Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
KINGSFORD
,
New South Wales
Message
The Planning Secretary
Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure — Major Projects Assessment
Submitted via the NSW Major Projects Planning Portal
Re: Objection to SSD-81426710 — 138 Maroubra Road, Maroubra
Dear Planning Secretary,
I am writing as the parent of a child who attends Maroubra Junction Early Education Centre at 142 Maroubra Road, immediately next to the proposed development at 138 Maroubra Road. I wish to formally object to SSD-81426710 and to ask that it be refused. I am not a planner or a lawyer — I am simply a parent who leaves my child in that centre’s care, and I am worried about what this building would mean for my child and the other children there every day.
Every weekday I trust the centre to keep my child safe, healthy and happy. A development of this size, built right up against the centre, puts that at risk in several very practical ways.
Light and the outdoor space. So much of what makes the centre good for my child happens in natural light and outdoors — playing, learning, napping, simply being in the sun. A tall building this close will overshadow the centre’s rooms and play areas. Less natural light means a colder, darker environment for children who spend their whole day there, and I understand it may also affect the centre’s ability to meet the standards it is required to maintain.
Dust, noise and my child’s health. Children are not small adults. Their lungs are still developing and they breathe faster, so construction dust and poor air quality affect them more. My child, like many at the centre, is at an age where coughs, colds and asthma are already a worry. Months or years of demolition and construction dust and noise next door is not something young children should have to breathe and endure all day, every day.
My child’s privacy and safety. This is the concern that troubles me most. A tall residential building looking directly over the centre means strangers could see — and potentially photograph or film — children at play and even in the bathrooms. As a parent I have no way to know who will live in or visit that building, and no control over who is watching my child. No family should have to accept that simply to drop their child at daycare.
Getting my child to and from the centre safely. Drop-off and pick-up are already busy, and the surrounding streets are heavily used. Construction trucks, hoarding and road or footpath closures will make those moments more dangerous at exactly the times when parents are walking small children to and from the centre. The application leaves too much of this to be sorted out later, after approval, rather than dealing with it now.
Asbestos in the old building. I am also concerned about what is in the existing building that would be demolished. If there is asbestos, disturbing it next to a centre full of young children is frightening. This needs to be properly investigated and addressed before anything proceeds — not treated as a detail to manage afterwards.
I understand the need for housing, and I am not against new homes. But this proposal has already been refused once and dismissed on appeal, and the community has objected to it again and again. It is simply too big for this site, and it is being built next to a place full of very young children. The impacts on those children should carry real weight.
Please refuse SSD-81426710. As a parent, I am asking you to put the safety, health and wellbeing of the children at Maroubra Junction Early Education Centre ahead of an over-sized development that has already been rejected.
Thank you for considering my submission.
Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure — Major Projects Assessment
Submitted via the NSW Major Projects Planning Portal
Re: Objection to SSD-81426710 — 138 Maroubra Road, Maroubra
Dear Planning Secretary,
I am writing as the parent of a child who attends Maroubra Junction Early Education Centre at 142 Maroubra Road, immediately next to the proposed development at 138 Maroubra Road. I wish to formally object to SSD-81426710 and to ask that it be refused. I am not a planner or a lawyer — I am simply a parent who leaves my child in that centre’s care, and I am worried about what this building would mean for my child and the other children there every day.
Every weekday I trust the centre to keep my child safe, healthy and happy. A development of this size, built right up against the centre, puts that at risk in several very practical ways.
Light and the outdoor space. So much of what makes the centre good for my child happens in natural light and outdoors — playing, learning, napping, simply being in the sun. A tall building this close will overshadow the centre’s rooms and play areas. Less natural light means a colder, darker environment for children who spend their whole day there, and I understand it may also affect the centre’s ability to meet the standards it is required to maintain.
Dust, noise and my child’s health. Children are not small adults. Their lungs are still developing and they breathe faster, so construction dust and poor air quality affect them more. My child, like many at the centre, is at an age where coughs, colds and asthma are already a worry. Months or years of demolition and construction dust and noise next door is not something young children should have to breathe and endure all day, every day.
My child’s privacy and safety. This is the concern that troubles me most. A tall residential building looking directly over the centre means strangers could see — and potentially photograph or film — children at play and even in the bathrooms. As a parent I have no way to know who will live in or visit that building, and no control over who is watching my child. No family should have to accept that simply to drop their child at daycare.
Getting my child to and from the centre safely. Drop-off and pick-up are already busy, and the surrounding streets are heavily used. Construction trucks, hoarding and road or footpath closures will make those moments more dangerous at exactly the times when parents are walking small children to and from the centre. The application leaves too much of this to be sorted out later, after approval, rather than dealing with it now.
Asbestos in the old building. I am also concerned about what is in the existing building that would be demolished. If there is asbestos, disturbing it next to a centre full of young children is frightening. This needs to be properly investigated and addressed before anything proceeds — not treated as a detail to manage afterwards.
I understand the need for housing, and I am not against new homes. But this proposal has already been refused once and dismissed on appeal, and the community has objected to it again and again. It is simply too big for this site, and it is being built next to a place full of very young children. The impacts on those children should carry real weight.
Please refuse SSD-81426710. As a parent, I am asking you to put the safety, health and wellbeing of the children at Maroubra Junction Early Education Centre ahead of an over-sized development that has already been rejected.
Thank you for considering my submission.
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
MAROUBRA
,
New South Wales
Message
Previous development proiect was reiected. I don't understand why they resubmitted without any significant changes apart from the affordable housing. The area is already heavily populated with too many big complex. We're very concerned about the traffic footprint and noise pollution going to be with that number of apartment. Not to mention noise and dust pollution while construction. The traffic in and out will be a huge problem for anyone living around. The proposed building is too high.
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
Chifley
,
New South Wales
Message
I am writing to object to the proposed development at 138 Maroubra Road, Maroubra. Although presented as a new application, it largely replicates the earlier DA/80/2023, which was rejected by Randwick Council and later dismissed by the NSW Land and Environment Court.
A key concern is the serious traffic congestion this proposal will impose on both Piccadilly Place and Boyce Road, two areas that are already overwhelmed.
Piccadilly Place, despite being only around 25 metres long, accommodates two major access points: one used by many residents of Pacific Square and the other serving the loading dock for Pacific Square, regularly accessed by large delivery trucks for Coles and Aldi. This narrow laneway is already heavily congested. The new proposal seeks to add many more car parking spaces with a single access ramp off Piccadilly Place, which would further overwhelm an already gridlocked roadway and create substantial flow-on impacts for nearby residents and buildings.
The situation on Boyce Road is equally problematic. This road already experiences significant congestion due to the entrance to the Pacific Square Shopping Centre car park. The proposed development’s car park—located roughly 100 metres away—would also be accessed only from Boyce Road. As Piccadilly Place is one-way, all vehicles entering or exiting the development would be forced to turn onto Boyce Road, unquestionably worsening an already congested and difficult traffic environment.
Beyond traffic concerns, the proposal continues to suffer from the same fundamental issues identified by the Land and Environment Court. The Court rejected the earlier eight-storey design because it was excessive in height, bulk and scale, non-compliant with planning controls, and harmful to neighbouring amenity through overshadowing, view loss, and privacy impacts. Rather than addressing these defects, the revised plan now proposes nine storeys and many additional units, including social housing, intensifying the very impacts the Court found unacceptable.
It also appears that the developer is seeking to rely on the State Government’s fast-track assessment process to sidestep the earlier refusal. However, the fundamental problems remain: this proposal will worsen congestion, increase road-safety risks, cause major construction noise and disruption, and diminish the amenity of surrounding properties.
For these reasons, I strongly oppose the revised application.
A key concern is the serious traffic congestion this proposal will impose on both Piccadilly Place and Boyce Road, two areas that are already overwhelmed.
Piccadilly Place, despite being only around 25 metres long, accommodates two major access points: one used by many residents of Pacific Square and the other serving the loading dock for Pacific Square, regularly accessed by large delivery trucks for Coles and Aldi. This narrow laneway is already heavily congested. The new proposal seeks to add many more car parking spaces with a single access ramp off Piccadilly Place, which would further overwhelm an already gridlocked roadway and create substantial flow-on impacts for nearby residents and buildings.
The situation on Boyce Road is equally problematic. This road already experiences significant congestion due to the entrance to the Pacific Square Shopping Centre car park. The proposed development’s car park—located roughly 100 metres away—would also be accessed only from Boyce Road. As Piccadilly Place is one-way, all vehicles entering or exiting the development would be forced to turn onto Boyce Road, unquestionably worsening an already congested and difficult traffic environment.
Beyond traffic concerns, the proposal continues to suffer from the same fundamental issues identified by the Land and Environment Court. The Court rejected the earlier eight-storey design because it was excessive in height, bulk and scale, non-compliant with planning controls, and harmful to neighbouring amenity through overshadowing, view loss, and privacy impacts. Rather than addressing these defects, the revised plan now proposes nine storeys and many additional units, including social housing, intensifying the very impacts the Court found unacceptable.
It also appears that the developer is seeking to rely on the State Government’s fast-track assessment process to sidestep the earlier refusal. However, the fundamental problems remain: this proposal will worsen congestion, increase road-safety risks, cause major construction noise and disruption, and diminish the amenity of surrounding properties.
For these reasons, I strongly oppose the revised application.
Robert Rapkins
Object
Robert Rapkins
Object
MAROUBRA
,
New South Wales
Message
My name is Doctor Robert Rapkins and I reside in the Botanica Building at Pacific Square (140 Maroubra Rd, MAROUBRA 2035).
I am writing to register my strong objection to the State Significant Development (SSD) application for 138 Maroubra Road, Maroubra, lodged by Lindsay Bennelong Developments.
Living in the Botanica Building at 140 Maroubra Road—immediately beside the proposed site—I am extremely concerned about both the scale of this project and the way the proponent has handled community engagement to date.
Primary Reasons for Objection
1. Height and Density Far Beyond Reasonable Expectations
The proposal for a 10-storey structure is completely out of step with what is appropriate for this part of Maroubra. Its height and bulk appear driven by maximising development yield rather than respecting existing neighbourhood character or planning intent.
2. Significant Privacy Loss and Overshadowing
Given how close the development sits to current residential buildings—especially Botanica—it will inevitably cause major privacy intrusions and extended overshadowing. This would materially diminish the day-to-day amenity of many households.
3. Increased Traffic and Pressure on Parking
Traffic congestion and parking shortages are already significant issues in the area. Adding a development of this magnitude without any real strategy to address the strain it will place on local infrastructure is unacceptable.
4. Questionable Use of “Affordable Housing” to Justify Scale
Although the proponent highlights that 15% of the project is designated as infill affordable housing, there is little transparency about how these homes will be managed, integrated, or maintained over time. Such inclusions often function as a mechanism to secure additional height and density rather than a sincere contribution to affordability.
5. Inadequate and Selective Community Consultation
The consultation process to date has been deeply unsatisfactory. Residents of the Botanica Building—those most directly impacted—were not notified during the early consultation stage, while flyers were distributed to other nearby addresses. This selective communication raises serious concerns about whether genuine feedback was ever sought. Furthermore, the community has now been given only two weeks to comment on the SSD, despite NSW Government guidelines specifying a four-week exhibition period (State Significant Development Guidelines, Section 6.1). This inconsistency understandably raises questions about the nature of the relationship between the developer and public agencies.
Triggers for Referral to the Independent Planning Commission (IPC)
Under the NSW Planning System SEPP (Schedule 1, Clause 26), SSD applications must be referred to the IPC if:
• the local council objects,
• 50 or more public submissions opposing the project are received (with petitions counted as a single submission), or
• the applicant has made a reportable political donation.
Given that Lindsay Bennelong Developments has previously been found in breach of political donation laws (De Celis (Election Funding Authority) v Lindsay Bennelong Developments [2012] NSWSC 917), the community has every reason to expect heightened scrutiny and full transparency throughout this process.
This proposal has already been rejected by the Sydney Eastern City Planning Panel, and its subsequent appeal was dismissed by the Land and Environment Court. Despite some minor alterations, the core issues remain unaddressed. Allowing the SSD pathway to be used as a means to resubmit a fundamentally similar development, with even more height, would undermine confidence in both planning processes and community consultation.
For these reasons, I urge the Department to refer this matter to the IPC and ensure that the concerns of directly affected residents are given proper consideration. The community deserves a transparent, fair, and accountable assessment process.
Best regards,
Robert Rapkins
I am writing to register my strong objection to the State Significant Development (SSD) application for 138 Maroubra Road, Maroubra, lodged by Lindsay Bennelong Developments.
Living in the Botanica Building at 140 Maroubra Road—immediately beside the proposed site—I am extremely concerned about both the scale of this project and the way the proponent has handled community engagement to date.
Primary Reasons for Objection
1. Height and Density Far Beyond Reasonable Expectations
The proposal for a 10-storey structure is completely out of step with what is appropriate for this part of Maroubra. Its height and bulk appear driven by maximising development yield rather than respecting existing neighbourhood character or planning intent.
2. Significant Privacy Loss and Overshadowing
Given how close the development sits to current residential buildings—especially Botanica—it will inevitably cause major privacy intrusions and extended overshadowing. This would materially diminish the day-to-day amenity of many households.
3. Increased Traffic and Pressure on Parking
Traffic congestion and parking shortages are already significant issues in the area. Adding a development of this magnitude without any real strategy to address the strain it will place on local infrastructure is unacceptable.
4. Questionable Use of “Affordable Housing” to Justify Scale
Although the proponent highlights that 15% of the project is designated as infill affordable housing, there is little transparency about how these homes will be managed, integrated, or maintained over time. Such inclusions often function as a mechanism to secure additional height and density rather than a sincere contribution to affordability.
5. Inadequate and Selective Community Consultation
The consultation process to date has been deeply unsatisfactory. Residents of the Botanica Building—those most directly impacted—were not notified during the early consultation stage, while flyers were distributed to other nearby addresses. This selective communication raises serious concerns about whether genuine feedback was ever sought. Furthermore, the community has now been given only two weeks to comment on the SSD, despite NSW Government guidelines specifying a four-week exhibition period (State Significant Development Guidelines, Section 6.1). This inconsistency understandably raises questions about the nature of the relationship between the developer and public agencies.
Triggers for Referral to the Independent Planning Commission (IPC)
Under the NSW Planning System SEPP (Schedule 1, Clause 26), SSD applications must be referred to the IPC if:
• the local council objects,
• 50 or more public submissions opposing the project are received (with petitions counted as a single submission), or
• the applicant has made a reportable political donation.
Given that Lindsay Bennelong Developments has previously been found in breach of political donation laws (De Celis (Election Funding Authority) v Lindsay Bennelong Developments [2012] NSWSC 917), the community has every reason to expect heightened scrutiny and full transparency throughout this process.
This proposal has already been rejected by the Sydney Eastern City Planning Panel, and its subsequent appeal was dismissed by the Land and Environment Court. Despite some minor alterations, the core issues remain unaddressed. Allowing the SSD pathway to be used as a means to resubmit a fundamentally similar development, with even more height, would undermine confidence in both planning processes and community consultation.
For these reasons, I urge the Department to refer this matter to the IPC and ensure that the concerns of directly affected residents are given proper consideration. The community deserves a transparent, fair, and accountable assessment process.
Best regards,
Robert Rapkins
Louise Dunn
Object
Louise Dunn
Object
MAROUBRA
,
New South Wales
Message
My name is Louise Dunn, and I am resident in the Botanica Building at 140 Maroubra Rd, Maroubra 2035.
I am writing to formally lodge my objection to the State Significant Development (SSD) application for 138 Maroubra Road, Maroubra, submitted by Lindsay Bennelong Developments (SSD-81426710).
As a resident of the Botanica Building at 140 Maroubra Road, directly adjoining the proposed development, I have deep concerns not only about the project’s unacceptable scale and impact, but also the questionable process by which the proponent has approached community consultation.
Key Grounds for Objection:
1. Excessive Height and Density
The proposed 10-storey building grossly exceeds local planning expectations for the area. The scale and bulk are inappropriate for the location and appear designed to maximise yield rather than reflect the character or needs of the community.
2. Loss of Privacy and Overshadowing
The close proximity of this large structure to existing residences, particularly the Botanica Building, will result in severe loss of privacy and overshadowing, significantly affecting the amenity and livability of dozens of homes.
3. Traffic and Parking Impacts
Maroubra already suffers from congestion and limited parking infrastructure. This development will only exacerbate these issues without any corresponding upgrades or mitigation strategies.
4. Tokenistic Approach to Affordable Housing
While the development seeks to justify its increased scale by including 15% infill affordable housing, there is no clarity around the integration, quality, or long-term management of these dwellings. Such gestures often serve as a lever to secure bonus floors, rather than a genuine contribution to housing equity.
5. Selective and Inadequate Community Consultation
The early consultation process was deeply flawed. All Botanica residents (arguably the most directly impacted by this developed) were not notified of the proposal during the community consultation period. This selective distribution of information via flyer to other, less impacted addresses appeared strategic, aimed at minimising dissent rather than inviting genuine community feedback. Most recently, we have only been given 2 weeks opportunity to make a submission on this SSD via the planning portal when the NSW Government’s own guidelines state that the exhibition period should be 4 weeks (see Section 6.1 of the State Significant Development Guidelines). It makes one wonder what type of relationship our public servants are having with this developer?
IPC Referral Triggers
As per the NSW Planning System SEPP (Schedule 1, Clause 26), I respectfully draw your attention to the relevant thresholds for automatic referral to the Independent Planning Commission (IPC), namely:
• Where the local council has objected,
• Where 50 or more public objections are received (with petitions and similar submissions counted as one), or
• Where the applicant has made a reportable political donation.
In this context, I urge the Department to consider that Lindsay Bennelong Developments has previously been found guilty of breaching political donation laws: De Celis (Election Funding Authority) v Lindsay Bennelong Developments [2012] NSWSC 917
https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/54a638593004de94513d9dd5
Given this precedent, and ongoing transparency issues and incongruence with the public exhibition period timeframe with the SSD Guidelines the community has reason to be concerned about transparency and due process.
This proposal has already been rejected by the Sydney Eastern City Planning Panel and their appeal dismissed by the Land and Environment Court (file:///Users/louise/Downloads/Court%20Judgment%207%20November%202024.pdf). Despite minor modifications, the substance of the application remains out of scale and out of touch with community expectations. The Department must not permit the SSD framework to be used as a back door to push through previously rejected developments.
I urge you to ensure this matter is referred to the IPC, and that the community's voice, particularly that of the most directly affected residents, is not sidelined.
Yours sincerely,
Louise Dunn
I am writing to formally lodge my objection to the State Significant Development (SSD) application for 138 Maroubra Road, Maroubra, submitted by Lindsay Bennelong Developments (SSD-81426710).
As a resident of the Botanica Building at 140 Maroubra Road, directly adjoining the proposed development, I have deep concerns not only about the project’s unacceptable scale and impact, but also the questionable process by which the proponent has approached community consultation.
Key Grounds for Objection:
1. Excessive Height and Density
The proposed 10-storey building grossly exceeds local planning expectations for the area. The scale and bulk are inappropriate for the location and appear designed to maximise yield rather than reflect the character or needs of the community.
2. Loss of Privacy and Overshadowing
The close proximity of this large structure to existing residences, particularly the Botanica Building, will result in severe loss of privacy and overshadowing, significantly affecting the amenity and livability of dozens of homes.
3. Traffic and Parking Impacts
Maroubra already suffers from congestion and limited parking infrastructure. This development will only exacerbate these issues without any corresponding upgrades or mitigation strategies.
4. Tokenistic Approach to Affordable Housing
While the development seeks to justify its increased scale by including 15% infill affordable housing, there is no clarity around the integration, quality, or long-term management of these dwellings. Such gestures often serve as a lever to secure bonus floors, rather than a genuine contribution to housing equity.
5. Selective and Inadequate Community Consultation
The early consultation process was deeply flawed. All Botanica residents (arguably the most directly impacted by this developed) were not notified of the proposal during the community consultation period. This selective distribution of information via flyer to other, less impacted addresses appeared strategic, aimed at minimising dissent rather than inviting genuine community feedback. Most recently, we have only been given 2 weeks opportunity to make a submission on this SSD via the planning portal when the NSW Government’s own guidelines state that the exhibition period should be 4 weeks (see Section 6.1 of the State Significant Development Guidelines). It makes one wonder what type of relationship our public servants are having with this developer?
IPC Referral Triggers
As per the NSW Planning System SEPP (Schedule 1, Clause 26), I respectfully draw your attention to the relevant thresholds for automatic referral to the Independent Planning Commission (IPC), namely:
• Where the local council has objected,
• Where 50 or more public objections are received (with petitions and similar submissions counted as one), or
• Where the applicant has made a reportable political donation.
In this context, I urge the Department to consider that Lindsay Bennelong Developments has previously been found guilty of breaching political donation laws: De Celis (Election Funding Authority) v Lindsay Bennelong Developments [2012] NSWSC 917
https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/54a638593004de94513d9dd5
Given this precedent, and ongoing transparency issues and incongruence with the public exhibition period timeframe with the SSD Guidelines the community has reason to be concerned about transparency and due process.
This proposal has already been rejected by the Sydney Eastern City Planning Panel and their appeal dismissed by the Land and Environment Court (file:///Users/louise/Downloads/Court%20Judgment%207%20November%202024.pdf). Despite minor modifications, the substance of the application remains out of scale and out of touch with community expectations. The Department must not permit the SSD framework to be used as a back door to push through previously rejected developments.
I urge you to ensure this matter is referred to the IPC, and that the community's voice, particularly that of the most directly affected residents, is not sidelined.
Yours sincerely,
Louise Dunn
Bianca Sofian
Object
Bianca Sofian
Object
Maroubra
,
New South Wales
Message
I am a resident at 717 Anzac Parade Maroubra and I have major concerns about this development, particularly car space accessibility through Picaddilly Place which is already often congested due to use by residents, the public who shops at Pacific Square, delivery trucks and emergency services including Maroubra Police. We cannot add more into this part of the road because it will be a nightmare! I am also majorly concerned about the height of the proposed development, which will have a major impact to the Pacific Square apartments. Additionally, I have a young a family and the construction noise will majorly impact their sleep and rest.
Fion So
Object
Fion So
Object
MAROUBRA
,
New South Wales
Message
Objection to State Significant Development (SSD) Application: 138 Maroubra Road, Maroubra
To: The Relevant Planning Authority
From: Fion So
Address: Resident, Apartment 904/1 Bruce Bennetts Place, Maroubra 2035 (The Panorama Building)
I am writing to formally lodge my strong objection to the State Significant Development (SSD) application for 138 Maroubra Road, Maroubra, submitted by Lindsay Bennelong Developments.
As a resident of the Panorama Building (1 Bruce Bennetts Place), which directly faces the proposed site, I have deep concerns regarding the project’s unacceptable scale, its non-compliance with planning controls, and, critically, its significant contribution to traffic congestion and infrastructure overload in an already saturated high-density precinct.
1. Severe Exacerbation of Traffic Congestion and Infrastructure Strain
The primary concern for residents of Pacific Square, particularly those in buildings adjacent to the site like the Panorama Building, is the immediate and overwhelming impact on our local transport network.
• Existing Congestion Crisis: The intersection of Anzac Parade and Maroubra Road—and the immediate surrounds of Pacific Square—are already at maximum capacity, particularly during peak hours. This area is the gateway for a high volume of vehicles accessing six existing high-density residential buildings, Pacific Square Shopping Centre, the Maroubra Police Station, and the adjacent childcare centre. The current infrastructure cannot cope.
• Worsening Peak Hour Traffic: The introduction of a significant number of new residents and vehicles from 64 new units will severely compound existing transport and accessibility challenges. This will result in:
• Substantially longer queuing and delays for residents attempting to enter/exit their basement car parks onto Bruce Bennetts Place and Maroubra Road.
• Increased safety risks for pedestrians and cars, as drivers become more aggressive in gridlocked traffic.
• Infrastructure Overload: The cumulative impact of forcing a development of this scale onto a small, narrow block in an already saturated high-rise zone (six existing high-density buildings) poses a serious threat to the area's local amenity and infrastructure capacity. The proposal demonstrates a failure to genuinely consider the cumulative effect on essential services like water/sewerage and, critically, the immediate traffic network.
• Flooding Risk: The proposal also risks exacerbating existing flooding issues, given that Pacific Square was constructed above the natural water table. This points to a deeper issue of inadequate site suitability and infrastructure planning for this scale of development.
2. Excessive Height, Bulk, and Loss of Amenity
The proposed nine-storey structure is fundamentally out-of-scale for this constrained site and the local controls, directly and negatively impacting the residents of the Panorama Building.
• Direct View Obstruction and Devaluation: The proposed development is effectively at least one storey higher than my building (1 Bruce Bennetts Place). This will result in severe loss of amenity and direct view obstruction for residents in the Panorama Building. The loss of views and sunlight will inevitably lead to property devaluation, indirectly impacting hundreds of other units in the Pacific Square precinct.
• Privacy Compromise for the Panorama Building: Privacy will be significantly compromised for numerous residents at 1 Bruce Bennetts Place. The proposed development’s height and proximity, combined with the orientation of its angled side windows, will result in direct sightlines into the habitable living spaces and private balconies of at least 30 units within the Panorama Building. This complete lack of appropriate building separation will severely impact the residential amenity of a substantial portion of the existing community.
• Non-Compliant Scale: The revised 9-storey proposal remains non-compliant with the Randwick Development Control Plan (DCP), which sets a height limit of 6 storeys (25 metres). The continuous attempt to push schemes that grossly exceed planning controls undermines the integrity of the planning process and residents' faith in local controls.
3. Insufficient Separation and Setbacks
Despite minor amendments, the development’s proximity and bulk remain detrimental, reflecting a disregard for the established planning controls designed to protect neighbourhood amenity.
• Building Proximity: The proposed building’s proximity to the Panorama Building is too close for comfort and is significantly detrimental to all facing residents.
• Setting a Negative Precedent: Approving this scheme will isolate and constrain the future development potential of the neighbouring Maroubra Police site (136 Maroubra Rd), potentially forcing that site into its own non-compliant scheme just to achieve viability. The cumulative effect of two overly tall, closely spaced buildings will be disastrous for this corner of Maroubra.
4. Impact on Sunlight and Overshadowing
An adequate shadow study detailing the impact on adjacent buildings, including the Panorama Building (1 Bruce Bennetts), across all seasons is critically needed. The current analysis is insufficient and requires further clarification to accurately assess the true overshadowing impact of the proposed development, especially given its non-compliant height and bulk.
5. Acoustic Impacts
A thorough and comprehensive acoustic assessment is required. This assessment must address potential noise reverberation from the outdoor rooftop garden, the minimal setback from Pacific Square, and the cumulative noise impact compounded by the adjacent childcare centre. The current proposal does not adequately address these significant acoustic concerns.
Conclusion
This proposal, which was previously rejected by the Sydney Eastern City Planning Panel (SECPP) and had its appeal dismissed by the Land and Environment Court, still suffers from fundamental flaws. The scale is out of step with community expectations and existing planning controls.
The developer's actions suggest an attempt to blatantly disregard Council's planning controls to achieve maximum yield on a small block. Approving this development would result in an unacceptable precedent, a severe loss of amenity for existing residents (including those at the Panorama Building), and, most urgently, a significant and unmanageable deterioration of local traffic conditions and infrastructure strain.
To: The Relevant Planning Authority
From: Fion So
Address: Resident, Apartment 904/1 Bruce Bennetts Place, Maroubra 2035 (The Panorama Building)
I am writing to formally lodge my strong objection to the State Significant Development (SSD) application for 138 Maroubra Road, Maroubra, submitted by Lindsay Bennelong Developments.
As a resident of the Panorama Building (1 Bruce Bennetts Place), which directly faces the proposed site, I have deep concerns regarding the project’s unacceptable scale, its non-compliance with planning controls, and, critically, its significant contribution to traffic congestion and infrastructure overload in an already saturated high-density precinct.
1. Severe Exacerbation of Traffic Congestion and Infrastructure Strain
The primary concern for residents of Pacific Square, particularly those in buildings adjacent to the site like the Panorama Building, is the immediate and overwhelming impact on our local transport network.
• Existing Congestion Crisis: The intersection of Anzac Parade and Maroubra Road—and the immediate surrounds of Pacific Square—are already at maximum capacity, particularly during peak hours. This area is the gateway for a high volume of vehicles accessing six existing high-density residential buildings, Pacific Square Shopping Centre, the Maroubra Police Station, and the adjacent childcare centre. The current infrastructure cannot cope.
• Worsening Peak Hour Traffic: The introduction of a significant number of new residents and vehicles from 64 new units will severely compound existing transport and accessibility challenges. This will result in:
• Substantially longer queuing and delays for residents attempting to enter/exit their basement car parks onto Bruce Bennetts Place and Maroubra Road.
• Increased safety risks for pedestrians and cars, as drivers become more aggressive in gridlocked traffic.
• Infrastructure Overload: The cumulative impact of forcing a development of this scale onto a small, narrow block in an already saturated high-rise zone (six existing high-density buildings) poses a serious threat to the area's local amenity and infrastructure capacity. The proposal demonstrates a failure to genuinely consider the cumulative effect on essential services like water/sewerage and, critically, the immediate traffic network.
• Flooding Risk: The proposal also risks exacerbating existing flooding issues, given that Pacific Square was constructed above the natural water table. This points to a deeper issue of inadequate site suitability and infrastructure planning for this scale of development.
2. Excessive Height, Bulk, and Loss of Amenity
The proposed nine-storey structure is fundamentally out-of-scale for this constrained site and the local controls, directly and negatively impacting the residents of the Panorama Building.
• Direct View Obstruction and Devaluation: The proposed development is effectively at least one storey higher than my building (1 Bruce Bennetts Place). This will result in severe loss of amenity and direct view obstruction for residents in the Panorama Building. The loss of views and sunlight will inevitably lead to property devaluation, indirectly impacting hundreds of other units in the Pacific Square precinct.
• Privacy Compromise for the Panorama Building: Privacy will be significantly compromised for numerous residents at 1 Bruce Bennetts Place. The proposed development’s height and proximity, combined with the orientation of its angled side windows, will result in direct sightlines into the habitable living spaces and private balconies of at least 30 units within the Panorama Building. This complete lack of appropriate building separation will severely impact the residential amenity of a substantial portion of the existing community.
• Non-Compliant Scale: The revised 9-storey proposal remains non-compliant with the Randwick Development Control Plan (DCP), which sets a height limit of 6 storeys (25 metres). The continuous attempt to push schemes that grossly exceed planning controls undermines the integrity of the planning process and residents' faith in local controls.
3. Insufficient Separation and Setbacks
Despite minor amendments, the development’s proximity and bulk remain detrimental, reflecting a disregard for the established planning controls designed to protect neighbourhood amenity.
• Building Proximity: The proposed building’s proximity to the Panorama Building is too close for comfort and is significantly detrimental to all facing residents.
• Setting a Negative Precedent: Approving this scheme will isolate and constrain the future development potential of the neighbouring Maroubra Police site (136 Maroubra Rd), potentially forcing that site into its own non-compliant scheme just to achieve viability. The cumulative effect of two overly tall, closely spaced buildings will be disastrous for this corner of Maroubra.
4. Impact on Sunlight and Overshadowing
An adequate shadow study detailing the impact on adjacent buildings, including the Panorama Building (1 Bruce Bennetts), across all seasons is critically needed. The current analysis is insufficient and requires further clarification to accurately assess the true overshadowing impact of the proposed development, especially given its non-compliant height and bulk.
5. Acoustic Impacts
A thorough and comprehensive acoustic assessment is required. This assessment must address potential noise reverberation from the outdoor rooftop garden, the minimal setback from Pacific Square, and the cumulative noise impact compounded by the adjacent childcare centre. The current proposal does not adequately address these significant acoustic concerns.
Conclusion
This proposal, which was previously rejected by the Sydney Eastern City Planning Panel (SECPP) and had its appeal dismissed by the Land and Environment Court, still suffers from fundamental flaws. The scale is out of step with community expectations and existing planning controls.
The developer's actions suggest an attempt to blatantly disregard Council's planning controls to achieve maximum yield on a small block. Approving this development would result in an unacceptable precedent, a severe loss of amenity for existing residents (including those at the Panorama Building), and, most urgently, a significant and unmanageable deterioration of local traffic conditions and infrastructure strain.
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
Maroubra
,
New South Wales
Message
I am writing this email to support the submission of the proposed development 138 Maroubra road. The constructions will impact negatively for us residents of pacific square also it will impact the wellbeing of the children (where my kids and many of my family and friend’s kids) attended the childcare which is located in pacific square building. I am currently residing at 140 Maroubra road, Maroubra. I really wish that this submission will be heard and taken into consideration when the proposed development of 138 Maroubra road is going ahead.
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
Maroubra
,
New South Wales
Message
A similar development has been made before and was rejected and subsequently defeated on appeal. This current proposal is similar and I am concerned about the height and size of this development on such a small area. This will have significant impact on the traffic, noise and lack of natural light in the surrounding block. The attempt to apply via Affordable Housing is just using another pathway to get the project approved, it will be unethical if the Affordable Housing Assessment ignored the judgement and decisions made by the court previously in turning down the development proposal.
Lauren Ziegler
Object
Lauren Ziegler
Object
Kingsford
,
New South Wales
Message
I wish to express my deep concerns and objection to the proposed development at 138 Maroubra Rd. It will have significant, negative impacts on my business, and also the health and welfare of the children attending my early education centre.
Specific items of concern include:
1) Breach of education and care services national regulations
Having a building next door can significantly impact a child care centre’s compliance with the
education and care services national regulations, specifically regulation 110, which mandates
efficient natural lighting in both indoor and outdoor environments. The presence of a
neighboring building can obstruct sunlight, leading to inadequate natural lighting conditions
within the child care center. This not only violates regulatory requirements but also adversely
affects the well-being and development of the children in the center. Insufficient natural light
can impede learning, hinder physical activity, and even affect mood and behavior. Therefore, to
ensure the optimal environment for children's growth and development, it's essential to
maintain unobstructed access to natural light, which may necessitate careful consideration of
neighboring buildings' placement.
2) Affect and risk Children Health
Building a structure next to a child care center could pose several risks to the children's health
and well-being. First, construction dust can exacerbate respiratory conditions such as asthma,
making it hazardous for children with such conditions to be exposed to the air pollutants.
Additionally, air pollution generated by construction activities can further worsen respiratory
health and overall air quality, impacting not only children with asthma but all children
attending the center. Moreover, the noise generated by construction can disrupt the peaceful
environment necessary for children's play and outdoor activities, limiting their ability to engage
in physical exercise and social interaction outdoors. Thus, to ensure the safety and well-being
of the children, it's essential to avoid building structures near child care centers to mitigate
these negative impacts.
3) Access Restrictions
Construction activities and safety regulations may restrict or alter the usual access routes for
parents dropping off or picking up their children, causing inconvenience and potential safety
concerns.
4) Loss of privacy
The proximity of a tall building may compromise the privacy of children within the daycare
center. Construction workers and residents in the building might have direct views into the
daycare, impacting the children's sense of security and privacy. The building will facilitate
people to directly looking into the child care and put children at risk of child safety and child
protection. We will have no control of people being able to film the children. We have no
control if sex offenders will be living in the building and having an opportunity to see the
children and record them. The office of the children guardian and commission for young
children as well as the department of communities child safe organisations are there to
enforce safety for all children. If this construction was to go ahead I will need to seek advice
with regards to lodging a case with previously mentioned regulatory organisations.
In summary the proposed building adjacent to a child care center presents significant concerns
regarding regulatory compliance, health risks, access restrictions, and loss of privacy.
Compliance with education and care regulations, particularly regarding natural lighting, may be
compromised due to obstruction by the neighboring structure, hindering children's
development and well-being. Additionally, construction activities can introduce health hazards
such as dust and air pollution, impacting respiratory health and overall air quality for children.
The noise and disruptions caused by construction can disrupt the peaceful environment
necessary for children's activities and interactions. Moreover, the proximity of the building can
compromise the privacy and security of the children, potentially exposing them to unwanted
observation and safety risks. Considering these factors, it's imperative to prioritize the safety,
well-being, and regulatory compliance of the child care center by carefully assessing the
placement of neighboring constructions to mitigate potential negative impacts.
Please can the DPIE take careful consideration to the concerns of business and families within the
community. I strongly oppose the development of 138 Maroubra Road and I believe the
construction will result in the community being in an uproar over the negative impacts it poses.
Thank you for your time and consideration
Specific items of concern include:
1) Breach of education and care services national regulations
Having a building next door can significantly impact a child care centre’s compliance with the
education and care services national regulations, specifically regulation 110, which mandates
efficient natural lighting in both indoor and outdoor environments. The presence of a
neighboring building can obstruct sunlight, leading to inadequate natural lighting conditions
within the child care center. This not only violates regulatory requirements but also adversely
affects the well-being and development of the children in the center. Insufficient natural light
can impede learning, hinder physical activity, and even affect mood and behavior. Therefore, to
ensure the optimal environment for children's growth and development, it's essential to
maintain unobstructed access to natural light, which may necessitate careful consideration of
neighboring buildings' placement.
2) Affect and risk Children Health
Building a structure next to a child care center could pose several risks to the children's health
and well-being. First, construction dust can exacerbate respiratory conditions such as asthma,
making it hazardous for children with such conditions to be exposed to the air pollutants.
Additionally, air pollution generated by construction activities can further worsen respiratory
health and overall air quality, impacting not only children with asthma but all children
attending the center. Moreover, the noise generated by construction can disrupt the peaceful
environment necessary for children's play and outdoor activities, limiting their ability to engage
in physical exercise and social interaction outdoors. Thus, to ensure the safety and well-being
of the children, it's essential to avoid building structures near child care centers to mitigate
these negative impacts.
3) Access Restrictions
Construction activities and safety regulations may restrict or alter the usual access routes for
parents dropping off or picking up their children, causing inconvenience and potential safety
concerns.
4) Loss of privacy
The proximity of a tall building may compromise the privacy of children within the daycare
center. Construction workers and residents in the building might have direct views into the
daycare, impacting the children's sense of security and privacy. The building will facilitate
people to directly looking into the child care and put children at risk of child safety and child
protection. We will have no control of people being able to film the children. We have no
control if sex offenders will be living in the building and having an opportunity to see the
children and record them. The office of the children guardian and commission for young
children as well as the department of communities child safe organisations are there to
enforce safety for all children. If this construction was to go ahead I will need to seek advice
with regards to lodging a case with previously mentioned regulatory organisations.
In summary the proposed building adjacent to a child care center presents significant concerns
regarding regulatory compliance, health risks, access restrictions, and loss of privacy.
Compliance with education and care regulations, particularly regarding natural lighting, may be
compromised due to obstruction by the neighboring structure, hindering children's
development and well-being. Additionally, construction activities can introduce health hazards
such as dust and air pollution, impacting respiratory health and overall air quality for children.
The noise and disruptions caused by construction can disrupt the peaceful environment
necessary for children's activities and interactions. Moreover, the proximity of the building can
compromise the privacy and security of the children, potentially exposing them to unwanted
observation and safety risks. Considering these factors, it's imperative to prioritize the safety,
well-being, and regulatory compliance of the child care center by carefully assessing the
placement of neighboring constructions to mitigate potential negative impacts.
Please can the DPIE take careful consideration to the concerns of business and families within the
community. I strongly oppose the development of 138 Maroubra Road and I believe the
construction will result in the community being in an uproar over the negative impacts it poses.
Thank you for your time and consideration