I am a 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.
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.

I am a 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.
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.

I am a 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.
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.

My name is Colin O’Riordan and I reside at the Botanica Building, 140 Maroubra Road, Maroubra 2035.
I wish to formally submit my objection to the State Significant Development (SSD) application for 138 Maroubra Road, Maroubra, lodged by Lindsay Bennelong Developments.

As an adjoining resident directly impacted by this proposal, I hold serious concerns regarding both the inappropriate scale of the project and the manner in which community consultation has been conducted.

Primary Grounds for Objection:

1. Disproportionate Height and Density
The proposed 10-storey structure is far beyond what is reasonably expected within this area. Its bulk, massing and intensity appear driven by yield rather than alignment with local character or genuine community need.

2. Loss of Amenity, Privacy and Sun Access
Due to its proximity to existing homes, including those within the Botanica Building, the development will significantly compromise residential amenity. Impacts include substantial privacy loss and overshadowing, affecting liveability for many households. This is before I mention the childcare located downstairs that the new dwelling will directly look into.

3. Increased Traffic and Limited Parking Capacity
Maroubra already experiences congestion and inadequate parking availability. This proposal will add demand to an already strained network, without any meaningful mitigation or infrastructure improvement.

4. Questionable Affordable Housing Provision
Although the project cites 15% infill affordable housing to justify its scale, there is no transparency around how these dwellings will be integrated, maintained or effectively managed over time. This raises concerns that the provision serves more as a mechanism to gain planning concessions than as a sincere contribution to equitable housing outcomes.

Formal Objection – 138 Maroubra Road, Maroubra (SSD Application)
From: Louise Dunn, on behalf of Strata Plan 81311, 140 Maroubra Road (Botanica Building) Maroubra 2035
I am writing on behalf of Committee of Strata Plan 81311 to strongly object to the State Significant Development (SSD) application for 138 Maroubra Road by Lindsay Bennelong Developments. Our concerns remain consistent with those raised in earlier submissions to Randwick Council and the Sydney Eastern City Planning Panel (SECPP), both of which have already rejected this proposal, and which was further dismissed at the Land and Environment Court (LEC) on appeal.
The revised proposal currently on exhibition greatly exceeds the plans Randwick Council for sustainable and reasonable development of the site i.e., 6-storeys; and shows complete disregard for earlier rulings from the SECPP and LEC who resoundingly rejected the original 8-storey proposal. The developer has shown great contempt for these regulatory bodies and our community, seeking to exploit the SSD scheme and the “affordable” housing loophole.
In short, our committee, on behalf of the 140+ units in our Strata Plan object to the proposal on the following counts:
1. Grossly Excessive Height, Bulk and Density
The proposed 9–10 storey scheme far exceeds the Randwick DCP height limit of 6 storeys for this constrained site. The building is too tall, too bulky and entirely out of scale with what this small, narrow allotment can reasonably sustain. The rooftop garden—with trees, structures and regular use—effectively adds another occupiable level. This proposal disregards fundamental planning controls and the clear SECPP and Land & Environment Court findings that the site cannot support a building of this yield.
2. Severe Impacts on Surrounding Buildings
The development would have unacceptable impacts on 140 Maroubra Road, 1 Bruce Bennetts Place and the broader Pacific Square precinct, including:
• Loss of views, sunlight and amenity for at least 70 affected units, with indirect impacts on hundreds more through diminished value and livability.
• Significant privacy loss, with angled windows and balconies directly overlooking dozens of habitable rooms and outdoor areas.
• Insufficient setbacks and separation distances, made worse by the increased height.
• Visual dominance and total obstruction of outlook for top-floor west and southwest-facing units.
This is not a minor design issue—it is a fundamental and irreversible amenity impact on an already saturated high-density precinct.
3. Inadequate Environmental and Technical Assessment
The submitted shadow analysis fails to properly account for existing built form, seasonal sun paths and overshadowing patterns. Comprehensive acoustic modelling has also not been provided, despite foreseeable impacts from rooftop use, minimal setbacks and proximity to the childcare centre. Flooding, traffic and congestion risks have not been meaningfully addressed despite well-known existing pressures in the area.
4. Traffic, Parking and Infrastructure Strain
Maroubra Junction is already heavily congested. Adding a development of this scale—with no commensurate infrastructure upgrades—will worsen traffic, parking pressure and pedestrian safety. The area is at capacity.
5. Misuse of Affordable Housing Incentives
The 15% infill affordable housing component appears to serve primarily as a justification for additional height, rather than a genuine integration of affordable housing outcomes. There is no detail on quality, management or long-term delivery.
6. Flawed and Selective Community Consultation
Botanica—arguably the most directly affected building—was not notified during early consultation. Flyers were selectively distributed to less affected areas. The current SSD exhibition has been restricted to 2 weeks, contrary to the NSW Government’s own 4-week requirement. This raises legitimate concerns about transparency and process.
7. Concerns Warranting IPC Referral
Under Schedule 1, Clause 26 of the NSW Planning System SEPP, this application is eligible for referral to the Independent Planning Commission due to:
• Likely 50+ community objections,
• Council objection, and
• The proponent’s previous breach of NSW political donation laws (De Celis v Lindsay Bennelong Developments [2012] NSWSC 917).
Given this history, and the ongoing process concerns, independent oversight is essential.
8. Precedent and Future Impacts
The Council’s DCP explicitly notes that maximum height and building depth cannot be achieved on small allotments. The developer is attempting to force a yield intended only for an amalgamated site, ignoring the constraints and consequences for surrounding residents. Approval would also compromise the future planning potential of the adjoining Maroubra Police site, likely forcing further non-compliant development.
9. Serious Construction Conflict and Safety Risks for Pacific Square
There are also critical concerns about the safety, structural and operational risks created by the SSD proposal. Pacific Square is about to commence a major multi-year façade, waterproofing, balcony and structural remediation program along the shared boundary with 138 Maroubra Road. The proposed demolition, excavation and construction of a 9-10-storey building immediately adjacent to these sensitive works poses significant and unacceptable risks, including vibration impacts on curing membranes and concrete repairs, dust and debris contamination, overlapping exclusion zones, constrained access for contractors, and compromised pedestrian and emergency egress in a high-traffic mixed-use precinct. The EIS does not meaningfully address these adjacent-construction risks or the cumulative impacts of two major projects operating concurrently.


Conclusion
This proposal has been rejected by the SECPP and dismissed by the Land & Environment Court for good reason. The revised SSD scheme does not resolve the fundamental issues: it remains oversized, non-compliant, and damaging to the community. The SSD process must not be used as a backdoor to revive a previously rejected development.
I respectfully request that the Department:
1. Reject the SSD application; and
2. Refer the matter to the Independent Planning Commission in accordance with the statutory triggers.
Yours sincerely,
Louise Dunn
On behalf of the Strata Plan 81311 Committee and Owners of 140 Maroubra Rd apartments.

SSD-81426710
As an owner-occupier of property in 140 Maroubra Road (Pacific Square - SP81311) with a young child in the family, I strongly object/opposed to the Application no SSD-81426710, State Significant Development (SSD) application for 138 Maroubra Road, Maroubra.
The new proposal is still undermining the community interest at all. Couple of times has been refused at SECPP, again rejected by Land and Environment Court and has got 70+ negative submission from the last Exhibit.
The amendments do not resolve the issues that led to its earlier refusals it repackages them, and in doing so introduces new and more serious risks.
1. Height is not settled
By providing 2 methods, they’re merely contesting 1 to their own benefit (Bettar). Under another equally accepted approach, the building exceeds the maximum height by a meaningful margin (Merman). Randwick Council has said that they have exceeded the height allowance. Hence it shouldn’t be approved.
2. Distance to childcare centre
Too close proximity will hinder the operation of the Maroubra Junction Early Education Centre & very concerning for the kids’ well-being.

3. This remains an overdevelopment of the site
The proposal exhibits every recognised indicator of overdevelopment:
• excavation across the full site
• minimal setbacks to adjoining development
• negligible opportunity for deep soil planting
• reliance on the full height uplift available
This is not a balanced or moderated design response.
It is a scheme that has been pushed to the limits of what is technically arguable rather than what is appropriate.
4. Bulk, scale and privacy impacts remain fundamentally unchanged
Across every iteration of this proposal, the same issue has persisted — the building is too large for the site.
That has not changed.
What has changed is the increasing reliance on mitigation measures:
• screening
• façade articulation
• design devices intended to manage overlooking
Those measures do not resolve the problem.
5. Traffic, noise and environmental impacts remain unresolved
The application identifies a number of impacts:
• traffic constraints
• construction impacts
• cumulative noise
However, these are largely deferred to post-consent management plans.
This approach runs consistently through the application:
• construction staging
• traffic management
• acoustic control
Impacts are acknowledged, but not resolved through design.
6. The SSD introduces a new and significant failure — construction interface
This is the most serious issue in the current application.
For the first time, the proposal must be assessed in the context of:
• the Pacific Square remediation program
• concurrent construction activity in immediate proximity
• and shared infrastructure constraints
The applicant has attempted to address this through staging assumptions.
However those assumptions are:
• based on incomplete third-party information
• not agreed with neighbouring landowners
• and explicitly subject to revision
This is illustrated in their own staging material:
The interaction of these works is further complicated by the substation staging required to support the site:
There is no integrated assessment of:
• concurrent construction
• access constraints
• construction safety
• or cumulative impacts
Instead, this issue is deferred.
Where a risk is known and foreseeable, it must be assessed — not postponed.
7. The Housing SEPP bonus is being used to justify, not moderate, impact
Affordable housing is important.
However, the framework is explicit — additional height must not produce unreasonable impacts.
Here, the bonus has been used to:
• increase height
• increase bulk
• reduce separation
• and intensify development
all while previously identified impacts remain.
8. Bringing the in and out-flow back to Piccadilly Place
By doing this, it will definitely create a bottle-neck in the round-about which is used by Pacific Square residents, opposite Newington residents, also the exit of Pacific Square shoppers.
Another main issue I want to raise is the Piccadilly Place-situation for the traffic on cars, delivery trucks, etc2. At the moment, the long trailer of the Coles delivery truck for example, it has already occupied the small road in Piccadilly Place sometimes when they come to do the stock delivery to the Coles in Pacific Square. Once you have the increased congestion from the new building, it will create a bottle-neck, not only for the incoming vehicles to Piccadilly Place (cars, delivery vans etc), but also for other vehicles trying to exit from it (Note: occasionally the roundabout itself already getting congested/blocked due to the exiting cars from the Pacific Square retail area that are close to the roundabout-exit, but also the “stopping cars” that tries to go to the right hand side from the roundabout to the Maroubra Road heading to Eastgardens direction).

9. The proposal fails in the public interest
There are three key reasons:
1. It repeats a scheme that has already failed on planning merit
2. It relies on contested technical interpretation rather than clear compliance
3. It introduces unresolved risks that are deferred to later stages
Community opposition has been overwhelming, and concerns raised by agencies — including in relation to bulk and scale — remain relevant.

Conclusion This proposal does not represent a materially improved outcome.
It is:
• a continuation of an over-scaled design
• supported by selective interpretation
• and reliant on deferred resolution of critical issues

I totally against this development as they’re not trying to resolve the issue, but merely only deflecting it & not resolving it.
Thank you.

In my view, this is not a substantively revised scheme. It is another iteration of a proposal that has already been refused by the Sydney Eastern City Planning Panel, dismissed by the Land and Environment Court, and met with overwhelming community opposition. Those outcomes reflected real and unresolved planning issues, many of which persist.



The most striking concern is the visual bulk of the building and the small parcel of land they plan to squeeze a 10-storey block on. Whatever terminology is used in the documentation, the development presents as a large and imposing structure that would sit uncomfortably within its surroundings. From street level to its uppermost elements, it reads as dominant in both scale and presence.



There have been attempts to soften this through articulation, screening and façade treatments. However, these do not meaningfully reduce the overall mass. If anything, they underline the point that the building is too large for the site. A well-scaled building does not depend on layered mitigation to achieve acceptability.



The design appears to have been pushed to the outer limits of what may be argued as permissible, rather than what is appropriate. Full site excavation, minimal setbacks and limited landscaping opportunity combine to produce a form that feels compressed within its site but overbearing to its neighbours.



This bulk has clear consequences for adjoining residents, particularly in terms of outlook, light and privacy. The reliance on screening to address overlooking reinforces that these impacts are inherent to the scale of the proposal.



Uncertainty also remains around height compliance. There appear to be differing accepted methods of measurement, leading to materially different outcomes. In that context, reliance on the most favourable interpretation does not provide confidence that the proposal is genuinely compliant.



More broadly, the application continues to defer key impacts. Traffic, noise and construction effects are acknowledged, but largely left to future management plans rather than resolved through design. That approach is difficult to support for a development of this scale.



This concern is heightened by the surrounding context. The proposal now sits alongside significant remediation and construction activity nearby, yet there is no clear or coordinated assessment of how these works will interact or be safely managed. Assumptions are made, but they do not appear to be settled.



The use of planning incentives also warrants caution. While affordable housing is important, additional height and density should not result in unreasonable impacts. In this case, they appear to have contributed to an already substantial building form.



Ultimately, the proposal repeats a scheme that has already been rejected, relies on contested interpretations, and leaves key risks unresolved. Most importantly, it does not sit comfortably within its setting. Its bulk is pronounced and visually intrusive.

For these reasons, I cannot support the proposal. I strongly object to it and it should NOT be approved.



Thank you for considering these comments.

I find it laughable that I am required to make a declaration re political donations whilst the developer in question In this context has 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 !!

I leave it to the other owners more acutely involved in protesting re the western facade intrusion on their well being and would rather add my concerns as previously listed in my original submission.

Doubtless the proposed developer already has ads prepared to proclaim the sweeping westerly vistas of the setting sun whilst preferring to ignoring the unspeakable - what happens when the cash strapped government of the day decides to sell off the Police Station to another developer - thus destroying the sweeping westerly vistas of the setting sun !!

Following the developer's amendment that traffic from the 70 car spaces will not enter directly onto Maroubra Rd, I reiterate that the volume of traffic from the 5 buildings on the Pacific Square site plus from Newington Towers plus from Maroubra Police Station plus from the proposed development as well as the traffic from the Pacific Square Retail Complex. This does not take into account the number of peak hour entrances and exits relating to working hours, child care, school drop off and pick ups. The traffic due to the arrival and departure of the police vehicles parked within the Police Station necessarily will add to the congestion already encountered.

The notion that this project will go a long way to fixing the homeless plague is laughable - only 13 affordable apartment out of 64. What is the criterion for entry to these affordable spaces? How accessible will these be and to whom ? Or will the cost of these 13 be allocated to the remaining 51 apartments ?

Yours sincerely - Severino Milazzo

THIS IS my OBJECTION FOR 251-257 MAROUBRA ROAD
This is my Objection submission re  251-257 Maroubra Road and 133-135 Garden Street SSD 87865706

We own 2 investment apartments on Maroubra Road, 2 doors from this proposed Development site.   
I am not only concerned as a local resident but for the value of our nearby properties.   

Parking is already severely tight at this location due to many Commercial low rise businesses in the adjoining blocks with an extremely busy Chemist Warehouse among them, 2 Churches, a School and several childcare businesses. It is not unusual to need to drive around this section 2 or 3 times to find a park currently.   
With hundreds more residents, visitors and tradesmen attending this new development things will progress from bad to worse.  Garden St is very narrow and difficult to navigate at the best of times.

Overshadowing of our units which face West will be drastic and make them less attractive in the rental market and possibly affect our rental income.
Removing established gardens will also affect the current green ambience of this area.
Zoning and height requirements should not be changed - there has been a lot of planning and research attached to this and many other properties and they have been placed because it is what is the best outcome for that land for the residents and the overall community.
This will push the Maroubra Junction envelope and encourage expansion of Hi Rise Developments in our friendly neighbourhood streets, something that we have already fought against and is unwanted and very unpopular with the residents of Maroubra.  The traffic, public transport, Drs/Dentists, shopping hub, schools, parks are all overloaded and far too busy already.

 The Plan that has been lodged for a 10-storey residential and childcare development in the heart of Maroubra, with the developer seeking approval to build 120 apartments and a 120-place childcare centre on Maroubra Road and 4 levels of underground parking, IS A MASSIVE OVER KILL - AGAINST THE CURRENT GUIDELINES, UNPOPULAR, OUT OF CHARACTER, UGLY AND TOO BULKY and will set an unacceptable precedent.
The State Significant Development application, filed through the NSW Housing Delivery Authority pathway by Bridgewell Capital, covers an amalgamated 3,270-square-metre site at 251-257 Maroubra Road and 133-135 Garden Street, roughly 200 metres east of the Maroubra Junction intersection with Anzac Parade.
Photo credit: NSW Planning Portal
The DA is lodged concurrently with a rezoning request that would lift the maximum building height on the site from 12 metres to 35.6 metres and increase the floor space ratio to 4.02:1, aaccording to the NSW Planning Portal.


Photo credit: BKA Architecture /NSW Planning Portal
Of the 120 apartments proposed, 27 would be designated as affordable housing units, to be managed by a community housing provider for a period of 15 years.   AS THE RENTAL COSTS ARE SO HIGH IN THE AREA THESE AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS WILL STILL BE VERY EXPENSIVE FOR MOST ON LOW INCOMES AND 15 YEARS IS TOO SHORT A PERIOD AS WELL.
Mrs Mary Richard NFP
269 Maroubra Road  and   Amour Ave Maroubra

My name is Hai Soon of 1 Bruce Bennetts Pl, Maroubra 2035(Panaroma Building).
I submitted my objections in the 6 December 2025 submission.
Below are my current objections to the State Significant Development(SSD) application for 138 Maroubra Rd, Maroubra submitted by Maroubra Property Developments Pty Ltd(Lindsay Bennelong Developments).
The original development proposal for 138 Maroubra Road, Maroubra (DA/80/2023) was refused in June 2024 after significant objections. Key concerns included excessive height, poor design quality, conflicts with local planning controls, inadequate landscaping, and traffic/parking impacts.
My Key points for Objection – 138 Maroubra Road, Maroubra (2035)
1. Planning & Height Issues
• Non-compliance with height limits under the Randwick Local Environmental Plan (LEP) and dismissed by the Land and Environment Court.
• The proposed 10-storey mixed-use building exceeded acceptable height and bulk by the inclusion of 20% infill affordable housing , more likely to get around approval objections and to maximise monetary returns. The Department should not permit the SSD framework to function as a back door to circumvent a clear refusal and court dismissal. The affordable housing component (13 units, or 20%) is instrumentally included to trigger the height bonus — there is no detail on quality, management, or long-term delivery of the affordable dwellings
• Limited deep soil planting and landscaping, reducing amenity and environmental contribution with this amended proposal.
2. Traffic & Parking
• Maroubra Junction already suffers from severe traffic congestions and this problem will only get worse.
• Vehicle access via Piccadilly Place and egress to Maroubra Road was considered problematic for safety and traffic flow. Commercial Logistics traffic use Piccadilly Lane to access the Loading docks . This new development only exacerbates the traffic congestion problems. The developer proposes adding 70 basement car spaces with primary access from this same lane. Semi-trailers already queue and create serious congestion in Piccadilly Place during loading dock deliveries, and the roundabout at the entry regularly becomes gridlocked. Adding a 70-space car park entrance without any road upgrades creates a genuine risk to emergency vehicle access.
The traffic impact assessment evaluated peak hours that do not reflect the actual peak congestion pattern in this. The developer proposes adding 70 basement car spaces with primary access from this same area, which is weekend-driven due to Pacific Square Mall traffic — not the standard weekday AM/PM peaks used in the study.
The traffic assessment is methodologically deficient. A proper study must model weekend peak conditions. No joint Construction Traffic and Pedestrian Management Plan has been provided to address simultaneous operation of a major development site and the existing traffic environment. Emergency access must be independently assessed.

3. Overshadowing and loss of Privacy
• The close proximity of this new development(10 storeys high) and the Panaroma Building creates a significant Overshadowing effect over the many units immediately facing the new large structure.
• Severe impact on the privacy of many units in the Panaroma Building facing the new Building.

4. Pacific Square Remediation
The EIS is deficient in failing to assess the interface with the Pacific Square remediation program. Under WHS legislation, simultaneous high-impact construction along a shared boundary requires a coordinated methodology that has not been provided. This is grounds for refusal or, at minimum, conditions requiring sequencing controls and real-time vibration monitoring with automatic stop-work thresholds.