evidence of design change in response to concerns, and no traceable response to key issues (height, traffic, parking, tree loss).
The community’s consistent feedback — to keep the scale low and protect safety and amenity — has been ignored. This is not genuine consultation and should not be treated as community endorsement.
⸻
6) BASIX and sustainability
Despite the project’s marketing as “premium seniors living,” the BASIX certificate only just meets the bare minimum targets, omitting rainwater harvesting and relying on single glazing and modest air-conditioning efficiency.
This is not acceptable for a major project in a coastal flood-prone zone. Approval should be contingent on a full BASIX re-work, including rainwater reuse, double glazing, all-electric plant, rooftop solar, and 100% EV-ready parking infrastructure.
⸻
7) Social impact
The proposal also fails to address the displacement of the Northern Beaches Women’s Shelter, which has operated from this site. There is no transition plan for affected services or users — a serious social omission that must be resolved before determination.
⸻
Conclusion
Narrabeen’s peninsula road network and parking supply are already at breaking point. Injecting a 149-unit, three-basement seniors complex here would cause daily congestion, parking chaos, and safety risks for residents, beachgoers, and pedestrians.
This proposal is far beyond the scale the area can absorb and provides nowhere near enough on-site parking to contain its impacts. The project fails to reflect community feedback, council planning intent, or sustainable coastal design principles.
I therefore urge the consent authority to refuse the application outright.
If not refused, strict conditions must be imposed to:
• Substantially reduce the building height and yield;
• Increase visitor parking to a realistic level;
• Require comprehensive traffic, parking, and construction management plans;
• Upgrade sustainability measures to best-practice standards.
If the state government is going to force this type and scale of development on Narrabeen and the Northern Beaches then it needs to materially improve all infrastructure which has been neglected. eg reduced B-Line services, failure to complete Mona Vale road upgrade, flood prevention on Wakehurst Parkway to list a few.
Signed,
Rod Everitt
Bronwyn Slater
Object
Bronwyn Slater
Object
NARRABEEN
,
New South Wales
Message
As a resident of Ocean Street, Narrabeen in very close proximity to the development proposal “Indigo by Moran” at 156 Ocean Street, Narrabeen, NSW, I strongly object for the following reasons.
SCALE/ HEIGHT
The height of the proposed development, at over 21metres, is grossly inconsistent with current community residential building height of 8.8metres, as is permitted in under R3 zoning rules, and overall, does not respect the character or buliding pattern of the peninsula area of our suburb. At the proposed height, this buiding will be an ‘eyesore’ from the beach, dominating the otherwise uniform height of the exsiting houses on the peninsula.
OVERSHADOWING/ SIGNIFICANT LOSS OF SUNLIGHT
The proposed height of over 21metres, will cast significant and indispuitable shadow to its neighbouring properties to the east, south and western aspects of the proposed build. This will impact the amount of sunlight to these homes, especially in the winter months, as evidenced in the Architectural Design Report drawings (page 35). The existing properties on the eastern side of Ocean Street will be overshadowed from early afternoon, significantly reducing the residual thermal mass capabilities by blocking natural winter sunlight. This could lead to increased demand for heating resources during the winter months and potentially decrease the well-being and mental health of these residents. I expect this to also be the case with the homes located on Lagoon St, opposite to the proposed towering development, as they will no doubt lose the warmth and light of the morning sun to their homes.
LOSS OF PRIVACY
The proposed setback of the build, particularly to Loftus St and Octavia St houses, will encroach on the privacy of the surrounding residents and how they enjoy their homes.
For the neighbouring homes on the Ocean Street side, the propsal of a “rooftop communal pavilion” will also invade the privacy and enjoyment of their exsiting balconies and view to the street.
The proposal also appears to have inadequate soil space and depth in the setback areas for the planting of screening trees to sustain some sense of privacy for the existing residents adjacent to the proposed build.
LACK OF COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT/ CONSULTATION
As a long term resident of Ocean St for over 50 years and in the immediate vicinity of this development proposal, there has been no contact or information provided by Moran, such as the said EIS "letterbox drop", regarding any community consultation or feedback session at any stage to this date. This lack of neighbourhood consultation and transparency regarding the scale and proportions of this proposal have not allowed for meaningful community engagement
I agree that there needs to be development of much needed affordable and diverse senior specific residential living options on the Northern Beaches, however if this development is approved with the proposed height scale of over 21 metres, this will have a negative impact on the local people, the streetscape and the character of our suburb. A height limit that is more inline with the current R3 medium density regulations would be far better suited to our area.
Bronwyn Slater
180 Ocean St, NARRABEEN
SCALE/ HEIGHT
The height of the proposed development, at over 21metres, is grossly inconsistent with current community residential building height of 8.8metres, as is permitted in under R3 zoning rules, and overall, does not respect the character or buliding pattern of the peninsula area of our suburb. At the proposed height, this buiding will be an ‘eyesore’ from the beach, dominating the otherwise uniform height of the exsiting houses on the peninsula.
OVERSHADOWING/ SIGNIFICANT LOSS OF SUNLIGHT
The proposed height of over 21metres, will cast significant and indispuitable shadow to its neighbouring properties to the east, south and western aspects of the proposed build. This will impact the amount of sunlight to these homes, especially in the winter months, as evidenced in the Architectural Design Report drawings (page 35). The existing properties on the eastern side of Ocean Street will be overshadowed from early afternoon, significantly reducing the residual thermal mass capabilities by blocking natural winter sunlight. This could lead to increased demand for heating resources during the winter months and potentially decrease the well-being and mental health of these residents. I expect this to also be the case with the homes located on Lagoon St, opposite to the proposed towering development, as they will no doubt lose the warmth and light of the morning sun to their homes.
LOSS OF PRIVACY
The proposed setback of the build, particularly to Loftus St and Octavia St houses, will encroach on the privacy of the surrounding residents and how they enjoy their homes.
For the neighbouring homes on the Ocean Street side, the propsal of a “rooftop communal pavilion” will also invade the privacy and enjoyment of their exsiting balconies and view to the street.
The proposal also appears to have inadequate soil space and depth in the setback areas for the planting of screening trees to sustain some sense of privacy for the existing residents adjacent to the proposed build.
LACK OF COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT/ CONSULTATION
As a long term resident of Ocean St for over 50 years and in the immediate vicinity of this development proposal, there has been no contact or information provided by Moran, such as the said EIS "letterbox drop", regarding any community consultation or feedback session at any stage to this date. This lack of neighbourhood consultation and transparency regarding the scale and proportions of this proposal have not allowed for meaningful community engagement
I agree that there needs to be development of much needed affordable and diverse senior specific residential living options on the Northern Beaches, however if this development is approved with the proposed height scale of over 21 metres, this will have a negative impact on the local people, the streetscape and the character of our suburb. A height limit that is more inline with the current R3 medium density regulations would be far better suited to our area.
Bronwyn Slater
180 Ocean St, NARRABEEN
Nicola Yakich
Object
Nicola Yakich
Object
WARRIEWOOD
,
New South Wales
Message
It is very much not within the character of the area. High-rises are in Dee Why and apparently soon to be in Mona Vale, so leave Narrabeen alone. There is already a dense enough population there, the roads are clogged and too many people in the area already.
Lauren Schauer
Object
Lauren Schauer
Object
NORTH NARRABEEN
,
New South Wales
Message
Objection to Proposed Development – Over 55s Housing (5 Storeys, 3 Basement Levels, Height 21.1m)
1. Inconsistent with Surrounding Character and Built Form
The proposed development is grossly inconsistent with the prevailing character of the surrounding area, which is defined by:
• Single and two-storey residential dwellings, and
• Low-rise residential flat buildings of two to three storeys
A five-storey building with three basement levels introduces an inappropriate level of intensity, bulk and scale that is out of context with the established built environment. The height, form, and massing are inconsistent with the pattern of development in the locality and detract from the visual harmony and human scale of the streetscape
This proposal will dominate its surroundings, disrupt the visual transition between buildings, and erode the established residential character contrary to the planning objectives for the zone
2. Non-Compliance with Height Controls
The proposed height of 21.1 metres exceeds the permissible height limit by 8.8 metres, even after accounting for the increase allowed under the State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004.
Such a substantial variation:
• Represents an unjustifiable breach of planning controls,
• Results in significant visual intrusion and view loss, and
• Undermines the integrity of the local planning framework
The excessive height produces unreasonable overshadowing, bulk, and scale, inconsistent with the height objectives of the Local Environmental Plan (LEP) and Development Control Plan (DCP), which seek to ensure new development is compatible with its context and protects neighbouring amenity
3. View Loss for Neighbours and Public Areas
The development will cause substantial view loss to neighbouring residents and members of the public.
Specifically:
• The height and bulk of the proposal will obstruct existing private views to key vistas and landscapes.
• The building will impede public view corridors available from streets and nearby open spaces
• The photomontages provided by the applicant are misleading, as they fail to accurately depict the relationship between the proposed height (RLs) and existing neighbouring dwellings, incorrectly suggesting that a 21m building is similar in height to a 6m two-storey dwelling.
This misrepresentation of scale and visual impact significantly underplays the true extent of view obstruction the proposal will cause.
4. Inadequate Setbacks and Failure to Provide Height Transition
The proposal incorporates inadequate side and rear setbacks, which:
• Exacerbate the perception of bulk and massing,
• Fail to provide an appropriate transition in scale to neighbouring lower-density dwellings, and
• Lead to unreasonable amenity impacts (visual dominance, overshadowing, and privacy loss)
There has been no attempt to step the building or articulate façades to reduce perceived bulk and scale. This approach results in a monolithic structure that dominates its surroundings rather than integrating sensitively with them
5. Removal of Significant Vegetation
The proposal involves the removal of a large number of established and significant trees, some of which may hold heritage or ecological value.
This loss:
• Erodes the landscape character and natural setting of the area,
Removes valuable habitat and urban canopy, and
• Eliminates screening vegetation that currently softens the visual impact of built form
The unnecessary extent of tree removal demonstrates poor site planning and disregard for the environmental and aesthetic value of existing vegetation
6. Adverse Microclimatic Impacts (Wind and Heat)
The development’s excessive bulk and placement will alter local airflows, resulting in:
• Reduced natural ventilation for surrounding dwellings,
• The elimination of prevailing breezes that currently mitigate summer heat, and
• A stagnant microclimate likely to exacerbate urban heat island effects
These impacts will diminish residential amenity for neighbouring properties and reduce environmental sustainability outcomes for the locality
7. Insufficient Car Parking and Traffic Impacts
The proposal includes inadequate parking provision for both residents and staff, contrary to the requirements of the SEPP and Council’s DCP.
This shortfall will
• Force overflow parking onto surrounding residential streets,
• Exacerbate existing parking scarcity, and
• Increase traffic congestion and safety risks on local roads not designed to accommodate higher volumes
The proposed three basement levels may also result in construction disturbance, noise, and traffic management issues over an extended period
8. Overdevelopment and Over-Intensification of the Site
The proposal represents a clear overdevelopment of the site, with a density, height, and scale far exceeding what is suitable for the locality.
The development
• Fails to respond to the site constraints,
• Over-intensifies the use under the guise of “Over 55s housing”, and
• Does not deliver genuine benefits or design excellence that would justify such an excessive variation
Rather than enhancing housing diversity, the proposal compromises residential amenity, environmental quality, and visual character
9. Cumulative and Precedent Impacts
Approval of this proposal would create a highly undesirable precedent, encouraging other developers to seek similar non-compliances in height, bulk, and scale.
Over time, this would erode the established low-density character of the locality and diminish the visual and environmental quality of the broader area
10. LMR Stage 2-2025
On the Northern Beaches, the new State Government LMR controls apply to all residential zoned land within 800 metres walking distance of:
• Balgowlah Stockland Shopping Centre
• Dee Why Town Centre
• Forestville Town Centre
• Forestway Shopping Centre
• Frenchs Forest Precinct (Warringah Road)
• Manly Town Centre
• Manly Vale Town Centre
• Mona Vale Town Centre
• Warringah Mall Shopping Centre
Following Northern Beaches Council submissions, four town centres that had originally been proposed to be included in the Stage 2 Reforms have been excluded: Warriewood, Narrabeen, Newport and Belrose.
The zones were excluded after significant community consultation and objections over the density and height changes in these four areas which was ultimately accepted by the State demonstrating acceptance of the submissions including that Narrabeen should not be part of the Stage 2 Reforms. The reforms introduced increased heights for developments up to 21 metres.
The application by Moran seeks to impose on Narrabeen a development at heights that are available under the Stage 2 Reforms where this area has been excluded from the Stage 2 Reforms. It is not appropriate to permit a 5 level development that will be almost double the permissible height for buildings in the area. It seeks an unfair advantage and a use that is significantly beyond that available to others in the community.
11. Lack of consultation
As a nearby resident I have received no notice of the development by correspondence or letter drop which brings into question the effectiveness of the public consultation.
The Development Application should not be considered until the State is satisfied there has been adequate and appropriate consultation and everyone that will be affected by the development has been consulted, has had an opportunity to make submissions after understanding the nature of the proposed development and have had the opportunity to object to the development.
12. Conclusion
In summary, the proposed Over 55s development is:
• Excessively tall and bulky,
• Inconsistent with the existing and desired character of the area,
• Non-compliant with height and setback controls,
• Environmentally destructive, and
• Likely to generate significant amenity and traffic impacts
The application represents an over-intensification of the site and should therefore be refused.
If the State is minded to consider approval, the proposal must be significantly redesigned to:
• Comply with the maximum height and setback controls,
• Retain significant vegetation,
• Reduce visual and environmental impacts, and
• Provide adequate parking and genuine height transitions to adjoining properties.
1. Inconsistent with Surrounding Character and Built Form
The proposed development is grossly inconsistent with the prevailing character of the surrounding area, which is defined by:
• Single and two-storey residential dwellings, and
• Low-rise residential flat buildings of two to three storeys
A five-storey building with three basement levels introduces an inappropriate level of intensity, bulk and scale that is out of context with the established built environment. The height, form, and massing are inconsistent with the pattern of development in the locality and detract from the visual harmony and human scale of the streetscape
This proposal will dominate its surroundings, disrupt the visual transition between buildings, and erode the established residential character contrary to the planning objectives for the zone
2. Non-Compliance with Height Controls
The proposed height of 21.1 metres exceeds the permissible height limit by 8.8 metres, even after accounting for the increase allowed under the State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004.
Such a substantial variation:
• Represents an unjustifiable breach of planning controls,
• Results in significant visual intrusion and view loss, and
• Undermines the integrity of the local planning framework
The excessive height produces unreasonable overshadowing, bulk, and scale, inconsistent with the height objectives of the Local Environmental Plan (LEP) and Development Control Plan (DCP), which seek to ensure new development is compatible with its context and protects neighbouring amenity
3. View Loss for Neighbours and Public Areas
The development will cause substantial view loss to neighbouring residents and members of the public.
Specifically:
• The height and bulk of the proposal will obstruct existing private views to key vistas and landscapes.
• The building will impede public view corridors available from streets and nearby open spaces
• The photomontages provided by the applicant are misleading, as they fail to accurately depict the relationship between the proposed height (RLs) and existing neighbouring dwellings, incorrectly suggesting that a 21m building is similar in height to a 6m two-storey dwelling.
This misrepresentation of scale and visual impact significantly underplays the true extent of view obstruction the proposal will cause.
4. Inadequate Setbacks and Failure to Provide Height Transition
The proposal incorporates inadequate side and rear setbacks, which:
• Exacerbate the perception of bulk and massing,
• Fail to provide an appropriate transition in scale to neighbouring lower-density dwellings, and
• Lead to unreasonable amenity impacts (visual dominance, overshadowing, and privacy loss)
There has been no attempt to step the building or articulate façades to reduce perceived bulk and scale. This approach results in a monolithic structure that dominates its surroundings rather than integrating sensitively with them
5. Removal of Significant Vegetation
The proposal involves the removal of a large number of established and significant trees, some of which may hold heritage or ecological value.
This loss:
• Erodes the landscape character and natural setting of the area,
Removes valuable habitat and urban canopy, and
• Eliminates screening vegetation that currently softens the visual impact of built form
The unnecessary extent of tree removal demonstrates poor site planning and disregard for the environmental and aesthetic value of existing vegetation
6. Adverse Microclimatic Impacts (Wind and Heat)
The development’s excessive bulk and placement will alter local airflows, resulting in:
• Reduced natural ventilation for surrounding dwellings,
• The elimination of prevailing breezes that currently mitigate summer heat, and
• A stagnant microclimate likely to exacerbate urban heat island effects
These impacts will diminish residential amenity for neighbouring properties and reduce environmental sustainability outcomes for the locality
7. Insufficient Car Parking and Traffic Impacts
The proposal includes inadequate parking provision for both residents and staff, contrary to the requirements of the SEPP and Council’s DCP.
This shortfall will
• Force overflow parking onto surrounding residential streets,
• Exacerbate existing parking scarcity, and
• Increase traffic congestion and safety risks on local roads not designed to accommodate higher volumes
The proposed three basement levels may also result in construction disturbance, noise, and traffic management issues over an extended period
8. Overdevelopment and Over-Intensification of the Site
The proposal represents a clear overdevelopment of the site, with a density, height, and scale far exceeding what is suitable for the locality.
The development
• Fails to respond to the site constraints,
• Over-intensifies the use under the guise of “Over 55s housing”, and
• Does not deliver genuine benefits or design excellence that would justify such an excessive variation
Rather than enhancing housing diversity, the proposal compromises residential amenity, environmental quality, and visual character
9. Cumulative and Precedent Impacts
Approval of this proposal would create a highly undesirable precedent, encouraging other developers to seek similar non-compliances in height, bulk, and scale.
Over time, this would erode the established low-density character of the locality and diminish the visual and environmental quality of the broader area
10. LMR Stage 2-2025
On the Northern Beaches, the new State Government LMR controls apply to all residential zoned land within 800 metres walking distance of:
• Balgowlah Stockland Shopping Centre
• Dee Why Town Centre
• Forestville Town Centre
• Forestway Shopping Centre
• Frenchs Forest Precinct (Warringah Road)
• Manly Town Centre
• Manly Vale Town Centre
• Mona Vale Town Centre
• Warringah Mall Shopping Centre
Following Northern Beaches Council submissions, four town centres that had originally been proposed to be included in the Stage 2 Reforms have been excluded: Warriewood, Narrabeen, Newport and Belrose.
The zones were excluded after significant community consultation and objections over the density and height changes in these four areas which was ultimately accepted by the State demonstrating acceptance of the submissions including that Narrabeen should not be part of the Stage 2 Reforms. The reforms introduced increased heights for developments up to 21 metres.
The application by Moran seeks to impose on Narrabeen a development at heights that are available under the Stage 2 Reforms where this area has been excluded from the Stage 2 Reforms. It is not appropriate to permit a 5 level development that will be almost double the permissible height for buildings in the area. It seeks an unfair advantage and a use that is significantly beyond that available to others in the community.
11. Lack of consultation
As a nearby resident I have received no notice of the development by correspondence or letter drop which brings into question the effectiveness of the public consultation.
The Development Application should not be considered until the State is satisfied there has been adequate and appropriate consultation and everyone that will be affected by the development has been consulted, has had an opportunity to make submissions after understanding the nature of the proposed development and have had the opportunity to object to the development.
12. Conclusion
In summary, the proposed Over 55s development is:
• Excessively tall and bulky,
• Inconsistent with the existing and desired character of the area,
• Non-compliant with height and setback controls,
• Environmentally destructive, and
• Likely to generate significant amenity and traffic impacts
The application represents an over-intensification of the site and should therefore be refused.
If the State is minded to consider approval, the proposal must be significantly redesigned to:
• Comply with the maximum height and setback controls,
• Retain significant vegetation,
• Reduce visual and environmental impacts, and
• Provide adequate parking and genuine height transitions to adjoining properties.
Guilherme Guaragni
Object
Guilherme Guaragni
Object
NARRABEEN
,
New South Wales
Message
The project would change the area into a high density with high rise buildings.
Affecting the life style and the value of the properties in the area.
There are areas where the proposed construction would be better suited.
Affecting the life style and the value of the properties in the area.
There are areas where the proposed construction would be better suited.
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
NARRABEEN
,
New South Wales
Message
This project completely ruins the neighbourhood. The roads on the Narrabeen peninsula are already over congested, as is the beach. There is simply not enough infrastructure to support this project.
the project will far exceed area height restrictions and be an eyesore in the neighbourhood, and that's just once it's built.
The construction process will make it nightmarish for the existing residents to commute along Ocean St.
the project will far exceed area height restrictions and be an eyesore in the neighbourhood, and that's just once it's built.
The construction process will make it nightmarish for the existing residents to commute along Ocean St.
kimberlea lesko
Object
kimberlea lesko
Object
NARRABEEN
,
New South Wales
Message
definitely not in Narrabeen
Thomas Hayes
Object
Thomas Hayes
Object
Narrabeen
,
New South Wales
Message
Major Projects
Dear Paulina Wythes,
The project does not comply with the current building height limits and maximum footprint of building in relation to the site.
Private property development by the Moran family does not constitute a State Significant Development. If this is a loophole for private developers to by-pass local council building regulations, then it must be stopped immediately.
Regards,
Thomas Hayes
Dear Paulina Wythes,
The project does not comply with the current building height limits and maximum footprint of building in relation to the site.
Private property development by the Moran family does not constitute a State Significant Development. If this is a loophole for private developers to by-pass local council building regulations, then it must be stopped immediately.
Regards,
Thomas Hayes