My name is Angela Lim and I am resident in Panorama Building at 1 Bruce Bennetts Place, Maroubra 2035.
I am writing to formally lodge my strong objection to the SSD application for 138 Maroubra Road, Maroubra.
As a resident of the Panorama building, I have the following concerns:
1) The surrounding traffic flow is not the best especially during peak hours. The small lanes and round about behind the Maroubra Police Station has heavy traffic that blocks efficient flow and causes congestion. As it is, the small lane at Picaddilly Place is a bottleneck of heavy vehicles (loading dock for supermarkets) and constant flow cars and illegal parking (at No stop signs) plus the parking of 2 fire engines when there is an emergency evacuation. I cannot fathom the worsening traffic situation should more traffic is expected from the new DA.
2) This new development will exacerbate the privacy and daylight exposure into our building . As it is, the amount of daylight exposure into my unit is limited and the impending overshadowing of this building will impact on livability of all units in my building.
3) The affordable housing planning has no clarification and comprehensive approach and I question the feasability of true affordable housing in our suburb which is known to be up-market in terms of pricing.
4) This new DA will add to an already congested neighbourhood given the expected increase in human and traffic flow which local authorities have not made any plans to improve road infrastructure and amenities. This significantly impacts on Maroubra's character and charm.

Lindsay Bennelong Developments have been found guilty of breaching political donation laws and they have not been transparent in their approach with this new DA.
Sydney Eastern City Planning Panel had rejected this DA and their appeal had been dismissed by Land and Environment Court.

I strongly urge you to refer this matter to the IPC.

Yours sincerely,
Angela Lim

I am submitting this objection to the proposed development at 138 Maroubra Road, Maroubra. Although presented as a new application, it is effectively a continuation of DA/80/2023, which was previously rejected by Randwick Council and dismissed by the NSW Land and Environment Court.

The most pressing issue is the significant traffic and road-safety impact this development would create. Maroubra Road already operates at heavy capacity, with constant congestion, difficult turning movements, and steady pedestrian flow to nearby shops, schools and bus stops. Adding a larger residential and commercial building on this site will substantially increase vehicle trips in and out of the property. The proposal also fails to provide adequate on-site parking, meaning that overflow parking will inevitably spill into neighbouring streets, worsening congestion and heightening risks for drivers, cyclists and pedestrians.

Equally concerning is the construction impact. A nine-storey build will involve long periods of heavy truck movements, excavation works, machinery noise and repeated road occupation. These activities will cause major disruption for surrounding residents, impede access, and create both safety hazards and ongoing noise disturbances throughout the construction period.

The Land and Environment Court previously found that the earlier eight-storey design constituted overdevelopment due to excessive height, bulk and scale, non-compliance with planning controls, and negative impacts on neighbouring amenity including overshadowing, loss of views, and privacy intrusion. Instead of addressing any of these issues, the developer now seeks to increase the proposal to nine storeys and add more units, including social housing, which only amplifies the impacts that were already deemed unacceptable.

It appears that the developer intends to rely on the State Government’s fast-track assessment process to bypass the prior refusal. However, the core problems remain unchanged: the development is too large for this area, will worsen traffic congestion, introduce additional road-safety risks, generate prolonged construction noise and disruption, and diminish the living conditions of nearby residents.

For these reasons, I strongly oppose this revised application.

I wish to raise my strong objection to the proposed development at 138 Maroubra Road, Maroubra. Although presented as a fresh application, this proposal closely follows the earlier DA/80/2023, which was rejected by Randwick Council and then refused by the NSW Land and Environment Court.

One of the most significant issues identified previously—and still unresolved—is the impact on traffic, congestion and road safety. Maroubra Road is already under immense pressure, functioning as a key thoroughfare with constant vehicle flow, busy intersections, and high pedestrian activity. The additional vehicle movements generated by a development of this scale, along with the increased demand for on-street parking due to insufficient parking provision on site, will further overload the road network. This raises clear safety concerns for residents, pedestrians, school children and public transport users.

On top of that, the construction phase of a nine-storey building would bring prolonged disruption: heavy vehicles entering and exiting the site, machinery operating for extended periods, and ongoing noise that will severely affect nearby households. These issues were among the concerns highlighted during the previous proceedings, and they remain entirely unaddressed.

The Land and Environment Court also rejected the earlier eight-storey design on the basis of overdevelopment—finding it excessive in height, bulk and scale, non-compliant with building height and storey controls, and detrimental to neighbouring residential amenity through overshadowing, loss of views, privacy impacts and overlooking. Instead of addressing these deficiencies, the current proposal increases the height to nine storeys and includes even more units, including social housing, which only intensifies the adverse impacts previously recognised by the Court.

It appears the developer is now relying on the State Government’s fast-track assessment process to avoid the constraints imposed by the Court’s earlier ruling. However, the fundamental issues remain: the development is too large for this location, will worsen traffic conditions, pose additional road-safety risks, create substantial construction noise and disruption, and significantly reduce the amenity of surrounding properties.

For these reasons, I strongly oppose the revised proposal.

I am writing to oppose the proposed development at 138 Maroubra Road, Maroubra. This application is essentially a revised version of the earlier DA/80/2023, which was rejected by Randwick Council and subsequently refused by the NSW Land and Environment Court.

The Court determined that the previous eight-storey mixed-use scheme amounted to overdevelopment due to its excessive height, bulk and scale, its failure to comply with the height and storey controls in the relevant development control plan, and its unacceptable impacts on neighbouring residents—particularly loss of sunlight, views, privacy and increased overshadowing. The Court and multiple objectors also identified serious concerns relating to traffic congestion, noise, insufficient parking, and the broader disruption the project would cause to surrounding streets, as well as issues with basement drainage and de-watering.

The current proposal does nothing to resolve these matters. In fact, it increases the height from eight storeys to nine and adds more units, including social housing, thereby intensifying all previously identified problems. It appears the developer is now attempting to use the State Government’s accelerated assessment pathway to bypass the original refusal.

The traffic impacts alone warrant strong objection. Maroubra Road is already a heavily used corridor, experiencing daily bottlenecks, frequent queues at intersections, and substantial pedestrian activity due to nearby shops, schools and public transport routes. Introducing a significantly larger building with additional residential units and commercial activity will add far more vehicle movements, compounding peak-hour congestion and increasing the risk of accidents. The limited on-site parking proposed will push overflow parking into neighbouring streets, which are already struggling with availability. Construction traffic, including trucks, machinery and deliveries, will further intensify disruption, noise and safety hazards for residents, children, and local businesses.

A nine-storey development on this site would therefore heighten traffic congestion, generate continuous traffic noise and disruption, worsen privacy impacts and overshadowing, and create additional drainage and amenity issues. The proposal remains fundamentally incompatible with the surrounding residential environment and fails to address the concerns already confirmed by the Land and Environment Court.

Many residents have already provided submissions regarding this mixed residential project. The developers have not been up front in regard to this as a prior application was not not notified to me or to other residents as prescribed. Other residents who would be affected by the light / sun / shade aspect have already voiced their opposition.

I am concerned at the vehicle traffic congestion implicit in this project and the advice that 70 car parking spaces are designated for a block of 64 apartments including 13 "affordable" apartments. The number of "affordable " apartments is a sop to the law and warrants further examination as to how affordable this will be and how it will be financed.

The increase in traffic congestion from this development onto an already busy Maroubra Road has to be considered with the entrance onto Maroubra Rd from the present Pacific Square retail complex and the Bruce Bennets access from "Botanica" and from "Newington" complexes. The proposed 138 Maroubra Rd will also need to enter onto an already traffic heavy Maroubra Rd.

The blocking of the western exposure of 140 also needs to be addressed thus affecting the well being of these residents and particulalrly the child care facility in 140 Maroubra Rd. These children need to be protected and afforded the right to sunshine and nit be affected by towering brick walls.

The attached word document file 138 Maroubra Rd Submission Dec 2025 contains my submission objecting to the State Significant Development (SSD) application for 138 Maroubra Road, Maroubra (SSD-81426710).

I am lodging my objection to the proposed development at 138 Maroubra Road, Maroubra. This application is essentially a re-work of the previous scheme (DA/80/2023), which was rejected by Randwick Council and subsequently refused by the NSW Land and Environment Court.
The Court concluded that the earlier eight-storey mixed-use proposal represented clear overdevelopment. It was deemed excessive in height, bulk and scale, failed to comply with the building height and storey controls in the development control plan, and would significantly reduce neighbouring residents’ amenity through loss of sunlight, views, privacy and increased overshadowing. Importantly, both the Court and many objectors also raised major concerns about traffic congestion, increased noise, disruption, and inadequate on-site parking, along with the risks associated with basement drainage and de-watering.

This new application fails to remedy any of those issues. Instead, the developer has escalated the intensity by proposing a nine-storey building with even more units, including social housing. These changes do not address the Court’s findings; they simply amplify the negative impacts. It appears the intention is to take advantage of the State Government’s fast-track process, effectively bypassing the earlier refusal.
A nine-storey building will inevitably cause far greater traffic congestion, more traffic-related noise and disruption, and added pressure on already limited parking. It will also worsen overshadowing, privacy loss, drainage concerns, and result in further loss of solar access and views for surrounding households.

A similar development was declined by NSW Planning a few years ago citing concerns for the scale of the developemt and its impace on the envirnment, traffic, noise and natural light. It was turned down on appeal and the report is attached.
This is a similar development proposal and it seems that it try to go in via the affordable hosing pathway and the concerns were not addressed. We do not object a housing development and affordable housing, I am concern about the height and size of this buildingand the proximity to the adjacent block
The adjacent block in Pacific Square will be undergoing a major remediationproject which can last up to 2 and a half years and one can see how disruptive it can be for the surrounding if this is going ahead. I can see another'Mascot Tower' situation coming. Enclosed is the report re the appeal decision and please have careful consideration of the issues before approving is blankly without any modification and satisfactory addresses to the concerns