- Reduced daylight and sunlight into our courtyard and unit
- Increased traffic (DA proposes 59 car spaces) especially with amended entry and egress from Piccadilly Place. Congestion already occurs today and will get worse by adding more cars.
- Increased noise (cars, people)
- People looking into our unit
* from balconies/terraces
* from communal rooftop

The plan resubmitted is clearly malicious as it did not address any of the issues raised previously:
1. Strict Compliance with Controls: The development must strictly adhere to the height and setback requirements established for the Maroubra Junction Centre DCP, particularly to protect the adjacent Pacific Square site. As Section 3.1.1 highlights, maximum height and depth are not guaranteed on small allotments.
2. Impact on Future Police Site: Approving an over-scaled building here severely constrains the neighbouring Maroubra Police site. It would isolate the crown land and force any future development on that site into a non-compliant scheme to remain viable.
3. Disregard for Amalgamation Strategy: The developer was originally encouraged by the DCP to amalgamate with a neighbouring site to achieve their desired yield. Unable to do so, they are blatantly disregarding planning controls.
4. Adverse Impacts on Residents: This disregard for controls creates severe amenity issues, most notably for residents in the lower units of neighboring properties highlighted in the minutes from 22 June 2024 to verify this concerning conduct.

Dear Planning Department,
I am writing to object to SSD81426710 at 138 Maroubra Road. I am a resident in Pacific Square complex. Although this develoment does not impact our building directly, I am concern about the enviromental impact on the neighbourhood and community as the issues led to refusal of this development by Department of Planning few years ago are still active and not resolved, furthermore, this new proposal creates more risk and concerns to the enviroment.
This proposal repeats the same issues that led to its earlier refusal and dismissal, including excessive bulk, inadequate setbacks, and impacts on surrounding residents.
Importantly:
Height is not clearly compliant and depends on a contested interpretation
The site is fully built out with no real deep soil or landscape capacity
Privacy, overshadowing and amenity impacts remain unresolved
Construction impacts, particularly alongside Pacific Square remediation works, have not been properly assessed
The proposal relies heavily on future management plans rather than resolving impacts through design.
It does not represent a genuine improvement and is not in the public interest.
I request that it be refused.
I also 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
Kind regards,


Dear Planning Department,
I am writing to object to SSD81426710 at 138 Maroubra Road. I am a resident in Pacific Square complex. Although this develoment does not impact our building directly, I am concern about the enviromental impact on the neighbourhood and community as the issues led to refusal of this development by Department of Planning few years ago are still active and not resolved, furthermore, this new proposal creates more risk and concerns to the enviroment.
This proposal repeats the same issues that led to its earlier refusal and dismissal, including excessive bulk, inadequate setbacks, and impacts on surrounding residents.
Importantly:
Height is not clearly compliant and depends on a contested interpretation
The site is fully built out with no real deep soil or landscape capacity
Privacy, overshadowing and amenity impacts remain unresolved
Construction impacts, particularly alongside Pacific Square remediation works, have not been properly assessed
The proposal relies heavily on future management plans rather than resolving impacts through design.
It does not represent a genuine improvement and is not in the public interest.
I request that it be refused.
I also 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
Kind regards,

Andrew

Dear Planning Department,
I am writing to object to SSD81426710 at 138 Maroubra Road. I am a resident in Pacific Square complex. Although this develoment does not impact our building directly, I am concern about the enviromental impact on the neighbourhood and community as the issues led to refusal of this development by Department of Planning few years ago are still active and not resolved, furthermore, this new proposal creates more risk and concerns to the enviroment.
This proposal repeats the same issues that led to its earlier refusal and dismissal, including excessive bulk, inadequate setbacks, and impacts on surrounding residents.
Importantly:
Height is not clearly compliant and depends on a contested interpretation
The site is fully built out with no real deep soil or landscape capacity
Privacy, overshadowing and amenity impacts remain unresolved
Construction impacts, particularly alongside Pacific Square remediation works, have not been properly assessed
The proposal relies heavily on future management plans rather than resolving impacts through design.
It does not represent a genuine improvement and is not in the public interest.
I request that it be refused.
I also 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
Kind regards,

Bianca Sofian

Dear Planning Department,
I am writing to object to SSD81426710 at 138 Maroubra Road. I am a resident in Pacific Square complex. Although this develoment does not impact our building directly, I am concern about the enviromental impact on the neighbourhood and community as the issues led to refusal of this development by Department of Planning few years ago are still active and not resolved, furthermore, this new proposal creates more risk and concerns to the enviroment.
This proposal repeats the same issues that led to its earlier refusal and dismissal, including excessive bulk, inadequate setbacks, and impacts on surrounding residents.
Importantly:
Height is not clearly compliant and depends on a contested interpretation
The site is fully built out with no real deep soil or landscape capacity
Privacy, overshadowing and amenity impacts remain unresolved
Construction impacts, particularly alongside Pacific Square remediation works, have not been properly assessed
The proposal relies heavily on future management plans rather than resolving impacts through design.
It does not represent a genuine improvement and is not in the public interest.
I request that it be refused.
I also 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
Kind regards,

Christine Sofian

Dear Planning Department,
I am writing to object to SSD81426710 at 138 Maroubra Road.
I am a resident in the Pacific Square complex ; although this development does not affect me directly, I have great concern about this development and although it has been rejected a few years ago even after appeal, the developer came back with a more risky project. The enviromental impact of this project is hugh and cannot be ignored.

This proposal repeats the same issues that led to its earlier refusal and dismissal, including excessive bulk, inadequate setbacks, and impacts on surrounding residents.
Importantly:
Height is not clearly compliant and depends on a contested interpretation
The site is fully built out with no real deep soil or landscape capacity
Privacy, overshadowing and amenity impacts remain unresolved
Construction impacts, particularly alongside Pacific Square remediation works, have not been properly assessed
The proposal relies heavily on future management plans rather than resolving impacts through design.
It does not represent a genuine improvement and is not in the public interest.
I request that it be refused.
I also 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

Kind regards,


Dear Planning Department,
I am writing to object to SSD81426710 at 138 Maroubra Road.
This proposal repeats the same issues that led to its earlier refusal and dismissal, including excessive bulk, inadequate setbacks, and impacts on surrounding residents.
Importantly:
Height is not clearly compliant and depends on a contested interpretation
The site is fully built out with no real deep soil or landscape capacity
Privacy, overshadowing and amenity impacts remain unresolved
Construction impacts, particularly alongside Pacific Square remediation works, have not been properly assessed
The proposal relies heavily on future management plans rather than resolving impacts through design.
It does not represent a genuine improvement and is not in the public interest.
I request that it be refused.
I also 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

Kind regards

Please find my detailed objection to this project.

Thanks,
Stephen
116-132 Maroubra Rd