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

Pls find attached my detailed objection to this project.

Thanks,
Sushma
140 Maroubra Rd

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,