I wholeheartedly reject this proposal. Residents do not support this. Parking, roads and infrastructure already cannot keep up. The community says no to the high rise and expansion of this project. We only support the current number of dwellings and people.

As long-term residents of this neighborhood, we have had the former seniors living accommodation as direct neighbours and agree that this site is a good location for a future senior accommodation redevelopment, however, we object to the proposed development size.
The bulk, scale, density, and height of the proposed development is excessive and does not align with the established or desired future streetscape character of the area.
There is no reason, unique or otherwise, why a fully compliant solution to Development Standards and Controls cannot be designed for this site. The proposed development represents an overdevelopment of the site and an unbalanced range of amenity loss impacts that result in adverse impacts on our neighbouring property. There is considerable amenity loss to our home due to the inadequate setbacks and over height proposal. The proposed building height of 21.1m represents an 8.8m or 71.5% departure from the Development Standard with Bonus Provisions [8.5m + 3.8m]. This is totally unreasonable in an 8.5m LEP HOB zone. The proposal is approximately 8,586sqm GFA in excess of HOB control, representing 39% of the proposed GFA, and representing 58 apartments of the proposed 149 apartments. The proposal is contrary to Section 4.15(1)(a)(iii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as it will have unacceptable impacts upon the amenity of our property, specifically with regard to solar access and excessive overshadowing by the non-compliant built form. The application shadow diagram does not include the large north facing window in our living room which currently receives full sun all day in winter but it is proposed to be completely without sunlight all day in winter. This is a completely unacceptable loss of amenity and against the application standard of 2 hours of sunlight per day. The loss of privacy from this over height proposal is severe, the increased noise pollution from this high and close proposal is severe, the visual impact of this proposal from our home is severe, and the increased light spill pollution from this high and close proposed development is severe.
In the applicant’s Site Isolation Advice document point 3, it states ‘Indigo is committed to continue to work collaboratively with adjoining property owners including discussing and implementing design measures to minimise adverse impacts on the neighbouring site’s amenity and future development potential’. There was no consultation with us prior to exhibition. There has been no negotiation with us prior to exhibition.The proposed development results in an encroachment beyond the prescribed building envelope. This non-compliance is indicative of an unacceptable built form and contributes to the severe amenity loss.
The design fails to comply with the building envelope measured at the side boundary. A significant proportion of the upper levels of the proposed development falls outside this building envelope. Together with the breach of the height limit, the building
envelope breach will result in view loss, excessive bulk and scale, and significant visual impact.
For these reasons, we object to the proposed development's bulk, scale, height, density and the fact that it is not in character with our neighbourhood. Changes need to be made to ensure it meets SEPP.
We request amended plans to be submitted to better address impacts upon our property. We ask The Department to seek modifications to this SSDA as the proposed development does not comply with the planning regime, by non-compliance to
standards and controls, and this non-compliance leads directly to amenity loss to our property. A compliant building design would reduce the amenity impacts identified.

Secretary, DPHI, and reference the project clearly: Objection to SSD-76220734 – 156 Ocean Street Narrabeen.
I live on Wellington St (near Ocean St.) Narrabeen, only a few streets down from this proposed development on Ocean St. Myself and my family regularly use Ocean St as a main route in and out of the area. This development is a major overdevelopment for the area, creating substantial additional traffic on streets that are already overused due to congestion on other roads. As well as causing extensive traffic difficulties it is a real danger to kids and other pedestrians who use this road as a key access point to the beach. Parking is already a major issue in the area and this will increase that proble dramatically. Finally, the actual size of this proposed development is out of character for developments within the Narrabeen area.
I request that the State Department of Planning do not allow such development in this area.

High rise apartments do not belong in Narrabeen. If one goes up, it is inevitable that more will and we will end up like Dee why. There are already issues with street parking and congestion on ocean street.

Submission attached objecting to the design of the development

Refer to attached objection document

Refer details in attachment

This development is too big for our suburban area of Narrabeen. There are no other buildings of this height and size anywhere in Narrabeen. The traffic on Ocean St ( which is already busy) will be escalated with a development of this size. Another factor is the shade from this building affecting premises around and near to it.